measles outbreak...

[goldberry]

1 hour ago, briansmama said:

 

We haven’t had a pediatric death in the US from a measles infection since 2003 (1 case). We’ve had over 400 MMR deaths reported to VAERS. Harvard study found that fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported. 

Can you reference your middle class friends who passed from measles infection? Prior to the vaccine, measles mortality rate in the entire population was 1 in 500,000 and 1 in 10,000 infected children.

 

 

 

There are few pediatric deaths in the US from measles *because* of vaccination.  

Measles death rates prior to the vaccine, from WHO:  https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles

Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963 and widespread vaccination, major epidemics occurred approximately every 2–3 years and measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

This is a great article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/   regarding deaths following vaccination and the VAERS system.

 

 

[goldberry]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

Except a report to VAERS isn't the same as a death caused by a vaccine.

 

There is at least one case on VAERS of death from head trauma resulting from passing out after a vaccination.

[briansmama]

3 minutes ago, goldberry said:

 

 

There are few pediatric deaths in the US from measles *because* of vaccination.  

Measles death rates prior to the vaccine, from WHO:  https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles

Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963 and widespread vaccination, major epidemics occurred approximately every 2–3 years and measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

This is a great article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/   regarding deaths following vaccination and the VAERS system.

 

 

Again, it’s important to look at measles mortality rates in developed countries, not globally, where adequate access to vitamin A in food sources can increase complications and mortality overall, not just from measles:

“In the modern era, it is rare to suffer permanent disability or death from measles in the United States. Between 1900 and 1963, the mortality rate of measles dropped from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 in the population, due to advancements in living conditions, nutrition, and health care— a 98% decline (Fig. 1).2,5 Malnutrition, especially vitamin A deficiency, is a primary cause of about 90,000 measles deaths annually in underdeveloped nations.6 In the U.S. and other developed countries, 75–92% of hospitalized measles cases are low in vitamin A.7,8” https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Measles-DIS.pdf

And when automated, VAERS adequately tracked over 375K vaccine recipients and reported over 35K vaccine injuries ($1 Million grant to automate Harvard Pilgrim HMO). That’s almost 1 in 10.

[dirty ethel rackham]

16 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

I had a nurse try to tell me that as a teacher, I was at risk of bringing home Hep B from one of my students. I don't know what she thought I was going to be doing with my students. And nevermind that I had been vaccinated for it myself. However, she was relentless and I finally consented to giving my 5 lb preemie the vaccine. However, there was something DS was given at birth that made the Hep B contraindicated at the time, so it was postponed. But OMG, it still makes me mad to think about that nurse.  

Yeah, I've always had issues with the HepB vaccine.  Yes, I understand the public health reasons for giving it to newborns (maternal-child transmission, sexual health not something people are honest about, the at-risk community not likely to come in often for immunizations, etc.)  However, I knew that my children were not in those risk groups.  I postponed that one until the kids were a little older.   And I had to fight with a nurse at the hospital with my 2nd child to not get it ... I told her that I planned to get it, just not as a newborn and that I did vaccinate my children.  My last child was born at home.  Our family practice doctor was OK with us spacing out the vaccinations because my kids were not in daycare and not in school.  We did do most of the recommended ones and all of the school required ones, just on our schedule.

Life got busy and I never got the HepB for dd.  And the doc never brought that one up, so it hadn't been an issue until dd started attending public high school part-time.  I got an angry phone call from the school nurse about dd not being fully immunized with the HepB.  She had her first shot before school started and wasn't even eligible to get the rest in the series due to the required spacing.  She told me that my daughter was a risk to the other students and was at risk of getting the disease.  I asked her how often students were having sex at school or shooting up drugs in the 2 hours that she was on campus each day.  She tried to tell me that it was transmitted by casual contact.  I then sent her the CDC information about means of transmission.  She called me monthly threatening to not let dd attend until she was caught up, even though we were getting her the subsequent doses with the recommended spacing.  I even gave her the next soonest dates she could get her next shot and told her not to call me until after those dates.   

Oh, and about doctors not having reasonable informed consent discussions with parents, I found that to be absolutely true with the pediatricians we dealt with.  We were expected to be obedient patients and treat whatever they said as Gospel.  I never got the vaccine information sheets from them.   This was pre-internet days so I couldn't look them up that way and had to go to the library to get the information.  I ended up switching to a family practice doctor after getting fed up with "follow my orders or else" attitude and they were actually recommending something that was harmful for my child.  That family practice doc was the first one to ever share those sheets and to actually tell me what to look for as far as adverse reactions.   

I live in a major metropolitan area.  And in the past 10 years, I have seen practice after practice (large corporate practices involving hundreds of doctors) publicly announce that they would not keep any patients who did not vaccinate exactly according to the CDC recommended schedule.  They started kicking out families who stopped vaccinating due to serious adverse reactions or needed to space things out for one reason or another.  A child being ill or having a fever was no longer a reason to not get a shot that day, even though those were contraindications.  It was no longer about providing appropriate care, but about totalitarianism.  It feels a lot more like religious fanaticism, just like I felt many of the anti-vaxxers were.    The options for families who want to have reasonable appropriate conversations about individualizing the care for their children based upon their unique health care needs is shrinking.  Especially if your insurance limits who you can see, because there are many practices who aren't taking new patients.  (and I live in a major metropolitan area.)  

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

This topic and the attendant emotion always confuses me. 

I was nervous about vaccinating with my first - I had a good GP who spent time talking it through with me. After that, and after doing my own research, I concluded that, for a baby for whom vaccinations are not contraindicated, the risks of serious disability or death both ways are very small. Tiny, in fact. So I chose the option with the tiny risk, that was also pro social ie vaccination. Pro-social because it helps protect those who can't immunise, and those with suppressed immune systems. 

Years later it came up with a friend for whom I had a lot of respect - she had done the same research, concluded, as I did, that risk was small either way - but chose not to vaccinate. I won't lie - I thought that was a selfish decision.

Might evidence come to light in 50 years time that changes that risk balance ? Maybe, maybe not. We don't usually make health decisions on hypotheticals, but on using the info that currently exists.

Re distrust of science/scientists - I can't find an 'image of professionals' scale for scientists and researchers, but in 2017, doctors here (AU) had an 89% trust rating, only lower than nurses at 94%. So I highly doubt distrust of the medical community, at least, is at play in vax rates here (which tend to be quite good, other than in upper middle class 'crunchy' suburbs, where they are lower).

 

 

I'd not say that distrust is toward doctors, so much as drug companies, and perhaps researchers to some extent.  Ass I understand it, there is a significant correlation between people who don't vaccinate and distrust of government.  

[EmseB]

12 minutes ago, briansmama said:

It almost seems as if you’re ignoring the scientific literature to push vaccines. 

Doctors are required to provide parents with informed consent to vaccines. It’s extremely important to know the facts- not the hype. 

The data is critical and to argue otherwise is astounding. You’re on a well-trained mind forum and arguing that the numbers are meaningless? 

“In 2006, an HHS agency, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, provided a $1 million grant to create a spontaneous reporting system to VAERS at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.200 The result was the successful creation of a system at Harvard Pilgrim which automatically created adverse vaccine event reports:
Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions ... were identified.201” 

“2011, HHS paid the IOM to review the available science regarding whether there is a causal relationship between vaccination and what HHS asserted are the 158 most common injuries claimed to occur from vaccines for Varicella, Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella.224 The IOM located science to support a causal relationship with 18 of these injuries, including pneumonia, meningitis, MIBE, and febrile seizures.225”

http://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/ICAN Reply - December 31%2C 2018.pdf

 

The numbers you are giving are meaningless, yes. Just because they are digits doesn't make them meaningful. The number of vaccine injuries reported to VAERS is not a meaningful number. It literally tells us nothing about causality. It tells us how many people decided to fill out a form and say that X thing happened around the time they were vaccinated. VAERS data is not critical unless it is contextualized, studied for causality, and put in context with overall number of people vaccinated, the severity of a reaction, if it is an injury or an immune response, etc. So, yes, throwing out VAERS numbers means nothing. I'm sorry this astounds you, but if you study any kind of statistics or scientific research methodology it wouldn't astound you. Data without context, or represented in deliberately misleading context, is not useful.

As far as I understand things, it is unethical to do a placebo control trial, double-blind study when an effective vaccine exists. You're going to leave some people unvaccinated against their knowledge and will. They go in for a vaccine and get a placebo instead? No one would approve of that trial and it's disingenuous for ICAN to use that as a wedge issue. And the quote you pulled tells me nothing. If the IOM located science to support a causal relationship, where is that science? You have a letter (not a research paper or peer reviewed article) from ICAN (which has its own credibility problems) to the HHS citing themselves a bunch of times, complaining about no placebo controlled trials when they know, or they should know, that it is not ethical to do those types of studies, and the quote you pulled conveniently left out the very next sentence which says, "The IOM, however, found that the scientific literature was insufficient to conclude whether or not these vaccines caused 38 other commonly reported serious injuries."  And when I go to that IOM paper, I find this footnote in their causality findings:  "The data come primarily from individuals proven to be immunocompromised." That was specific to vaccine reactions they found causality for. How can that be useful to parents who are looking to make a decision on vaxing healthy kids? And if their kids are immunocompromised they are generally advised against getting some or all vaccines.

I am not pushing anything. I am refuting your claims which are totally based in some kind of weird begging the question that I have found every anti-vaxxer to engage in in every discussion I've ever had on this issue.

[briansmama]

16 minutes ago, dirty ethel rackham said:

Yeah, I've always had issues with the HepB vaccine.  Yes, I understand the public health reasons for giving it to newborns (maternal-child transmission, sexual health not something people are honest about, the at-risk community not likely to come in often for immunizations, etc.)  However, I knew that my children were not in those risk groups.  I postponed that one until the kids were a little older.   And I had to fight with a nurse at the hospital with my 2nd child to not get it ... I told her that I planned to get it, just not as a newborn and that I did vaccinate my children.  My last child was born at home.  Our family practice doctor was OK with us spacing out the vaccinations because my kids were not in daycare and not in school.  We did do most of the recommended ones and all of the school required ones, just on our schedule.

Life got busy and I never got the HepB for dd.  And the doc never brought that one up, so it hadn't been an issue until dd started attending public high school part-time.  I got an angry phone call from the school nurse about dd not being fully immunized with the HepB.  She had her first shot before school started and wasn't even eligible to get the rest in the series due to the required spacing.  She told me that my daughter was a risk to the other students and was at risk of getting the disease.  I asked her how often students were having sex at school or shooting up drugs in the 2 hours that she was on campus each day.  She tried to tell me that it was transmitted by casual contact.  I then sent her the CDC information about means of transmission.  She called me monthly threatening to not let dd attend until she was caught up, even though we were getting her the subsequent doses with the recommended spacing.  I even gave her the next soonest dates she could get her next shot and told her not to call me until after those dates.   

Oh, and about doctors not having reasonable informed consent discussions with parents, I found that to be absolutely true with the pediatricians we dealt with.  We were expected to be obedient patients and treat whatever they said as Gospel.  I never got the vaccine information sheets from them.   This was pre-internet days so I couldn't look them up that way and had to go to the library to get the information.  I ended up switching to a family practice doctor after getting fed up with "follow my orders or else" attitude and they were actually recommending something that was harmful for my child.  That family practice doc was the first one to ever share those sheets and to actually tell me what to look for as far as adverse reactions.   

I live in a major metropolitan area.  And in the past 10 years, I have seen practice after practice (large corporate practices involving hundreds of doctors) publicly announce that they would not keep any patients who did not vaccinate exactly according to the CDC recommended schedule.  They started kicking out families who stopped vaccinating due to serious adverse reactions or needed to space things out for one reason or another.  A child being ill or having a fever was no longer a reason to not get a shot that day, even though those were contraindications.  It was no longer about providing appropriate care, but about totalitarianism.  It feels a lot more like religious fanaticism, just like I felt many of the anti-vaxxers were.    The options for families who want to have reasonable appropriate conversations about individualizing the care for their children based upon their unique health care needs is shrinking.  Especially if your insurance limits who you can see, because there are many practices who aren't taking new patients.  (and I live in a major metropolitan area.)  

Good for you for identifying that your children were not at-risk of a sexually transmitted disease at birth.

Other countries DO screen mothers for Hep B and do not give it to infants if the mother is not infected. 

“In 36 clinical studies, a total of 13,495 doses of ENGERIX-B were administered to 5,071 healthy adults and children who were initially seronegative for hepatitis B markers, and healthy neonates. All subjects were monitored for 4 days post- administration.”116
Putting aside that the number of babies in these trials is unclear, five days is not long enough to assess the safety profile of these products. Moreover, without a placebo control, these trials do not even provide an actual safety profile for the five days in which safety was purportedly reviewed.” http://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/ICAN Reply - December 31%2C 2018.pdf

[hepatica]

4 minutes ago, dirty ethel rackham said:

Life got busy and I never got the HepB for dd.  And the doc never brought that one up, so it hadn't been an issue until dd started attending public high school part-time.  I got an angry phone call from the school nurse about dd not being fully immunized with the HepB.  She had her first shot before school started and wasn't even eligible to get the rest in the series due to the required spacing.  She told me that my daughter was a risk to the other students and was at risk of getting the disease.  I asked her how often students were having sex at school or shooting up drugs in the 2 hours that she was on campus each day.  She tried to tell me that it was transmitted by casual contact.  I then sent her the CDC information about means of transmission.  She called me monthly threatening to not let dd attend until she was caught up, even though we were getting her the subsequent doses with the recommended spacing.  I even gave her the next soonest dates she could get her next shot and told her not to call me until after those dates.   

 

I had a similar crazy experience with a school nurse. My oldest DD did not have the kindergarten pertussis booster because she did not go to kindergarten (she was homeschooled). Later, at age 16, when she transferred to her current high school we got a call from the nurse because that box was empty on her immunization record. At this time she was completely up to date and had already had the Tdap booster at age 12. The nurse was insistent that she couldn't enroll because that box was blank. I asked her what she wanted me to do since I was not at this time capable of returning her to age 6 and giving her that booster??? I ended up having to call the pediatrician and have her call the nurse to explain. 

I also had a crazy experience where the school nurse and doctor on campus (we live on a boarding school campus) showed up at a community BBQ we were hosting on the playground outside our building (the BBQ was just a summer get together open to anyone on campus who was around, and mostly for all the faculty kids to play together) and started giving vaccines to faculty kids. I was so annoyed I had to go inside. Who does that? Showing up at someone's party with a bunch of vaccines? It seems unethical at best. Even my veterinarian is required to do a well dog check before they administer a vaccine.  It was indeed like a sort of zealotry that the end justified the means.

Oh, and speaking of dogs, one of my German Shepherds reacted to her distemper shot around age 8. She got the shot, I took her home, sat down, heard her scratching and looked down and saw her face swelling up like a balloon. I took her back to the vet and as he was giving her a shot of benadryl he told me flat out "dogs don't have reactions to the distemper shot." I shrugged it off, but the next year when she got her shots the exact same thing happened. At that point the vet said, "oh well, we will just give her benadryl before we give her the shot next time." He still scratched his head and said dogs don't react to that shot. Doctors can't report adverse reactions if they are unwilling to see them. And, of course we now know that there was no need to give dogs boosters every year anyway, and the requirement that we do so was just a marketing ploy by veterinarians. 

It is hard to think rationally in such an environment. 

[goldberry]

12 minutes ago, briansmama said:

Again, it’s important to look at measles mortality rates in developed countries, not globally, where adequate access to vitamin A in food sources can increase complications and mortality overall, not just from measles:

“In the modern era, it is rare to suffer permanent disability or death from measles in the United States. Between 1900 and 1963, the mortality rate of measles dropped from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 in the population, due to advancements in living conditions, nutrition, and health care— a 98% decline (Fig. 1).2,5 Malnutrition, especially vitamin A deficiency, is a primary cause of about 90,000 measles deaths annually in underdeveloped nations.6 In the U.S. and other developed countries, 75–92% of hospitalized measles cases are low in vitamin A.7,8” https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Measles-DIS.pdf

And when automated, VAERS adequately tracked over 375K vaccine recipients and reported over 35K vaccine injuries ($1 Million grant to automate Harvard Pilgrim HMO). That’s almost 1 in 10.

From WHO...

All children diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This treatment restores low vitamin A levels during measles that occur even in well-nourished children and can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%.

I assume you are also aware of SSPE, which children can develop 6-8 years after having measles?  Death is almost certain and usually occurs within 1-3 years of diagnosis. There have been 33 of those deaths since 2000, very likely related the measles outbreaks from 1989-1991.  I would consider that "our modern era".

And regarding VAERS, it does not audit or verify information, and anyone can submit it.  As I mentioned, there is a case of head injury listed as a vaccine related death.   

[EmseB]

4 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I'd not say that distrust is toward doctors, so much as drug companies, and perhaps researchers to some extent.  Ass I understand it, there is a significant correlation between people who don't vaccinate and distrust of government.  

I don't fit the mold. I am a small government conservative and I fully vax on whatever schedule my doctor says is best. This is after being severely vax-skeptical with my first kid and then reading all the literature and being rather mad about the fear-mongering and lack of science on the anti-vax end. Of course when I was vaxxing my first I think we were still coming off the Wakefield stuff big time.

I don't think vaccine administration is a government conspiracy or cash cow. I don't understand what the conspiracy would be, really? To give kids shots for fun?

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

When I did it the 99% iirc vaccinated population didn’t, but the next one down did.   That is, when I ran it, it didn’t show that above 95% will necessarily work .

 

The real point - the reason I posted it, was to illustrate what I was trying to describe -  how the numbers move in each scenario - it's visual so you can see how it multiples - that one person coming in with an infection doesn't affect the vaccinated group in the same way as the unvaccinated.  It's much slower and more easily contained.

 80%  - the second last circle -is considered below herd immunity, so it is no surprise that it can have an outbreak - but it is much rarer if you run the simulation a number of times compared to the lower numbers, and does not spread as quickly.  But that's clearly not ideal - which is why the low numbers of vaccinations we are seeing in many western countries are a worry.  The goal is 95% at least.

[briansmama]

4 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I'd not say that distrust is toward doctors, so much as drug companies, and perhaps researchers to some extent.  Ass I understand it, there is a significant correlation between people who don't vaccinate and distrust of government.  

There is also a correlation between those who do not vaccinate according to the CDC’s untested 72 dose childhood schedule and higher levels of education:

A study in the journal The American Journal of Public Health, which surveyed 11,860 families, found that mothers who had not finished high school were 16% more likely to have completed the whole vaccination schedule for their children. 

[briansmama]

6 minutes ago, goldberry said:

From WHO...

All children diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This treatment restores low vitamin A levels during measles that occur even in well-nourished children and can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%.

I assume you are also aware of SSPE, which children can develop 6-8 years after having measles?  Death is almost certain and usually occurs within 1-3 years of diagnosis. There have been 33 of those deaths since 2000, very likely related the measles outbreaks from 1989-1991.  I would consider that "our modern era".

And regarding VAERS, it does not audit or verify information, and anyone can submit it.  As I mentioned, there is a case of head injury listed as a vaccine related death.   

I’d hope you’re aware that SSPE is listed by the WHO as a MMR vaccine adverse reaction?

Regarding measles infection mortality risk and complications risks, here are the facts:

Research studies and national tracking of measles have documented the following:
• 1 in 10,000 or 0.01% of measles cases are fatal.3
• 3 to 3.5 in 10,000 or 0.03–0.035% of measles cases result in seizure.9
• 1 in 20,000 or 0.005% of measles cases result in measles encephalitis.4
• 1 in 80,000 or 0.00125% of cases result in per- manent disability from measles encephalitis.4
• 7 in 1,000 or 0.7% of cases are hospitalized.10
• 6 to 22 in 1,000,000 or 0.0006–0.0022% of cases result in subacute sclerosing pan- encephalitis (SSPE).11

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Measles-DIS.pdf

MMR vaccine risks:

The CDC states, “Prelicensure trials are relatively small— usually limited to a few thousand subjects—and usually last no longer than a few years. Prelicensure trials usually do not have the ability to detect rare adverse events or adverse events with delayed onset.”6 Since measles is fatal in about 1 in 10,000 cases and results in permanent injury in about 1 in 80,000 cases,3 a few thousand subjects in clinical trials are not enough to prove that the MMR vaccine causes less death and permanent injury than measles (Fig. 1). In addition, the lack of adequate clinical trials of the MMR vaccine resulted in the manufacturer’s package insert data to be reliant on passive surveillance for rates of MMR-related neurological adverse reactions, permanent disability, and death.4 https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MeaslesVRS.pdf

 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

Okay, but now if I'm waiting until 2 or 3 for MMR, and I'm seeing outbreaks for measles (or pertussis) on the news, I'm going to be mighty nervous for my hypothetical newborns (which couldn't get it anyway) but also my hypothetical 1yr olds. If I'm in King County right now, or anywhere in WA or OR I'm going to be getting to that office on my kids' 1st birthday and praying they don't catch it before then. Respiratory illnesses in tinies are no joke.

Most people I know who wait until 2 for MMR would do it sooner if there was a local outbreak. Probably all of them would. 

1 hour ago, briansmama said:

It almost seems as if you’re ignoring the scientific literature to push vaccines. 

Doctors are required to provide parents with informed consent to vaccines. It’s extremely important to know the facts- not the hype. 

The data is critical and to argue otherwise is astounding. You’re on a well-trained mind forum and arguing that the numbers are meaningless? 

“In 2006, an HHS agency, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, provided a $1 million grant to create a spontaneous reporting system to VAERS at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.200 The result was the successful creation of a system at Harvard Pilgrim which automatically created adverse vaccine event reports:
Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions ... were identified.201” 

“2011, HHS paid the IOM to review the available science regarding whether there is a causal relationship between vaccination and what HHS asserted are the 158 most common injuries claimed to occur from vaccines for Varicella, Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella.224 The IOM located science to support a causal relationship with 18 of these injuries, including pneumonia, meningitis, MIBE, and febrile seizures.225”

http://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/ICAN Reply - December 31%2C 2018.pdf

 

Can you link to that science? "located science to support" sounds a bit shady, honestly. 

And given the previous link to a letter to the editor that tried to manipulate numbers by leaving out the control group, after stressing the importance of a control group, making the 1/640 meaningless, I'm hesitant to trust them. Especially when the letter itself admitted that in this country we have less than 2% of the seizures reported in that study. 

[briansmama]

21 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't think vaccine administration is a government conspiracy or cash cow. I don't understand what the conspiracy would be, really? To give kids shots for fun?

Thanks to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that removed financial liability for vaccine injury from the pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine schedule quadrupled and is a $30 Billion industry that is projected to double in coming years. Additionally, because vaccines are not required to undergo standard drug testing that requires double-blind inert placebo use (difficult and costly to find individuals not already taking other pharmaceuticals), AND they are not required to undergo long-term safety surveillance testing like Grandpa’s viagra and Lipitor, they are a financially lucrative industry:

“Global Vaccines Market to reach US$ 60 Billion by 2022. Pediatric vaccines market is having a dominant market share compared to Adult vaccines market.

By 2022 Pediatric vaccines market share will be double the size of adult vaccines market share.” https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170824005578/en/Global-Vaccines-Market-Forecast-2017-2022-14-Vaccines

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, sassenach said:

My kids are also vaxxed. And yet, I can manage to navigate this conversation without using words like stupid, moron, idiot, fool... You're lack of desire to engage in the conversation in a mature, adult manner is part of the problem. You and everyone like you.

 

There’s nothing juvenile about expressing an opinion that you don’t agree with and adults are under no obligation to do that in a way that you find palatable. I’m not here to please and no ones mind will be changed here.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Sneezyone

[briansmama]

8 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Most people I know who wait until 2 for MMR would do it sooner if there was a local outbreak. Probably all of them would. 

Can you link to that science? "located science to support" sounds a bit shady, honestly. 

And given the previous link to a letter to the editor that tried to manipulate numbers by leaving out the control group, after stressing the importance of a control group, making the 1/640 meaningless, I'm hesitant to trust them. Especially when the letter itself admitted that in this country we have less than 2% of the seizures reported in that study. 

No offense, but you are clearly not acquainted with the scientific literature at all, are you? No, the Institute of Medicine is not “shady.” They are part of the US National Academies of Science and conduct evidence-based research and was hired by the HHS to review the scientific data regarding commonly reported vaccine injuries. I’ve cited the 88 page document sent to the HHS several times in this thread and highly recommend all parents review it.

Again, this is why we need parents educated on the scientific literature to make informed decisions in partnership with their doctors. 

And again, no, most parents would not get another MMR due to an outbreak now that the CDC has listed the following contraindications (who should NOT get the MMR):

• Has a history of seizures, or has a parent, brother, or sister with a history of seizures.
• Has a parent, brother, or sister with a history of immune system problems. 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmrv.html

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by briansmama

[Loowit]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Except, if you use the combination vaccines, like Pentacel or Pediarix or such, you can minimize the adjuvants/extra ingredients/toxins back down to closer to what they used to be when it was fewer vaccinations. It's one reason that I opt for the combination vaccines for most things (not first dose of MMR - MMRV as first dose has higher fever rate than MMR and Varicella separately, probably due to the live virus issue). Yet if you asked the average person they would probably say that the combination vaccines are riskier. As for the antigens themselves, those are so much lower than they were in old fashioned vaccinations that kids are still getting less antigen than they did with fewer vaccines. 

 

I think it is great that the combo vaxes are out there and reducing what additives are getting injected, but my biggest concern is that if you have a reaction to a vaccine and are getting so many at once how do you know what you reacted to.  My DS had a reaction to a vaccine that was a combo.   They knew most likely it was to the pertussis because that this the most common, but it wasn't a for sure thing.  Later when he needed a tetanus booster it was a bit nerve wracking because that could have been what his severe reaction was to.  They ended up giving him a small partial dose in office and waiting 30 minutes then giving him the rest since there was no reaction and then waiting another 30 minutes.  He did fine with that shot which was just tetanus and diphtheria.  Fast forward a number of years and bad nurse gave him the wrong shot and he again reacted severely and we knew it was the pertussis.

Because of his history I would like to do a slower schedule and separate the shots instead of the combo vaccines but that is not an option we are given.  So if he were to have a reaction we woudn't know what component was the problem.  It would again be a guessing game.  I just really wish that parents had more options because if we did my child would likely be as fully vaccinated as possible by now, but as it is I am nervous because I have seen the bad, horrible, scary reaction in my child.

[Bluegoat]

9 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't fit the mold. I am a small government conservative and I fully vax on whatever schedule my doctor says is best. This is after being severely vax-skeptical with my first kid and then reading all the literature and being rather mad about the fear-mongering and lack of science on the anti-vax end. Of course when I was vaxxing my first I think we were still coming off the Wakefield stuff big time.

I don't think vaccine administration is a government conspiracy or cash cow. I don't understand what the conspiracy would be, really? To give kids shots for fun?

 

If I were guessing, I'd say it reflects distrust in institutions more than in government itself.  The motivation they likely would think  would probably be money, or not getting caught giving out drugs that turned out to be bad and having to pay out damages.

 

[gardenmom5]

36 minutes ago, briansmama said:

There is also a correlation between those who do not vaccinate according to the CDC’s untested 72 dose childhood schedule and higher levels of education:

A study in the journal The American Journal of Public Health, which surveyed 11,860 families, found that mothers who had not finished high school were 16% more likely to have completed the whole vaccination schedule for their children. 

rol...

my dd is a pharmd.   she knows, and lectures, medical doctors and nurses about drugs in the hospital where she works, she tells them what they can and can't do (she's trained one nurse to at least look things up before she calls her). .  her personal interest is vaccines.  she was reading everything she could get her hands on before she even started pharm school.  you bet you buttons her son is getting his shots on schedule.  not only is he getting them on schedule - before we could come and visit, every single one of us had to have the tdap booster.

[briansmama]

23 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

rol...

my dd is a pharmd.   she knows, and lectures, medical doctors and nurses about drugs in the hospital where she works, she tells them what they can and can't do (she's trained one nurse to at least look things up before she calls her). .  her personal interest is vaccines.  she was reading everything she could get her hands on before she even started pharm school.  you bet you buttons her son is getting his shots on schedule.  not only is he getting them on schedule - before we could come and visit, every single one of us had to have the tdap booster.

Lol. She’s not a neurodevelopmental/pediatric specialist.

A full 21% of pediatric specialists report that they do not vaccinate their own children according to the CDC’s recommended schedule: http://file.scirp.org/html/22932.html

You can bet your buttons that many more more now will recognize vaccine injury risks now that world-renowned pediatric neurologist Dr. Zimmerman has stated under oath in vaccine court that as a former pro-vaccine federal expert, he now understands that vaccines can cause autism as do his neurologist colleagues: 

Dr. Zimmerman testified on November 9, 2016 that vaccines can in fact cause autism and even answered “Yes” when asked under oath: “Do other people in your field, reputable physicians in your field, hold the opinion that vaccines can cause the type of inflammatory response that can lead to a regressive autism?” 345 Dr. Zimmerman further testified that once HHS understands and accepts the causal relationship between vaccines and autism, “it will prevent the development of autism in quite a few children.”346 http://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/ICAN Reply - December 31%2C 2018.pdf

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by briansmama

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

The real point - the reason I posted it, was to illustrate what I was trying to describe -  how the numbers move in each scenario - it's visual so you can see how it multiples - that one person coming in with an infection doesn't affect the vaccinated group in the same way as the unvaccinated.  It's much slower and more easily contained.

 80%  - the second last circle -is considered below herd immunity, so it is no surprise that it can have an outbreak - but it is much rarer if you run the simulation a number of times compared to the lower numbers, and does not spread as quickly.  But that's clearly not ideal - which is why the low numbers of vaccinations we are seeing in many western countries are a worry.  The goal is 95% at least.

 

I went back and looked again.  It’s 90% — unless the circles andvpercents also change from one run through to the next.  

I get your overall point.  

[TechWife]

3 hours ago, briansmama said:

 

Most simply don’t realize that if you’re over age 35, you’ve had fewer vaccine doses than today’s 6-month old baby. By that definition, if you’re over 35, you’re unvaccinated too. 

Except no one uses that definition. 

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, briansmama said:

Lol. She’s not a neurodevelopmental/pediatric specialist.

A full 21% of pediatric specialists report that they do not vaccinate their own children according to the CDC’s recommended schedule: http://file.scirp.org/html/22932.html

 

That's a pretty old article, based on 2009 responses I think, but still interesting that it follows what many here are saying regarding vaccines. Delaying MMR until around 2 yrs, possibly skipping or delaying Hep B, rotavirus. 

In vet medicine there are "core vaccines" and "non core vaccines". Core vaccines are recommended for everyone, non core are based on individual risk factors. I think this article and those responding here are kind of thinking of human vaccinations in the same way. DTaP, MMR, those are core vaccines. Rotavirus....Hep B, etc are less of a threat or at least can be delayed longer. 

[Wheres Toto]

7 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That's a pretty old article, based on 2009 responses I think, but still interesting that it follows what many here are saying regarding vaccines. Delaying MMR until around 2 yrs, possibly skipping or delaying Hep B, rotavirus. 

In vet medicine there are "core vaccines" and "non core vaccines". Core vaccines are recommended for everyone, non core are based on individual risk factors. I think this article and those responding here are kind of thinking of human vaccinations in the same way. DTaP, MMR, those are core vaccines. Rotavirus....Hep B, etc are less of a threat or at least can be delayed longer. 

That's what I'm thinking too.  I consider my kids fully vaccinated.    But technically we didn't follow the CDC schedule.  My oldest reacted to pertussis and stopped getting that one after one shot.  Guardasil was very new when she was the right age so she ended up never getting it.  She also got chicken pox at 9 months old instead of the vaccine at a year old.   My son was delayed for Hep B, didn't get it at birth I think he got it at 6 weeks or 2 months.   Neither of the younger two have gotten Guardasil yet.

So, I feel like a lot of people, who aren't delaying or non-vaxxing, would say they didn't follow the CDC schedule completely.

[briansmama]

22 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Except no one uses that definition. 

Many do now that we realize vaccines only provide temporary immunity at best. We used to falsely believe vaccination provided lifetime immunity, which is why ACIP recently rolled out their list of recommended adult vaccines. 

So yes, many of us are walking around unvaccinated. 

Another interesting tidbit- studies show measles infection, along with other common childhood febrile infections, help prevent some types of cancer and other serious diseases later in life. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by briansmama

[goldberry]

1 hour ago, briansmama said:

I’d hope you’re aware that SSPE is listed by the WHO as a MMR vaccine adverse reaction?

Regarding measles infection mortality risk and complications risks, here are the facts:

Research studies and national tracking of measles have documented the following:
• 1 in 10,000 or 0.01% of measles cases are fatal.3
• 3 to 3.5 in 10,000 or 0.03–0.035% of measles cases result in seizure.9
• 1 in 20,000 or 0.005% of measles cases result in measles encephalitis.4
• 1 in 80,000 or 0.00125% of cases result in per- manent disability from measles encephalitis.4
• 7 in 1,000 or 0.7% of cases are hospitalized.10
• 6 to 22 in 1,000,000 or 0.0006–0.0022% of cases result in subacute sclerosing pan- encephalitis (SSPE).11

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Measles-DIS.pdf

MMR vaccine risks:

The CDC states, “Prelicensure trials are relatively small— usually limited to a few thousand subjects—and usually last no longer than a few years. Prelicensure trials usually do not have the ability to detect rare adverse events or adverse events with delayed onset.”6 Since measles is fatal in about 1 in 10,000 cases and results in permanent injury in about 1 in 80,000 cases,3 a few thousand subjects in clinical trials are not enough to prove that the MMR vaccine causes less death and permanent injury than measles (Fig. 1). In addition, the lack of adequate clinical trials of the MMR vaccine resulted in the manufacturer’s package insert data to be reliant on passive surveillance for rates of MMR-related neurological adverse reactions, permanent disability, and death.4 https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MeaslesVRS.pdf

 

 

SSPE appears to be much more prevalent than previously believed.  It is difficult for it to be reported properly because of the long time before symptoms display (6-8 years)

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

The last large outbreak of measles in the United States occurred from 1989 to 1991 with over 55,000 cases reported. Most of the cases involved unimmunized preschool children. 11,000 patients were hospitalized and 123 died, which was consistent with the expected 1-2 deaths per 1,000 cases. Worse actually.

In 2005, CDC researchers combed through medical records and tested available brain tissue samples from patients diagnosed with SSPE. They wanted, using modern PCR technology, to determine the rate of SSPE specifically in patients who were infected with measles during the outbreak from 1989 to 1991. Their results revealed a risk of 1-2 per 10,000 cases, which was 10-fold higher than prior estimates.

The link for results in the article above takes you to the medical paper (the primary source).   https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/192/10/1686/875860

Regarding WHO listing SSPE as an adverse reaction, I'd like a source please.  The info I found both by WHO and the CDC consider it to be unproven and extremely rare, possibly attributable to previously existing measles antibody.  Both sources conclude that the numbers show measles vaccination drastically reduces the incidents of SSPE overall. 

WHO: https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/measles_sspe/Jan_2006/en/

WHO Information Sheet lists it under Other Safety Issues and says this:  https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vaccine_rates_information_sheet.pdf        Measles vaccination reduces the occurrence of SSPE as evidenced by the near elimination of SSPE cases after widespread measles vaccination (Dyken et al., 1989). Use of a vaccine containing live measles virus does not increase the risk for SSPE, even among those individuals with a prior history of measles disease or vaccination (Howson et al., 1991; Duclos & Ward, 1998). Vaccine strain measles virus has never been identified in patients with SSPE. Genetic sequencing of viruses obtained from the brains of patients with SSPE to date, including patients with no history of having had measles, has revealed only viruses of wild-type origin.

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

Regarding your last paragraph starting "CDC states..." I'm having a hard time following your sources because you are using secondary sources.  I went to your website and the link they have to support their statement links to the main CDC measles information page, where I could not find the quote they are using because I could not get through all the sections. Either way, regarding the bolded red, we no longer have to depend on clinical trials - we have years and years of evidence. 2.6 million children a year were dying of measles.  There are admittedly adverse reactions to the measles vaccine just as there are to any other medication.  But to suggest that they are anywhere close to equivalent is not factual.

 

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, briansmama said:

Thanks to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that removed financial liability for vaccine injury from the pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine schedule quadrupled and is a $30 Billion industry that is projected to double in coming years. Additionally, because vaccines are not required to undergo standard drug testing that requires double-blind inert placebo use (difficult and costly to find individuals not already taking other pharmaceuticals), AND they are not required to undergo long-term safety surveillance testing like Grandpa’s viagra and Lipitor, they are a financially lucrative industry:

“Global Vaccines Market to reach US$ 60 Billion by 2022. Pediatric vaccines market is having a dominant market share compared to Adult vaccines market.

By 2022 Pediatric vaccines market share will be double the size of adult vaccines market share.” https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170824005578/en/Global-Vaccines-Market-Forecast-2017-2022-14-Vaccines

Again the numbers you cite are meaningless without context. $30 billion dollar industry means nothing when we're talking about how much they cost to develop, how much they cost to make, how much profit is being made, and where the money is going. "$30 billion dollar industry" could include anything from government grants to spending on drug trials, to profit and on and on. So, yes, vaccines cost money to make, and drug companies sell them, and they make and sell a lot of them because we're talking about millions of people (hopefully billions) getting vaccinated. I, for one, hope that number goes up because I hope more people are getting vaccinated for childhood diseases that devastate a lot of communities. And let's not forget that treating the actual illnesses themselves is not free by any stretch. Costs associated with people actually getting influenza have been estimated at about $87 billion. Should we be looking at who's profiting from Big Flu?

It's all like saying the food industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. Well, yes it is, and some people make money off of it, and some people lose money on it, but that's because food is produced, processed, bought, and sold globally by billions of people. People get paid for those tasks and people pay for buying food. Saying that X is a $Y billion industry is not relevant.
 

[TechWife]

Just now, briansmama said:

Many do now that we realize vaccines only provide temporary immunity at best. We used to falsely believe vaccination provided lifetime immunity, which is why ACIP recently rolled out their list of recommended adult vaccines. 

So yes, many of us are walking around unvaccinated, considering Grandma never got her 2nd MMR. 

Anyone can have their blood tested to find out what childhood diseases for which they have immunity. It is immunity that is important, that is the goal. The vaccinations are tools. Adults who demonstrate immunity are not considered unvaccinated, they are considered immune. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I always enjoy watching the Dunning-Kruger effect play out in real time.

[goldberry]

1 hour ago, briansmama said:

And again, no, most parents would not get another MMR due to an outbreak now that the CDC has listed the following contraindications (who should NOT get the MMR):

• Has a history of seizures, or has a parent, brother, or sister with a history of seizures.
• Has a parent, brother, or sister with a history of immune system problems. 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmrv.html

 

 

I get this will make no difference to you, as you have obviously already made up your mind on the subject, but this must be corrected:  The list is NOT CONTRAINDICATIONS.  The list is not saying "anyone on this list should not get the MMR" except for the few cases where it actually says that.  What it actually says is:

Some people should not get this vaccine

Tell the person who is giving your child the vaccine if your child:

This means they should discuss this with their doctor. People with immune problems, and most definitely people who have no immune issues themselves but have issues in their family, get vaccinations.  It depends on the condition they have as well as if they are being medicated for the condition and what effects the medication has.  There is a lot of info out there about it, this is just one I found quickly:  https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/46/9/1459/330414

I have friends with immune disorders. An immune disorder *in general* or a family member with an immune disorder is not an automatic contraindication for vaccination.

Edited February 5, 2019 by goldberry

[Pen]

 

1 hour ago, Eliana said:

 

I agree that there are interesting questions to raise about the possible factors involved in autoimmune disorders and that a well-crafted observational study that tracked outcomes for different vaccination schedules could be a useful piece of information.   

 

I dont have more than anecdotal experience, but I and some peers had more than typical numbers of vaccinations for our generation due to being children of people working in 3rd world countries.

One little boy son of co workers of my parents clearly was normal prior to vaccination and, if not technically severe “autism”, was turned into a very different, damaged child after a vaccination .

 

I didn’t have any apparent damage back at the time, but have had asthma and autoimmune problems afterwards- which might or might not be related to the plethora of vaccinations. 

 

1 hour ago, Eliana said:

We do have to consider, however, when raising these questions, how best to balance the different risks.  

 

I agree.  I am a person who due to health issues I have tends to be very very susceptible to any and all illnesses  going around.

 But if my overall health issues were related to the plethora of vaccinations I got, or even if that’s a risk for some though perhaps not what caused mine,  I sure don’t wish this sort of long lasting chronic disease on anyone.  

Thus I’d far rather ask for things like use of masks, staying home when sick, etc, hand washing—normal protocols from older eras to help stop spread of illness, rather  than insist that everyone get immunized to protect me. 

 

 

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, briansmama said:

Lol. She’s not a neurodevelopmental/pediatric specialist.

A full 21% of pediatric specialists report that they do not vaccinate their own children according to the CDC’s recommended schedule: http://file.scirp.org/html/22932.html

You can bet your buttons that many more more now will recognize vaccine injury risks now that world-renowned pediatric neurologist Dr. Zimmerman has stated under oath in vaccine court that as a former pro-vaccine federal expert, he now understands that vaccines can cause autism as do his neurologist colleagues: 

Dr. Zimmerman testified on November 9, 2016 that vaccines can in fact cause autism and even answered “Yes” when asked under oath: “Do other people in your field, reputable physicians in your field, hold the opinion that vaccines can cause the type of inflammatory response that can lead to a regressive autism?” 345 Dr. Zimmerman further testified that once HHS understands and accepts the causal relationship between vaccines and autism, “it will prevent the development of autism in quite a few children.”346 http://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/ICAN Reply - December 31%2C 2018.pdf

 

bless your heart.  you are giving ONE MAN"S OPINON.  he is not using a study in providing evidence that can withstand scrutiny to support his position.  

and frankly - given my daughter's background, she knows a lot more about this subject - and how to read an actual study with a critical eye, than you have proven yourself capable of by your comments on this thread.

 

[goldberry]

1 hour ago, briansmama said:

 

A full 21% of pediatric specialists report that they do not vaccinate their own children according to the CDC’s recommended schedule: http://file.scirp.org/html/22932.html

 

 

Others may wish to note that the sample size in this study was 582.

Oh, and the number of pediatric specialists was 151.  So 21% of 151 people do not follow the CDC's recommendation.  

Edited February 5, 2019 by goldberry

[EmseB]

 

 

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Most people I know who wait until 2 for MMR would do it sooner if there was a local outbreak. Probably all of them would. 

 

And given that it takes ~2 weeks to become effective, I don't know why people would wait for a local outbreak. Like, the last place I would want to go during an outbreak would be my dr.'s office with an unvax'd 18mo or something.
 

[ktgrok]

29 minutes ago, goldberry said:

 

Others may wish to note that the sample size in this study was 582.

Oh, and the number of pediatric specialists was 151.  So 21% of 151 people do not follow the CDC's recommendation.  

21% of 151 people in 2009 said that, and generally referring to rotavirus which was too new, and hep B, which they seemed to say they would delay, not avoid. 

[maize]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

 

 

And given that it takes ~2 weeks to become effective, I don't know why people would wait for a local outbreak. Like, the last place I would want to go during an outbreak would be my dr.'s office with an unvax'd 18mo or something.
 

Right.

I delayed MMR with my oldest kids, my pediatrician agreed with me that exposure was unlikely.

By the time my youngest kids came along outbreaks of all three diseases were becoming more common in the US. I opted not to delay MMR for those kids because the risk analysis had changed.

I still delay Hep B because my kids' risk of contracting that as infants remains remarkably low.

[SKL]

12 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I'd like to see that 5% stat or that handout if you happen to run across it again.  The only stat on MMR AEs  I've ever seen remotely approaching 5% is fever incidence. There's no way any Pharma company I can think of is going to take the risk of producing something that is producing 5% rate of neuro injury. They'd be out of business in 24 hours. Any significant risks on CDC surveillance data that I'm aware of are one within million, and more likely millions, if not even less. 

 

I went looking online for the 5% flyer and I noticed that they have revised the info sheet so it no longer shows the rate (%) incidence of any of the side effects any more.  Interestingly they have revised the statement numerous times over the years.  I am sure I saw the 5% rate online in the past few years.  Right now I don't have time to search.

Am I the only person who finds it disturbing that more recent parent info sheets provide less rather than more information?

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

So much I want to say.

1) I am not immune to measles.  I have had the MMR at least twice, and had a bad reaction both times. The first I was an infant and had a febrile seizure. I had titers drawn in 2003 and they found I am not immune to measles.  I was told not to worry about it as the disease was considered eradicated at that time.  I am deeply annoyed that I have to worry about it now. Thanks, not herd immunity.  Fortunately all three of children are fully vaccinated, because science. 

2) Just because a study says it’s a scientific study does not mean it is.  Is it valid? Reproducible? Unbiased? Large and random sample? What’s the Z point? Can you explain the standard deviations to me?

A lot of people need to take a class in basic statistics.  Just because the data seems to say one thing doesn’t mean it really does. Also, correlation does not equal causation.  VAERS is a good example of this.  I may have had a febrile seizure due to the MMR vaccine. I also may have had a febrile seizure due to the fact that it’s not uncommon in small children and my mom came down with the flu the next day, so that fever and seizure may not have had a darn thing to do with the vaccine. 

3) My oldest has autism.  He has autism because that’s how his genes expressed certain characteristics. His aunt also has autism and was never vaxxed due to health reasons.  The ableism in the anti-vax community is astounding.

4) Just because you don’t understand science doesn’t mean it’s not valid.

 

Have you tried one of the other vaccines for measles?

If they are still available nowadays since MMR has become  main one used?

[goldberry]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Can you link to that science? "located science to support" sounds a bit shady, honestly. 

 

 

I found that study. https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/2#18   Quite interesting.  A bit misleading to say causal relationship to pneumonia and meningitis, because based on what I'm reading both of those were subsequent to infection by a live varicella virus.

It's worded:  Disseminated OKA VZV with subsequent infection resulting in pneumonia, meningitis, or hepatitis.  Also a note that this referred to individuals with demonstrated immunodeficiencies. 

Also, they were looking for evidence of a causal relationship in individual cases that were reported that they had access to. So they were careful not to draw conclusions about probability in general or level of risk.  They said, for example:

The committee considered the detection of laboratory-confirmed, vaccine-strain virus compelling evidence to attribute the disease to the vaccine-strain virus and not other etiologies. This conclusion can be reached even if the epidemiologic evidence is rated high in the direction of no increased risk or even decreased risk.

The simplest explanation in this circumstance is that the adverse effect is real but also very rare. Stating this another way, if the vaccine did cause the adverse effect in one person, then it can cause the adverse effect in someone else; however, the isolated report of one convincing case provides no information about the risk of the adverse effect in the total population of vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated individuals.

I wasn't really surprised by any of the information once I realized the pneumonia, etc was secondary to live virus infection in the immunocompromised.  The CDC has listed all those, including febrile seizures and allergic anaphylaxis as possible but rare side effects.

Edited February 5, 2019 by goldberry

[Pen]

5 minutes ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

 

I plan to talk to my doctor about it.  I couldn’t find my immunization record so had titers done in college for school.  It wasn’t a concern then, but I need to talk to my doctor about the options.  The second reaction was just a rash and hives, and I would be willing to risk that.  However we don’t know why I’m not immune to measles when I did have the titers for mumps and rubella. I probably just fall into the small percentage it doesn’t work for, and herd immunity was supposed to fix that.

 

I googled and it seems that Monovalent measles vaccine is available internationally, but not in USA.  I assume you’re in USA.   I’d ask anyway.  

[SKL]

5 hours ago, EmseB said:

Okay, but now if I'm waiting until 2 or 3 for MMR, and I'm seeing outbreaks for measles (or pertussis) on the news, I'm going to be mighty nervous for my hypothetical newborns (which couldn't get it anyway) but also my hypothetical 1yr olds. If I'm in King County right now, or anywhere in WA or OR I'm going to be getting to that office on my kids' 1st birthday and praying they don't catch it before then. Respiratory illnesses in tinies are no joke.

Waiting for the MMR has nothing to do with pertussis.

[SKL]

5 hours ago, goldberry said:

 

 

There are few pediatric deaths in the US from measles *because* of vaccination.  

Measles death rates prior to the vaccine, from WHO:  https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles

Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963 and widespread vaccination, major epidemics occurred approximately every 2–3 years and measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

This is a great article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/   regarding deaths following vaccination and the VAERS system.

 

 

Every other source I've seen has the annual pre-vax-era US deaths in the hundreds.  The 2.6M must be worldwide, including many people with poor nutrition and sanitation and little to no access to education and health care.  Not really applicable to the discussion in the US or similar countries.

[EmseB]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

Waiting for the MMR has nothing to do with pertussis.

Right. I was trying to say, delaying any vaccine and seeing an outbreak of that particular VPD pop up in the local area. It wasn't clear in my post.

[Pen]

20 minutes ago, SKL said:

Waiting for the MMR has nothing to do with pertussis.

 

The PNW has had outbreaks of both measles and pertussis. 

We had whooping cough at ds’s school last year.  It hit people who had been vaccinated, fwiw.  (Unvaccinated students got exclusion notices, I read in newspaper.) High school and middle (in our local area, some elementary schools in the county, also a couple of cases in college students).    Lots of people had bad cough that might or might not have been pertussis since probably not that many of us got our coughs evaluated, especially before the information that pertussis was going around.  I think over 100 confirmed cases in the county during the outbreak.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Pen

[SKL]

Interesting, I did not know the MTHFR link to vax reactions.

Now I feel even better about delaying MMR for my kids.

[EmseB]

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

Every other source I've seen has the annual pre-vax-era US deaths in the hundreds.  The 2.6M must be worldwide, including many people with poor nutrition and sanitation and little to no access to education and health care.  Not really applicable to the discussion in the US or similar countries.

Except the global figure also decreased from that 2.6 million... by 2014, post-vax programs, that same global rate declined to 73,000.

I can't get a good link to work on my phone, but it's easy googling...the cites I saw were from Lancet.

Even in places where sanitation is bad, vaccinations work to prevent disease.

[EmseB]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

Interesting, I did not know the MTHFR link to vax reactions.

Now I feel even better about delaying MMR for my kids.

That is a luxury you have because others have vaccinated. Which, I should mention, I am thankful that people who cannot vaccinate because of medical reasons can be protected by those of us who can be vax'd

ETA: those friends I know who have kids who can't be vaccinated because they are immuno-comprimised practically beg on social media for others to do so and would love to be able to protect their medically fragile kiddos. I follow a kiddo in Washington state who is a 3yo heart transplant recipient. I can't imagine how angry I would be if I had to bring my infant tthrough a *heart transplant* and am now worried about her getting the measles of all things.

Edited February 5, 2019 by EmseB

[SKL]

Just now, EmseB said:

That is a luxury you have because others have vaccinated. Which, I should mention, I am thankful that people who cannot vaccinate because of medical reasons can be protected by those of us who can be vax'd

Yes, you might recall that I am not anti-vax, but I am not a fan of the MMR at 12mos.  I think it is sound practice to delay as has been discussed by many in this thread and elsewhere.

At the time that my kids were that age, there had been zero cases of measles in our state in years.  If there had been a bunch of cases, obviously that would have factored into my decision.  But ... had I known about MTHFR impacting risk, that would have factored in too, as evidence that early vax (at least) was contra-indicated for my kids.  (I have seen vax injuries in people I know IRL, so online articles and arguments are not going to convince me they are fantasy.)

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, EmseB said:

ETA: those friends I know who have kids who can't be vaccinated because they are immuno-comprimised practically beg on social media for others to do so and would love to be able to protect their medically fragile kiddos. I follow a kiddo in Washington state who is a 3yo heart transplant recipient. I can't imagine how angry I would be if I had to bring my infant tthrough a *heart transplant* and am now worried about her getting the measles of all things.

And this is why we need MORE information about which kids are (and are not) at risk of vaxes, so more parents can feel confident if their kid is in the "less risky" group.

But let me ask you - if you were told your kid had a trait that could greatly increase her risk of lasting vaccine injury, would you stick to the CDC schedule anyway?