Statistics are brazenly falsified to prove the alleged eradication of measles through
vaccinations in Scandinavia and Latin America.
But the question remains as to how disease statistics could be manipulated in such a way that polio appeared to be eradicated
shortly after the introduction of the vaccination campaigns.
What sleight of hand is being used to promote the flu vaccine with a completely inflated number of alleged flu deaths?
The mass media, health authorities and other official bodies have been claiming for decades that the Germans
are jeopardizing the global goal of eradicating measles due to their vaccination skepticism.
If you want to increase people's confidence in vaccinations, why not present true, clear, non-manipulated figures?
Time and again we are indoctrinated with this belief:
"Vaccinations are among the most important and effective preventive measures available in medicine.
If high vaccination rates are achieved, it is possible to eliminate individual pathogens
regionally and eventually eradicate them worldwide."
But is that true? Or is this belief in vaccinations just a myth?
The Paul Ehrlich Institute warns on its website:
"A multitude of myths, half-truths and targeted disinformation are circulating (about vaccines) (...)."
Kla.TV uncovers some hair-raising myths and targeted disinformation about vaccinations in this broadcast.
However, these myths and disinformation are usually spread by the same people who claim to be fighting disinformation and myths.
Myth 1: Successful measles eradication through vaccination programs?
In the broadcast "99% decline in measles deaths BEFORE vaccination start - mortality statistics uncover pharmaceutical
industry's propaganda trick" , Kla.TV already showed that it was not vaccinations but the improved standard of living and
the associated better nutritional situation, improved hygiene, etc. that led to the decline in diseases such as measles.
As a result, the mortality rate for many previously feared diseases fell to virtually
zero even before vaccinations were introduced.
Even the most adamant supporters of vaccination have to admit this.
However, they emphasize that in order to assess the effectiveness of vaccinations, it is not the deaths but the
cases of illness before and after the introduction of vaccinations that must be considered.
Comprehensive vaccination coverage has led to a drastic reduction in measles cases or even the
complete eradication of measles in many countries.
But is that really the case? On the surface, the figures and statistics presented seem
to indicate that vaccination is a success.
The RKI, for example, states: "According to the WHO, the estimated number of transmitted measles cases worldwide
fell by 71% between 2000 and 2024 thanks to the measles vaccination, from around 38 million to around 11 million cases."
Wikipedia claims: "Vaccinations have greatly reduced the number of (measles) cases in
the past, by over 95% between 1980 and 2013."
The South and North American continent is rated as virtually measles-free - the reason for this
is said to be consistent vaccination programs.
Finland is also repeatedly mentioned as a positive example.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: "When it comes to vaccination, experts look to Finland in admiration.
This Scandinavian country was the first in the world (...) to eliminate measles
(...). In 1996, Finland was measles-free (...)."
But it's not for nothing that the saying goes:
"Don't trust any statistics that you haven't falsified yourself."
Is it possible that the number of measles cases has fallen drastically not due to nationwide
vaccination programs, but for completely different reasons?
Kla.TV has therefore taken a closer look at the figures and statistics for you.
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE STATISTICS
1. Reporting behavior of physicians
If a doctor has a patient before him who has been vaccinated against measles, he may be much more careful and cautious
in checking whether the patient actually has measles - for example, by carrying out an additional laboratory test.
In an unvaccinated patient with measles symptoms, on the other hand, the doctor will diagnose measles much
more quickly and probably dispense with a laboratory test.
So the greater the number of his patients who are vaccinated, the less often the doctor will make the
diagnosis of "measles" - and wait for laboratory confirmation.
With a high vaccination rate, there are then fewer measles cases in the statistics.
However, this fact can only partly explain the alleged "eradication" of measles
in Latin American countries or in Finland.
2. Manipulation of statistics through different methods of registering measles cases
As measles can easily be confused with other skin rash diseases such as rubella or scarlet fever, it is often
checked in the laboratory whether it is actually measles.
The majority of suspected measles cases examined cannot usually be confirmed in the laboratory.
Often not even 10 %, sometimes even less than 3 % of measles cases are confirmed in the laboratory.
Data from England, for example, show that sometimes only 0.3% of cases could be confirmed in the laboratory.
This large discrepancy between suspected cases and laboratory-confirmed cases
harbors great potential for manipulation.
Depending on whether all (suspected) measles cases appear in the statistics, or whether only the number of laboratory-confirmed
measles cases, which is sometimes 10 or 100 times lower, is registered, the number of measles cases changes enormously.
Some countries only record laboratory-confirmed measles cases, while in other countries all
suspected cases are included in the statistics.
This must be taken into account when comparing different countries.
The statistics on measles cases can be falsified by registering only laboratory-confirmed measles cases from a
certain point in time, but not mentioning this explicitly.
The number of measles cases then may suddenly drop from one year to the next to one tenth, one hundredth or even one thousandth.
This can then be sold as vaccination success.
Something like this can actually be observed.
In many countries, there was a sudden and abrupt drop in measles cases between 1980 and 2010, often from one year to the next.
In 2005, for example, 6,200 cases of measles were recorded in Turkey; in 2006 there were suddenly
only 34 cases, and another year later only 3 cases.
As can be seen from the official document "OECD Health Statistics 2022", it was decided in Turkey in 2005
that only laboratory-confirmed measles cases would be registered from then on.
In Finland, which is always praised because measles had allegedly been suppressed there thanks to vaccinations, there was a
jump from 1,032 cases in 1989 down to only 3 cases in 1990 .
In 1987, it was decided to list only laboratory-confirmed cases in the statistics, and this was
apparently implemented consistently from 1990 onwards.
Because since then, only single-digit numbers have been recorded instead of the previous three-to-four-digit numbers.
There were still four-digit numbers of suspected cases in the 1990s, but only those that were confirmed
in the laboratory were included in the statistics.
In Great Britain, 4,844 measles cases were recorded in the statistics in 1997, but
suddenly only 74 cases were recorded in 1998.
In Madagascar, the number of measles cases fell from 35,558 in 2004 to only 2 cases in 2006 .
In Chile, 2,098 cases were recorded in 1991 and only 1 case in the following year.
In Belgium, 3,869 measles cases were recorded in 1997, but not a single case in the following year.
The same can be observed in countries such as Cuba , Honduras , Ecuador , the Dominican
Republic , Canada , Sweden , Norway and the USA .
Such sudden drops in statistics cannot be explained by even the best vaccination campaign.
Even mass vaccination could at best bring about a slower, continuous decline.
However, these jumps in data can easily be explained by the fact that, from a certain point in time, only laboratory-confirmed
cases are included in the statistics in the countries concerned.
The WHO does not mention this. Instead, it likes to cite these countries as examples and proof
of the alleged success of measles vaccinations.
However, this decline in measles cases has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccinations.
So people do not shy away from obvious falsifications in order to maintain the myth that vaccinations have
reduced measles cases. The following graphic also proves this.
It is part of the 2011 PowerPoint presentation "Achieving and Sustaining Measles and Rubella Elimination" by the
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), a kind of sub-organization of the WHO for Latin American countries .
This is a report on the measles elimination program for Latin American countries.
The graphic is intended to demonstrate the great success of vaccination in eliminating measles.
The reference in bold below the graphic that this measles elimination program has allegedly prevented 3.2 million
measles cases and 16,000 measles deaths and saved 208 million US dollars in treatment costs should also not be omitted.
In the previous version of the report from 2010, the same graph was shown, with the description "Confirmed cases" on the Y-axis.
But there were also two small superscript asterisks, with the note at the bottom left:
"Prior to 1995, reported cases".
In plain language: Before 1995, the graph shows the reported (suspected) cases of measles,
from 1995 onwards only the "confirmed" cases.
Of course, there are suddenly far fewer cases.
The footnote, which referred to the change in registration from 1995, was simply omitted in the newer version.
Wolfram Klingele, who uncovered this, rightly calls this completely falsified graphic a "brazen misrepresentation",
which unfortunately seems no isolated case with this topic.
The alleged successes of measles vaccinations that are repeatedly cited are themselves myths and disinformation, as
they are based on the manipulation of statistics, misleading information and brazen falsifications.
Nevertheless, the WHO, health authorities and the mass media never tire of claiming that Germany is jeopardizing the global
goal of eradicating measles due to alleged vaccination fatigue, as there are significantly more measles cases
in Germany compared to industrialized countries such as Finland or Latin American countries.
What is not mentioned, however, is that in contrast to Finland or Latin America, cases without laboratory
confirmation are also included in the statistics in Germany.
Myth 2: The oral vaccination has eradicated polio
Laboratory confirmation is not the only area that you can fiddle around with.
A disease can also disappear almost completely from one year to the next by changing the definition of a disease.
Polio is an excellent practical example of such falsification of statistics:
The BMG and RKI state: "No one in Germany has been infected with polio for over 25 years.
Vaccination, which was introduced at the beginning of the 1960s, played a key role in the eradication of polio. (...)
1962 saw the widespread introduction of the live poliomyelitis vaccine, which was
administered as an oral vaccine using a lump of sugar.
"Oral vaccination is sweet, polio is horrible" was the motto.
Since then, polio has been on the decline in this country."
"While almost 4,700 children contracted polio in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1961,
already by 1965 there were fewer than 50 children.
Since 1990, no more diseases caused by wild polioviruses have occurred in Germany."
If you take a closer look, the following picture emerges:
Before the introduction of polio vaccinations, cases in which symptoms of paralysis occurred only
on a single day were already registered as polio.
After the introduction of the vaccine, the diagnostic criteria were changed so that from now on only those
cases that had symptoms of paralysis over a period of 60 days were counted as polio.
At the same time, the milder cases, which were previously recorded as polio and previously made up the majority
of polio cases, were now recorded under various other diseases, such as "acute flaccid paralysis (AFP)".
So polio has not been eradicated, only different names for polio have been invented so that there are
almost no more "real" polio cases in the statistics.
These changes in disease definitions alone led to a sharp drop in polio cases on paper virtually overnight - which
of course had absolutely nothing to do with vaccinations.
However, it has been proven that the oral vaccine itself has repeatedly caused cases of polio and even deaths.
In addition, millions of people worldwide were given polio vaccines that were
contaminated with the cancer-causing SV40 monkey virus.
Polio is not an isolated case. There are also other diseases that were suddenly called
differently and thus disappeared from the statistics.
A fairly recent example is the flu.
Almost no cases of flu were recorded in 2020-2022.
At that time, everyone with cold symptoms was tested for coronavirus.
If the test was positive, the search for influenza viruses was discontinued and the
case was registered as "coronavirus-positive".
No further distinction was made as to whether the patient had fallen sick or had died "with" or "from" coronavirus.
Almost all flu cases were therefore simply recorded as Covid cases and thus disappeared from the flu statistics.
Myth 3: Thousands of people die from influenza every year
When the coronavirus hysteria subsided, both the flu - and the advertising for flu vaccinations - returned.
Before the flu virtually disappeared from the statistics during the "corona years", the mass media
repeatedly quoted five-digit numbers of flu deaths per year.
For example, the magazine "Stern" wrote as early as ten years ago:
"Around 5,000 to 10,000 people die from it every year.
In the winter of 2014/2015, the Robert Koch Institute even counted 21,300 flu deaths in Germany. (...)
The fact that so many people are dying from the flu should not be the case,
for there is a vaccination against influenza viruses."
The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) states comparably high figures.
These figures are often used to stir up fear in order to market the flu vaccination as a solution.
In contrast, the Federal Statistical Office only listed 79 flu deaths in 2014 and 700 in 2015, meaning
not 5-digit figures, but only 2-to-3-digit figures.
If you add these two figures together, you get 779 flu deaths for the winter of 2014/15, but not 21,300.
Between 1998 and 2016, the Federal Statistical Office only registered a few hundred flu deaths per
year, in some cases only 70 to 80 deaths per year.
How can the difference between the alleged 10,000 to 20,000 flu deaths per year and the
actual number of flu deaths recorded be explained?
Why are the figures given by the RKI and cited in the mass media so much higher than the
figures from the Federal Statistical Office?
Wolfram Klingele, a specialist author on the subject of "Infectious diseases and vaccination", suspects that this is due
to the definition of the disease "flu" and its division into categories - and to the
mingling of the categories "flu" and "pneumonia" .
Until 1997, the category "Influenza deaths with pneumonia" existed alongside the category "Influenza deaths" in
federal health reporting. Wolfram Klingele found out :
"From 1998, however, a small word was quietly and secretly changed, and already you can produce nice headlines about how
many thousands of deaths from flu there are supposedly every year and urge people to get vaccinated against influenza
viruses if possible, because since 1998 it is usually no longer called 'flu with pneumonia', but 'flu and pneumonia'!
By replacing the word 'with' with the link 'and', the figures in this category change enormously (...)" .", Volume 5: Influenza,
tuberculosis and tropical and travel-related diseases, 1st edition 2018, published by Netzwerk
Impfentscheid, ISBN 978-3-905353-49-5, page 39]
"So the high number of pneumonia deaths is now indirectly attributed to flu deaths by the word "and"!
The 60 deaths from "influenza with pneumonia" (...) in 1997 became 17,501 deaths from "influenza and pneumonia" (...) in 1998!
This could be colloquially referred to as 'sleight of hand'.
In the same way, one could categorize accordingly, for example: "Flu and traffic fatalities ..." ," Volume 5: Influenza,
tuberculosis and tropical and travel-related diseases, 1st edition. 2018, published by Netzwerk
Impfentscheid, ISBN 978-3-905353-49-5, page 39]
This "sleight of hand" was not only used in Germany, but also in the USA from 2001 onwards.
In the article: "Are US flu death rates more PR than science?" in the British Medical Journal, Peter Doshi shows how in
the USA, by combining deaths from influenza and pneumonia, far too high influenza mortality figures are generated.
In order to obtain much higher numbers of influenza cases, the categories influenza and pneumonia were mixed
in the mortality statistics in both Germany and the USA.
With this falsified figure of allegedly 15 to 20,000 flu deaths per year, people are being misled and kept in fear in order
to increase the willingness to get the seasonal flu vaccine.
As the flu vaccination has to be repeated annually, this is a lucrative business opportunity.
Dear viewers! Often it's just a tiny bit of manipulation:
The word "and" instead of "with", a missing asterisk that should indicate a change in registration, or the
unnoticed change in diagnostic criteria by health authorities.
However, these small details have great significance:
They continue to falsely market and advertise vaccinations as the most important and effective preventive measure.
While influenza deaths, for example, are artificially extrapolated, the number of vaccine injuries is played down.
If vaccinations really work as well as is repeatedly claimed, there would be no need to twist the figures,
but the positive influence would then show up in the figures without any manipulation.
There would also be no need to create fear of illness, as is the case with the flu, for
example, by artificially extrapolating numbers.
Because if the cards were played face up and the effect of the vaccination was really that good, most people would be
vaccinated voluntarily - not out of fear, but out of conviction.
If you want to increase people's confidence in vaccinations, why not present true, clear, non-manipulated figures and statistics?
Or is there no proof of efficacy for vaccinations that does not involve fraud, manipulation or sleight of hand?
The fact that such a fraudulent system was able to survive for centuries was only possible because it was kept
alive by powerful propaganda and networks in the background.
You can find out more about this in the research on Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur on
Vetopedia.org and in the Kla.TV broadcast on the WHO.