Disease Prevention and Health Reseach

US has officially withdrawn from World Health Organization. There were two agreed contractual requirements for that. First, one-year notice, has been fulfilled. Second is payment of USD $278 million (unpaid dues or membership fees or whatever) not done.

Rest of world will continue to support World Health Organization, and in better future times, US may rejoin.

 

Measles infections in US were notably high in 2025, and are increasing more rapidly in 2026 that has been seen in recent years. For context, 1990 had about 10 times more measles infections than 2025. This led to interest in vaccination rates back then.

This was studied by Atkinson et al. 1992. The resurgence of measles in the United States, 1989-1990. Annu. Rev. Med. 43: 451-463. (That publication remains behind paywall but not a sturdy wall). Brief excerpt:

“Vaccination data are available on cases reported since 1985. From 1985 through 1988, 42% of cases occurred in persons who were vaccinated on or after their first birthday (Table 2). During these years, 68% of cases in school-aged children (5-19 years) had been appropriately vaccinated. In contrast, only 16% of cases in children 16 months to 4 years of age were appropriately vaccinated. In 1990, only 19% of reported cases were appropriately vaccinated, the lowest proportion of vaccinated cases since 1985.”

As far as I know the measles vaccine in those years was the same MMR as is being offered currently. 2025 outbreaks were in communities with 80% vaccine uptake or something similar. A simplistic view would be that 19% ‘gets you’ 27,672 cases, and 80% -> 2200. Reality is more complex, but it does suggest that near future will not have recurrence of 1990 levels. I see that as a good thing.

Other parts of quoted excerpt show that MMR-vaccinated children got a lot of infections 1985-1988. This might be seen as evidence for inefficacy of this vaccine. Another view is that vaxxed children may have encountered many ‘sources’ that overcame their vaccine-trained immune systems. This may lead to improved understanding of efficacy of vaccines (even those so highly regarded as MMR).

One gets vaccinated in anticipation of protection (or because of imposed requirements). One’s immune system gets trained before pathogen exposure, but things don’t stop there. Immune systems are finite, and with too much subsequent exposure, breakthrough can happen.

Seen this way, getting jabbed is not the end of story. Rational efforts to limit subsequent exposure are complementary because the overall goal is not to get sick. In my view this applies to all vaccinations.

==
Rubeola virus seems like an odd one to me, with same vaccine formulation for decades. It seems an evolutionary laggard. Other pathogenic viruses mutate rapidly ‘to evade’ immune systems. With many more words we could wonder about that difference.

 

CDC has 1300 databases but has paused updating some o fthem:

Nearly half of CDC surveillance databases have halted updates, raising concerns about health data gaps | EurekAlert!

 

To me this seems like the right way to explore vaccine risks:

Case report explores potential link between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and cancer | EurekAlert!

Step by step and with a focus on mechanisms. Vaccines are intended to 'rev up' immune system activity. High in one function may lead to lower in others, and possible cancer risk.

At the same time, infection by pathogens 'revs up' immune system activity in the same way. So it would be appropriate to also examine if adverse consequences (cancer) are linked to pathogen infections.

 

Another example of vaccine research worth noticing:

Scientific sleuthing solves vaccine side-effect | EurekAlert!

Adenovirus vector vaccines have a rare serious side effect. As does direct infection by those low-risk viruses. A troublesome protein has been found and can be eliminated. Can't fix it for direct infections, but that's how it goes.

==
Of all varieties of COVID vaccines, the Adenovirus vector vaccines were the only ones I would not be glad to accept. I spoke of that in COVID discussion.

 

Readers will recall substantial attention being paid to President Biden's cognitive abilities. A slightly older person is now President, but attention paid to his cognitive abilities is controversial/suppressed/distracted. A new editorial

Should doctors comment on a president’s mental health? | EurekAlert!

Examines this in detail.

 

A staggering number ...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01285-2