Debunking The Measles Scaremongering
Pharmaceutical Corporations Hope You Don't Examine The Facts
Disclaimer: This is not health advice. It is a statistical analysis of datasets proving media reporting as dishonest.
Whenever doubt starts to brew around vaccines, pharmaceutical companies and governments fall back on ol’ reliable, trotting out Measles Scaremongering. Everyone knows Measles is bad, so if the numbers are up, must be those damn ‘anti-vaxxers’ causing this, right? (At least if vaccine shill Susan Oliver is to be believed.)
Well, wrong. And The Daily Beagle will prove it.
Mismanaged Measles
The Financial Times has this ooga-booga chart where they try to paint a mere approximate 1,200 cases in red (like painting 19 degrees Celsius in red to make things seem warmer) to claim something scary like “Measles Cases In US Climb To Highest Number In 33 Years”, even though everyone can clearly see it is on par with 2019, or only 6 years ago.
33 years misleadingly paints an emotional impression we’re falling back to ‘ye olden times’, despite immunity to liability for vaccine manufacturers being passed back in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the spike in 1992 occurring long after the vaccine manufacturers ‘owned the playing field’. Oops.
The Awkward Flatline
Notice how they don’t include stats for vaccination rates for MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) shots. Here’s why:
No real change! Scarcely a single dip in any vaccine uptake! If anything, it is slightly higher than 2011! Uh oh! That means the shots aren’t working!
MMR uptake has not meaningfully changed in the last decade, for either the 35 month, 24 month, or 19 month age groups (I.E. all the infant groups you’d want to care about). And just to drop a giant brick on the foot of pharmaceutical companies lies, there’s this giant clanger in the 13 month cohort:
The vaccination rate in the 13 month age group has actually been going up.
If vaccination rates either remained constant or have gone up over the years, then why does the chart show a spike in measles cases in 2014, 2019, and almost no cases in 2020? Are they suggesting lockdown and masks (read: hygiene) were more effective than vaccines at stopping measles? Or did they just fudge the statistics for that year?
We don’t see a corresponding decrease in MMR uptake in 2019, so how comes there’s a spike in cases? Why is media only screaming about a spike now when they didn’t back in 2019? Why zero cases in 2020 when there’s no sharp increase in MMR shots in 2020?
This, folks, is what we call selective reporting, and it is clearly an attempt to drive up sales for the MMR shots via non-factual scaremongering, given measles cases clearly have no correlation to vaccine uptake (I.E. it does not reduce measles cases).
England Shows The Same Trendlines
Maybe America has really bad data or the Financial Times are incompetent, you might be wondering. Easy to check — let us pull up another nation’s datasets.
Consider ol’ blighty, who, despite being 20% the population size (66 million compared to 330 million) of the US… somehow has a similar number of measles cases. Either the US is doing really well with a lower vaccine uptake rate, or someone forgot to not copy-paste figures across the pond.
To demonstrate ‘MMR vaccines don’t correlate to a reduction in measles’, we’ll be using two crucial datasets for this, the NHS (National Health Service) Childhood Vaccination Coverage Statistics, England, 2023-24 (specifically, Table 4b of the spreadsheet focusing only on the England column)…
And the UK Government’s Health Security Agency’s Confirmed cases of measles, mumps and rubella in England and Wales: 1996 to 2022.
Specifically we’ll be focusing on the England-only data (found in brackets) for measles that ranges from 2009 to 2022 as that’s all we’re able to compare when combining the datasets. Screenshots included for posterity (the vaccine lobby has a nasty tendency to erase evidence):
Notice how horribly fragmented and divided up these datasets are?
You’d think they’d want to demonstrate how super effective these vaccines are by keeping all the data consistently together in one easy to reach location. But alas, no!
They make it extremely difficult (red flag!) for anyone to compare data to determine if there’s any effectiveness in the measles shots. Almost as if they’re trying to hide something via obfuscation.
But once you do compile and compare it, you get this…
Huh? We actually see as uptake increases, measles cases increase. And as uptake declines, we see case declines rather than increases. That is to say, the shots either have no correlation to the reduction of measles cases, or they cause them to rise.
These percentage figures are no minor differences either. If we assume the population rate of the UK is 66 million, then a difference of between 88% to 92% (or 4%) would be 2,640,000, or 2.64 million people. If the unvaccinated were driving a wild rise in measles cases, we wouldn’t be seeing between a few thousand cases, we’d be seeing hundreds of thousands. Obviously then, this narrative is evidentially a lie, and something else drives the cases.
Why would they peddle such lies?
Quick, Drive More Sales! (And Don’t Mention The Aluminium)
Why would the Financial Times engage in selective, bias reporting?
It has something to do with the fact that the Financial Times has a cozy relationship with Pfizer CEO (and child killer) Albert Bourla. To give you an idea of how evil the man is, both Bourla and the President of Israel were nominated for the Jewish Nobel Peace Prize.
Financial Times even went so far as to act as his personal mouthpiece:
No doubt to keep the pharmaceutical advertising dollars rolling in.
The Pfizer CEO swears there’s no aluminium based link between their aluminium containing vaccines and autism (which is caused by aluminium toxicity). You can trust him, right? He supports the genocidal Israeli government. Don’t look too closely at the ingredients, or you might correctly conclude they’re trying to harm and kill you.
Since The Daily Beagle’s exposure of the aluminium harms, garbage shill websites have been cropping up, promoted by Israel genocide-endorsing Google, no less, desperately trying to peddle the fraudulent lie claiming there’s no evidence the aluminium causes neurotoxin harms… in full view of the evidence saying there is (in brain tissue, no less, oops!).
You’ll be pleased to know the hitpiece is a “blog” written by an “author”. How credible.
Red flag for a garbage ChatGPT generation where they can’t attribute a name to anybody real. Is this supposed to ‘refute’ The Daily Beagle’s quoted research papers? We have a 36 year long multi-centre study. All they have is a chatty ChatGPT spam piece.
In-Case You’re Doubting
Maybe the scaremongering articles have you spooked and you want to ‘hedge your bets’ regarding measles, that’s perfectly understandable. But do it with the knowledge of the toxins these shots contain. It is not a free pass, they made themselves immune to lawsuits over the harms they cause, so they have no reason to care at all about your health. There’s no risks to them if they harm you. Or lie.
Comparing a vaccine solely to case numbers does a disservice as it doesn’t cover harms and drawbacks of the vaccine itself (I.E. aluminium, which is a known neurotoxin). If they’re willing to lie over the figures and omit crucial data, ask yourself what else they would lie to you about?
In contrast to the murky, multi-billion dollar profiteering, vaccine corporatist industry that backs a genocidal regime, all of The Daily Beagle’s facts and figures presented are referenceable, linked, and cited, with transparent calculations performed, made publicly available, in one place, for free.
You can see there are no tricks, we are not beholden to pharmaceutical advertising dollars like the Financial Times, we are not part of the revolving door industry (not even an “ex” Pfizer employee with a pension conflict-of-interest like some folks), there’s no paywall, no book to purchase and no alternative product being sold. We haven’t even flown on an Epstein jet (thankfully!).
Ask yourself dear reader, who would you trust? A never-liable billion dollar corporation for a genocidal regime or a small outlet that comes bearing facts?
You have clearly shown the evidence that vaccines don't work but how do you educate the sheep?
Measles is just a vitamin A deficiency;-)