If you're not sure about a measles vaccine, this is worth considering

[creekland]

I know some contemplate whether vaccines are worth it or not.  This news article came out yesterday.  It's worth being part of one's thoughts I would think.  This after effect is 100% fatal so far.

 

http://www.livescience.com/56690-deadly-measles-complication-more-common.html

 

"A deadly complication of the measles, which can occur years after a person is infected with the virus, is more common than researchers previously thought..."

 

"Previously, researchers thought the risk of post-measles SSPE was one in 100,000, according to the study. But the new analysis suggests that kids who get the measles before age 5 have a one in 1,387 chance of developing SSPE, and kids who get the measles before age 1 have a one in 609 chance."

 

I don't think complications from the vaccine are as "common," and of course, this doesn't include any issues from getting the measles themselves.  Some diseases are better off "not" gotten IMO.

[maize]

Thanks for posting this.

[creekland]

Thanks for posting this.

 

I know I had never heard of this complication before.  I can only imagine how I'd feel if one of my kids had the measles, then being jumpy forever after every time I saw something that might be out of character.  Is this the start?  Did my kid get it?  Some kids as young as 3, others as old as 35.  One would never be able to stop worrying - which brings on the next question... How many still have it but haven't yet displayed recognizable symptoms?

 

There are many things worth taking a risk over (life is risky when one thinks about it) and the odds are still low for this, but it's a risk that doesn't have to be there at all and taking the risk really offers no benefits beyond a needle prick for most kids.  For those few who literally can't be vaccinated, true herd immunity would sure be helpful.

[kbutton]

I am wondering if this could happen in people who are older and had measles--like parents and grandparents who were not vaccinated as kids and had the measles way back when.

[Guest]

It reminds me a bit of the measles version of shingles, but more deadly. Very scary :(

[Guest]

Dp

Edited October 30, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Guest]

It reminds me a bit of the measles version of shingles, but more deadly. Very scary :(

Exactly what I was thinking.

[maize]

Reminded me of shingles as well.

 

Viruses can do nasty stuff to the body.

[Code Lyoko]

Yeah, it reminds me of the situation with shingles as well.  My elderly grandmother AND my baby brother as a little guy both got shingles.  It was horrid.  I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

I agree, thanks for post about the measles vaccine Creekland.

[creekland]

I am wondering if this could happen in people who are older and had measles--like parents and grandparents who were not vaccinated as kids and had the measles way back when.

 

I was curious about this too - why had we not heard about it?

 

This morning I did a little more googling and came up with this article that tells more about it (scroll down to "What is SSPE" if one wants to skip the chummy intro).

 

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/sspe-a-deadly-and-not-that-rare-complication-of-measles/

 

It seems it has been around and is still around worldwide.  It's just come back into the limelight in the US due to measles returning here.

 

My guess with our grandparents generation is they simply didn't know what it was and blamed the death on something else - sort of like how many died of "dropsy" back then.

 

I also noted that there could be cases where it seems to come from the vaccine itself (as if life weren't scary enough!), but the rate is considerably lower.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001185.htm

 

"The estimated risk of SSPE following natural measles infection averaged 8.5 cases per million measles cases occurring in 1960-1974.*** The estimated rate of SSPE following measles vaccination averaged 0.7 reported SSPE cases per million doses of live-virus measles vaccine distributed from 1963 (the year of vaccine licensure) through 1974."

 

"Four lines of evidence indicate that measles vaccine protects against SSPE: 1) the decrease in reported SSPE cases in recent years as measles incidence has declined; 2) two case-control studies performed in the United States which indicated that measles vaccine, by protecting against measles, reduces the chance of developing SSPE (2,3); 3) a cohort analysis of children born from 1953 to 1973 indicating that, for cohorts born since 1966, one of the first years of widespread use of measles vaccine, the incidence rate of SSPE occurring at all ages has progressively decreased (4); 4) estimates of the ratios of SSPE cases to measles cases and of SSPE cases to measles vaccinees suggest that if there is any risk of SSPE following measles vaccination, it is less than or equal to one-twelfth the risk of SSPE following measles infection. Although some cases of SSPE have developed among children who had no history of natural measles infection but who received measles vaccine, these patients may have had unrecognized measles illness (e.g., during the first year of life). Studies performed before measles vaccine licensure indicated that 15%-30% of persons without a history of measles illness had evidence of measles antibody."

 

Even with it's rareness, it surprises me that this is the first I've heard about it, but I was born in the early years of vaccination so I suppose the lack of having measles around (vs chicken pox) made it even less of a "story."  In my youth I don't recall anyone being anti-vax.  Our parents/grandparents saw the diseases so much (esp polio, measles) that they were eager to protect us.  We were all given our shots at school and no one (in my classes) abstained.

[MomsintheGarden]

Thank you for this, Creekland.

[MotherGoose]

Re: shingles: I've asked my pediatrician if my kids won't have to worry about shingles since they won't get chicken pox due to vax-- he said they don't know yet since it's too new, but they hope not. I'm def getting shingles vax when I get old enough it's awful.

[ktgrok]

Another thought about measles, is that it has been shown to pretty much wipe out the immune system's "memory". So say you had several more common illnesses, and developed antibodies to them, then got the measles. Well, that measles infection wipes out those other antibodies, leaving you yes, immune to measles, but no longer immune to those other things. And that lasts for a few years, from what I remember. It's why people that survive measles are actually more likely to die from flu and other illnesses for the next year or so afterwards. So much for the idea that catching a disease strengthens the immune system, something I hear a lot from anti-vaxx people. (for the record, we delay and vaccinate more gradually, based on some of the science (for instance I'm not worried about my 1 week old catching Hep B, but eventually do vaccinate for it)

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/07/404963436/scientists-crack-a-50-year-old-mystery-about-the-measles-vaccine

[maize]

I was curious about this too - why had we not heard about it?

 

This morning I did a little more googling and came up with this article that tells more about it (scroll down to "What is SSPE" if one wants to skip the chummy intro).

 

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/sspe-a-deadly-and-not-that-rare-complication-of-measles/

 

It seems it has been around and is still around worldwide.  It's just come back into the limelight in the US due to measles returning here.

 

My guess with our grandparents generation is they simply didn't know what it was and blamed the death on something else - sort of like how many died of "dropsy" back then.

 

I also noted that there could be cases where it seems to come from the vaccine itself (as if life weren't scary enough!), but the rate is considerably lower.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001185.htm

 

"The estimated risk of SSPE following natural measles infection averaged 8.5 cases per million measles cases occurring in 1960-1974.*** The estimated rate of SSPE following measles vaccination averaged 0.7 reported SSPE cases per million doses of live-virus measles vaccine distributed from 1963 (the year of vaccine licensure) through 1974."

 

"Four lines of evidence indicate that measles vaccine protects against SSPE: 1) the decrease in reported SSPE cases in recent years as measles incidence has declined; 2) two case-control studies performed in the United States which indicated that measles vaccine, by protecting against measles, reduces the chance of developing SSPE (2,3); 3) a cohort analysis of children born from 1953 to 1973 indicating that, for cohorts born since 1966, one of the first years of widespread use of measles vaccine, the incidence rate of SSPE occurring at all ages has progressively decreased (4); 4) estimates of the ratios of SSPE cases to measles cases and of SSPE cases to measles vaccinees suggest that if there is any risk of SSPE following measles vaccination, it is less than or equal to one-twelfth the risk of SSPE following measles infection. Although some cases of SSPE have developed among children who had no history of natural measles infection but who received measles vaccine, these patients may have had unrecognized measles illness (e.g., during the first year of life). Studies performed before measles vaccine licensure indicated that 15%-30% of persons without a history of measles illness had evidence of measles antibody."

 

Even with it's rareness, it surprises me that this is the first I've heard about it, but I was born in the early years of vaccination so I suppose the lack of having measles around (vs chicken pox) made it even less of a "story."  In my youth I don't recall anyone being anti-vax.  Our parents/grandparents saw the diseases so much (esp polio, measles) that they were eager to protect us.  We were all given our shots at school and no one (in my classes) abstained.

 

I did some research and SSPE was not traced to measles infection until 1967. I think we haven't heard much about it as a complication of measles because people who got it in the past didn't know it was associated with measles. And by the time the association was made measles vaccine had arrived on the scene and the disease was becoming rare, at least in the US.

Edited October 30, 2016 by maize

[maize]

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24793.pdf

[creekland]

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24793.pdf

 

This is an awesome source - glad you found it!

 

I found it very interesting that the emphasis of worldwide measles vaccinations came from this disease.

 

"The conclusion reached by epidemiological observations that there is a relation between early measles infection and SSPE led to a world-wide measles immunization program followed by a dramatic decline in the incidence of SSPE, up to the present situation where in most of the western developed countries, SSPE was almost completely eradicated."

 

It is returning (to developed nations) now because measles is returning.  Our (collective) generations have forgotten it to the point of most of us not even knowing about it - including doctors (according to the article).  Thus, the perceived need for this particular vaccine has waned, after all, if it's not thought of as "deadly" like tetanus or rabies (if exposed), why bother?

 

It's important for parents to know the issue is still out there, it is real, and it is deadly.  It also has a great chance of being avoided with a vaccination.  The benefits ktgrok noted about what measles does to a victim's immunity also ought to be taken under consideration.  

My personal conclusion remains that some diseases really ought to be avoided if at all possible.

[maize]

This is an awesome source - glad you found it!

 

I found it very interesting that the emphasis of worldwide measles vaccinations came from this disease.

 

"The conclusion reached by epidemiological observations that there is a relation between early measles infection and SSPE led to a world-wide measles immunization program followed by a dramatic decline in the incidence of SSPE, up to the present situation where in most of the western developed countries, SSPE was almost completely eradicated."

 

It is returning (to developed nations) now because measles is returning.  Our (collective) generations have forgotten it to the point of most of us not even knowing about it - including doctors (according to the article).  Thus, the perceived need for this particular vaccine has waned, after all, if it's not thought of as "deadly" like tetanus or rabies (if exposed), why bother?

 

It's important for parents to know the issue is still out there, it is real, and it is deadly.  It also has a great chance of being avoided with a vaccination.  The benefits ktgrok noted about what measles does to a victim's immunity also ought to be taken under consideration.  

My personal conclusion remains that some diseases really ought to be avoided if at all possible.

 

It is useful information too for parents who prefer to spread out or limit immunizations, as it should play into the equation of when a child needs measles immunization.

 

With my oldest children, MMR was a vaccine that I was comfortable delaying because the diseases it protects against were extremely uncommon in our local community. With rising infection rates in recent years I'd already determined with the younger kids to get the vaccine at the recommended age, but this is one more piece of information to weigh on the earlier is better side of the scale.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Well, let's hope 47 years after the fact I'm safe. 😕

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Thanks, creekland.

 

I'm printing this thread to save for the parents of my (future imaginary) grandchildren, if they want to know what I think, when the time comes. Although sometimes I wonder if they'll even need to question whether-or-not on vaxes, because their children's generation may again be threatened by the actual diseases, or surrounded by them, which will cause parents to again be grateful for the lower risk of the vaccines.

 

I mean, of course I hope not, but that's where we'll end up if we don't vaccinate a generation of children.

 

I will tell anyone who wants to hear that I was a selective-delayed vaxxing parent when my children were small, but then I changed my mind. The "against" list turned out to be based on half-truths. The "for" list turned out to be overwhelming, when several of my children had diseases requiring hospitalization -- I don't think anyone could remain anti-vax after living at their nearest children's hospital for awhile. Any witness to the suffering becomes pro-medicine, pro-hygiene, pro-information in a hurry, motivated to eradicate senseless disease when possible.

 

(As is true for everyone who thinks vaccines are a good thing, I do support medical exemptions.)

Edited October 30, 2016 by Tibbie Dunbar

[creekland]

Any witness to the suffering becomes pro-medicine, pro-hygiene, pro-information in a hurry, motivated to eradicate senseless disease when possible.

 

(As is true for everyone who thinks vaccines are a good thing, I do support medical exemptions.)

 

Any objection I would have had toward "basic" vaccines was ended very early as I had an older friend who had been in a wheelchair since her teen years due to polio.  She reminded me more than once how lucky my generation was that we had vaccines.  She was not the only victim she personally knew with polio.  Some ended up with iron lungs.

 

BUT she's also the one who told me to be careful about being too clean.  Sure, we wash hands and are careful about raw meat, etc, but in her experience it was those from families who tried to be super clean who had the most issues from polio and otherwise.  She chided me for not letting my oldest get dirty when he was a baby.  "Let him play in the dirt!"  "Don't sanitize everything!"  "Enjoy your pets!"

 

A bit of my baby and child-rearing mindset was gleaned from her.  Of course I have no idea if it worked or if we were simply lucky, but all three of my guys are data points supporting her position.  

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Creekland, I always did the tetanus shot for the same reason. A childhood friend nearly died from tetanus; I think the entire farming community was on prayer vigil for awhile (he did pull through), and we all grew up knowing not to ever accidentally get tetanus. Cleanse wounds properly, and get your shots!

[TravelingChris]

I remember getting the MMR shot or maybe shots in school.  I also don't remember anyone being against them.  Somehow I missed getting measles though my brother did have it when I was a baby.  I didn't get sick though and got the shots when they were introduced when I was in school.  Back then, we all wanted shots.  Our parents definitely knew people who didn't have shots and didn't do well.  

 

I had never heard of this complication but then I wouldn't have as a small child and then it became rare with immunizations.  My state has a pretty good record on immunizations which is amazing since it doesn't have such a great health record in general. 

[Janeway]

I doubt the facts of the article. I think it is likely a part of marketing for the pharmaceutical. They changed their mind about how common and deadly this is? Yeah, right. I have noticed that illnesses that no one worries about suddenly become deadly after the shots are released. A lot of profit in the shots. Pharmaceuticals spend more money in congress now than the big tobaccos ever did.

[MotherGoose]

Re: shingles: I've asked my pediatrician if my kids won't have to worry about shingles since they won't get chicken pox due to vax-- he said they don't know yet since it's too new, but they hope not. I'm def getting shingles vax when I get old enough it's awful.

[creekland]

I doubt the facts of the article. I think it is likely a part of marketing for the pharmaceutical. They changed their mind about how common and deadly this is? Yeah, right. I have noticed that illnesses that no one worries about suddenly become deadly after the shots are released. A lot of profit in the shots. Pharmaceuticals spend more money in congress now than the big tobaccos ever did.

 

No, they separated out age groups and got their new stats from those.  It's most deadly for those who had measles prior to age 1 (when one doesn't even qualify for the shots yet, so not really any marketing there) and is second most deadly to those who had the measles between ages 1 and 5.

 

I doubt any of it is a marketing ploy.  It makes sense biologically as young bodies aren't as prepared as older ones to deal with illnesses, so part of the virus could more easily escape and hide.

 

The comparative stats for older kids/adults who get measles and then get this complication would now be lower - at least - for now.  Since there's a delay between measles and SSPE that can last for years, all stats could go up.  Only time will tell.

 

Or are you somehow doubting the two are related?  Even though that's been proven since 1967?

[creekland]

Re: shingles: I've asked my pediatrician if my kids won't have to worry about shingles since they won't get chicken pox due to vax-- he said they don't know yet since it's too new, but they hope not. I'm def getting shingles vax when I get old enough it's awful.

 

My mom asked about her doc about the Shingles vax after enduring a round of Shingles.  He told her not to bother as it's expensive and only about 50% effective at best.

 

Of course, this is the same doc that told her to go home with her chest pain and take pain relievers since it was most likely a muscle (detailed in my Vent Thread - ended up being an artery 99% blocked) so take it for what it's worth.  

 

Perhaps someone else can chime in with thoughts on that one?

[maize]

My mom asked about her doc about the Shingles vax after enduring a round of Shingles. He told her not to bother as it's expensive and only about 50% effective at best.

 

Of course, this is the same doc that told her to go home with her chest pain and take pain relievers since it was most likely a muscle (detailed in my Vent Thread - ended up being an artery 99% blocked) so take it for what it's worth.

 

Perhaps someone else can chime in with thoughts on that one?

I'd happily take a 50% lower chance of developing shingles, they're pretty horrendous. Edited October 31, 2016 by maize

[Guest]

My mom asked about her doc about the Shingles vax after enduring a round of Shingles. He told her not to bother as it's expensive and only about 50% effective at best.

 

Of course, this is the same doc that told her to go home with her chest pain and take pain relievers since it was most likely a muscle (detailed in my Vent Thread - ended up being an artery 99% blocked) so take it for what it's worth.

 

Perhaps someone else can chime in with thoughts on that one?

I had shingles in my twenties and it hurt like crazy, but they still didn't recommend the vaccine. Unfortunately those prone to it will tend to get it anyway (as I did at 24) and the vax wouldn't reduce my risk of getting it again down the road.

 

For some it's not a bad choice but chickenpox and the shingles vaccines are helpful but not foolproof. It's a different calculation than something for a life threatening illness - whereas both are highly unpleasant they're usually not deadly or debilitating, unlike some of the illnesses in the normal vax pack.

[MotherGoose]

My mom asked about her doc about the Shingles vax after enduring a round of Shingles. He told her not to bother as it's expensive and only about 50% effective at best.

 

Of course, this is the same doc that told her to go home with her chest pain and take pain relievers since it was most likely a muscle (detailed in my Vent Thread - ended up being an artery 99% blocked) so take it for what it's worth.

 

Perhaps someone else can chime in with thoughts on that one?

My neighbor, who was almost disabled with shingles for months, (didn't get vax) made sure her husband got it! :) she was in her 60s.

 

Sorry didn't read this clearly. This neighbor hadn't had shingles before, no idea on vax after shingles.

Edited October 30, 2016 by MotherGoose

[FaithManor]

My mom had mumps as a child. Horrible!!! So thankful that I and my children had the MMR vaccines and never suffered it.

 

Due to dd's bizarre immune reaction to certain vaccine components early on, we had to delay her for a bit, but the boys all got it on time.

 

Dear grandson's pediatrician must be a real journal reader because she knows about the above and talked about with dd. We have noticed that she does not "rest on her laurels" ie rely mostly on what she learned in med school years ago. I really appreciate that because it makes me feel like my little bug is in excellent medical hands.

[MaeFlowers]

Re: shingles: I've asked my pediatrician if my kids won't have to worry about shingles since they won't get chicken pox due to vax-- he said they don't know yet since it's too new, but they hope not. I'm def getting shingles vax when I get old enough it's awful.

The chicken pox vaccine is a live vac. My understanding of this is that they give you the live virus and allow your body to develop the antibodies. The same as just catching the disease. So, it wouldn't make sense that it would protect you from shingles. It would actually be making every child who gets the vac suseptible. When I asked my Dr about this, she said that this is possible but the vaccination is too new to know.

 

As for the shingles vac, my parents were discouraged by one doc and encouraged by another. I think it just depends on the dr.

[maize]

The chicken pox vaccine is a live vac. My understanding of this is that they give you the live virus and allow your body to develop the antibodies. The same as just catching the disease. So, it wouldn't make sense that it would protect you from shingles. It would actually be making every child who gets the vac suseptible. When I asked my Dr about this, she said that this is possible but the vaccination is too new to know.

 

As for the shingles vac, my parents were discouraged by one doc and encouraged by another. I think it just depends on the dr.

The vaccine is a live but weakened strain of the virus, much easier for the body to fight off than the wild strain virus and probably less likely to remain in the body and later re-emerge as shingles. Its early to tell as shingles is most common in older adults and the vaccine has only been given in the US for a couple of decades. Shingles cases among children have declined in the years since immunization began though.

[G5052]

My mom asked about her doc about the Shingles vax after enduring a round of Shingles.  He told her not to bother as it's expensive and only about 50% effective at best.

 

Of course, this is the same doc that told her to go home with her chest pain and take pain relievers since it was most likely a muscle (detailed in my Vent Thread - ended up being an artery 99% blocked) so take it for what it's worth.  

 

Perhaps someone else can chime in with thoughts on that one?

 

MANY insurance programs pay for Shingles at no cost to the individual if they're 60 or over.

 

Having seen friends my age and older go through it, I'm bugging DH every other week. Even the mild cases are pretty bad, and he can't afford to take a chance. A severe case would be devastating to him. Even 50% would be worth it.

[MaeFlowers]

The vaccine is a live but weakened strain of the virus, much easier for the body to fight off than the wild strain virus and probably less likely to remain in the body and later re-emerge as shingles. Its early to tell as shingles is most common in older adults and the vaccine has only been given in the US for a couple of decades. Shingles cases among children have declined in the years since immunization began though.

Its the "probably less likely" thing. Basically, we just don't know and won't for probably another, what, 20-30 years?

[maize]

Its the "probably less likely" thing. Basically, we just don't know and won't for probably another, what, 20-30 years?

True.

 

 

But--prior to vaccine availability, almost 100% of the population caught the more virulent wild strain of the virus, and we know that a significant percentage of those who do go on to get shingles later.

 

The chances of the vaccine causing shingles at a higher rate than the wild type are quite small.

[maize]

And, the fact that shingles cases are decreasing among children is a good sign.

[MaeFlowers]

True.

 

 

But--prior to vaccine availability, almost 100% of the population caught the more virulent wild strain of the virus, and we know that a significant percentage of those who do go on to get shingles later.

 

The chances of the vaccine causing shingles at a higher rate than the wild type are quite small.

I wasn't saying at a higher rate. I was simply saying that shingles needs chicken pox. We're giving the kids chicken pox whether it is a weaker version or not and we really don't know the long term implications.

I'm not anti-vax and I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of getting the vaccination. I was just giving my Dr's response to the question when I asked.

Edited October 31, 2016 by MaeFlowers

[MaeFlowers]

And, the fact that shingles cases are decreasing among children is a good sign.

Yes. It is a good sign. I wouldn't wish shingles on anyone.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

So if I learned this while I had a newborn baby at home, I'd be one of these parents freaking out about non-vaccinating parents in my community. Because my child's risks are greatest before he's old enough for the vaccine!

 

How does my hypothetical baby not get measles? Everybody else gets their shots, that's how.

 

The same way pregnant women don't get exposed to rubella.

[kitten18]

I doubt the facts of the article. I think it is likely a part of marketing for the pharmaceutical. They changed their mind about how common and deadly this is? Yeah, right. I have noticed that illnesses that no one worries about suddenly become deadly after the shots are released. A lot of profit in the shots. Pharmaceuticals spend more money in congress now than the big tobaccos ever did.

Measles is a disease that no one worries about? Maybe now in the U.S., but in 2014 there were 115,000 deaths from measles worldwide. So yeah, it most certainly can be deadly.

[Saddlemomma]

Re: shingles: I've asked my pediatrician if my kids won't have to worry about shingles since they won't get chicken pox due to vax-- he said they don't know yet since it's too new, but they hope not. I'm def getting shingles vax when I get old enough it's awful.

 

My guess would be that they could get shingles because it's a weakened live virus.  The only reason I say this is because we have to be cautious about a lot of vaccines here; not because we're anti-vax, but out of necessity.  I was rushed to the ER after just getting a Tetanus shot at 21. I was told another one would kill me, so I haven't had one in 30 years. My mother also gets extreme reactions to vaccinations.  Therefore, it's usually better if we get things naturally and fight them off. We waited until DD was 11 to get the chicken pox shot, because I would rather she got them naturally (no I didn't purposely try to expose her to them).  After getting the shot, she immediately broke out with chicken pox. Granted, it was a milder case, but she did get them quickly.  So, I believe she will be susceptible to shingles when she gets older.  Our bodies just react so quickly to vaccinations we have to be careful.

 

In the case of our family, maternally on my side especially, it's not always prudent for us to rush out and get the next, greatest vaccine. We have to really analyze the risk more so than some others.  DD has had all her other regular shots except the HPV (will not get that one), but we did them at a much more delayed rate, and she was watched carefully.  The drs. agreed with our plan due to my family history.  None of us have ever gotten a flu shot either.

 

I will probably not get a measles booster.  In my mind, my chances are just as great as being bitten by a lone star tick and then dropping dead years later from that, getting a deadly cancer, having a stroke, heart-attack, etc., as getting the measles and then dropping dead from a residual disease, because if I get a measles shot now, I have no clue how my body will react.

[maize]

My guess would be that they could get shingles because it's a weakened live virus. The only reason I say this is because we have to be cautious about a lot of vaccines here; not because we're anti-vax, but out of necessity. I was rushed to the ER after just getting a Tetanus shot at 21. I was told another one would kill me, so I haven't had one in 30 years. My mother also gets extreme reactions to vaccinations. Therefore, it's usually better if we get things naturally and fight them off. We waited until DD was 11 to get the chicken pox shot, because I would rather she got them naturally (no I didn't purposely try to expose her to them). After getting the shot, she immediately broke out with chicken pox. Granted, it was a milder case, but she did get them quickly. So, I believe she will be susceptible to shingles when she gets older. Our bodies just react so quickly to vaccinations we have to be careful.

 

In the case of our family, maternally on my side especially, it's not always prudent for us to rush out and get the next, greatest vaccine. We have to really analyze the risk more so than some others. DD has had all her other regular shots except the HPV (will not get that one), but we did them at a much more delayed rate, and she was watched carefully. The drs. agreed with our plan due to my family history. None of us have ever gotten a flu shot either.

 

I will probably not get a measles booster. In my mind, my chances are just as great as being bitten by a lone star tick and then dropping dead years later from that, getting a deadly cancer, having a stroke, heart-attack, etc., as getting the measles and then dropping dead from a residual disease, because if I get a measles shot now, I have no clue how my body will react.

Certainly people who react badly to vaccines need to be cautious with them and sometime must avoid them altogether. The benefits do not outweigh the risks for everyone.

 

I'm a bit puzzled though by your assertion that it is better for your family to get things naturally and fight it off--surely you don't think that tetanus itself would have been safer for you than the tetanus vaccine? Or that you would fight off polio or measles without trouble?

 

I'm thinking that in most cases people who cannot be vaccinated would not actually fare better with the disease than the vaccine--the key for these people is to avoid infection, which largely depends on the rest of their community being vaccinated.

 

Tetanus is a tricky one since it comes from the environment not the community. I am sorry you are unable to get the vaccine :( Hopefully you will be able to avoid injuries that might expose you.

[creekland]

Certainly people who react badly to vaccines need to be cautious with them and sometime must avoid them altogether. The benefits do not outweigh the risks for everyone.

 

I'm a bit puzzled though by your assertion that it is better for your family to get things naturally and fight it off--surely you don't think that tetanus itself would have been safer for you than the tetanus vaccine? Or that you would fight off polio or measles without trouble?

 

I'm thinking that in most cases people who cannot be vaccinated would not actually fare better with the disease than the vaccine--the key for these people is to avoid infection, which largely depends on the rest of their community being vaccinated.

 

Tetanus is a tricky one since it comes from the environment not the community. I am sorry you are unable to get the vaccine :( Hopefully you will be able to avoid injuries that might expose you.

 

I didn't read it as a blanket statement about polio and tetanus, etc.  I thought she was referring to chicken pox and measles.  With medical cases like she mentions, their family's response makes sense to me.

 

And overall, avoidance is best, but that avoidance has a far better shot at being successful if families like mine who do not have reactions to vaccines use them to better our odds at immunity.  Herd immunity working as it should.  It's not a sure thing by any means, but sometimes it's the best one has.

[goldberry]

I doubt the facts of the article. I think it is likely a part of marketing for the pharmaceutical. They changed their mind about how common and deadly this is? Yeah, right. I have noticed that illnesses that no one worries about suddenly become deadly after the shots are released. A lot of profit in the shots. Pharmaceuticals spend more money in congress now than the big tobaccos ever did.

 

You are automatically discounting this because "you think" it's "likely" a marketing ploy?  Any facts that show that *this particular study* is false?  Or do you not need actual facts?  (Sorry if I seem really sharp here, but this whole election season has been full of unsubstantiated claims that people just believe, and when they are rebutted by actual facts, well, the facts must not be true.  It is a truly concerning trend in our society.)

 

 

Measles is a disease that no one worries about? Maybe now in the U.S., but in 2014 there were 115,000 deaths from measles worldwide. So yeah, it most certainly can be deadly.

 

My older sister almost died from measles as a child.  Yes, it most certainly can be deadly.

[goldberry]

Certainly people who react badly to vaccines need to be cautious with them and sometime must avoid them altogether. The benefits do not outweigh the risks for everyone.

 

I'm thinking that in most cases people who cannot be vaccinated would not actually fare better with the disease than the vaccine--the key for these people is to avoid infection, which largely depends on the rest of their community being vaccinated.

 

 

 

Agree emphatically with both parts of this.  I have no problem at all with people who have a history of reactions making the best decisions they can about vaccines.  I would do the same.

 

The fact that there are people who can't get vaccinated, and babies who have not yet been vaccinated, make it more important for the rest of us.

[MomsintheGarden]

Ok, so you can get shingles from the chicken pox virus, and SSPE from the measles virus.  Are there any other viruses that can cause secondary diseases?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Ok, so you can get shingles from the chicken pox virus, and SSPE from the measles virus.  Are there any other viruses that can cause secondary diseases?

 

This is exactly what my DH wanted to know, when I told him about this thread. I mean, obviously there probably are, but specifically how many of our vaccines for "childhood diseases" are preventing something down the road as much as preventing the initial illness?

[maize]

This is exactly what my DH wanted to know, when I told him about this thread. I mean, obviously there probably are, but specifically how many of our vaccines for "childhood diseases" are preventing something down the road as much as preventing the initial illness?

Not the same sort of thing, but the Rubella vaccine has had a huge impact in preventing birth defects.

Edited October 31, 2016 by maize

[kbutton]

I have had shingles (mild case in high school, had real chicken pox, moderate case), and I was wondering about the vaccine for when I'm older. I wish the answer was more clearcut--long-term nerve damage (with pain) is a really big complication after a certain age. It's not just awful while you have the shingles, as bad as that can be.

 

My mother and her sister had measles, mumps, and chicken pox all in the same year when they were little.   :scared:

 

Post-polio syndrome is one of those later manifestations of a disease you've already had, though they are not sure about the why of how it occurs: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/post_polio/detail_post_polio.htm 

[kbutton]

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/post_polio/detail_post_polio.htm  Trying that link again--I don't know why the forums sometimes mess up my links.