There have been many clumsily written pro-vaccine articles throughout the years, especially recently with the public's growing awareness of vaccines. The Daily Beast, however, may have fully crossed over into comedy with it's latest attack article written by alleged doctor Russell Saunders titled "Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers. You Just Brought Back Measles in NYC." While we can't be sure of the identity of the writer, since "Russell Saunders" is a pseudonym used to protect anonymity, the condescending and impatient tone of the article is certainly consistent with the average embittered doctor, perhaps stressed from student loans or that sports car that shouldn't have been leased.
While it starts out typically enough for a hit piece, the author quickly makes it clear that reality or facts are of no consequence when it comes to defending their cash cow. The entire premise of the piece is to attribute a current "measles outbreak" in NYC to the so called anti vaccine movement, a premise so flawed it's difficult not to suspect that it was offered disingenuously. Firstly, there is no scientific basis for the belief that unvaccinated children spread or carry more disease than vaccinated children. In fact, studies strongly indicate that the opposite is true, with unvaccinated children vastly healthier than vaccinated children. But this question needn't even be raised in response to this article, since the outbreak in question is actually three (3) cases of measles in New York, two of which are said to have been transmitted while in a doctor's office.
There are actually less cases of measles within the last year than there were in 2011, curiously enough the same year in which a third round of MMR vaccines were added to the crammed childhood vaccine schedule. According to the CDC the number of measles cases in 2013 was 189, while 2011 saw 222 cases. So it appears that not only is Saunders' hit piece devoid of any substance but also a couple of years too late. Ironically, many of Saunders' accusations toward the "anti-vaxxers" could be addressed more conclusively by him if the very vaccine manufacturers he's defending, like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, would simply perform certain basic safety and efficacy tests on their products. These comparative studies between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children should have been required in the first place, according to medical ethics. The very fact that these for-profit companies refuse to perform these very simple tests should be cause enough for any parent to become concerned.