Dr. Suzanne Humphries Unveils the Unsettling Truth About Measles Vaccine Immunity
— Camus (@newstart_2024) August 21, 2025
In a powerful and detailed presentation, Dr. Suzanne Humphries pulls back the curtain on the long-term realities of measles vaccination, challenging the prevailing narrative of its unassailable… pic.twitter.com/v3g7Jh5UH3
So before the vaccine, recorded measles cases didn't reflect how much measles was in the country. I already talked about that. Even the Centers for Disease Control, this is on their website today, says that 4 million annual cases of measles must have occurred in order for their blood surveys, showing that 95% plus immunity, which means that most measles in America were so mild that they never got reported. Only 1/8 got reported.
Today we have a situation where adolescents and adults are the biggest group who get measles because their vaccine immunity is 23.2 times lower than those induced by natural infection. There's your reference for that.
Some adolescents and adults susceptible to measles at an age where infection is more dangerous than in toddlers.
Neutralizing (NT) antibody titers induced by vaccination were 23.2 times lower than those induced by natural infection and declined significantly by age 20.
Which includes maternal immunity, so that by 1991 babies were 3 times more vulnerable than they were before the vaccines.
The attack rate today could be even higher.
Vaccinated mothers give babies very little immunity via placental transfer or breastfeeding.
Infants whose mothers were born in after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33%, compared with 12% for infants of older mothers.
Dr. Papania quoted that in his paper only looked at Natural immune mothers in the post vaccine era. And he underestimated what the protection rate would have been pre-vaccine as I just showed you on that curve, that it's very different, so he was looking pretty much in that middle section.
1:26. Dr. Peter Orby has pointed out the same trend in Africa, where by 2003, and they were vaccinating heavily, by 2003 in Africa, he said measles was infecting young adults and would infect pregnant women with the worst forms of measles.
We have already observed an increase in measles incidence among young adults in rural Senegal compared with the pre-vaccination era. This is potentially problematic in areas with high fertility: many young women will get measles while pregnant or they will get measles together with their own children. These are the worst forms of measles.
And he said, what makes the situation worse is that in the early days of the vaccine's use, immunity was regularly boosted by still circulating wild measles virus, which artificially inflated the efficacy of the vaccine.
LACK OF NATURAL BOOSTERS
In our earlier study we noted that levels of measles specific antibodies in MMR vaccinated children seem to decline faster in the 1990s suggesting that a lack of natural boosters May modify the protection induced by the vaccine.
By stopping the virus circulating, the presumed protection of the vaccine is no longer as high as they once thought it was. So in other words, in the beginning when there was still circulating virus and they were vaccinating, it looked like things were going pretty well, because at that point you had all those people in society who were naturally immune for life and you had vaccinated people who were freshly vaccinated and you had them getting boosted by natural viruses circulating. And then that's changed, of course, now we're having those people who are naturally immune are dying off and we have the stoppage of the amount of circulation that we used to have and we have vaccines wearing off as well. This fact has been . . . analyzed several times by medical researchers who predict that because of shaky vaccine immunity, our future might be somewhat spotty.
D. L. Levy, "The Future of Measles in Highly Immunized Populations: A Modeling Approach," American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 120, No. 1, July 1984, pp. 39-48.
J.M. Heffernan and M.J. Keeling, "Implication of Vaccination and Waning Immunity," Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol 276, 2009.
The analyses of these authors predicted that in 20 to 30 years' time, herd immunity will be so fragile that should measles come through again we'll be worse off than we would have been had they not introduced the vaccine. Levy, 1984, PMID, said that by 2050 the number of susceptibles will be higher than pre-vaccine times. He discussed his predictions based on a one-dose vaccine model which was the model at the time that he wrote the paper. And this is just kind of a the details of how he worked out his figures.
* 10.6% of population susceptible to measles in Pre vaccine era.
* All adults immune.
* Some children not immune.
* Everyone gained natural, lifelong protection.
By 1982, this susceptibles begin to climb by 0.1% per year as immune die off and vaccines wear off.
Between 220,000 and 300,000, new susceptibles each year to reach pre-vaccine level of 10.6 by 2045 and 10.9 by 2050.
WHAT ABOUT TODAY'S 2-DOSE MODEL?
Well, Dr. Heffernan did an analysis, and he didn't really think all that much of that. He said that
. . . the dynamic consequences of the interaction between vaccination, waning immunity, and boosting are far more striking. For high levels of vaccination (greater than 80%) and moderate levels of waning immunity (greater than 30 years), large-scale epidemic cycles can be induced.
And that's pretty much us. And his prediction was that,
We predict that, after a long disease-free period, the introduction of infection will lead to far larger epidemics than that predicted by standard models . . . large-scale epidemics can arise with the first substantial epidemic not arising until 52 years after the vaccination programs began.
Considering that vaccination only really got underway with an effective vaccine in 1980, as this writer described, counting 52 years from there, the year 2032 is a good estimated guess of what more surges of measles cases will become obvious at least in America.
Some of the first vaccines mass produced in 1963 contained a killed virus. In 1989, Dr. Feigin of Texas Children's Hospital stated that he believed in 1963 vaccine was "not widely effective" and that the 1967 vaccine was unstable and lost its "effectiveness" if not properly refrigerated. It was not until 1980 that a stable live measles vaccine became available.
Another medical article put it this way,
that 20 years after two doses of vaccine had been given, 33 to 44% of those recipients would become susceptible to measles again, the old free-vaccine community immunity of 95 to 99% for life is out the window.
What we see here is the main analysis and these are what are called "confidence intervals," meaning kind of the range of where we could end up. So what we have over here potentially susceptible people okay and this is based on blood testing on antibody testing actually and this is how many years after people were vaccinated so you can see over here if we go to 20 years out just go to the middle we're looking at 30 approximately 33% of the people being susceptible and when we look at the middle line but if we look at the other line we're up to about 44% and you can see that over time certain percentage of the population after 15 years you're still having about 12 or 13% of people that were vaccinated with two doses not having immunity.
33% to 44% susceptible after 20 years with a two-dose regimen. 12% susceptible after 15 years.
MMR VACCINES FOR LIFE?
We know that, and the experts know this. For this reason, their answer will be more of the same which is to give extra vaccines earlier to babies again to pre-pregnant women, more to us adults who were vaccinated as children, and to make vaccines mandatory by law for everyone from cradle to grave. They're also researching newer vaccines that may be can be inhaled and given earlier
