"Knowledge being to be had only of visible and certain truth, error is not a fault of our knowledge, but a mistake of our judgment, giving assent to that which is not true." - John Locke in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding"

"Appearances often are deceiving." - Aesop

One of the touted benefits of vaccination is the fact that vaccination produces a mild or subclinical (inapparent) case of the disease.  It is also considered a benefit that the vaccinated often experience mild or subclinical disease upon exposure. 

But what if instead of being a benefit, such mild or subclinical disease is, in fact, a risk of vaccination? 

In what should have been considered a ground-breaking 1985 study by Danish researcher Tove Rønne published in Lancet, it was reported that childhood measles without rash, identified only through serum sampling, resulted in highly significant increased risk of serious disease in adults.  While the reason for this increased risk was merely speculated upon,  these results raise the specter of a heretofore unacknowledged risk of vaccination. 

What are the implications of this study?

Why aren't the questions raised by this study being addressed? 

Why is this study, in fact, being virtually ignored? 

What is the explanation for such a result?  Is a rash, in those diseases where rash naturally occurs, a necessary component of disease resolution? 

Why does it continue to be assumed rather than tested, that mild or subclinical cases of measles or any other disease are beneficial? 

Are hordes of previously vaccinated children going to experience serious disease as adults?   

Given the obvious difficulties in connecting long-term outcomes to their causes, unless meaningfully and assiduously studied, what is the chance such outcomes will be recognized as being due to vaccination, if indeed, that is the case? 

Given the growing evidence of long-term consequences of vaccination, including autism ,and recent revelations about polio vaccine-associated cancer, as well as general increases in chronic disease among children, can we afford to continue to bury our heads in the sand? 

Can we not, as a concerned community, bring pressure to bear on the appropriate spheres of government to require that properly designed studies be conducted (minimally studying long-term differences between the vaccinated and the never vaccinated), in order to determine the actual long and short-term benefits and risks of vaccination?

Sandy Mintz