Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

measles - again

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, KidsHappen said:

Well, I made it a habit NOT to take my children out and about when they were sick even if it was just a common cold and I would hope that other parents who chose not to vaccinate would be just as responsible.

That’s commendable, but IMO, not common. For one thing, some parents are simply not in a position to self-quarantine their sick kids. They have to go to work (or whatever). That’s why daycare centers are like giant balls of snot throughout the winter. 

More graciously, though, sometimes I have had a kid come down with something *while* we were out. They seemed fine when we left the house but now they have developed symptoms. I mean, I don’t really see how a mom with a pack of kids could possibly be alert at any moment to a developing illness and could/would whisk the family home the moment she noticed one is sneezy and has watery eyes. 

With measles, the recent exposure in my state, and which is common, was at a doctor’s office, because (I presume) the parent took the sick child to the doctor, where he was positively identified as having measles. So I don’t really know how we could expect people not to take their sick kids to the doctor. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That’s commendable, but IMO, not common. For one thing, some parents are simply not in a position to self-quarantine their sick kids. They have to go to work (or whatever). That’s why daycare centers are like giant balls of snot throughout the winter. 

More graciously, though, sometimes I have had a kid come down with something *while* we were out. They seemed fine when we left the house but now they have developed symptoms. I mean, I don’t really see how a mom with a pack of kids could possibly be alert at any moment to a developing illness and could/would whisk the family home the moment she noticed one is sneezy and has watery eyes. 

With measles, the recent exposure in my state, and which is common, was at a doctor’s office, because (I presume) the parent took the sick child to the doctor, where he was positively identified as having measles. So I don’t really know how we could expect people not to take their sick kids to the doctor. 

 

Although if the kid was suspected of having measles they should have been placed in an isolation room as soon as they walked in the door.  Of course is no one realises that’s what it was it’s understandable.

I must admit this is one reason I tend to be slow to head to the doctor with my kids - so many times we go in for one thing and come out with something else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That’s commendable, but IMO, not common. For one thing, some parents are simply not in a position to self-quarantine their sick kids. They have to go to work (or whatever). That’s why daycare centers are like giant balls of snot throughout the winter. 

More graciously, though, sometimes I have had a kid come down with something *while* we were out. They seemed fine when we left the house but now they have developed symptoms. I mean, I don’t really see how a mom with a pack of kids could possibly be alert at any moment to a developing illness and could/would whisk the family home the moment she noticed one is sneezy and has watery eyes. 

With measles, the recent exposure in my state, and which is common, was at a doctor’s office, because (I presume) the parent took the sick child to the doctor, where he was positively identified as having measles. So I don’t really know how we could expect people not to take their sick kids to the doctor. 

 

Well I am almost positive that my kids got the measles at the doctor's office probably from someone that didn't know that is what their children had but when I took my children in I called ahead of time to alert them and then they seperated us when we arrived. I do feel that when you choose not to vaccinate you have to be extra villegent and take extra precautions and luckily I was in a position to do that. I was a stay at home mom and I only took my children out when I was absolutely sure they were healthy which in our case was fairly easy to do because for the most part my children rarely got sick when they were young. 

But I do understand how that can happen. Recently we went to visit my gs and he was fine when we arrived and the developed a runny nose while we were there and it ended up being a virus that wiped the entire family out for about two weeks. Obviously we did our very best to contain it to our family but yes two of about 12 had to work. Luckily they were also the two that were least effected maybe because they had stronger immune systems from being more exposed than the rest of us. So I do see your point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I have a question. Someone mentioned Dr. Sears as being unreliable. I was under the impression that he was not anti-vaxx but more pro selective and delayed vaxx instead. That seems like a reasonable position to me. So I am curious what the problem with him is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 4:40 PM, 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.

I agree. There are risks with the illness and risks with the shots. Measles used to be considered a normal childhood illness. It was featured in books and TV shows as normal childhood illnesses like the chicken pox. Now, I hear from young parents who grew up with the chicken pox shot that it is deadly and children who get it will be scarred for life. It scars the lungs even and throat and kills. I think people confuse Chicken Pox with Small Pox. Fact is, once a pharmaceutical invents something, they have a marketing campaign and those marketing campaigns make it sound like a child will surely die if not vaccinated. Oh, and vaccinations are risk free. I notice when we go to the ped now, we are never given a list of risks like we used to many years ago. We do not do the MMR because it is embryo derived and we are prolife. But I also do not think the shot is safer than the illness.

Edited by Janeway
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 4:33 PM, 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.

 

On 4/15/2019 at 6:12 PM, 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.

 

What do you think the likelihood of your baby dying from mumps is?

Even if this were 1965 or so and people weren’t getting mumps vaccinations yet, what do you think the chances of your baby dying from mumps would be?

 

And in regard to the other post I quoted, do you really think vaccinations are more important than food?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 8:26 AM, EmseB said:

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.

 

Have you heard of the us versus Merck and Co court case.  Apparently a couple of employees of Merck are suing the company because of the way they produced the test results that supposedly state the mumps part of the vaccine is 95 pc effective

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/merck-mumps-motions-whistleblowers-the-actual-story/

the link I’m posting is a pro vaccination site because I don’t want you to dismiss it as a rubbish anti vax story.

Basically they claim that they tested the vaccine using the modified virus not the actual wild type virus.  Among other stuff.

not an argument against vaccination in general but does raise questions.  It’s possible that there is a better more reliable mumps vaccine out there that never ended up being marketed because they made it look like their vaccine was more effective than it was discouraging competitors from continuing their research and development.  

Another study that is very small is looking at whether or not the germ load makes a difference to how effective the vaccine is.  So like your measles vaccine might be effective against you contracting it from a shopping trolley handle but not if a measles affected person sneezes in your face.  It’s a very preliminary kind of thing indicating the need for more research.

which raises another thing I’ve been thinking about.  While there are an awful lot of very surface level anti vaccination parents the vaccine questioning voice from some of the more educated people may actually serve a useful purpose in some sense.  By asking questions and raising issues they are going to constantly identify any flaws in the research or any potential for waning effectiveness.  (Like something ive been wondering is it possible for the viruses etc to modify slightly and become resistant to the current version?). 

False and misinformation spreading is probably harmful but being willing to continue asking questions instead of accept the status quo could ultimately result in improvements.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

 

What do you think the likelihood of your baby dying from mumps is?

Even if this were 1965 or so and people weren’t getting mumps vaccinations yet, what do you think the chances of your baby dying from mumps would be?

 

And in regard to the other post I quoted, do you really think vaccinations are more important than food?

I think the likelihood of my baby having a complication due to mumps is higher than if I or s/he doesn't get the mumps. I think death is pretty darn rare, but I'd rather avoid all infectious diseases while pregnant or when I have a newborn infant, especially those that are preventable by a shot that mathematically/scientifically carries less risk than the disease itself. Meningitis in general scares the crap out of me to be honest, maybe unreasonably so, but in infants in particular. And in pregnancy in particular. AFAIK, mumps was a leading cause of meningitis in kids pre-vaccine.

In regard to the other quote, you pulled it out of context completely. If you go back and read the entire paragraph and conversation it was was about not vaccinating all kids in a family because one child had a reaction to a vaccine. I was saying that if I had one kid who had a reaction to a vaccine, I would not stop vaccinating the other three who had no reactions. The comparison I made was that just because one of my kids was allergic to dairy, I still let my other kids drink milk (a real scenario in my house). The quote you pulled was acknowledging that letting the other kids have milk was trivial compared to getting the other kids vaccinated. Thus in that particular case, the particular food is much more trivial of an issue than vaccines. I'm sure my explanation is far more convoluted than the original conversation, but if the statement is made without any context, in a vacuum, no, I don't think vaccines are more important than food. My point was that making sure my non-allergic kids got milk was far less important to me than making sure my hypothetical non-reactive kids would get their vaccines. Clear as mud, lol?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the risk with mumps was more to do with infertility and hearing damage etc than infant death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 

Have you heard of the us versus Merck and Co court case.  Apparently a couple of employees of Merck are suing the company because of the way they produced the test results that supposedly state the mumps part of the vaccine is 95 pc effective

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/merck-mumps-motions-whistleblowers-the-actual-story/

the link I’m posting is a pro vaccination site because I don’t want you to dismiss it as a rubbish anti vax story.

Basically they claim that they tested the vaccine using the modified virus not the actual wild type virus.  Among other stuff.

not an argument against vaccination in general but does raise questions.  It’s possible that there is a better more reliable mumps vaccine out there that never ended up being marketed because they made it look like their vaccine was more effective than it was discouraging competitors from continuing their research and development.  

Another study that is very small is looking at whether or not the germ load makes a difference to how effective the vaccine is.  So like your measles vaccine might be effective against you contracting it from a shopping trolley handle but not if a measles affected person sneezes in your face.  It’s a very preliminary kind of thing indicating the need for more research.

which raises another thing I’ve been thinking about.  While there are an awful lot of very surface level anti vaccination parents the vaccine questioning voice from some of the more educated people may actually serve a useful purpose in some sense.  By asking questions and raising issues they are going to constantly identify any flaws in the research or any potential for waning effectiveness.  (Like something ive been wondering is it possible for the viruses etc to modify slightly and become resistant to the current version?). 

False and misinformation spreading is probably harmful but being willing to continue asking questions instead of accept the status quo could ultimately result in improvements.

I read that skepticalraptor link today, actually. I think if someone falsified data they should go to jail. I don't even really know what else to say about it.

But to your other points, I don't really know why there's an idea out there that vaccines aren't being researched and trying to be improved all the time. I don't know why there is an impression that scientists and doctors aren't asking questions and trying to make things better. The earlier example of the pertussis vax is a good one. The whole cell vaccine produced more febrile seizures (6-10 cases/100,000 is what I think I read), so they developed an acelluar vax and stopped using the whole cell because there was less chance of febrile seizures. Then they discovered the acellular wasn't as effective so they have been researching why and how ever since in order to make it better. The baboon study was part of that. Another example is that we give many more vaccines now than in the 1980s and yet newer and more effective vaccines have been developed so there are actually less antigens going into a kid's body in total for all vaccines now than in the '80s.

It is not just anti-vax people prodding this research or questions or whatever. If I were in a position to blow the whistle on some vaccine manufacturer that I thought was lying about their vax, I would blow the whistle. Pro-vax people want the most effective, safest, best vaccines that science can come up with. They want more research. No one that I have read about is interested in the status quo. But also, whenever a new vax comes out, anti-vaxxers claim that we're already giving too many. If an improved vaccine comes out, they use that as proof that the previous vaccine was dangerous and "they" are just now admitting it by coming out with something new that is less dangerous! If they are so safe, why do they keep updating or changing? It's a no-win scenario as far as I can see.

I think there are unethical scientists out there who can be protectionist jerks, but for the most part, I think in general they are working to find the next big cure or help to fight disease.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I thought the risk with mumps was more to do with infertility and hearing damage etc than infant death?

I know it effects older people differently. And males and females differently. I could have sworn reading there was a meningitis link in the younger population. Maybe I'm thinking of rubella?

I'm not too keen on my kid being deaf or infertile either if it's avoidable, but I'd prefer it to death I guess.  (sorry, getting snarky over dark stuff. It is late here. I have been reading too many papers today)

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EmseB said:

I know it effects older people differently. And males and females differently. I could have sworn reading there was a meningitis link in the younger population. Maybe I'm thinking of rubella?

I'm not too keen on my kid being deaf or infertile either if it's avoidable, but I'd prefer it to death I guess.  (sorry, getting snarky over dark stuff. It is late here.)

You may be right.  I agree risk of infertility or deafness is a good reason to vaccinate. We don’t just vaccinate to prevent deaths!  I just don’t know much about the mumps virus beyond that.

and I thought the main issue was pregnancy risk with rubella?  But again I don’t know if that’s the only issue.  I actually had rubella as a kid before getting the vaccine and every time I’ve had it checked I seem to have life long immunity thankfully.  Other friends haven’t been so lucky and discovered when they were pregnant that they didn’t have immunity any more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know it effects older people differently. And males and females differently. I could have sworn reading there was a meningitis link in the younger population. Maybe I'm thinking of rubella?

I'm not too keen on my kid being deaf or infertile either if it's avoidable, but I'd prefer it to death I guess.  (sorry, getting snarky over dark stuff. It is late here. I have been reading too many papers today)

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mumps/complications/

there you go I found it for you 

it can cause viral meningitis but apparently it’s low risk more like flu not life threatening like bacterial meningitis.  The most serious risk is encephalitis which is 1 in 1000

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

You may be right.  I agree risk of infertility or deafness is a good reason to vaccinate. We don’t just vaccinate to prevent deaths!  I just don’t know much about the mumps virus beyond that.

and I thought the main issue was pregnancy risk with rubella?  But again I don’t know if that’s the only issue.  I actually had rubella as a kid before getting the vaccine and every time I’ve had it checked I seem to have life long immunity thankfully.  Other friends haven’t been so lucky and discovered when they were pregnant that they didn’t have immunity any more.

I will also admit that I am a huge wimp and worrywart about getting sick whilst pg. I had a slight fever for a couple days when I was 9 weeks and my mental health plummets right along with my physical health. There are a lot of illnesses I can't prevent from spreading because I have four kids and despite being homeschooled they still somehow have a lot of friends 😉 that carry germs. So I get a bit more passionate about germs that could be limited but aren't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will also admit that I am a huge wimp and worrywart about getting sick whilst pg. I had a slight fever for a couple days when I was 9 weeks and my mental health plummets right along with my physical health. There are a lot of illnesses I can't prevent from spreading because I have four kids and despite being homeschooled they still somehow have a lot of friends 😉 that carry germs. So I get a bit more passionate about germs that could be limited but aren't.

Yeah I hear you.  There was a listeria outbreak when I was pregnant with my first and I was pretty paranoid about food after that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mumps/complications/

there you go I found it for you 

it can cause viral meningitis but apparently it’s low risk more like flu not life threatening like bacterial meningitis.  The most serious risk is encephalitis which is 1 in 1000

So that link is really interesting. At least for babies, here in the states, I've never heard it suggested that any type of meningitis is anything less than hospital worthy. But the NHS link says:

Unlike bacterial meningitis, which is regarded as a potentially life-threatening medical emergency, viral meningitis causes milder, flu-like symptoms, and the risk of serious complications is low.

Sensitivity to light, neck stiffness and headaches are common symptoms of viral meningitis. These usually pass within 14 days.

I mean, I've always checked for neck pain/stiffness in my kids when they get sick with a fever because I've been told by medical people that is a "come to the hospital right away and we'll likely give a spinal tap" sort of thing, and for babies, even if it's viral, they are not going to send them home to recover on their own. Whether or not it's viral or bacterial, they'd be admitting an infant with meningitis at least for a little while. But that link kinda makes it seem like if you get meningitis from the mumps is no big deal. I wonder if that is cultural or I've been mistaken about what I think meningitis is?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Also I have a question. Someone mentioned Dr. Sears as being unreliable. I was under the impression that he was not anti-vaxx but more pro selective and delayed vaxx instead. That seems like a reasonable position to me. So I am curious what the problem with him is?

If you mean the author of The Vaccine Book, Dr. Robert Sears, you are correct that he is not completely anti-vax. (For full disclosure, I selectively and delayed vaxxed two of my kids, so understand I’m not coming from some lofty position of a person who followed the CDC schedule to the letter. But if I had a new baby today, I would follow it pretty much to the letter.) 

The problem with Sears’ book is that it promulgates numerous misleading or outright deceptions that are seized upon by anti-vaxxers, or even those in the more “reasonable” category of delay/selectively vax. There are tons of inaccuracies in his book. His altered vaccine schedule is based on many inaccuracies. I have heard anti-vaxxers cite precisely this misinformation.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EmseB said:

So that link is really interesting. At least for babies, here in the states, I've never heard it suggested that any type of meningitis is anything less than hospital worthy. But the NHS link says:

Unlike bacterial meningitis, which is regarded as a potentially life-threatening medical emergency, viral meningitis causes milder, flu-like symptoms, and the risk of serious complications is low.

Sensitivity to light, neck stiffness and headaches are common symptoms of viral meningitis. These usually pass within 14 days.

I mean, I've always checked for neck pain/stiffness in my kids when they get sick with a fever because I've been told by medical people that is a "come to the hospital right away and we'll likely give a spinal tap" sort of thing, and for babies, even if it's viral, they are not going to send them home to recover on their own. Whether or not it's viral or bacterial, they'd be admitting an infant with meningitis at least for a little while. But that link kinda makes it seem like if you get meningitis from the mumps is no big deal. I wonder if that is cultural or I've been mistaken about what I think meningitis is?

I've read stuff on the NHS site over the years.  I wouldn't take anything they say as good medicine.  *especially* their advice on TIA's....

my parents both had meningitis when there was an  outbreak here (I think in the early 40s).  my maternal grandmother is the "doctors are gods" type, who immediately dragged her in for treatment.  my father - his mother was a nurse, so she could take care of it at home... he had permanent damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EmseB said:

I know it effects older people differently. And males and females differently. I could have sworn reading there was a meningitis link in the younger population. Maybe I'm thinking of rubella?

I'm not too keen on my kid being deaf or infertile either if it's avoidable, but I'd prefer it to death I guess.  (sorry, getting snarky over dark stuff. It is late here. I have been reading too many papers today)

From what I understand, the risk of infertility is for adult men who get mumps. That's one concern I have about the ineffectiveness of the mumps portion of the MMR. The vaccine protects children, who are least likely to suffer complications from mumps, and then over time the effectiveness wanes, leaving adults more vulnerable  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think the likelihood of my baby having a complication due to mumps is higher than if I or s/he doesn't get the mumps. I think death is pretty darn rare, but I'd rather avoid all infectious diseases while pregnant or when I have a newborn infant, especially those that are preventable by a shot that mathematically/scientifically carries less risk than the disease itself. Meningitis in general scares the crap out of me to be honest, maybe unreasonably so, but in infants in particular. And in pregnancy in particular. AFAIK, mumps was a leading cause of meningitis in kids pre-vaccine.

In regard to the other quote, you pulled it out of context completely. If you go back and read the entire paragraph and conversation it was was about not vaccinating all kids in a family because one child had a reaction to a vaccine. I was saying that if I had one kid who had a reaction to a vaccine, I would not stop vaccinating the other three who had no reactions. The comparison I made was that just because one of my kids was allergic to dairy, I still let my other kids drink milk (a real scenario in my house). The quote you pulled was acknowledging that letting the other kids have milk was trivial compared to getting the other kids vaccinated. Thus in that particular case, the particular food is much more trivial of an issue than vaccines. I'm sure my explanation is far more convoluted than the original conversation, but if the statement is made without any context, in a vacuum, no, I don't think vaccines are more important than food. My point was that making sure my non-allergic kids got milk was far less important to me than making sure my hypothetical non-reactive kids would get their vaccines. Clear as mud, lol?

 

 

There’s obviously a higher chance of a baby having a complication from an illness than from no illness.  However, afaik the risk of a baby having a serious complication from, much less a fatality from mumps is extremely low.  

Far, far lower than risks from car crash or other accidents.

Not sure risk rate as compared to chance of being struck by lightning.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mumps/complications/

 

Some quotes from above:

“Mumps and pregnancy

In the past it was thought developing mumps during pregnancy increased the risk of miscarriage, but there's little evidence to support this.”

Viral meningitis

Viral meningitis can occur if the mumps virus spreads into the outer protective layer of the brain (the meninges). It occurs in about 1 in 7 cases of mumps. 

Unlike bacterial meningitis, which is regarded as a potentially life-threatening medical emergency, viral meningitis causes milder, flu-like symptoms, and the risk of serious complications is low.

Sensitivity to light, neck stiffness and headaches are common symptoms of viral meningitis. These usually pass within 14 days.”

———

 

Encephalitis complication from mumps can be fatal, but is extremely rare—so putting together rarity of mumps in babies times rarity of fatality from mumps, there are certainly many things that will pose much higher risks for your dc.  

 

precaution to avoid group settings where mumps or any number of non-VPD s could be present to infect you and your child with mumps or anything else, could be protective.  That is, to rely on your own keeping away from situations likely to have a person who might be sick, could protect against all sorts of illness—rather than counting on herd immunity at a vulnerable time.  Many illnesses have neither a vaccine, nor immunity for life after an infection. 

 

If only 90% of people who get mmr are protected from mumps, even if 100% of people get mmr vaccination, you still cannot be certain your dc won’t get mumps.   There have been outbreaks in groups with high vaccination rates iirc.  Such as colleges or military where everyone is supposed to have mmr. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

I've read stuff on the NHS site over the years.  I wouldn't take anything they say as good medicine.  *especially* their advice on TIA's....

my parents both had meningitis when there was an  outbreak here (I think in the early 40s).  my maternal grandmother is the "doctors are gods" type, who immediately dragged her in for treatment.  my father - his mother was a nurse, so she could take care of it at home... he had permanent damage. 

 

From what type of meningitis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May 18, 1918

MUMPS MENINGITIS

JAMA. 1918;70(20):1448-1449. doi:10.1001/jama.1918.02600200014005
 
 
Abstract

The most frequent complication seen in mumps is orchitis. The rarer complications are meningitis, encephalitis, neuritis, ovaritis, endocarditis, arthritis, nephritis, mastitis and vulvovaginitis. The complications appear in most instances in from four to seven days.

The meningitis of mumps is very little known. There is mention of 150 cases, although I have not been able to find more than thirty described, most of them appearing in an article by Acker,1 in which two of his own cases are reported. During some epidemics, there appear to be more meningeal complications than in others. As most patients recover after a few days' illness, it is very probable that the meningeal condition is lost sight of, particularly in the milder cases. This very likely accounts for the fact that so few cases are on record and that so little is known of this complication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read several different places that for children, approximately 1 in 3 children who get mumps will have no symptoms at all. This is one of those diseases that seems to be less severe for young children.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 11:15 PM, DesertBlossom said:

Mortality rates have decreased for a lot of reasons besides just vaccines. Kids were dying of all sorts of diseases we don't vaccinate for but they aren't today. In fact, mortality rates for even the VPDs were in serious decline before their respective vaccines were introduced. Scarlett fever, which we have never vaccinated for, killed a lot of kids. But mortality rates for Scarlett fever dropped dramatically even before widespread use of antibiotics. 

We owe a lot to improved sanitation, nutrition and medical care. Not to say vaccines haven't done anything, but they are certainly given more credit than they deserve. Children that were dying of VPDs 150 years ago would not be dying today thanks to improved nutrition and medical care. 

While we have worked to eliminate these childhood illnesses, we've also seen a dramatic rise in chronic illnesses, including autoimmune diseases. I think there are a lot of reasons for that, and I won't pretend to blame it on any one thing, but from the research I have read, vaccines are certainly contributing to the problem.

The CDC's website contains a warning for people with immune system problems (I can't remember their exact wording) with regards to getting the MMRV. This is not some fringe science, but a growing awareness that vaccines come with unintended side effects. 

I have said this before, but the loudest and usually most well-researched voices coming from the anti-vaxxers (or more appropriately named ex-vaxxers) are parents who followed the CDC schedule and watched their children suffer because of it. I have been doing vaccine research since before my oldest was born. There was research then linking vaccines to autoimmune diseases. But I went along, believing I had a societal responsibility to contribute and to vaccinate my kids. Then when my 23 month old developed an autoimmune disease it totally changed my perspective for ME and for MY FAMILY. At that point I wasn't trying to make decisions based on hypothetical what-ifs.  Regardless of whatever caused my daughter to have an autoimmune response, it effects the way I make future decisions. Once you have one autoimmune disease you are statistically more likely to develop another.  So do I keep rolling those dice again and again with vaccines knowing what I know about how they effect the immune system? It's a really hard decision.

8

The warning is for people like me (on immunosuppressants), and people like a friend of mine (born with hardly any immune system).  It has to do with that the MMRV vaccine is a live vaccine.  if people taking immunosuppressants or having AIDS or like my friend get the shots, we are very likely to get the actual disease from the shot.  That is not the case for non-live vaccines.  We can, and are encouraged to get vaccines like pneumonia, Shingrix, flu, etc.  In fact, my youngest was delayed with MMR one time because I was on steroids then.  (I am on a whole range of immunosuppressants now- so even though dh wanted shingles vaccine cause someone in his office had gotten it, we had to wait until pharmacy got Shingrix.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

From what I understand, the risk of infertility is for adult men who get mumps. That's one concern I have about the ineffectiveness of the mumps portion of the MMR. The vaccine protects children, who are least likely to suffer complications from mumps, and then over time the effectiveness wanes, leaving adults more vulnerable  

 

I think that ‘s a valid concern.

 I also am curious whether there’s been a change with regard to the meningitis situation from before vaccination times as compared to the present.  

 In 1918 from the JAMA article it seems that though an era when there was no vaccination and mumps was a common childhood illness , associated meningitis was hard to find recorded cases of, with a sense that associated meningitis might be very mild and gone in a few days as the reason.  Then in the NHS description it appears that in recent times since vaccination (presumably in UK) 1 in 7 people with mumps get meningitis and that (while still generally mild and non fatal) it passes in about 14 days.  

It seems like perhaps frequency, severity, and duration have all increased.  I wonder if that  is so and not just a. reporting anomaly, and if true, whether it also could be because vaccination has shifted the time of getting sick away from early childhood when the illness tends to be very mild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EmseB said:

So that link is really interesting. At least for babies, here in the states, I've never heard it suggested that any type of meningitis is anything less than hospital worthy. But the NHS link says:

Unlike bacterial meningitis, which is regarded as a potentially life-threatening medical emergency, viral meningitis causes milder, flu-like symptoms, and the risk of serious complications is low.

Sensitivity to light, neck stiffness and headaches are common symptoms of viral meningitis. These usually pass within 14 days.

I mean, I've always checked for neck pain/stiffness in my kids when they get sick with a fever because I've been told by medical people that is a "come to the hospital right away and we'll likely give a spinal tap" sort of thing, and for babies, even if it's viral, they are not going to send them home to recover on their own. Whether or not it's viral or bacterial, they'd be admitting an infant with meningitis at least for a little while. But that link kinda makes it seem like if you get meningitis from the mumps is no big deal. I wonder if that is cultural or I've been mistaken about what I think meningitis is?

Yeah I am found that surprising.  To me anything meningitis is emergency material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pen said:

 

There’s obviously a higher chance of a baby having a complication from an illness than from no illness.  However, afaik the risk of a baby having a serious complication from, much less a fatality from mumps is extremely low.  

Far, far lower than risks from car crash or other accidents.

Not sure risk rate as compared to chance of being struck by lightning.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mumps/complications/

 

Some quotes from above:

“Mumps and pregnancy

In the past it was thought developing mumps during pregnancy increased the risk of miscarriage, but there's little evidence to support this.”

Viral meningitis

Viral meningitis can occur if the mumps virus spreads into the outer protective layer of the brain (the meninges). It occurs in about 1 in 7 cases of mumps. 

Unlike bacterial meningitis, which is regarded as a potentially life-threatening medical emergency, viral meningitis causes milder, flu-like symptoms, and the risk of serious complications is low.

Sensitivity to light, neck stiffness and headaches are common symptoms of viral meningitis. These usually pass within 14 days.”

———

 

Encephalitis complication from mumps can be fatal, but is extremely rare—so putting together rarity of mumps in babies times rarity of fatality from mumps, there are certainly many things that will pose much higher risks for your dc.  

 

precaution to avoid group settings where mumps or any number of non-VPD s could be present to infect you and your child with mumps or anything else, could be protective.  That is, to rely on your own keeping away from situations likely to have a person who might be sick, could protect against all sorts of illness—rather than counting on herd immunity at a vulnerable time.  Many illnesses have neither a vaccine, nor immunity for life after an infection. 

 

If only 90% of people who get mmr are protected from mumps, even if 100% of people get mmr vaccination, you still cannot be certain your dc won’t get mumps.   There have been outbreaks in groups with high vaccination rates iirc.  Such as colleges or military where everyone is supposed to have mmr. 

 

 

I did a bit of googling and it seems like during an actual outbreak protection is closer to 80-85pc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yeah I am found that surprising.  To me anything meningitis is emergency material.

 

Most cases of viral meningitis are mild .  Probably a lot of people don’t even know it’s what they have.  (ETA: it can be severe and lead to encephalitis...but usually not...and usually people can recover on their own.)

 

ETA: And there may be a cultural aspect to understanding it.  Also perhaps a medical malpractice issue where medical personnel would be afraid to say to someone to go home and recover.  Hospital stay once a patient were diagnosed with any sort of meningitis would be more cya.    I wonder if that also makes it different with an NHS, compared to in USA.

[as well, there may be a cycle of public perception influencing medical practice, thus influencing perception.  So if a typical jury would hear “meningitis” and immediately think it’s a  life threatening condition that needs heroic treatment in hospital, then a doctor can’t take a chance on saying, this will probably resolve by itself in a week or 10 days.   ...]

 It’s generally outbreaks of bacterial meningitis such as in university dormitories that cause severe illness, sometimes death,  and make the news.  Thus coloring people’s impressions.

 

22 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I did a bit of googling and it seems like during an actual outbreak protection is closer to 80-85pc.

 

So perhaps even more reason for a concerned parent like Emse to keep away from groups that could have the infection..  (And not to blame anti-vaccination people.) 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

I've read stuff on the NHS site over the years.  I wouldn't take anything they say as good medicine.  *especially* their advice on TIA's....

my parents both had meningitis when there was an  outbreak here (I think in the early 40s).  my maternal grandmother is the "doctors are gods" type, who immediately dragged her in for treatment.  my father - his mother was a nurse, so she could take care of it at home... he had permanent damage. 

Gently asking what is your support for saying that the NHS is not a reliable site. From everything I have found from googling they seem to be considered a professional organization equivalent to perhaps our NIH or CDC.

Share this post


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

If you mean the author of The Vaccine Book, Dr. Robert Sears, you are correct that he is not completely anti-vax. (For full disclosure, I selectively and delayed vaxxed two of my kids, so understand I’m not coming from some lofty position of a person who followed the CDC schedule to the letter. But if I had a new baby today, I would follow it pretty much to the letter.) 

The problem with Sears’ book is that it promulgates numerous misleading or outright deceptions that are seized upon by anti-vaxxers, or even those in the more “reasonable” category of delay/selectively vax. There are tons of inaccuracies in his book. His altered vaccine schedule is based on many inaccuracies. I have heard anti-vaxxers cite precisely this misinformation.

 

Do you know anywhere that breaks down his advice and shows exactly what's wrong with it? Something for instance that says, DR. Sears says this and it is incorrect because of this? I think something like this would be much more helpful for people questioning vaccines than just saying oh all his stuff is wrong without explaining why. AS matter of fact, I think that is a big problem with the whole conversation. A large amount of information is categorized a fear mongering bunk without anyone explaining why that is so. I think when someone doesn't agree with the standard understanding of anything they need exact details and step by step explanations to know why their understanding is incorrect and the common one is correct.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KidsHappen said:

Do you know anywhere that breaks down his advice and shows exactly what's wrong with it? Something for instance that says, DR. Sears says this and it is incorrect because of this? I think something like this would be much more helpful for people questioning vaccines than just saying oh all his stuff is wrong without explaining why. AS matter of fact, I think that is a big problem with the whole conversation. A large amount of information is categorized a fear mongering bunk without anyone explaining why that is so. I think when someone doesn't agree with the standard understanding of anything they need exact details and step by step explanations to know why their understanding is incorrect and the common one is correct.  

Yes, I do know somewhere that does exactly this and I will link it in a moment. There is actually an explicit reason why I did not link it earlier: it bothers me when debates about vaccines becomes a “link-war”. I’m actually watching one unfold on Facebook where “John” posts a video “what would happen if everybody stopped vaccinating.” And then a person refutes the video and puts in five links to their preferred info, then the OP fires back with his links...it’s exhausting and doesn’t lead anywhere good. (It’s also common for anti-vaxxers to immediately dismiss anything from the CDC or NIH, although, to be fair, I also immediately dismiss janky anti-vax sites that are full of grammatical errors and logical fallacies.) But since you asked nicely, this is a site that specifically addresses that book, point by point. 

Also, as I have said, I was at one point very reluctant to vaccinate and part of what was upsetting was that it was so difficult to find clear answers. But I did find clear answers, in the unlikeliest of places; on a blog written by Apologia’s Dr. Wile. Since that site was really a turning point for me, I will include it here

One other detail: when I read info and sites that are anti-vaccine, there is a lot of faulty logic and, in some cases, things I know as false from my own experience. (For example, saying vaccines are not why diseases were reduced or eliminated and the diseases were “going away on their own.”) Sometimes there are statistics that use mushy math. I could put some examples and I will, if you’re genuinely interested, but it will take me a little while to dig them back up and, if you are interested in reading the other links, there’s honestly enough there to keep you busy for ages. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Yes, I do know somewhere that does exactly this and I will link it in a moment. There is actually an explicit reason why I did not link it earlier: it bothers me when debates about vaccines becomes a “link-war”. I’m actually watching one unfold on Facebook where “John” posts a video “what would happen if everybody stopped vaccinating.” And then a person refutes the video and puts in five links to their preferred info, then the OP fires back with his links...it’s exhausting and doesn’t lead anywhere good. (It’s also common for anti-vaxxers to immediately dismiss anything from the CDC or NIH, although, to be fair, I also immediately dismiss janky anti-vax sites that are full of grammatical errors and logical fallacies.) But since you asked nicely, this is a site that specifically addresses that book, point by point. 

Also, as I have said, I was at one point very reluctant to vaccinate and part of what was upsetting was that it was so difficult to find clear answers. But I did find clear answers, in the unlikeliest of places; on a blog written by Apologia’s Dr. Wile. Since that site was really a turning point for me, I will include it here

One other detail: when I read info and sites that are anti-vaccine, there is a lot of faulty logic and, in some cases, things I know as false from my own experience. (For example, saying vaccines are not why diseases were reduced or eliminated and the diseases were “going away on their own.”) Sometimes there are statistics that use mushy math. I could put some examples and I will, if you’re genuinely interested, but it will take me a little while to dig them back up and, if you are interested in reading the other links, there’s honestly enough there to keep you busy for ages. 

Thanks. I will definitely check these out as I am also having this discussion on multiple fronts. I do see a lot of people talking over each other and not addressing each others' questions and I agree it is exhausting and it the end not terribly fruitful. I appreciate the effort.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quill said:

One other detail: when I read info and sites that are anti-vaccine, there is a lot of faulty logic and, in some cases, things I know as false from my own experience. (For example, saying vaccines are not why diseases were reduced or eliminated and the diseases were “going away on their own.”) S

 

What is your personal experience that disproves that?

In mine, I think there was a combination of factors, and not uniformity for all diseases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pen said:

 

What is your personal experience that disproves that?

In mine, I think there was a combination of factors, and not uniformity for all diseases.

It was mainly chicken pox and rabies. I remember when I was a kid, before there was a CP vaccine. Every kid got CP. every year, at my tiny school, CP would go through the youngest kids and would circulate through families. Moms would call each other on the phone and say, “Well, the Joneses all have CP, from Tommy right down to the Baby.” And I remember when CP went through my own family; I was five. 

But once the vaccine was licensed, which happened to be right around when my first child was born, people stopped getting CP. None of my playgroup friends or gymnastics moms or bunco moms had chicken pox going through their kids. So, my observation of Chicken Pox was that it wasn’t “going away on its own”. It was a feature of all childhoods when I was a kid and, post-vaccine, it was rare to even know *anyone* who had CP. My second child was not vaxxed against CP until he was 12 because I was thinking (at the time) I would rather him get CP and have life-long immunity. But he didn’t get t because we never encountered anyone who had it. 

For rabies, the logic (in my brain) was similar. We know wild mammals have a good chance of contracting rabies; I think I read at one time racoons where I live have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting it. Yet our pet mammals, receiving vaccines against rabies, are very unlikely to contract it. And - thanks be to science for that! We could not enjoy having pets if it were possible they might contract and pass on such a horrid disease. 

Anyway, the point is not that things like sanitation, clean water sources, understanding of the role of vitamins and minerals did nothing to help. Clearly, all of those things improve the health of a society dramatically. But the point is, I could see we can’t erradicate disease *just* by proper sanitation and nutrition. Even thinking about the flu or the colds underscored that for me. I am fastidious about washing my hand, I wear gloves at the grocery store, I trained myself not to touch my face, etc., but I still pick up a cold sometimes and I have gotten the flu every several years. 

Sorry that was long. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quill said:

It was mainly chicken pox and rabies. I remember when I was a kid, before there was a CP vaccine. Every kid got CP. every year, at my tiny school, CP would go through the youngest kids and would circulate through families. Moms would call each other on the phone and say, “Well, the Joneses all have CP, from Tommy right down to the Baby.” And I remember when CP went through my own family; I was five. 

But once the vaccine was licensed, which happened to be right around when my first child was born, people stopped getting CP. None of my playgroup friends or gymnastics moms or bunco moms had chicken pox going through their kids. So, my observation of Chicken Pox was that it wasn’t “going away on its own”. It was a feature of all childhoods when I was a kid and, post-vaccine, it was rare to even know *anyone* who had CP. My second child was not vaxxed against CP until he was 12 because I was thinking (at the time) I would rather him get CP and have life-long immunity. But he didn’t get t because we never encountered anyone who had it. 

For rabies, the logic (in my brain) was similar. We know wild mammals have a good chance of contracting rabies; I think I read at one time racoons where I live have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting it. Yet our pet mammals, receiving vaccines against rabies, are very unlikely to contract it. And - thanks be to science for that! We could not enjoy having pets if it were possible they might contract and pass on such a horrid disease. 

Anyway, the point is not that things like sanitation, clean water sources, understanding of the role of vitamins and minerals did nothing to help. Clearly, all of those things improve the health of a society dramatically. But the point is, I could see we can’t erradicate disease *just* by proper sanitation and nutrition. Even thinking about the flu or the colds underscored that for me. I am fastidious about washing my hand, I wear gloves at the grocery store, I trained myself not to touch my face, etc., but I still pick up a cold sometimes and I have gotten the flu every several years. 

Sorry that was long. 

School local to us has just had a chicken pox outbreak in spite of the vaccine.  That said chicken pox vax came later here so it’s possible some of the older kids aren’t vaxed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

School local to us has just had a chicken pox outbreak in spite of the vaccine.  That said chicken pox vax came later here so it’s possible some of the older kids aren’t vaxed

I know this does happen, but it’s obviously much more rare than in the 70s. 

My great niece got CP despite vaccination, though it was very mild and she had only a couple pox sores. 

Share this post


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

It was mainly chicken pox and rabies. I remember when I was a kid, before there was a CP vaccine. Every kid got CP. every year, at my tiny school, CP would go through the youngest kids and would circulate through families. Moms would call each other on the phone and say, “Well, the Joneses all have CP, from Tommy right down to the Baby.” And I remember when CP went through my own family; I was five. 

But once the vaccine was licensed, which happened to be right around when my first child was born, people stopped getting CP. None of my playgroup friends or gymnastics moms or bunco moms had chicken pox going through their kids. So, my observation of Chicken Pox was that it wasn’t “going away on its own”. It was a feature of all childhoods when I was a kid and, post-vaccine, it was rare to even know *anyone* who had CP. My second child was not vaxxed against CP until he was 12 because I was thinking (at the time) I would rather him get CP and have life-long immunity. But he didn’t get t because we never encountered anyone who had it. 

For rabies, the logic (in my brain) was similar. We know wild mammals have a good chance of contracting rabies; I think I read at one time racoons where I live have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting it. Yet our pet mammals, receiving vaccines against rabies, are very unlikely to contract it. And - thanks be to science for that! We could not enjoy having pets if it were possible they might contract and pass on such a horrid disease. 

Anyway, the point is not that things like sanitation, clean water sources, understanding of the role of vitamins and minerals did nothing to help. Clearly, all of those things improve the health of a society dramatically. But the point is, I could see we can’t erradicate disease *just* by proper sanitation and nutrition. Even thinking about the flu or the colds underscored that for me. I am fastidious about washing my hand, I wear gloves at the grocery store, I trained myself not to touch my face, etc., but I still pick up a cold sometimes and I have gotten the flu every several years. 

Sorry that was long. 

I don't doubt that vaccines have reduced the number of cases of these illnesses.  I don't think that's ever been disputed. But the mortality rates for diseases like measles, whooping cough, etc dropped dramatically before the introduction of their respective vaccines. Even the mortality rate for Scarlett fever dropped dramatically before the widespread use of antibiotics. It's why we can't use mortality statistics from Africa to justify vaccine policy in the US-- our kids are healthier and have access to medical care and these diseases generally are very mild. Even if everyone stopped vaccinating and these diseases returned to the point that most people eventually got the illnesses, we would never reach the mortality rates of the 1800's.

ETA: I do think sanitation and health care has reduced the number of cases some though. In the US we have never had a widespread tuberculosis vaccine campaign and yet our rates of TB have fallen along with the countries who do vaccinate against TB. Diseases like cholera, typhoid, etc have nearly disappeared thanks to our understanding of germ theory and our sewers and water treatment facilities. And like I mentioned upthread, a significant number of children are asymptomatic when they get illnesses like mumps or Hep A. This is a wild guess, but I would assume that one's overall health is going to contribute to how severe the disease is. If you're already sick and malnourished, even an otherwise mild disease is going to be severe.

I am not advocating that we all stop vaccinating, but I do think we need more honesty when it comes to how we talk about these diseases. With all of this talk about measles, I have seen worldwide measles deaths statistics quoted when that just isn't relevant in the US and using those numbers is only intended to scare people. According to the CDC, between 400-500 people died annually in the US from measles before the vaccine. Of course any death is tragic. But asthma, which I have never heard anyone say is deadly, kills several thousand people every year. We need to quit using scare tactics to push vaccine policy. From what I understand, they are threatening to fine people in NY for refusing to get vaccinated, when I don't think the statistics really justify that kind of government overreach.

 

 

Edited by DesertBlossom
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It was mainly chicken pox and rabies.

 

Okay.  One at a time.  First Rabies, and I want to start by saying that I think Rabies vaccination is extremely important and that I am strongly in favor of rabies vaccination for our domesticated pet animals.  And I have no doubt that in USA , pet vaccination is the main reason we have relatively few human and dog rabies deaths. 

Now, that said, it’s not the only way that rabies has been eradicated (or hugely decreased as a problem) in a geographical area. .  

Here’s a link to a Lancet article on the UK experience, where rabies was (essentially) eradicated without vaccinations. One could certainly argue that UK method was draconian and only possible when dealing with islands.  On larger land masses, it would probably require vaccination including food bait containing oral vaccination to get it to wildlife (unless some other system were invented like an aerosol mist).

Okay— I’m not able to do links today:  it is

Indigenous Rabies in the UK by P. Muir and A Roome , The Lancet, Vol. 365, Issue 9478, p2175, June 25, 2005.  

Phew . Feels like the old days of citations.  

My own personal recollection includes coming to the USA as a child with a dog who was put into quarantine upon arrival to be sure she was not bringing in rabies.  My recollection is that as in England it was an extremely long quarantine (perhaps not3 months, but a long time to be separated from my dog).  I believe that vet papers and certificates were not accepted in lieu of quarantine.  

 I don’t know what current laws on that are, but I do know that in relatively  recent times USA animal importation has been a source of domesticated animals with rabies (in news) particularly in international port areas such as NY/ NJ.  

Indigenous rabie in the UK

  •  
Published:June 25, 2005DOI

 

 

I’ll try to get back to this when the site is working better for me. 

Share this post


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

I know this does happen, but it’s obviously much more rare than in the 70s. 

My great niece got CP despite vaccination, though it was very mild and she had only a couple pox sores. 

Yeah my kids have not had it.  To be honest this really spread through the school to the point that people are questioning whether the vaccine used was actually effective.  I think it was for my kids, because we intentionally got it done a couple of months early for youngest who was in contact with someone with chicken pox and no one contracted it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Item+8_Chickenpox.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEI

this chart shows the recent outbreak.  I wonder what brought that spike about.  We’ve had a pretty dry season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabies ctd: iirc Rabies was not, by and large, possible small exceptions for self-migratory animals like bats, not a Western Hemisphere problem till humans brought it from Europe mostly (perhaps also Asia, India) .  

Though although not the blood reservoir for rabies, it is fundamentally a human caused disease for nearly  all the  wildlife in Western Hemisphere that has primarily suffered and died from it.  

I think that’s worth considering.

It’s too late to stop what caused rabies spread, but people act the same way now with even more rapid global travel and transfer of diseases.  

It doesn’t need to be that way.

And the chances of something becoming epidemic with there not even possibly being a vaccination available (quite aside from “anti-vax” sentiments is large.  

Attitude of all will be well with regard to infectious disease except for “anti-vax” could be quite  wrong.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicken pox:  I agree with you.  This was pretty much a “universal” usually  “childhood”  illness.  

That it isn’t so prevalent now I think is due to vaccination.  

As the vaccination is fairly new even in Japan, I don’t know what thevlong term effects of this are.  Possibly there are so many variables we will never know.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 12:59 AM, EmseB said:

So that link is really interesting. At least for babies, here in the states, I've never heard it suggested that any type of meningitis is anything less than hospital worthy. But the NHS link says:

Unlike bacterial meningitis, which is regarded as a potentially life-threatening medical emergency, viral meningitis causes milder, flu-like symptoms, and the risk of serious complications is low.

Sensitivity to light, neck stiffness and headaches are common symptoms of viral meningitis. These usually pass within 14 days.

I mean, I've always checked for neck pain/stiffness in my kids when they get sick with a fever because I've been told by medical people that is a "come to the hospital right away and we'll likely give a spinal tap" sort of thing, and for babies, even if it's viral, they are not going to send them home to recover on their own. Whether or not it's viral or bacterial, they'd be admitting an infant with meningitis at least for a little while. But that link kinda makes it seem like if you get meningitis from the mumps is no big deal. I wonder if that is cultural or I've been mistaken about what I think meningitis is?

 

You can’t tell if it’s bacterial or viral until you do a spinal tap. In a small baby especially, they look identical. So you would tap and send off cultures and do antibiotics for 48 hours while you wait for the cultures and viral PCR to come back. Also a baby who has viral meningitis has to be presumed to be herpes meningitis until proven otherwise because herpes meningitis is devastating. So a baby with meningitis symptoms will get at a spinal tap and then often get hospitatlized and treated with antibiotics and potentially acyclovir for herpes until you are sure that it’s not those things. 

 In older kids, it’s a  easier to tell and you can make a better guess from the way the spinal tap looks if you do tap. 

Viral meningitis in itself is not usually harmful and typically kids recover well. Mumps meningitis is similar. 

I’m not going to wade into this vaccine debate becuase I’ve just decided not to do it anymore online. 

But as for the MMR....the main risk with Mumps is infertility and deafness, the main risk with rubella is that it is a teratogen and causes terrible birth defects. It is not usually harmful to kids but is given to them to protect pregnant women (who are typically in contact with young children). Measles can be a virus that makes you feel really ill, like the flu, but you can recover from. It can also be deadly. The main concern we vaccinate for is measles encephalitis and pneumonia which are the main causes of death and disability. . It can cause death, the rate is about 1:1000. The rate of encephalitis which can also cause brain damage and permanent neurological complications is 1:1000. It still kills about 100,000 people a year, mostly kids under the age of 5. Before mass vaccination in the 1980’s it was the cause of 2.6 million deaths a year. Those stats are per the WHO. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alice said:

 

You can’t tell if it’s bacterial or viral until you do a spinal tap. In a small baby especially, they look identical. So you would tap and send off cultures and do antibiotics for 48 hours while you wait for the cultures and viral PCR to come back. Also a baby who has viral meningitis has to be presumed to be herpes meningitis until proven otherwise because herpes meningitis is devastating. So a baby with meningitis symptoms will get at a spinal tap and then often get hospitatlized and treated with antibiotics and potentially acyclovir for herpes until you are sure that it’s not those things. 

 In older kids, it’s a  easier to tell and you can make a better guess from the way the spinal tap looks if you do tap. 

Viral meningitis in itself is not usually harmful and typically kids recover well. Mumps meningitis is similar. 

I’m not going to wade into this vaccine debate becuase I’ve just decided not to do it anymore online. 

But as for the MMR....the main risk with Mumps is infertility and deafness, the main risk with rubella is that it is a teratogen and causes terrible birth defects. It is not usually harmful to kids but is given to them to protect pregnant women (who are typically in contact with young children). Measles can be a virus that makes you feel really ill, like the flu, but you can recover from. It can also be deadly. The main concern we vaccinate for is measles encephalitis and pneumonia which are the main causes of death and disability. . It can cause death, the rate is about 1:1000. The rate of encephalitis which can also cause brain damage and permanent neurological complications is 1:1000. It still kills about 100,000 people a year, mostly kids under the age of 5. Before mass vaccination in the 1980’s it was the cause of 2.6 million deaths a year. Those stats are per the WHO. 

 

 

Everything that I have been reading in the last week (from googling and links posted here) is that mumps do not cause infertility. It is something we used to think was true but has turned out not to be the case. Nor is it a particular problem during pregnancy and the chance of deafness is pretty small. I think the main reason we vaccinate for it is that it is particularly painful, worse than the worse strep throat. Of all the childhood diseases I had this was by far the worse. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Everything that I have been reading in the last week (from googling and links posted here) is that mumps do not cause infertility. It is something we used to think was true but has turned out not to be the case. Nor is it a particular problem during pregnancy and the chance of deafness is pretty small. I think the main reason we vaccinate for it is that it is particularly painful, worse than the worse strep throat. Of all the childhood diseases I had this was by far the worse. 

 

 

 

Complete infertility is rare. Subfertility (reduced sperm count) is not that rare in men, about 15% permanent. I didn’t say Mumps causes problems during pregnancy, it’s rubella that does. The risk of deafness is small but real. More recent studies suggest it’s higher than previously thought. Both my aunt and uncle are deaf in one ear from mumps. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Alice said:

 

Complete infertility is rare. Subfertility (reduced sperm count) is not that rare in men, about 15% permanent. I didn’t say Mumps causes problems during pregnancy, it’s rubella that does. The risk of deafness is small but real. More recent studies suggest it’s higher than previously thought. Both my aunt and uncle are deaf in one ear from mumps. 

I could have swore something I read just yesterday from the NHS stated that reduced sperm count was temporary but I could be wrong and I will recheck that. I posted the part about pregnancy because another poster had worries about mumps during pregnancy.

Share this post


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

I could have swore something I read just yesterday from the NHS stated that reduced sperm count was temporary but I could be wrong and I will recheck that. I posted the part about pregnancy because another poster had worries about mumps during pregnancy.

The link I posted had something about most cases being temporary and resolved within a month but a minority develop permanent issues.  Alice would be more up with it as I think she’s a paediatrician or something?  Sorry if I’ve got that wrong.

  • Like 1

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...