Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

measles - again

Recommended Posts

with 2019 on track to become the worst outbreak in 20 years (with 555 cases nationwide so far).

I thought this was interesting.  scientists are finding measles wipe out immune system memory cells, so the patients immune system has to be rebuilt from scratch. which averages 2 - 3 years.  I remember one poster in a previous thread whose mother/grandmother was a teacher in the 50's commenting on how when measles went through their school, a group of kids who had been healthy - suddenly became prone to whatever virus was making the rounds and were sickly for the next few years.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes; in the other thread, @creekland mentioned this effect from measles. I had not heard this before but I find it interesting. 

It’s one more thing that annoys me about anti-vaxxers who have never seen or experienced measles in their lifetimes telling others that measles is a “relatively harmless” disease. 

  • Like 10
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I wonder if that would be helpful in autoimmune disease.  

How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, as an example, the body has classified birch pollen as “dangerous” and provokes an immune response to it every time it detects birch pollen and then “forgets” that birch pollen is dangerous...that could be useful.

I don’t know a ton about T-regulatory response cells and cytokines but I think it’s an interesting idea.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quill said:

Yes; in the other thread, @creekland mentioned this effect from measles. I had not heard this before but I find it interesting. 

It’s one more thing that annoys me about anti-vaxxers who have never seen or experienced measles in their lifetimes telling others that measles is a “relatively harmless” disease. 

Ok, but what about the posters that have said they have had multiple experiences with measles and found it to be relatively benign? I feel like people who have not seen it are making it out to be much worse that it usually is.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

Ok, but what about the posters that have said they have had multiple experiences with measles and found it to be relatively benign? I feel like people who have not seen it are making it out to be much worse that it usually is.

Because of the Selection Bias inherant in being able to say, “I had it and found it to be relatively benign.” Since you obviously did not die from it or suffer some other severe effect, you lived to say it was relatively benign. That’s why the necessary thing is to go with recorded data about how many people used to get it and how many had serious or fatal cases. 

*I* have not had measles or witnessed it because the vax was in wide use before I was born. But millions of people of my mom’s generation happily vaccinated their children (me) against measles, so they must have thought their kid avoiding measles was preferable to getting it, whether or not they personally thought it was “relatively benign.” 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

Ok, but what about the posters that have said they have had multiple experiences with measles and found it to be relatively benign? I feel like people who have not seen it are making it out to be much worse that it usually is.

just like my mil saying seatbelts aren't a big deal, because they'd never been in a car accident, - to the point she CUT THEM OUT OF HER CAR back in the 80s.

Edited by gardenmom5
  • Like 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quill said:

Because of the Selection Bias inherant in being able to say, “I had it and found it to be relatively benign.” Since you obviously did not die from it or suffer some other severe effect, you lived to say it was relatively benign. That’s why the necessary thing is to go with recorded data about how many people used to get it and how many had serious or fatal cases. 

*I* have not had measles or witnessed it because the vax was in wide use before I was born. But millions of people of my mom’s generation happily vaccinated their children (me) against measles, so they must have thought their kid avoiding measles was preferable to getting it, whether or not they personally thought it was “relatively benign.” 

I think that the medical data before the vaccine was available was that it was a fairly benign disease. And I think when it first became available there was no thought that the vaccines themselves came with risks, so most parents though why not get the shot, it may help and there isn't really any danger to doing so. But now we know that there are some risks and it is possible that in this day and age there would be even less dangers in getting this disease. Even with this outbreak (not epidemic) they have been very few hospitalizations and only one death I believe. 

I am not absolutely anti-vaxx but this is not one I would pursue. To me it is in much the same category as chicken pox.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it’s not the mortality of measles; it’s the morbidity. My grandmother and mom, both of whom had measles at early ages, were school teachers who saw otherwise healthy children suffer devastating effects, not from measles itself but because their immune systems took such a hit that they weren’t healthy for several years after. 

I don’t know if doctors or researchers know why that happens or if they’re able to predict who might be so affected. Obviously, not everyone suffers this. 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brehon said:

To me, it’s not the mortality of measles; it’s the morbidity. My grandmother and mom, both of whom had measles at early ages, were school teachers who saw otherwise healthy children suffer devastating effects, not from measles itself but because their immune systems took such a hit that they weren’t healthy for several years after. 

I don’t know if doctors or researchers know why that happens or if they’re able to predict who might be so affected. Obviously, not everyone suffers this. 

I am not sure if that was common knowledge at any of the times that I dealt with measles and at least in my children's cases I did not observe this to be the case.  They were all extremely healthy for many years after getting the measles. Our first introduction to various contagious illness was when some of my children decided to go to school in middle school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

I think that the medical data before the vaccine was available was that it was a fairly benign disease. And I think when it first became available there was no thought that the vaccines themselves came with risks, so most parents though why not get the shot, it may help and there isn't really any danger to doing so. But now we know that there are some risks and it is possible that in this day and age there would be even less dangers in getting this disease. Even with this outbreak (not epidemic) they have been very few hospitalizations and only one death I believe. 

I am not absolutely anti-vaxx but this is not one I would pursue. To me it is in much the same category as chicken pox.

It wasn’t benign for everybody, and that’s why it was targeted for eradication. You know what’s better than a small percentage of people dying or having serious complications from a disease? Zero people getting the disease. Measles was a good candidate for eradication because it has only human vectors; it doesn’t transmit through animals or insects. 

The current outbreak is miniscule, in historic terms, but “few hospitalizations and only one death”? If it’s your kid who died or you had thousands of dollars in hospital bills for a preventable disease (a disease that could literally be erradicated if people wouldn’t opt out) would you still think it isn’t worth it? 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Quill said:

It wasn’t benign for everybody, and that’s why it was targeted for eradication. You know what’s better than a small percentage of people dying or having serious complications from a disease? Zero people getting the disease. Measles was a good candidate for eradication because it has only human vectors; it doesn’t transmit through animals or insects. 

The current outbreak is miniscule, in historic terms, but “few hospitalizations and only one death”? If it’s your kid who died or you had thousands of dollars in hospital bills for a preventable disease (a disease that could literally be erradicated if people wouldn’t opt out) would you still think it isn’t worth it? 

It is possible that I would feel differently but I would also feel terribly bad if my children suffered from a vaccine injury or death from a vaccine I authorized especially for a disease that I personally don't find very threatening. 

Edited by KidsHappen
left out a phrase
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

I am not sure if that was common knowledge at any of the times that I dealt with measles and at least in my children's cases I did not observe this to be the case.  They were all extremely healthy for many years after getting the measles. Our first introduction to various contagious illness was when some of my children decided to go to school in middle school.

Well, it was common knowledge at the time and places my grandmother taught (late ‘30s-60s, Texas and California during part of the war). So much so, that the teachers had post-measles plans for children who were affected. Obviously, this was well before various federal education initiatives. 

I’m not saying that everyone had this after effect of measles. I don’t know how many suffered this way. It might be an interesting epidemiological study to follow people who’ve had measles recently (say, the last 10 years maybe) and see how their general health was post-measles. I’m not sure how easy it would be to correlate outcomes today with pre-vaccine, quite difficult I would think. 

Anyway, it’s one of the factors that plays into my thinking. Along with the fact that rubella’s morbidity can be so high, especially for unborn babies & pregnant women. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Quill said:

It wasn’t benign for everybody, and that’s why it was targeted for eradication. You know what’s better than a small percentage of people dying or having serious complications from a disease? Zero people getting the disease. Measles was a good candidate for eradication because it has only human vectors; it doesn’t transmit through animals or insects. 

The current outbreak is miniscule, in historic terms, but “few hospitalizations and only one death”? If it’s your kid who died or you had thousands of dollars in hospital bills for a preventable disease (a disease that could literally be erradicated if people wouldn’t opt out) would you still think it isn’t worth it? 

AND it's the people who can't get vaccinated, the too sick and the too young, for whom the disease is not relatively benign! It's a respiratory disease that takes out your immune system. If you're healthy enough to consider it low-risk to get the actual disease, why not get the vaccine which is by far a lower risk to one's health and could save someone else's life?? smh

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

It is possible that I would feel differently but I would also feel terribly bad if my children suffered from a vaccine injury or death from a vaccine I authorized especially for a disease that I personally don't find very threatening. 

But if you're calculating risk, "vaccine injury" or death a far lower risk than health complications from the measles. If you don't find the disease threatening, why would you find the vaccine threatening at all when the risks are much lower?

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brehon said:

Anyway, it’s one of the factors that plays into my thinking. Along with the fact that rubella’s morbidity can be so high, especially for unborn babies & pregnant women. 

About this I do have one child that somehow missed out on all of the childhood diseases and at this point I am recommending the MMR and Chicken Pox for her before she gets pregnant because at this point the risk is worth it. She is unlikely to have a vaccine reaction and the disease could be catastrophic for an unborn child.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, brehon said:

Well, it was common knowledge at the time and places my grandmother taught (late ‘30s-60s, Texas and California during part of the war). So much so, that the teachers had post-measles plans for children who were affected. Obviously, this was well before various federal education initiatives. 

I’m not saying that everyone had this after effect of measles. I don’t know how many suffered this way. It might be an interesting epidemiological study to follow people who’ve had measles recently (say, the last 10 years maybe) and see how their general health was post-measles. I’m not sure how easy it would be to correlate outcomes today with pre-vaccine, quite difficult I would think. 

Anyway, it’s one of the factors that plays into my thinking. Along with the fact that rubella’s morbidity can be so high, especially for unborn babies & pregnant women. 

How effective is the rubella vaccine?  I read the Cochrane review summary and it seemed like the mmr was pretty effective for measles only 80percent for mumps and they didn’t have any data for rubella.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But if you're calculating risk, "vaccine injury" or death a far lower risk than health complications from the measles. If you don't find the disease threatening, why would you find the vaccine threatening at all when the risks are much lower?

I don't see vaccine injury or death as a far lower risk than the complications from the measles. There have been far more vaccine injuries or deaths in America in probably the last 30 years that injuries or deaths from the disease. My research is a little rusty and I am just brushing up on it again after having made the decisions I did almost 30 years ago now so I don't want to get into a whole big debate about why I find vaccines threatening but I can tell you that it has nothing to do with autism or Wakefield. He was at least six years in the future when I decided to forgo some vaccines.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But if you're calculating risk, "vaccine injury" or death a far lower risk than health complications from the measles. If you don't find the disease threatening, why would you find the vaccine threatening at all when the risks are much lower?

You state this like it's a fact. Do you have data on this? 

I think I saved it on my computer (on my phone now) but I read a study that looked at emergency rooms visits following the MMR vaccine and the numbers were pretty shocking. 

The MMR has been out for a number of years now, but we are still learning how it (and other vaccines) affects our immune systems. The MMR is one of several vaccines cultured on aborted fetal tissue. We inject DNA fragments into our bodies while trying to elicit an immune response.... Is that contributing to the rise in autoimmune disease. Current research on vaccines and autoimminity certainly points in that direction. It definitely deserves more study. So we're not even just looking at immediate risks of measles vs the MMR, but long-term risks. Are we trading childhood diseases for chronic illness?

We don't have all the answers whether you are for or against the MMR. But there are risks with either decision we make. And while we do know that certain people are more at risk of vaccine injury we actually don't currently know who those people are before they are vaccinated. So I fully support a parent's or an individual's right to decide for themselves.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, EmseB said:

AND it's the people who can't get vaccinated, the too sick and the too young, for whom the disease is not relatively benign! It's a respiratory disease that takes out your immune system. If you're healthy enough to consider it low-risk to get the actual disease, why not get the vaccine which is by far a lower risk to one's health and could save someone else's life?? smh

Because obviously I don't find the vaccine to be a much lower risk and my experiences have born this out for me personally. As far as other people, I was making health decisions for my children based on what I thought was in their best interest. I also don't understand the logic when people argue that I should expose my child to a risk I am uncomfortable with to protect their child. When people say that to me, I hear My child is more important than your child. That is not a convincing argument for me. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

About this I do have one child that somehow missed out on all of the childhood diseases and at this point I am recommending the MMR and Chicken Pox for her before she gets pregnant because at this point the risk is worth it. She is unlikely to have a vaccine reaction and the disease could be catastrophic for an unborn child.  

See, this is what gets me. You are right; if she is not immune to rubella and gets it while pregnant, it could be catastrophic for her baby. But for all these years that she’s been walking around not immune, it was possible for *her* to transmit it to *some other* pregnant woman, having catastrophic effects on that baby. Or you, if you were not immune. 

That was the point of putting it in a vaccine that 90+% of the population received. If most people are immune, it stops passing around and the harm of the disease in a population drops drastically. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

Because obviously I don't find the vaccine to be a much lower risk and my experiences have born this out for me personally. As far as other people, I was making health decisions for my children based on what I thought was in their best interest. I also don't understand the logic when people argue that I should expose my child to a risk I am uncomfortable with to protect their child. When people say that to me, I hear My child is more important than your child. That is not a convincing argument for me. 

I hear it exactly the opposite way. I hear it as privileged to say, “well, now that these diseases are much less prevalent, I’m not going to expose *MY* child to any risk from the vaccine.” That, to me, is saying my child is more important than your child. It’s benefiting from the immunity bought by millions of parents vaccinating their kids, without putting any small risk on your own kids. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quill said:

See, this is what gets me. You are right; if she is not immune to rubella and gets it while pregnant, it could be catastrophic for her baby. But for all these years that she’s been walking around not immune, it was possible for *her* to transmit it to *some other* pregnant woman, having catastrophic effects on that baby. Or you, if you were not immune. 

That was the point of putting it in a vaccine that 90+% of the population received. If most people are immune, it stops passing around and the harm of the disease in a population drops drastically. 

Which is where I am right now since the mumps part of the MMR is apparently not effective for me (I've had it at least twice and my titers for this pregnancy came back negative). And where my baby will be when it's born and can't get the mmr shot until they're a year old.

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Quill said:

See, this is what gets me. You are right; if she is not immune to rubella and gets it while pregnant, it could be catastrophic for her baby. But for all these years that she’s been walking around not immune, it was possible for *her* to transmit it to *some other* pregnant woman, having catastrophic effects on that baby. Or you, if you were not immune. 

That was the point of putting it in a vaccine that 90+% of the population received. If most people are immune, it stops passing around and the harm of the disease in a population drops drastically. 

Well if that woman was comfortable with vaccines then she should vaccinate to protect her unborn child and if not then she is in the same position I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Quill said:

I hear it exactly the opposite way. I hear it as privileged to say, “well, now that these diseases are much less prevalent, I’m not going to expose *MY* child to any risk from the vaccine.” That, to me, is saying my child is more important than your child. It’s benefiting from the immunity bought by millions of parents vaccinating their kids, without putting any small risk on your own kids. 

I see that the argument goes both ways. I am just not sure that people in that position also see this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

It is possible that I would feel differently but I would also feel terribly bad if my children suffered from a vaccine injury or death from a vaccine I authorized especially for a disease that I personally don't find very threatening. 

I don’t disagree with you; it is why I hesitated on vaccinating for several years. Statistically, though, we know the likelihood of a serious adverse vaccine reaction is small. It is much smaller than the risks from the diseases themselves if the child were to get the disease

IMO, this is something all the healthy members of society should be willing to risk so the health of the whole society can be better. Millions of people accepting the Smallpox vaccine made it so that, except for certain military or science personelle, nobody has to get the Smallpox vaccine anymore. 

As a society, we used to be more interested in the collective good. I can’t even imagine sugar rationing now. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many people in my parents generation think they had measles and it was mild but it was actually rubella "german measles" and they never had measles at all.

I ask because we got into a debate about how bad measles was at my grandmother's house and she was pretty quick to correct the idea that any of my aunts had ever had measles.  A couple of them were pretty sure they had.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

You state this like it's a fact. Do you have data on this? 

I think I saved it on my computer (on my phone now) but I read a study that looked at emergency rooms visits following the MMR vaccine and the numbers were pretty shocking. 

The MMR has been out for a number of years now, but we are still learning how it (and other vaccines) affects our immune systems. The MMR is one of several vaccines cultured on aborted fetal tissue. We inject DNA fragments into our bodies while trying to elicit an immune response.... Is that contributing to the rise in autoimmune disease. Current research on vaccines and autoimminity certainly points in that direction. It definitely deserves more study. So we're not even just looking at immediate risks of measles vs the MMR, but long-term risks. Are we trading childhood diseases for chronic illness?

We don't have all the answers whether you are for or against the MMR. But there are risks with either decision we make. And while we do know that certain people are more at risk of vaccine injury we actually don't currently know who those people are before they are vaccinated. So I fully support a parent's or an individual's right to decide for themselves.

Do we have data on whether getting a vaccine is more dangerous than getting a disease? The serious adverse event rate is about 1 out of a million, I think, but that's not necessarily deaths. Off hand, question 45 at this link (http://www.docbastard.net/2019/03/busting-vaccine-myths.html?m=1#q45) has some data (excuse the language in some other sections). But the only people I know who say injury or death is more likely with the vaccine cite VAERS data to "prove" their case, which in no way reflects accurate information about causation or even that what the person is reporting is in any way related to a vaccine.

Other than that, if vaccines were truly more dangerous than getting any given disease, the entire medical community from the CDC on down to your local pediatrician would be involved in poisoning the global population under the guise of public health. To what end?? Vaccines aren't even that profitable. If the disease was better for us, then pediatricians are seriously evil. The earth is not flat, we landed on the moon, and vaccines are not a conspiracy.

I'm about as pro life as they come. The aborted fetal tissue is a red herring. I would never support killing a baby to make vaccines. That is not what happened in the '60s or '70s or whenever it was. The docbastard link also has more specifics on this case. In any case, it's at least a conflict between a baby that was tragically killed decades ago and ended up being used for scientific research (not aborted *for* scientific research, which is a huge moral distinction) and putting pregnant women and unborn babies at risk *today*.

I fully support people's right to decide for themselves as well. I'm not going to advocate for forced vaccination. Once you decide not to vaccinate, however, I think you've opted out of some aspects of public life and putting others at risk. No, I don't think healthy unvaccinated kid should be allowed to attend public school, but I don't think they should be forced to be vaccinated against their parent's will.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

Well if that woman was comfortable with vaccines then she should vaccinate to protect her unborn child and if not then she is in the same position I am.

I am comfortable with vaccines. I got the MMR twice. The mumps component is ineffective for me. I am currently pregnant and relying on herd immunity to keep my baby safe from mumps. Mumps!!

So, no, I'm not in the same position you are and it's not that simple as just "get vaccinated". There's a reason it's a public health issue and not just an individual decision that only affects you or your own children. The people who suffer are the people who don't have a choice. Telling them to just get vaccinated belies a huge misunderstanding of the actual problem.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Katy said:

I wonder how many people in my parents generation think they had measles and it was mild but it was actually rubella "german measles" and they never had measles at all.

I ask because we got into a debate about how bad measles was at my grandmother's house and she was pretty quick to correct the idea that any of my aunts had ever had measles.  A couple of them were pretty sure they had.

Well as a child, my case (and brothers' and cousins') was diagnosed by a doctor. It was still considered a common childhood illness in those days the doctor was not in any way alarmed or worried. Same with my eldest dd. She was also diagnosed by a doctor about two or three months before she was due for the shot and it was still not terribly uncommon. My middle three were also diagnosed by doctor. It was at this point that I had one of my worse experiences with a medical practitioner. It was a very heated discussion and it was obvious that she really didn't know what she was talking about. She said things that were patently untrue in a effort to get my children immunize even though they already had the measles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I am comfortable with vaccines. I got the MMR twice. The mumps component is ineffective for me. I am currently pregnant and relying on herd immunity to keep my baby safe from mumps. Mumps!!

So, no, I'm not in the same position you are and it's not that simple as just "get vaccinated". There's a reason it's a public health issue and not just an individual decision that only affects you or your own children. The people who suffer are the people who don't have a choice. Telling them to just get vaccinated belies a huge misunderstanding of the actual problem.

I don't believe "just get vaccinated" is simple for anyone and I think I have a very good understanding of the problem. I have spent years researching the issue and I mean in actual medical libraries years before the internet. I came into this fully understanding that should my children contract a vaccine preventable disease that it would be my responsibility to quarantine them for the duration of their illness. But I also know that if I myself or my children were medically fragile I would also be quarantining them instead of trusting that everyone I was exposed to was vaccinated because that's just not going to happen. Anti-Vaxxers are between 1-2 percent of the population. That leaves a larger pool of that are unvaccinated for other reason and unfortunately you could just as easily be exposed to one of them

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KidsHappen said:

I think that the medical data before the vaccine was available was that it was a fairly benign disease. And I think when it first became available there was no thought that the vaccines themselves came with risks, so most parents though why not get the shot, it may help and there isn't really any danger to doing so. But now we know that there are some risks and it is possible that in this day and age there would be even less dangers in getting this disease. Even with this outbreak (not epidemic) they have been very few hospitalizations and only one death I believe. 

I am not absolutely anti-vaxx but this is not one I would pursue. To me it is in much the same category as chicken pox.

Hospitalization rate of measles per CDC is about 1 in 4 kids in ages less than 5 and older than 20.  Data up to mid 1980’s.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

Chicken pox hospitalization rate was about 0.5 per 10,000, early 1990’s. 

Eta - sorry link didn’t report but this was the article 🙂

download?doi=10.1.1.518.8323&rep=rep1&ty

Edited by displace
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Do we have data on whether getting a vaccine is more dangerous than getting a disease? The serious adverse event rate is about 1 out of a million, I think, but that's not necessarily deaths. Off hand, question 45 at this link (http://www.docbastard.net/2019/03/busting-vaccine-myths.html?m=1#q45) has some data (excuse the language in some other sections). But the only people I know who say injury or death is more likely with the vaccine cite VAERS data to "prove" their case, which in no way reflects accurate information about causation or even that what the person is reporting is in any way related to a vaccine.

Other than that, if vaccines were truly more dangerous than getting any given disease, the entire medical community from the CDC on down to your local pediatrician would be involved in poisoning the global population under the guise of public health. To what end?? Vaccines aren't even that profitable. If the disease was better for us, then pediatricians are seriously evil. The earth is not flat, we landed on the moon, and vaccines are not a conspiracy.

I'm about as pro life as they come. The aborted fetal tissue is a red herring. I would never support killing a baby to make vaccines. That is not what happened in the '60s or '70s or whenever it was. The docbastard link also has more specifics on this case. In any case, it's at least a conflict between a baby that was tragically killed decades ago and ended up being used for scientific research (not aborted *for* scientific research, which is a huge moral distinction) and putting pregnant women and unborn babies at risk *today*.

I fully support people's right to decide for themselves as well. I'm not going to advocate for forced vaccination. Once you decide not to vaccinate, however, I think you've opted out of some aspects of public life and putting others at risk. No, I don't think healthy unvaccinated kid should be allowed to attend public school, but I don't think they should be forced to be vaccinated against their parent's will.

I am not talking about just death or serious injury though either from the vaccine or the disease itself. We also have a growing body of research showing how vaccines negatively effect our immune systems. We're not talking about just "am I going to die from measles" vs "am I going to die from the MMR."  There is a lot of research pointing to vaccines contributing to the rise in autoimmune diseases. We have a history of autoimmune disease in my family. My decision on whether or not to get the MMR for me or my children isn't quite so clear cut. Am I going to trade what *could* be a mild childhood illness for a something requiring lifelong medication or care? Or would my kid be the one who ended up with complications from measles, but never an autoimmune disease? Right now, we don't know. But those are decisions that individuals need to decide, based on their personal health histories, without being shamed by others for not contributing to "herd immunity." 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Do we have data on whether getting a vaccine is more dangerous than getting a disease? The serious adverse event rate is about 1 out of a million, I think, but that's not necessarily deaths. Off hand, question 45 at this link (http://www.docbastard.net/2019/03/busting-vaccine-myths.html?m=1#q45) has some data (excuse the language in some other sections). But the only people I know who say injury or death is more likely with the vaccine cite VAERS data to "prove" their case, which in no way reflects accurate information about causation or even that what the person is reporting is in any way related to a vaccine.

Other than that, if vaccines were truly more dangerous than getting any given disease, the entire medical community from the CDC on down to your local pediatrician would be involved in poisoning the global population under the guise of public health. To what end?? Vaccines aren't even that profitable. If the disease was better for us, then pediatricians are seriously evil. The earth is not flat, we landed on the moon, and vaccines are not a conspiracy.

I'm about as pro life as they come. The aborted fetal tissue is a red herring. I would never support killing a baby to make vaccines. That is not what happened in the '60s or '70s or whenever it was. The docbastard link also has more specifics on this case. In any case, it's at least a conflict between a baby that was tragically killed decades ago and ended up being used for scientific research (not aborted *for* scientific research, which is a huge moral distinction) and putting pregnant women and unborn babies at risk *today*.

I fully support people's right to decide for themselves as well. I'm not going to advocate for forced vaccination. Once you decide not to vaccinate, however, I think you've opted out of some aspects of public life and putting others at risk. No, I don't think healthy unvaccinated kid should be allowed to attend public school, but I don't think they should be forced to be vaccinated against their parent's will.

I don't think it is a conspiracy. I don't think anyone is purposely trying to harm anyone. I simply believe that their knowledge is incomplete much as was the case with tobacco or mercury fillings. And I think it is very difficult to get complete answers right now because no one is willing to the research in the current climate. 

Also I am perfectly fine with unvaccinated children being denied access to public school or perhaps if they have a big enough population of non-vaxxers a special school for just them. But once again I have to say if I was the parent of a medically fragile child I would be doing my best to keep my child safe and secluded instead of trusting society to do it for me.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for mumps, that portion of the MMR has been notoriously ineffective. It's why you often hear about outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. It's why there's a naval ship stuck at sea because they are having a mumps outbreak, despite being the most vaccinated people on the planet.

Edited by DesertBlossom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, EmseB said:
30 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

I don't believe "just get vaccinated" is simple for anyone and I think I have a very good understanding of the problem.

 

I quoted you directly where you said this:

Well if that woman was comfortable with vaccines then she should vaccinate to protect her unborn child

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I quoted you directly where you said this:

Well if that woman was comfortable with vaccines then she should vaccinate to protect her unborn child

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent. 

In that post there was no indication that the woman could not get the immunization only that she did not have them. That's why I said she could get one if she wanted. I never understood it to be a case where she couldn't get one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

As for mumps, that portion of the MMR has been notoriously ineffective. It's why you often hear about outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. It's why there's a naval ship stuck at sea because they are having a mumps outbreak, despite being the most vaccinated people on the planet.

But am I right that it's less than 30 people sick out of 700ish on board? Like less than 5% getting sick? My math or facts could be wrong because I actually thought the mumps vaccine efficacy was lower than that, so that is surprisingly good news, IMO. And a good illustration of vaccine effectiveness. Those poor sailors, though. Sick or not quarantined at sea would suck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

 

48 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

I am not talking about just death or serious injury though either from the vaccine or the disease itself. We also have a growing body of research showing how vaccines negatively effect our immune systems. We're not talking about just "am I going to die from measles" vs "am I going to die from the MMR."  There is a lot of research pointing to vaccines contributing to the rise in autoimmune diseases. We have a history of autoimmune disease in my family. My decision on whether or not to get the MMR for me or my children isn't quite so clear cut. Am I going to trade what *could* be a mild childhood illness for a something requiring lifelong medication or care? Or would my kid be the one who ended up with complications from measles, but never an autoimmune disease? Right now, we don't know. But those are decisions that individuals need to decide, based on their personal health histories, without being shamed by others for not contributing to "herd immunity." 

 

Does getting the measles itself cause autoimmune issues at a higher or lower rate than the vaccine?

ETA: I don't know why it's quoting two people. My editor is wonky.

Edited by EmseB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

In that post there was no indication that the woman could not get the immunization only that she did not have them. That's why I said she could get one if she wanted. I never understood it to be a case where she couldn't get one. 

A woman who is pregnant and not immune, for whatever reason, cannot get the vaccine while pregnant. That was the indication.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 2:48 PM, brehon said:

To me, it’s not the mortality of measles; it’s the morbidity. My grandmother and mom, both of whom had measles at early ages, were school teachers who saw otherwise healthy children suffer devastating effects, not from measles itself but because their immune systems took such a hit that they weren’t healthy for several years after. 

I don’t know if doctors or researchers know why that happens or if they’re able to predict who might be so affected. Obviously, not everyone suffers this. 

I posted a link to an article that talked about how the very first thing measles does - is attack immune memory cells.  it uses/destroys them in its own replication process.  then as more immune cells are sent to attack the measles cell - those are taken out too.  so, the immune memory is gone, and they found it takes 24 - 36 months to reestablish.

there is no way to predict who will suffer a wiped out immune system.

anyone who thinks the vaccine is worse than the disease is a complete fool.  there's a reason it was among the first childhood diseases targeted to develop a vaccine.  and that was before they had any clue in understanding the mechanism of how it wipes damages the immune system.

Edited by gardenmom5
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EmseB said:

A woman who is pregnant and not immune, for whatever reason, cannot get the vaccine while pregnant. That was the indication.

In that case I would say that if a woman believes in vaccines then it is her responsibility to get the immunization before she gets pregnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

anyone who thinks the disease is worse than this vaccine is a complete fool.  

I think you meant anyone who thinks the vaccine  is worse than the disease.  In any case, sure I maybe a fool but I find it strange that I appear to be one of the very few people on this board who has actually dealt with measle (on three different occasions) and my experiences bore out my beliefs and yet so many people who have never seen measles are arguing that my experiences were not valid. My children had measles. They are immune and contributing to the herd immunity. And I am extremely grateful that I live in a country where I am free to make the medical decisions that I feel are best for me and my family. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

In that case I would say that if a woman believes in vaccines then it is her responsibility to get the immunization before she gets pregnant.

I did. Twice. I am not immune to mumps because mumps vaccine efficacy is about 90% effective. I'm in the lucky 10% that is totally reliant on herd immunity against mumps to keep my baby healthy and alive. Quill's hypothetical could have been directly about me.

While the risk of me encountering mumps is low, I live in a state where vaccine compliance, especially mmr, is relatively low.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I did. Twice. I am not immune to mumps because mumps vaccine efficacy is about 90% effective. I'm in the lucky 10% that is totally reliant on herd immunity against mumps to keep my baby healthy and alive. Quill's hypothetical could have been directly about me.

While the risk of me encountering mumps is low, I live in a state where vaccine compliance, especially mmr, is relatively low.

I totally feel for your plight. One of my girls has already been in the same situation and to tell you the truth I really don't know what the answer is. I guess each person just has to do what is best for them and that is all they can do. I took medical ethics in collage and one thing I know for sure is that it is not ethical to force someone to assume some risk against their will for the sake of another person. You can't take someone's kidney because you need one and they can live just fine without it even if you think that it is low risk for the other person. That is not your decision to make. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

I totally feel for your plight. One of my girls has already been in the same situation and to tell you the truth I really don't know what the answer is. I guess each person just has to do what is best for them and that is all they can do. I took medical ethics in collage and one thing I know for sure is that it is not ethical to force someone to assume some risk against their will for the sake of another person. You can't take someone's kidney because you need one and they can live just fine without it even if you think that it is low risk for the other person. That is not your decision to make. 

Okay, if we're comparing forced organ donation to vaccination I don't think this can possibly be a profitable discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EmseB said:

Okay, if we're comparing forced organ donation to vaccination I don't think this can possibly be a profitable discussion.

Honestly, what would you consider a profitable discussion?  I am earnestly asking. What is your hopeful outcome? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...