More on the measles virus (1)

Dick Atlee offers some corrections to the piece I sent out re: the measles virus.



With regards to the article you sent questioning the existence of the measles virus:

After looking through it, I have to say I don’t trust the guy. Much of what he says in terms of the measles is old hat to me, but, to be fair, might not be to others who need to be aware of it, so it’s useful in that sense.

But in a number of chance places I looked, he flat out said wrong or 
misleading things. For instance (quotes asterisked below):

* “Dr. Annette Mankertz, has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains “whole measles virus,” this vaccine contains our cell’s own structures.”

That’s a bit ridiculous. All cells have those structures. The vaccine may have virus’s structures, but they aren’t “OUR cell’s own structures.” It’s like saying dogs have our tongues because we both have tongues.

* “This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. 
It could explain as well why some children have slid right into autism after being vaccinated with the MMR. All claims by the medical establishment that this is not true are betrayed by the fact that the vaccine court in the USA has paid out for autism caused by vaccine cases.”

I’d have to check on whether MMR actually does cause more autoimmune reactions than any of the others, but autoimmune reactions would tend to be caused either by exact matches of proteins (not “our own cell’s structures) or, more likely, simply the fact that the MMR and the other vaccines all tend to tip infants’ immune system development out of the necessare balance 
between the TH2 (antibody) side and the TH1 (innate cellular immunity) side. The MMR isn’t more likely than the others on that score — in fact, it appears to have a TH1 skew that can offset some of the earlier-given killed-virus vaccines like the DTaP. Much more dangerous is the existence of human (fetal) DNA fragments in the MMR, but Sircus doesn’t seem to mention that.

Also, saying the vaccine court has paid out for autism cases is misleading. It has paid for ONE autism case. Technically, it has paid for a relatively few others (compared to the thousands it has a priori rejected), but called them encephalopathy cases instead. Since Sircus doesn’t make that clear, he leaves the reader with a weak case if s/he makes the statement in a discussion that the court has paid out, and gets challenged on it.

I’m familiar with the controversy over retroviruses. But I’m having a hard time with a claim there isn’t a measles virus. The question then becomes, what is it that PCR studies find when they can differentiate between measles- and nonmeasles-strain “virus?” — which is done all the time, such as in the Disneyland outbreak when 31 of the samples analyzed were vaccine-strain. Since when are judges in a court the final arbiters of 
something as technical as that? Sircus doesn’t give a link, but I found the following:

which, though I dislike anything with “skeptic” in the title related to 
vaccines, seems pretty straightforward, and isn’t anything like Sircus made the case out to be. The decision was (1) made on appeal, (2) not a supreme court decision, and (3) based on a technicality of the meaning of the word “eine.” I’ll rest the case there, FWIW.

Which in no way means that the measles hysteria sweeping the nation (and conveniently birthing state vaccine mandates) isn’t deliberately contrived and without foundation.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.