NLBS #35: The Anti-Vaccination Movement and the Measles Outbreak

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I wish I could trust vaccinations and to some degree I do. What I do not trust is the entire western for-profit medical industry.

My son has had his vaccinations that he was supposed to get but it was not without regret. The fact that I couldn't live with myself if something happened that he could have been vaccinated for is the only reason I did. I had him vaccinated for selfish reasons... so I would not feel guilty.

My son was 30 seconds old and the doctors gave him a needle. This is no way to evolve but here we are being extorted by our guilt to commit to some medical maybe.

Your child more than likely got a vitamin k shot not a vaccine immediately after birth. Newborns are very low in vitamin k which is necessary for blood clotting.

a reply to: fictitious

That is a common side effect of the MMR vaccine. The children get a very very very mild case of the measles. It's not dangerous like a full blown case would be.
My son had the same reaction and I asked the nurse about it. He was fine by the next day. He's nearly twenty now. A strong healthy young man. And beautiful too if I do say so myself
Most children developed a fever after receiving a vaccination. It's the bodies way of developing the correct t cells that lead to immunity.

You are sadly misinformed.
The mild case developed from a vaccine is not contagious. a reply to: WeAre0ne

I have to comprise with my husband. Who'd willing forgo all the vaccinations and allow their own immune system to back diseases like the chicken pox and measles.

Why would he do that? Well I worked in the military along side a Captain at Brooke Army Medical Center. His story could directly be linked to his children, being genetically predisposed - to having an allergic reactions to the MMR vaccination. You see - he was a father of 6 children. 4 girls and the last two his boys. His eldest boy was the first to develop autism - directly after taking the MMR. Of course, they were told it wasn't the vaccine, and they continue on with their life, now with a child that at 14 months was normal, loving, and complete on track developmentally - to a 16 month old whose become an entirely new baby.

Fast forward a year. The Captain was sent to work at a CASH in Afghanistan. While he is away, his wife takes their second son to get his 15 month vaccinations. The first occurrence and onset of autism, after all - had nothing to do with the vaccination. Imagine his devestation when - just like with his first child, he is called home to find that his second son now has developed autism.

You can understand why they received a large cash settlement out of courts.

The Captain would tell everyone, including my husband of his experience. So I have to compromise with my husband. Because I agree with vaccinations and many medicine that save lives. The all have risks and possible side effects. Even the motrin and tylenol you take is poison after continued use to your liver and kidneys. So my sons (this scare was after my girls had already received all their childhood shots) get there shots, they simply follow a more spaced out schedule. Rather than pumping them full of 4 - 6 vaccinations at a time, they only get a few at a time with a few months in between to carefully monitor their reactions to the vaccinations. This way, more effective reporting on side effects can be done and safer and more effective vaccinations can continue to be developed.

We both had to bend - on this issue in my household. They have immunity - they are just waiting to catch up on their series due to our overly cautious administration schedule. Which is silly. My argument is that once they received their first shots from their complete first series, it showed they don't have a per-disposition to react adversely to the shots.

Now with the Captain, much research has been done to identify what caused the onset of autism. The Captain believed that the vaccination seemed to trigger an autoimmune response - that caused an allergy to wheat gluten. They found that when they eliminated those foods from the child's diet, their response and reactivity to their surroundings improved. So much so he said, that they could even hold and cuddle with them when the dietary changes were made. So his hypothesis is that the vaccination triggers an allergy - and some children are more per-disposed to the reaction than others.

All medications have risks and potential side effects. It should be up to the parent and family to ascertain if the child is at increased risk. I teach my children, that our side of the family, meaning they themselves are not per-disposed to adverse reactions to shots - so their kids are unlikely to be also. It all just depends on who you marry and being cognizant of their side of the families medical conditions too.

But - if the Captain and his wife were to have another child - I would not mandate to them they had to inoculate their child with the vaccination.

ETA : It's a difficult ethical and moral dilemma and there needs to be a lot more thought in peoples reactions. Some children cannot take the vaccinations because of known adverse reactions and effects. My Uncles wife couldn't take vaccinations - nor some of my cousins. I believe their allergy was to eggs. An ingredients back when - I don't know if it still is - in the day. Which is why my husband is overly cautious with our children, I do have family history of family who have an adverse reactions to taking vaccines. Thought I think it comes from my Aunt's side who is unrelated to me.

CdT

a reply to: WeAre0ne
Wow talk about missing the point. The point being that that small amount is not going to have any affect on the baby what so ever. Also by the time the MMR vaccine is due most babies are off the breast anyway. One year old.

a reply to: Rezlooper

If the only place these sick kids went was to school there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they are also in church or the grocery store or the playground and there are infants out there who are too young to vaccinate. Infants who could get sick and die because some kid didn't get vaccinated. Different story now huh?

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I wish I could trust vaccinations and to some degree I do. What I do not trust is the entire western for-profit medical industry.

My son has had his vaccinations that he was supposed to get but it was not without regret. The fact that I couldn't live with myself if something happened that he could have been vaccinated for is the only reason I did. I had him vaccinated for selfish reasons... so I would not feel guilty.

My son was 30 seconds old and the doctors gave him a needle. This is no way to evolve but here we are being extorted by our guilt to commit to some medical maybe.

Your child more than likely got a vitamin k shot not a vaccine immediately after birth. Newborns are very low in vitamin k which is necessary for blood clotting.

I know what the shot was. That is not the point. Nobody asked me or told me about it was what made me uncomfortable and the 4 bodies standing in the corner with clip boards didn't make it any better. There was no indication there was anything wrong with child and giving everyone something that might help a portion is not only a waste of money it is also irresponsible. Painting everybody with the same brush, why? Higher profit margin for the supplier based on research claims that it is good for everyone?

My mom is a PHD and from what I get from her is there is no such thing as "research", you collect the results you were paid to collect. Ans she has never had a vaccination nor tried to convince me to get one.

a reply to: theNLBS

Okay, Joe, let's look at your claim that measels is "a nasty disease that kills."

Let's look at some statistics on the complications of measles per the CDC:

Complications
Measles can be a serious in all age groups. However, children younger than 5 years of age and adults older than 20 years of age are more likely to suffer from measles complications.

Common Complications
Common measles complications include ear infections and diarrhea.

•Ear infections occur in about one out of every 10 children with measles and can result in permanent hearing loss.
•Diarrhea is reported in less than one out of 10 people with measles.

Severe Complications
Some people may suffer from severe complications, such as pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). They may need to be hospitalized and could die.

•As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children.
•About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or mentally retarded.
•For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.
Measles may cause pregnant woman to give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby.

Long-term Complications
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life. SSPE generally develops 7 to 10 years after a person has measles, even though the person seems to have fully recovered from the illness. Since measles was eliminated in 2000, SSPE is rarely reported in the United States.

Among people who contracted measles during the resurgence in the United States in 1989 to 1991, 4 to 11 out of every 100,000 were estimated to be at risk for developing SSPE. The risk of developing SSPE may be higher for a person who gets measles before they are two years of age.

Let's focus on the part I bolded, since you talked about its deadliness, and the Disneyland outbreak implies children: "For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it."

So, statistically speaking, we'll average out the "one or two will die" to equal 1.5 per 1,000 cases in children, or 1/750. We are currently, as of yesterday, sitting at a total of 95 measles cases that are assumed to be from the Disney outbreak (they can't confirm the source for all of them, and the story doesn't mention how many are children). 95 cases for a disease that, on average (over the entire globe, mind you...including developing nations with poor health care), kills 1 in 750 cases is hardly an epidemic. And while the total can still rise, and probably will, it's far cry from being statistically close to anything that you should be labeling as "a nasty disease that kills." You're using a fear-mongering tactic that scares apathetic people who don't do the research into the illness.

Let's break it down to how many people die from measles in America, since that's what we're concerned with in this issue:

From a cited source in Wikipedia:

Between 1987 and 2000, the case fatality rate across the United States was three measles-attributable deaths per 1000 cases, or 0.3%.[sup][17][/sup]

From many other sources I've read as I'm writing this, but I'm too lazy to include, the current death rate from measles in America since 2000 or so sits at about 0.0000% of all cases, to include all ages.

The bottom line is this: You're using scare tactics to try and add validity to your point. In reality to those of us informed on statistics, you come across as just another alarmist using their media outlet to frighten people into getting unnecessary vaccinations. I have an 11-year-old son who has been officially diagnosed with Asperger's--a high-functioning form of Autism, as I'm sure you know. I now have a one-year-old daughter who is on a delayed vaccination schedule (not because of fear of autism, mind you), and if it were up to me, would not be getting vaccinations to diseases that she has a statistical chance of death or major complication at less than 0.0% Puttting these chemicals and diseases into her body is something that disinterests me, regardless of whether or not they're deemed "safe" by our almighty, omniscient government agencies. Sure, we gladly immunize against deadly or life-long debilitating things, but the MMR immunization is unnecessary. If that scares anyone, I don't really care. My wife and I are doing what's best for our family with the information that we have. We are capable of wading through the crap that gets regurgitated and see things for what they really are, and we don't make medical decisions on a whim or on internet memes or on Youtube videos.

We don't avoid some vaccinations because of possible links to possible things--we avoid some of them because the diseases that they protect against are, for the most part, non-lethal or non-debilitating (statistically speaking), and we prefer to let our bodies use their natural defenses against these invaders, even if it means a temporary struggle for our bodies.

There's nothing wrong with this approach, and when one of us does get sick (on the rare occasion), we don't go galavanting around in crowded spaces, like Disneyland, until they're better. Common sense, ya know?

After reading this thread I have changed my mind. All the science behind vaccines is clearly a lie big BigPharm to make money/sterilize/ dumb down/ halt evolution/kill or whatever flavor of the day happens to be. Really the could be doing it all' couldn't they? I am just asking questions...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Oh my God another one. It's the younger ones who can't get vaccinated who are at risk. It's only been said I don't know ten times already? Those walking disease factories are not just in school. They are at places where other families take infants. People stop using this scenario for your argument. It doesn't hold water.
There are members of society who cannot be vaccinated for any number of reasons. Those people should not be put at risk for stupid conspiracy theories like vaccines cause fake disorders like autism.

a reply to: and14263

Let's just ignore the information about infants and people with immune diseases who can't take the vaccine. Tunnel vision anyone??? See only what you want to see. hear only what you want to hear. Great way to be ill informed. But I heard ignorance is bliss so here's to all the happy people. Cheers.

Does it matter if only one child dies if that child happens to be your flesh and blood? I think it does. reply to: SlapMonkey

a reply to: and14263

agreed...but I think it was more sarcasm than intentional misleading.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

Most children developed a fever after receiving a vaccination. It's the bodies way of developing the correct t cells that lead to immunity.

Though I utterly disagree with most of your content in this thread and certainly the mocking style you have exhibited in your replies here - I do acknowledge this point you have made but will add a caveat:

Many, many people - on their pediatrician's recommendation, give their children Tylenol or Ibuprofen after a vax, for their soreness or overall comfort.

This is absolutely the wrong thing to do as it interferes with a natural immune response. I'd love for someone to research the impact of fever suppression on the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

a reply to: theNLBS

I'm a wee bit late to the party, but wanted to chime in first on the autism rate statistics - an update, if you will.

Currently, the CDC estimates 1 in 68 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder.

Link: CDC - 2014 Autsim Rates

Drug companies and researchers have not yet untangled the mystery of autism. Extra or missing genes are involved but how it all unfolds into the complex issues of "autism" are unknown, and how the 'epigenetics' (switches that turn genes on and off) of autism work, the "environmental trigger" that CAUSES the extra and missing genes remains unknown, or that triggers the genes to turn off/on.

Epigenetics are cross-generational (i.e. an environmental exposure your grandmother had might impact the genes she transmits to your mother and then to you and your siblings, and so on.). That is part of the complexity.

Was it exposure over multiple generations to pesticides in the environment? Was it industrial chemical exposures in the last two generations culminating in altered genes??? Was it something we think of as innocuous that has long-term side-effects on a genetic level? Was it one thing for person X and another thing for person Y? Was it a combination of factors due to the multitude of toxins in the environment? You see the challenge...

Ok. I have a child with severe autism and IBS, interestingly. I am well aware of the studies regarding vaccinations.
I'm not going to argue the science and I even know one of the Psychiatrists who was leading a major CDC study of this issue, in regards to thimerizol in particular. I consider him to be an honest and caring physician.



I have known the feeling of being torn over what to do, what not to do, and what was true and false. I have been DESPERATE to find SOMETHING I could do to help my child, and I worried about prevention (if possible) with my second child. (He does not have autism and I gave him vaccines to keep him healthy - he has a major heart defect).

Yet with all of this, I know families who swear that autism onset happened directly as a result of vaccination with MMR - the child had a strong reaction to the vaccine, and then immediately began expressing altered behavioral issues after the strong vaccine reaction.

While vaccines do not overtly cause autism, as the research shows, I do wonder about the multitude of stories regarding the SEEMING before-and-after that parents are reporting. Parents should not be ignored in this!

In the search for "environmental triggers" science needs to figure out the mechanism for WHY the genetics are the way they are, and HOW something external, like a normal vaccination, might effect children with these altered genes differently. I can't chalk all of the parents up to being delusional or unaware, or grasping at straws. I think children with certain slightly abnormal genetic make-ups profiled for "autism" may react differently than others do, thus creating a "before and after."

Does that make sense?? I hope so. It is a theory only - one I wish would be explored beyond focusing on the "do vaccines cause a normal child to become a child with autism." It is CLEAR that vaccines do not cause typical children to suddenly have autism. It is also clear that vaccines protect from serious, life threatening illnesses. What is not clear is how a child with abnormal genetics might react to vaccines. To my knowledge, that has never been studied. Please correct me if I'm wrong!!


AUTISM IS A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL ISSUE!!!
It is a devastating, lifelong, untreatable (other than outer symptoms) for the most part, financially draining, as well as a life-altering and life-limiting experience for family caregivers, and there is a ton of both grief and guilt felt by parents who wonder what they might have done, or what some "Other" might have done, to cause their beautiful child's life to turn into a nightmare. (Note - I'm speaking of severe autism, which, believe me, is more intense than you can imagine if you have no knowledge of it directly. Other forms of autism that are higher functioning, are still incredibly challenging to the individuals who deal with it.)

I do not blame parents for reacting with anger, for fighting because they feel "something the government and big pharma" has REQUIRED them to do has unjustly broken their children. (There are "vaccine injured children" by the way - did you research that? It would shed light onto some of the reasoning and fuel for the concern of parents.)

At the time the push against vaccines started, a "reasonable doubt" had been created, and the "movement" was born of it, as you stated. It has endured, as such movements do, because of the highly emotional nature of having a child with autism, and because of the parent observations I've mentioned.

Anyway. No flames from me. Just frustration at the massive increase in kids with autism vs. the slowness of finding out the means to 1) prevent, 2) treat or somewhat reverse the affects of autism.

I am waiting.

- AB

originally posted by: kosmicjack

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

...

This is absolutely the wrong thing to do as it interferes with a natural immune response. I'd love for someone to research the impact of fever suppression on the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

What a good point. When my daughter received her vaccinations (bet you weren't ready for that one were you Autumnwitch657 if you're reading ) the doctor said we should have some calpol on standby. I thought nothing of it because she didn't have an adverse effect. But of course... we have weak immune systems because of all the medication we take.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: and14263

agreed...but I think it was more sarcasm than intentional misleading.

Oh right yeah, I am a bit stupid to be fair.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: FyreByrd
What about individual 'freedom'?

What about my freedom to be able to send my children to school and group events with the assurance that no other kids might be carrying preventable diseases?

The brilliance of the "pro-vax" side:

"Your un-vaccinated child may be carrying a disease that risks my vaccinated (and thus supposedly protected) child!"

Hello? If your child is vaccinated, and thus "protected", it shouldn't matter now should it?

Just like that woman arguing her child picked up the measles from un-vaccinated children, even though her child was vaccinated for it, twice! Seriously? That's your argument?

Yep! You guys have "science" and "facts" on your side alright (/sarcasm)... just no intelligence. You guys would make me laugh if the issues weren't so serious.

a reply to: and14263

It makes ZERO sense to give a vaccine meant to stimulate an immune response and create anti-bodies...only to suppress the very first mechanism of an immune response to generate anti-bodies.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

As stated, the mothers were reporting a fever of 102 usually for two weeks. One mother said 3 weeks at 103. That's not a simple "you get a fever for two days after a vaccine". This is entirely different. A fever that long can potentially cause brain damage.