Kevin Bass PhD MS Profile picture
Feb 28 7 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Doctors often claim that measles is making a comeback because of "antivaxers".

So I plotted measles cases as a ten-year rolling average using CDC data.

And I found that measles is actually not making a comeback.

These "doctors" and "experts" are simply lying to everyone. Image
It's true that there have always been sporadic outbreaks.

And after the "golden period" of about 5 years in the 2000s when there were only about 80 cases per year, we're up to about 240 cases per year now. Image
But historically speaking, the 2016-2025 10-year period is the second-lowest for measles cases in American history, second only to 2006-2015.

In the 1990s, there were ~8000 cases per year.

But that's not all.
There were actually the same number of deaths in 2016-2025 as in the previous ten-year period 2006-2015: one.

Yes, that's right, during 2006-2015, there was one death. During 2016-2025, there is also one death.

Both ten year periods were record lows in number of measles deaths.
Imagine: children have been more safe from dying from measles over the past twenty years than at any time in American history.

Meanwhile doctors are saying measles is making a comeback.

The data show that these "doctors" simply don't know what the hell they are talking about.
For transparency's and discussion's sake, I am pasting all of the rolling 10-year averages since 1960.

1960,560991.1
1961,550371.2
1962,530216.5
1963,523817.5
1964,501353.8
1965,472028.6
1966,431248.6
1967,388839.2
1968,314752.9
1969,276719.3
1970,237284.1
1971,202421.2
1972,157495.7
1973,121649.1
1974,78050.2
1975,54297.2
1976,37996.2
1977,37460.2
1978,37924.2
1979,36701.3
1980,33316.8
1981,26100.2
1982,23044.1
1983,20524.8
1984,18574.1
1985,16418.9
1986,12934.5
1987,7565.5
1988,5218.0
1989,5677.6
1990,7105.6
1991,7757.5
1992,7809.8
1993,7691.3
1994,7528.9
1995,7277.6
1996,6700.2
1997,6348.5
1998,6014.5
1999,4205.2
2000,1435.2
2001,482.5
2002,263.2
2003,237.6
2004,145.0
2005,120.7
2006,75.4
2007,65.9
2008,74.3
2009,71.4
2010,69.1
2011,79.5
2012,80.6
2013,93.7
2014,156.7
2015,168.9
2016,172.0
2017,179.7
2018,203.2
2019,323.5
2020,318.5
2021,301.4
2022,308.0
2023,295.2
2024,257.0
2025,247.5
And here are the cases and deaths

I will do a separate thread on this tomorrow Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kevin Bass PhD MS

Kevin Bass PhD MS Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kevinnbass

Apr 23
FDA is kicking out all petroleum-based food dyes this year.

Sounds great, until you look at what's replacing them.

Here are five "natural" colors that look more dangerous than the old artificial dyes they're replacing.

Thread 1/9 🧵 Image
2/9 Spirulina Blue vs. Blue #1

NEW COLOR: Spirulina extract (phycocyanin)
> Only 90-day studies; no lifetime cancer or fertility work.
> Nickel, mercury, microcystins found in every retail sample screened
> 41% were over WHO limits for consumption for microcystins.

BANNED COLOR: Brilliant Blue FCF (Blue #1)
> 50 yrs of clean rodent & human data.

Why banned? FDA wanted a "zero-petroleum" rule for optics and simplicity, NOT because Blue #1 failed a safety test.

Refs:
EFSA 2010 Blue #1 efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal…
Spirulina heavy-metal survey pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35357944
Spirulina microcystin survey pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37598210
3/9 Butterfly-Pea Blue vs. Blue #2

NEW COLOR: Butterfly-pea-flower extract
> Approved on short-term rat data only; no long-term studies.
> Color fades < pH 3; formulators often "over-dose" in sodas to keep the neon blue.
> Large data gaps.

BANNED COLOR: Indigo Carmine (Blue #2)
> Five full chronic studies, two high-quality; lone rat tumor finding in a single low-quality study not confirmed in any of the other four.

Why banned? "Guilt by association." Keeping one petroleum blue while scrapping the rest looked messy, so FDA tossed it for policy uniformity.

Refs
FDA final rule federalregister.gov/d/2021-19179
EFSA 2014 Blue #2 efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal…
Read 9 tweets
Apr 2
This is anti-science and harmful. Here's why:

1. N95s fail in clinical trials to meaningfully reduce respiratory viral infections.
2. N95's seal is easily broken. They are not effective over long periods.
3. According to CDC, N95s are harmful if worn over long periods.

🧵1/5
From Cochrane Collaboration, the world's most respected authority on systematic reviews and meta-analyses:

No benefit of surgical masks vs no masks, and no benefit of N95s vs surgical masks in any population studied in clinical trials

Ref

2/5 cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10…Image
Image
Image
2025 study

"Following 2 h of use, approximately 30% of participants failed repeat fit testing, suggesting incomplete respiratory protection."

After using the N95s for a while, they start leaking.

That's why there is no benefit to N95s over long periods of time.

3/5 Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 28
March 29, 2021

Rochelle Walensky, Director of CDC, infamously declared on MSNBC: "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick."

Emails obtained by FOIA from Jan 30, 2021 show that Walensky knew this was a lie at the time she said it.

1/4
See for yourself.

Without these lies, unconstitutional vaccine mandates would not have been possible.

That's why she lied.

She and her colleagues need to be held accountable for these lies.

2/4 Image
During the pandemic, journalists were restricted to speaking only to Walensky. No other CDC staff, of tens of thousands, were allowed to speak to the press.

This has never happened before.

That is why the media parroted Walensky's misinformation.

It explains so much.

3/4
Read 4 tweets
Dec 31, 2024
A thread breaking down the recent @sciam hit piece and revisionist history by University of Pittsburgh public health professor Steven Albert on @DrJBhattacharya 🧵 Image
The article is so devoid of substance that it does not deserve serious consideration.

However, people do read these articles, so I want to clarify what is being done--and not done--in this piece.

I will do so analytically, not resorting to smears or misrepresentations.
It's important to start with the author. A chaired professor of public health at a good university, he should understand many of the issues he writes about in this article.

This context will inform our interpretation. Image
Read 35 tweets
Dec 15, 2024
The @nytimes's @fstonenyc has responded to our letter of the editor about @zeynep's recent op-ed about @DrJBhattacharya's NIH Director nomination.

Let's break it down.

Word for word.

A🧵. Instructing @zeynep and @fstonenyc how to read basic sentences in the English language.

@MartinKulldorff @Bryce_Nickels @anish_kokaImage
@fstonenyc opens his response by claiming that, in fact:

"The March 24, 2020 essay in the Wall Street Journal, co-written by Dr. Bhattacharya, never describes 2 million as the high range of potential death estimates." Image
Oh really?

Let's take a look at the article, then, shall we?

Bhattacharya:

"The degree of bias is uncertain because available data are limited. But it could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills two million." Image
Read 24 tweets
Nov 27, 2024
"Journalist" @zeynep is at it again.

This time, she is twisting @DrJBhattacharya's words in a malignant op-ed published in the @nytimes.

Let's break this article down word by word.

Thread.🧵
She starts by claiming:

"In the early days of the pandemic, Bhattacharya repeatedly predicted that the virus would likely kill about 20,000 to 40,000 Americans. (The death toll turned out to be about 1.2 million.)"

She provides three references.

I will parse them one-by-one.

(Link to Zeynep article btw: )archive.ph/xQH7W#selectio…Image
Yet these three links in which Jay "repeatedly" says such a thing consist of the following:

1. Original WSJ article of note
2. Stanford press release about the WSJ article
3. NYTimes article misrepresenting Jay's WSJ article

See screenshots Image
Image
Image
Read 28 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(