I am grateful to Joel Harrison but I am much at a disadvantage when my person is on the line [1]. For instance, he claims I contradicted myself somewhere with the citation "Harrison 2019", and this is wholly inadequate. He states also: "Despite what Stone and others believe, the overwhelming scientific evidence finds the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the minuscule risks" but he does not cite what that evidence is.
The point that I was making however (which was highly specific) was not that there were no benefits to measles vaccination [2,3] but these benefits were not always as clear and straightforward as the official rubric might suggest. For instance, vaccine measles immunity might not be as good as natural measles immunity and it might leave different groups vulnerable (for instance infants who are too young to be vaccinated), and it might even be that in the long term even three shots would be inadequate to maintain cover. We are continually told that 95% coverage would eliminate measles but the studies which I cited below suggest collectively that this is highly improbable.
What I was trying to indicate was the position was complex, and the fact that authors of the studies are generally keen supporters of the programme does not detract from some of the paradoxes, or the long term concerns - it just shows that they have failed to disguise them. Where will we be in another decade with this thinner immunity when people with natural immunity no longer exist as a significant ballast? It seems unfair to dish out the opprobrium on to critics when the programme itself seems to determine its own ultimate doom. Have I been cherry-picking? I may have missed the studies which show that measles vaccines offer effective lifetime immunity (supposing these are not just propaganda), but those that suggest limitations despite the commitment of the authors are perhaps the most significant.
It seems that for Harrison (and for most health officials) it is important to hide from the public the limitations of the technology while introducing ever more products which in total may have other effects on our not too healthy community, but I have doubts whether this is either wise or ethical.
Rapid Response:
I would not start from here
I am grateful to Joel Harrison but I am much at a disadvantage when my person is on the line [1]. For instance, he claims I contradicted myself somewhere with the citation "Harrison 2019", and this is wholly inadequate. He states also: "Despite what Stone and others believe, the overwhelming scientific evidence finds the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the minuscule risks" but he does not cite what that evidence is.
The point that I was making however (which was highly specific) was not that there were no benefits to measles vaccination [2,3] but these benefits were not always as clear and straightforward as the official rubric might suggest. For instance, vaccine measles immunity might not be as good as natural measles immunity and it might leave different groups vulnerable (for instance infants who are too young to be vaccinated), and it might even be that in the long term even three shots would be inadequate to maintain cover. We are continually told that 95% coverage would eliminate measles but the studies which I cited below suggest collectively that this is highly improbable.
What I was trying to indicate was the position was complex, and the fact that authors of the studies are generally keen supporters of the programme does not detract from some of the paradoxes, or the long term concerns - it just shows that they have failed to disguise them. Where will we be in another decade with this thinner immunity when people with natural immunity no longer exist as a significant ballast? It seems unfair to dish out the opprobrium on to critics when the programme itself seems to determine its own ultimate doom. Have I been cherry-picking? I may have missed the studies which show that measles vaccines offer effective lifetime immunity (supposing these are not just propaganda), but those that suggest limitations despite the commitment of the authors are perhaps the most significant.
It seems that for Harrison (and for most health officials) it is important to hide from the public the limitations of the technology while introducing ever more products which in total may have other effects on our not too healthy community, but I have doubts whether this is either wise or ethical.
[1] Joel A Harrison, 'Response to John Stone’s “Measles vaccinations has substituted one problem for another” (Stone, 2019)' 21 June 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2359/rr-20
[2] John Stone, ' Advocates of compulsory vaccination also need to acknowledge risks', 6 June 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2359/rr-0
[3] John Stone, 'Should measles vaccination be compulsory?', 20 June 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2359/rr-19
Competing interests: No competing interests