OPEN LETTER FROM A CONCERNED PhD TO THE WHO
Dear World Health Organization and its members,
The Global Vaccination Summit on 12 September 2019, in Brussels, will bring together around 400 participants from around the globe.
In this summit, Roundtable One will be about: In Vaccines We Trust: Stepping up action to increase vaccine confidence.
How do people want to increase vaccine confidence while vaccines are failing?
Last week on the news in Australia: vaccinated persons got measles by waning immunity. See:
The reporter in Sunrise on 7 mentioned a possible third vaccination, however Fiebelkorn 2016 (2016, PMC5729920) and Modrof et al (2017, PMID: 28968738) found that a third measles-vaccination has no or little effect.
CNN reported on 10 June 2019 that researchers found that most whooping cough cases, 82%, occurred in children who were fully vaccinated or over-vaccinated.
In the WHO position paper on measles of April 2017 is written that evidence indicates that a single dose of correctly administered measles vaccine which results in seroconversion will afford lifelong protection for most healthy individuals. The position paper summarizes essential background information and reflects policy recommendation of the WHO to the Member States. See:
How is it possible that the WHO adheres to the view that measles vaccination induces lifelong immunity? Why are studies, indicating that the measles vaccine does NOT induce lifelong protection, NOT mentioned in the WHO Position Paper and the Grading of Evidence of April 2017?
Several studies, published in this century, have indicated that the measles vaccine does NOT provide lifelong protection. No lifelong protection due to primary and secondary vaccine failure means that the population immunity will be much less than 95%, even if 100% of the population would be vaccinated. That means that 95% population immunity and herd immunity by vaccination are unattainable goals. However, nearly the whole world makes policy for 95% population immunity, recommended by the WHO, while believing in lifelong protection, because the WHO wrote that in their position paper. See this article for the statement that more than 95% of every population needs to be immune to ensure community protection against measles for everyone:
Don’t you think it is wrong to make laws and persuade/force people to vaccinate because of herd immunity, while scientific studies indicate that 95% population immunity is impossible due to primary and secondary vaccine failure? I will analyse the text in the WHO position paper on measles of April 2017 about the duration of protection on page 215, sentence by sentence.
Sentence in position paper April 2017 WHO: Even in countries where measles is no longer endemic, antibodies to measles virus persist for decades (reference to Strebel PM et al. (2017), Davidkin et al (2008) and Dine et al (2004)).
Davidkin and colleagues did NOT find that antibodies to measles virus persist for decades, at least not in a part of the two groups in the study. Davidkin was the senior autor of the study of Kontio et al (2012, PMID: 22966129). They wrote about the same groups of persons as were studied in the article published in 2008, referred to in the WHO position paper. They found that:
15.5% of vaccinated persons in the youngest group had no measurable antibodies in 2007, 20 years after the second MMR
10.4% of vaccinated persons in the oldest group had no measurable antibodies in 2007, 20 years after the second MMR
In both groups 100% was seropositive 8 years after the second dose was administered (see Davidkin et al (1998, PMID: 9796064)). The authors don’t mention the percentages of being low seropositive in 2007, so the percentages of potentially susceptibility to measles are even higher. It is to be expected that the percentages become higher more than 20 years after the second MMR, because they found that vaccine-induced antibodies declined after the second dose (see figure 3 in Davidkin et al, 2010, PMID: 20822347).
Dine and colleagues (2004, PMID: 15106101) determined the presence and titer of measles antibody in 1997-1999 of participants of a vaccine study in 1971, with documentation of antibody 1-7 years after vaccination. However, between 1971 and 1997-1999 boosting from wild-type virus was common. The situation in this century is different. LeBaron and colleagues (2007, PMID: 17339511) wrote: “Many studies have suggested that vaccine-induced immunity is persistent, perhaps even lifelong, but most were performed in an era when boosting from wild-type virus was common.” They referred to the study of Dine et al (2004, PMID: 15106101) at the end of this sentence.
LeBaron and colleagues (2007, PMID: 17339511) wrote that their results suggested that:
33% of vaccinated persons in the study would be potentially susceptible to measles by 20 years after the second MMR-vaccination (see figure 3). The antibody level of measles declined in the 10 years after the second MMR-vaccination in kindergarten and in the 5 years after the second MMR-vaccination in middle school (see figure 2 in their article).
STUDIES ABOUT SEROPREVALENCE IN VACCINATED PERSONS
Smetana and colleagues (2017, PMC5234812):
31.2% of vaccinated persons did have less than 150 mIU/nl IgG antibodies against measles in the age group 30-39
15.5% of vaccinated persons did have less than 150 mIU/nl IgG antibodies against measles in the age group 18-29
Levine et al (2015, PMC4514436):
14.3% of 439 vaccinated persons, aged 18-19 years, was not seropositive for measles antibodies in Israel (5.9% of 439 persons was negative and 8.4% was equivocal).
Zhang et al (2019, PMID: 31116635):
27.1% was not seropositive in the age group 30-34
25.35% was not seropositive in the age group 35-39
Kontio and colleagues (2012, PMID: 22966129):
18% of vaccinated persons aged 10-11 years had no measurable measles IgG antibodies (4%) or were low positive (14%)
Haralambieya and colleagues (2011, PMC3117252):
8.9% of 763 vaccinated persons aged 11-22 years, median time since last MMR immunization to sampling 7.4 years, had less than 120 mIU/ml antibodies against measles.
Poethko-Müller et al (2012, PMC3412821):
8.4% of persons aged 0-17 years, who received two doses measles vaccine more than 6 years earlier, did have less than 150 mIU/ml antibodies against measles (see table 4). Table 4 shows that seronegativity increased for children who received two doses; from 2.7% (0-2 years since last vaccination) to 4.5% (3-6 years since last vaccination) to 8.7% (more than 6 years since last vaccination). The increasing seronegativity in this study indicates that secondary vaccine failure takes place.
Primary vaccine failure is 3% after two doses of the measles vaccine, according to the CDC:
Next sentence in position paper April 2017 WHO: Studies using IgG avidity measurements to separate primary vaccination failures from secondary vaccination failures suggest that secondary failures may occur at least occasionally due to waning immunity (reference to Paunio et al (2003), Pannuti et al (2004) and Grading of scientific evidence).
Indeed, Paunio et al (2000, PMC2810910) and Pannuti and colleagues (2004, PMC321355) found that people contracted measles due to secondary vaccine failure. Pannuti found that among the 52 measles patients with documented vaccination, 27 (51.9%) showed a secondary immune response, thereby constituting a secondary vaccine failure. Besides Paunio et al and Pannuti et al, Atraheuskaya et al (2008, PMID 18343536)and Hamkar et al (2006, PMID: 17333822) also found, based on IgG avidity testing, that vaccinated persons contracted measles due to seconday vaccine failure. Atraheuskaya et al (2008, PMID 18343536) found that half of the vaccinated measles patients demonstrated evidence of secondary vaccine failure. Hamkar et al (2006, PMID: 17333822) found that of 244 patients with documented vaccination, 24.2% showed a secondary immune response, thereby indicating a secondary vaccine failure.
In the Grading of Scientific Evidence of the duration of protection following measles immunization, belonging to the WHO Position Paper on measles of April 2017, 11 studies are mentioned. 10 of the 11 were published in the previous century. Only one is from this century. See: https://www.who.int/immunization/measles_grad_duration.pdf
As mentioned, LeBaron (2007, PMID: 17339511) wrote that many studies have suggested that vaccine-induced immunity is persistent, perhaps even lifelong, but most were performed in an era when boosting from wild-type virus was common.
Poland et al (PMC3905323) wrote already in 2012 that due to, amongst other things, primary and secundary vaccine failure sustained elimination of measles, much less eradication, are unlikely.
Next sentence in position paper April 2017 WHO: However, declining immunity does not appear to play a major role in measles virus transmission.
Studies indicate that declining immunity DOES play a (major) role in measles virus transmission.
PROVEN SPREADING OF MEASLES BY VACCINATED PERSONS DUE TO SECONDARY VACCINE FAILURE OF MEASLES VACCINE
Rosen et al (2014, PMID: 24585562) reported measles transmission from a twice-vaccinated individual with documented secondary vaccine failure.
Gibney et al (2019, PMID: 31056637) found that 13 of the 190 measles patients had waning immunity. Onward transmission from one waning immunity case to two infant household contacts too young for vaccination was documented.
SUSPECTED SPREADING OF MEASLES BY VACCINATED PERSONS DUE TO SECONDARY VACCINE FAILURE OF MEASLES VACCINE
De Serres et al (2013, PMID: 23264672) showed in table 3 that 53 of 110 measles cases in a high school in Canada had received two vaccine doses. The authors wrote that, on balance, secondary vaccine failure seemed the most plausible explanation for adolescent susceptibility.
Ma et al (2016, PMID 26589518) showed measles transmission in China among persons with prior evidence of immunity. The wrote that secondary vaccine failure may have played an important role in measles transmission.
Currently, many unvaccinated persons above 50 years of age still have lifelong immunity because they experienced natural measles infection when they were young. However, the more people in the population are vaccinated, the larger the group with primary and secondary vaccine failure will be. As mentioned above, scientific studies found that a third vaccination has no or little effect.
– Fiebelkorn (2016, PMC5729920) found that most subjects were seropositive pre-MMR3 and very few had a secondary immune response post-MMR3. For the 24 subjects with low or negative baseline measles vaccine antibody concentrations, 18 (75%) moved into medium or high categories at 1 month, of whom, 12 (67%) remained medium or high at 1 year. In other words, 25% stayed low or negative and 33% was again low or negative after one year.
– Modrof et al (2017, PMID: 28968738) found that revaccination-induced titer increases were only about 2-fold and short-lived.
Besides primary and secondary vaccine failure of the measles vaccine, Muñoz-Alía (2017, PMC5432853) found that D4.2 subgenotype viruses showed a trend toward diminished susceptibility to neutralization by human sera pooled from approximately 60 to 80 North American donors.
Did you know that people can get measles from the vaccine and excrete the measles vaccine virus? According to Roy et al (2017, PMC5328441) 5% of recipients of the measles vaccine experience rash and fever. They wrote in their article that 73 of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, were identified as vaccine sequences. Kaic and colleagues (2010, PMID: 20822734) and Murti and colleagues (2013, PMID: 24330942) wrote about vaccine-associated measles and excretion of the measles vaccine virus.
Please find below:
1. Pertussis vaccine failure (with reference to many scientific studies)
2. WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
3. Global vaccination summit in Brussels on 12 September 2019: Galvanizing global vaccination response
3.1 Adjuvants in vaccines are not clinically approved
3.2 Many vaccines were not tested against a placebo in clinical trials
3.3 Many health complaints after MMR-vaccination in clinical trials
1. Failure of pertussis vaccine
1.1. Effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine
Zerbo and colleagues (2019, PMID 31182549) found that 82% of whooping cough cases occurred in children who were fully vaccinated or over-vaccinated. In 2015, Sala-Farré and colleagues (PMID 24216286) found that 87% of pertussis cases of 5-9 years were fully vaccinated with 5 doses of DTaP vaccine. They concluded that despite high levels of vaccination coverage, pertussis circulation cannot be controlled at all. Table 5 of the study of McNamara and colleagues (2017, PMC5755965) shows that the majority of the children with serious pertussis in several American states in the period 2010-2012 were vaccinated. In March 2019, 46 persons contracted pertussis on a school in Los Angeles. All 46 were vaccinated. Remarkable detail: 18 unvaccinated persons didn’t contract pertussis. See:
Girr and colleagues (2015, PMID: 25560446) found no significant difference between the annual odds of pertussis for the 3- versus 5-dose DTaP regimens. For every additional year after the last dose of DTaP, the odds of pertussis increased by 33%. Assuming 85% vaccine efficacy, they estimated that only 10% of children vaccinated with DTaP would be immune to pertussis 8.5 years after the last dose. Dr. James D. Cherry wrote in 2019 the following in an article (PMID: 30793754): “Because of the small number of antigens (3–5 in DTaP vaccines vs >3000 in DTwP vaccines), linked-epitope suppression occurs. Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.” See:
Diavatopoulos et al (2017, PMID: 28289059), Burdin et al (2017, PMID: 28289064) and Eberhardt et al (2017, PMID: 28289058) have published studies about what is wrong with pertussis vaccine immunity.
1.2. Spreading of pertussis
The study of Warfel and colleagues (2014, PMC3896208) showed that vaccinated baboons, which had no symptoms, infected unvaccinated baboons. For three reasons, probably the same happens in humans. First of all, Warfel and colleagues (2012, PMC3318410) demonstrated that the baboon provides an excellent model for clinical pertussis. They found that one hundred percent of baboons infected with a clinical isolate of Bordetella pertussis exhibited all of the hallmark manifestations of human pertussis. Second, the study of Storsaeter and colleagues (1990, PMID: 2251872) showed that two acellular pertussis vaccines didn’t protect against infection or colonization in humans. Third, Althouse and colleagues (2015, PMC4482312) concluded that asymptomatic transmission is the most parsimonious explanation for many of the observations surrounding the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis in the US and UK.
2. WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
In 2017 the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation was the second largest donor of the WHO, with 324 654 317 dollar, see:
In 2010 Bill and Melinda Gates pledged 10 billion dollar in call for a decade of vaccines:
Professor Anne-Emanuelle Birn wrote in the article ‘Philanthrocapitalism, past and present: The Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the setting(s) of the international/global health agenda’:
“It concludes that the Gates Foundation’s pervasive influence is nonetheless of grave concern both to democratic global health governance and to scientific independence—and urges scientists to play a role in contesting and identifying alternatives to global health philanthrocapitalism.
3. Global vaccination summit in Brussels on 12 September 2019: Galvanizing global vaccination response
Roundtable Three of the Global Vaccination Summit in September is about: “Vaccines protecting everyone, everywhere; Galvanizing global vaccination response – leaving no one behind and towards elimination of vaccine preventable infections.” How do people want to achieve that?
By censoring free speech and free information about vaccination? See:
– Project Veritas Investigation of Google: https://thehighwire.com/did-googles-manipulation-sway-vaccine-legislation/
– On 26 June 2019 executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google testified on Capitol Hill about efforts to counter online terror content, hate speech, and misinformation on their platforms. At 1.21.22 in the video below, Ms. Debbie Lesko, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, asks who are the people judging what is best and what is accurate:
Or by mandating vaccines? On 27 June 2019 Del Bigtree told in his show on The Highwire that by the year 2020 the American Department of Health and Human Services wants adults to have a full vaccine uptake as part of the program Healthy People 2020, see:
He told that full vaccine uptake means mandatory or forced vaccinations. How do they want to do that? By forbidding persons to go into public spaces if they are not fully vaccinated? By combining microchip implants, which in Sweden already many people have, with vaccination? What about the right to protection of individual medical information? What about the right of bodily integrity? Are these rights going to be taken away, while science shows that vaccines fail and while adjuvants in vaccines are not clinically approved and many vaccines are not tested against a placebo in clinical trials?
3.1. Adjuvants in vaccines are not clinically approved
Professor Exley told in April 2016 on the 4th International Symposium on Vaccines that he had found out, through conversations with the European Medicines Agency, the FDA in the US and the manufacturers of aluminum adjuvants, that there are no clinically approved adjuvants. See his presentation in which he tells this in the YouTube-video ‘The toxicity of aluminium adjuvants’:
3.2. Many vaccines were not tested against a placebo in clinical trials
Many vaccines were not tested against a placebo in clinical trials, but against another vaccine. That was apparent from a document of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that Del Bigtree and his team received after having asked several questions in the so-called ‘HHS Notice’. He explains that in detail in this YouTube video:
At 27 minutes in the video, you can see that almost all vaccines in the tables were not tested against a placebo control group. On page 4, 5 and 6 in the document of 31 December 2018 (see below), you can also find these tables.
– See in this document, ‘HHS Notice’ of 12 October 2017, the questions asked to HHS by Del Bigtree and his team:
– See in this document, ‘HHS Response’ of 18 January 2018, the answers from HHS to Del Bigtree and his team:
– See in this document, ‘Reply’ of 31 December 2018, the reaction from Del Bigtree and his team to the HHS Response:
3.3. Clinical trials of the MMR-vaccine
In clinical trials, it appeared that many children had complaints of gastro-intestinal illness and upper respiratory illness after having received the MMR-vaccine. Del Bigtree shows the results of the clinical trials of the MMR-vaccine in this YouTube-video:
The results of the clinical trials of the MMR-vaccine were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (= FOIA). You can find these results in this document:
In the above mentioned video, Del Bigtree deals with table 10 from study 442, table 10 from study 443 and table 9 from study 459. All three tables can be found in the document.
I thank you for your attention and hope the outcome of the Global Vaccination Summit will be that every person on earth will have informed choice and freedom of choice with regard to vaccination.
a concerned PhD