Are the pictures of the 17-month-old girl, [name withheld], truly documenting that she developed severe measles 10 days after receiving the MMR vaccine? What happened here and why?

This was a situation where there was a karmic predisposition to react to this virus and be susceptible because there was a karmic wounding that had the potential to support a further quite serious and potentially fatal bout of measles should the child be exposed again, in a subsequent life. This karma can do, that once one has succumbed to a fatal outcome, the cause of that fatal outcome becomes a potential to be re-experienced as an opportunity to heal or even prevent its occurrence. This is how humans learn and grow, by the doing, and it can be quite painful and repeatedly so until humans develop the knack to overcome the challenges. This is a tough way to learn but it makes it real by making it personal and to have significant consequences as a reinforcement of the meaning and importance of the enterprise. This infant had extreme vulnerability as a karmic predisposition and so even an attenuated virus had the ability to reawaken that vulnerability and gave the organism a foothold to mount a serious infection once again for this unfortunate victim. This is the characteristic of many exposed to attenuated viruses, even those presumably killed. There will be a certain percentage who become infected and this is considered an acceptable trade-off compared to the benefit of the community who will, for the most part, become impervious to viral challenge because they will develop immunity as intended. So the risk of having a small percentage breaking out with the condition it is desired to prevent, will not pose a hazard because the possibility of an epidemic will be foreclosed because all the others around them who have received vaccination will be immune and, therefore, impervious to the consequences of the few who are afflicted. This shows the imperfection of the approaches sometimes used but is not necessarily evil in and of itself, given that to have ongoing measles epidemics would be highly undesirable because it is a quite serious and quite distressing infection that causes much karmic harm to the young, and if the best one can do is to risk an occasional infection in a vulnerable child, the greater good would still be served by the vaccination. The question always is the highest good for all as a priority depending on what happens in the tradeoffs, that is a quite complex equation and humans are not always the best judge, but here we would side with the vaccine makers, that they are simply doing their best to use available science in a way that can be of service. By the same token, those mounting a backlash are pressuring the scientific community to reach a more elegant solution in working to develop vaccines with 100% safety with respect to the possibility of infection, assuming there are no other worse downsides in the technology used to achieve immunity. It is quite the case that most technological advancements cause harm in some way or another and this is never more true than in the medical arena where almost all treatments are invasive and have side effects. So it is quite an imperfect science and this is intended and maintained because it is a mixed blessing that is imperfect in dealing with most things, and this is the level of inefficiency and inadequacy that is desired by the interlopers to maintain as the status quo.