“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

The deadly shadow of Measles and Michael Mina

Hilary Butler - Thursday, February 04, 2016

Over the last few months since July, 2015, I’ve had a few emails from parents who have had to face down their GP’s who have been saying this to them:

1) When they refuse to have MMR, they are putting their child at grave danger because

a) measles disease eliminates all prior immunity to any diseases the child had before the illness, or to any vaccines they before measles.,

(Above quote from here . ) AND CONSEQUENTLY

a) undermines herd immunity and creates the potential for new epidemics when children with wiped immunity get those diseases again.

(Above quote from here.)  The doctors told the parents who contacted me, that their scientific facts came from peer reviewed medical literature, “which wouldn’t be approved if it wasn’t correct”.

Here is the Mina article and supplementary material to this article. Reading the article and supplementary material was challenging, because the arguments are so complicated and convoluted, that even Einstein could have suffered a migraine and possibly a seizure.

To get my brain around the concepts and work out the biological plausibility (or in this case the non-plausibility of the arguments), I had to read all Mina’s references, AND all the related work that Mina did NOT reference.

Or perhaps he read them and realised that that tsunami totally undermines his immunologically illogical hypotheses.

An encyclopaedia of 200 blogs could be written, taking each argument in Mina's article, point by point, explaining to everyone in minute detail, why the foundation of this article is faulty: It is sitting upon immunological junk science and massaged maths.

But the explanation would become even more boring, complicated, and convoluted than the article itself, and create brain-fag in both the writer and the reader.

The best reason for me not to do that, is because it should not require either maths or immunology to see that Mina’s article is nonsense.

It just requires knowing key facts, recognising the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, using rational thought and common sense, and putting the puzzle together. Which is somewhat “rare-sense” these days.

You have heard, ad infinitum, that vaccines given to infants and children have been responsible for eliminating lots of diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (though they must gag on that one at times), polio etc. You know the graphic that says that X vaccines have saved X thousands of deaths every year since the vaccines were introduced.


Before measles vaccines were used, most babies would have been given their primary schedule, which only included whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus, and perhaps BCG - before the age of 12 months. WHICH MEANS that according to Mina, any child who had measles AFTER those vaccines, would have had all immunity to all vaccines (and any infections they might have had) ablated – ruined… extinquished. Use the word of your choice.

Most children who had measles naturally, before a measles vaccine came along, would have got measles somewhere between the ages of 3 and 11.

Before the 1990’s, regular boosters for DPT were not given.

So Mina’s logic would dictate that when measles was routine… every child from the 1940’s onwards who had natural measles, should THEN have had their immune systems put “back to newborn status” and as a result caught for a second time, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus and whatever other infections they experienced BEFORE they had measles, right?

So there should have been lots of what we call “vaccine failure” infections, right?

And as Grenfell alleges, with herd immunity now shattered, medical history should show huge double spiked disease epidemics among both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Which should have been blindingly obvious to any doctor. Right?

We should have seen headlines like, “Children get killer diseases again, after having measles.” Right?

In New Zealand, measles was a regular series of mountains on the graphic landscape until nearly the year 2,000. So technically none of the vaccines given to any children who had measles were valid any more.

Doctors would have noticed in a flash, all these vaccinated children coming down with the diseases against which they had been vaccinated, or having other diseases a second time around.

The medical journals would have been full of stories about unnecessary second infections, all because of measles, right?

And the medical journals would have been full of countrywide epidemics in previously immune children, right?


I couldn’t find any.

Oh, perhaps doctors were too stupid to see? Doubt it. Doctors would have been all over that like a measles rash.

There are no secondary epidemics of other diseases which children had had after measles epidemics.

There are no secondary epidemics of other diseases which children been vaccinated against, after measles epidemics.

Go and look in Pubmed etc, for yourself. The data in New Zealand is clear, and shows that Mina’s article is a figment of his imagination – scientific nonsense, and has only one purpose , which is to scare the crap out of parents.

Like this:

(Above quote from here . ) Even in the medical article itself, the target is clearly seen at the beginning where Mina says that, “vaccine hesitancy threatens the gains that have been made” and again at the end where he says, “reinforce the importance of measles vaccines at a global level.”

The strident lay media messages which started with the Disneyland measles, then continued with the publicity about Mina’s article on measles, lead to cake icing by Forbes with this little pearl:

(above headline from here . )    The battle actually isn’t based on science at all. It’s a blatant massaging of messages to manipulate minds, All the suppositions that are talked about in these six lay press articles ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVESIX are emotional blackmail, because Mina's article doesn't prove his hypothesis at all.  In fact, common sense and study of death and disease data from around the world, clearly disprove Mina's hypothesis.

Bookmark and Share