[vermeil]

Measles info from WHO

Key facts

Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.

In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.

Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.

In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.

During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

I'm quoting myself here

Personally, the above is all I have to read to run to the vaccination centre. I know we feel separate and safe here in developed nations. 16 deaths an hour yes, but in those poor backward countries. Right?

There are 93000 flights a day. At any given moment there are at least 8000 planes in the air. We are increasingly mobile and thousands of migrant travellers visit the US every day. The majority of measles outbreaks in the US were introduced this way.

See this cool representation of international air traffic

https://www.flixxy.com/scheduled-airline-flights-worldwide.htm

Also I have a friend who worked for doctors without borders in different parts of Africa. She saw firsthand young children die from lack of infrastructure to distribute basic simple vaccines.

Finally I don't see the negative link from cell development from feotuses to a vaccine at all. Organ donations save countless lives. And no one thinks medical experiments on animals are fun or grand. Yet here are the many medical advancements done through this, including many lifesaving vaccines. I don't think anyone would refuse a pacemaker because it was developed using a dog in 1956. I don't think refusing one would do much for that dog. I suppose they could develop new strains of cells using stem cells from live donors. Chances would be others would then object for religious reasons.

https://cflegacy.research.umn.edu/iacuc/public_media/medadvances.cfm

 

[Natsku]

True, but we usually only get blood transfusions when we need them to save our lives.

VACCINES SAVE LIVES! Millions and millions! And we're talking about residual proteins and dna in new cells that are so far removed from the original cells that it's such a moot point.

Agreed but can you fix the quote, don't like it looking like I said that!

 

[Natsku]

Misspriss - I am still curious about what another poster has said about the medicines used for some of these diseases

IF any of your children ever caught one of these diseases (and I pray they never do) would you refuse potensionally life saving treatment if you didn't approve of the ingredients ?

I know you say your confortable with your choice but from an outside point of view based on what you have said there's so many 'gaps' as such things that don't make sense or contradict what you have previously said

In case Wriggley makes it over....

If my children caught a disease, I would not hesitate to treat the disease. It goes back to my original assertion earlier in this thread:

Vaccination - risk of reaction or injury to an otherwise healthy child (guaranteed risk, albeit small)

Non-vaccination - risk of getting a disease with a small risk of permanent injury from disease in an otherwise healthy child (risk of risk)

If my child is sick, of course I will do everything that is necessary to heal them, but at that point we aren't talking about putting an otherwise healthy child at risk - the child is then already at risk, and it's about weighing and mitigating the risks then.

When you have 10 people picking at gaps in someone's forum posts, I guess it could appear that way. I don't feel like there are gaps in my thinking, I'm just not the most eloquent and well though out poster. I don't say everything that is on my mind, it doesn't all make it to the metaphorical paper.

You know how they say the non-vaxx in the US are upper middle class educated people? It's true. I hold a graduate degree and a professional certification, I'm not some lunatic who just listens to celebs talk about vaccines and autism. I do research.

Some have asserted, in the other thread, that the average person can't possible comprehend what vaccine ingredients are and why they are needed. I have a pretty good understanding of why they need to put ingredients in there, you don't have to go to school for 10 years to know what preservatives, antibiotics, growth mediums, and immune adjuvants are.

Just like I don't need a law degree to question why vaccine manufacturers can't be held liable for injuring people. Does that sound like a system that holds them accountable for the safety of their products? Encourages rigorous testing? Not to me.

This is because in the 80s, when there was an (unfounded) scare with the DPT vaccine and the manufacturers were taken to court, they stopped making the vaccines. Without those vaccines being made many lives would be lost so they had to stop people being able to directly sue the manufacturers so we don't lose the supply of vaccines. Rigorous testing is still required and still goes on. If you don't think every vaccine is rigorously tested then you really haven't done your research.

 

[misspriss]

This is because in the 80s, when there was an (unfounded) scare with the DPT vaccine and the manufacturers were taken to court, they stopped making the vaccines. Without those vaccines being made many lives would be lost so they had to stop people being able to directly sue the manufacturers so we don't lose the supply of vaccines. Rigorous testing is still required and still goes on. If you don't think every vaccine is rigorously tested then you really haven't done your research.

Oh, there were was unfounded claims 40 years ago, so they are protected forever...that makes lots of sense.

The type of testing I'd expect to see is just not plausible or can't be done for ethical reasons. I'd like to see long term safety studies, studies with a true placebo (not one that contains adjuvants), etc. You can't give some kids vaccines and some placebos then infect them and see who catches it, it's not ethical. Same reason you can't test medicines on pregnant women.

 

[Natsku]

This is because in the 80s, when there was an (unfounded) scare with the DPT vaccine and the manufacturers were taken to court, they stopped making the vaccines. Without those vaccines being made many lives would be lost so they had to stop people being able to directly sue the manufacturers so we don't lose the supply of vaccines. Rigorous testing is still required and still goes on. If you don't think every vaccine is rigorously tested then you really haven't done your research.

Oh, there were was unfounded claims 40 years ago, so they are protected forever...that makes lots of sense.

The type of testing I'd expect to see is just not plausible or can't be done for ethical reasons. I'd like to see long term safety studies, studies with a true placebo (not one that contains adjuvants), etc. You can't give some kids vaccines and some placebos then infect them and see who catches it, it's not ethical. Same reason you can't test medicines on pregnant women.

Well exactly, that kind of testing is unethical so it can't be done but safety is tested rigorously and effectiveness is shown by the results (and immunity can be checked by checking titers). You want testing that isn't actually necessary as statistical evidence already shows us that unvaccinated people are at higher risk of catching a disease than a vaccinated person so a double-blind test with placebos would just show us what we already know while endangering lives at the same time.

Protecting vaccine supply is pretty important, I can understand why they made that rule. If companies stop producing then we're all pretty much fucked - diseases will come back and once again it'll be normal to know at least one child that dies from one of those diseases, if not your own. So I'm happy with that rule.

 

[Andypanda6570]

There would be a cold day in hell before my kids weren't vaccinated..But I must say this: MissPriss, you have really taken the time to explain things and calmly I might add I don't agree with it, but I do appreciate and admire your patience and niceness ( I don't know if thats a word)

 

[misspriss]

Thanks. I'm going to have to unsubscribe for a while though, I had crazy pregnancy dreams about my son having a vaccine injury last night...definitely means I've been spending too much time on it! I don't mind the occasional debate, but when it starts invading my sleep, it means I've been thinking about it a little too much.

 

[Alyssa Drough]

Agreed but can you fix the quote, don't like it looking like I said that!

Changed it! Lol.

 

[misspriss]

This is because in the 80s, when there was an (unfounded) scare with the DPT vaccine and the manufacturers were taken to court, they stopped making the vaccines. Without those vaccines being made many lives would be lost so they had to stop people being able to directly sue the manufacturers so we don't lose the supply of vaccines. Rigorous testing is still required and still goes on. If you don't think every vaccine is rigorously tested then you really haven't done your research.

...Protecting vaccine supply is pretty important, I can understand why they made that rule. If companies stop producing then we're all pretty much fucked - diseases will come back and once again it'll be normal to know at least one child that dies from one of those diseases, if not your own. So I'm happy with that rule.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-dam...u-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572

This made me think of this thread

The Pandemrix vaccine was manufactured by pharmaceuticals giant Glaxo Smith Kline, which refused to supply governments unless it was indemnified against any claim for damage caused. The company will pay the bill, and claim the money back from the government.

...

Despite a 2011 warning from the European Medicines Agency against using the vaccine on those under 20 and a study indicating a 13-fold heightened risk of narcolepsy in vaccinated children, GSK has refused to acknowledge a link.

"Further research is needed to confirm what role the vaccine may have played in the development of narcolepsy in those affected," the company said in a statement.

Well researched and safe? Granted this was the swine flu, not on the standard "childhood" schedule, but same companies making them...sure the European Medical Agencies said it was risky, but the vaccine company said more research was needed, while it continued to administer it.

 

[Natsku]

There should be strict rules on discontinuing administration in situations like that. It was actually my country that discovered that link between that jab and narcolepsy and our government stopped any more being administered as soon as the link was discovered.

But flu vaccines are different from normal scheduled vaccines that have been around for a long time. Flu vaccines have to be made new each year so there is more of a risk with them. I would certainly understand any one not wanting to take that particular risk. I've avoided flu vaccines (it was the Pandemrix incident that put me off actually) until now but I'll be getting one this year as now I have asthma its more risky for me not to take it.

But all in all, I trust the health authority in my country and its opinions on vaccine safety.

 

[misspriss]

Yeah, I just read the line about how they refused to even manufacture the vaccine until they were guaranteed protection. You see why, governments don't give protection to the manufacturers to protect the supply, suppliers demand it (and hold vaccines hostage) to cover the butts. It made me think of you saying it was necessary, it's not necessary. Governments could just refuse to give them business until they take responsibility for their products, but the suppliers have too much control in the situation and get whatever they ask for. If they knew they put out safe products, why not take responsibility for it? In this example, they purposefully ignore warnings about the safety, because they have no liability.

I don't see how that attitude is limited to flu vaccines, the same companies produce childhood vaccines.

ETA: I don't trust the health authorities in my country as far as I can throw them. This may be a huge component in the difference of attitude.

 

[misspriss]

A good read: https://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/...on-from-tetyana-obukhanych-phd-in-immunology/

In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.

Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk.

 

[Natsku]

Governments with state provided health care can refuse to give companies business if they aren't fulfilling their requirements (as they did here) but that seems to be an issue with your government so I can understand that you wouldn't trust them quite so much as I trust mine.

That woman ignores the statistical evidence that in fact non-vaccinated people do contract and spread diseases as at a much greater rate. There were no outbreaks of measles at all in my country while vaccination rates were high enough. And she doesn't provide sources for many of her statements.

 

[misspriss]

Governments with state provided health care can refuse to give companies business if they aren't fulfilling their requirements (as they did here) but that seems to be an issue with your government so I can understand that you wouldn't trust them quite so much as I trust mine.

That woman ignores the statistical evidence that in fact non-vaccinated people do contract and spread diseases as at a much greater rate. There were no outbreaks of measles at all in my country while vaccination rates were high enough. And she doesn't provide sources for many of her statements.

Actually with the story I referenced, it was the NHS of the UK (state provided health care), and they did give them business, they agreed to cover GSK, even after medical authorities were saying there might be a problem. I don't see the "as they did here", that you stated. Maybe I read it wrong.

I said it was a "good read", not a scientific article, it's an open letter. I didn't see much that wasn't backed up with sources though. I didn't read the sources, but I skimmed them and they all appeared to be valid sources. I felt she had adequate evidence that non-vaccinated persons posed no additional risk for the diseases she stated they did not (which did not include measles, they included polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains, hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus). Perhaps you did not read it as thoroughly as I did. Her assertion that measles will not ever fully go away due to low uptake in some individuals of the vaccine, and actually that vaccinating children has made it more dangerous for infants and adults.

 

[vermeil]

ETA: I don't trust the health authorities in my country as far as I can throw them. This may be a huge component in the difference of attitude.

Just wanted to add that I fully agree with you on that. I lived in the us for 2 years for a great job offer and the healthcare system and the fda was a big factor in my decision to return to Canada. Meat quality and antibiotic use in the animal industry, etc.

Nice that we can have a civil conversation about this. Sorry to hear you've been having bad dreams! My son was a microreemie, he's almost 5 now and I still have terrible dreams about it.

 

[misspriss]

ETA: I don't trust the health authorities in my country as far as I can throw them. This may be a huge component in the difference of attitude.

Just wanted to add that I fully agree with you on that. I lived in the us for 2 years for a great job offer and the healthcare system and the fda was a big factor in my decision to return to Canada. Meat quality and antibiotic use in the animal industry, etc.

Nice that we can have a civil conversation about this. Sorry to hear you've been having bad dreams! My son was a microreemie, he's almost 5 now and I still have terrible dreams about it.

Don't get me started, GMOs, antibiotics, aspartame...It's one of the reasons I've seriously considered leaving the US. One of many, actually. Can't get DH on board though, although he has said Canada would be acceptable! Maybe one day we can live somewhere where we feel we can trust the health authorities.

I was actually having dreams about him having a reaction at his current age! Crazy. It just vivid dreams in general, last night I dreamed I was a crime fighting zombie from the zombie show I was watching. I just need to be careful not to dwell too much on a particular thing before bed!

 

[Natsku]

Governments with state provided health care can refuse to give companies business if they aren't fulfilling their requirements (as they did here) but that seems to be an issue with your government so I can understand that you wouldn't trust them quite so much as I trust mine.

That woman ignores the statistical evidence that in fact non-vaccinated people do contract and spread diseases as at a much greater rate. There were no outbreaks of measles at all in my country while vaccination rates were high enough. And she doesn't provide sources for many of her statements.

Actually with the story I referenced, it was the NHS of the UK (state provided health care), and they did give them business, they agreed to cover GSK, even after medical authorities were saying there might be a problem. I don't see the "as they did here", that you stated. Maybe I read it wrong.

I said it was a "good read", not a scientific article, it's an open letter. I didn't see much that wasn't backed up with sources though. I didn't read the sources, but I skimmed them and they all appeared to be valid sources. I felt she had adequate evidence that non-vaccinated persons posed no additional risk for the diseases she stated they did not (which did not include measles, they included polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains, hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus). Perhaps you did not read it as thoroughly as I did. Her assertion that measles will not ever fully go away due to low uptake in some individuals of the vaccine, and actually that vaccinating children has made it more dangerous for infants and adults.

By 'here' I meant Finland, who banned that vaccine.

Hep B can be passed in a school setting (although its more relevant in a daycare setting) but any instance where blood is involved such as with fighting amongst older children but also in younger children biting is a big way it can be transferred.

Measles went away fully here in Finland but now vaccination rates have dropped and the health authorities have stated that we are at risk of outbreaks now. The same way outbreaks occurred in other parts of Europe (Wales, Germany) because vaccination rates were too low. That shows quite clearly that not vaccinating does make a difference.

She complained that Hib B vaccine wasn't good and I'm really sure why she would say that as since that the vaccine was introduced cases in the US have dropped 99% - that's pretty bloody amazing! It was the leading cause of childhood meningitis and that is a very serious illness indeed. There was a lady on this forum whose baby died from meningitis.

 

[misspriss]

By 'here' I meant Finland, who banned that vaccine.

Hep B can be passed in a school setting (although its more relevant in a daycare setting) but any instance where blood is involved such as with fighting amongst older children but also in younger children biting is a big way it can be transferred.

Measles went away fully here in Finland but now vaccination rates have dropped and the health authorities have stated that we are at risk of outbreaks now. The same way outbreaks occurred in other parts of Europe (Wales, Germany) because vaccination rates were too low. That shows quite clearly that not vaccinating does make a difference.

She complained that Hib B vaccine wasn't good and I'm really sure why she would say that as since that the vaccine was introduced cases in the US have dropped 99% - that's pretty bloody amazing! It was the leading cause of childhood meningitis and that is a very serious illness indeed. There was a lady on this forum whose baby died from meningitis.

Okay I see now, Finland.

I have to disagree about Hep B and daycare.

Study:

We investigated two situations involving hepatitis B virus exposure among children in day care. In the first a 4-year-old boy who attended a day care center developed acute hepatitis B; another child at the center, who had a history of aggressive behavior (biting/scratching), was subsequently found to be a hepatitis B carrier. No other source of infection among family and other contacts was identified and no other persons at the center became infected. In the second situation a 4-year-old boy with frequently bleeding eczematous lesions was discovered to be a hepatitis B carrier after having attended a day care center for 17 months. Testing of contacts at the center revealed no transmission to other children or staff (representing 887 person months of exposure). Nationwide surveillance data showed that for the period 1983 to 1987, 161 children 1 to 4 years of age were reported with acute hepatitis B. After children with known hepatitis B risk factors were excluded, 25% (7 of 28) of children with known day care status were reported as day care attendees, a percentage comparable to national estimates of day care attendance by this age group. This is the first reported case of hepatitis B virus transmission between children in day care in the United States. Although it appears that day care transmission of hepatitis B is infrequent, further studies are needed to define the risk more accuratel

Study:

Hepatitis in day care centers: epidemiology and prevention.
....(part about Hep A)..... The spread of hepatitis B has not been documented in day care centers; however, when a child carrying hepatitis B virus enrolls in a center, a low risk of transmission may exist and precautions are recommended, with a focus on personal hygiene.

And you google risk factors for Hep B, not a single one includes daycare. They all list unprotected sex, needle sharing, and other "high risk" behaviors. The (very) pro-vax ped I saw even said if my son didn't catch Hep B in the hospital (NICU stay) then he probably didn't need that vax.

Both those studies are older, didn't find anything more recent (although I just googled it) they were all done after the vaccine was out - not a single one recommended vaccination in their abstract.

About measles, again, the author states that it is impossible to completely eradicate measles, because of low responders, which is why there are outbreaks in even highly vaccinated areas. Her argument is that it is now more dangerous because adults and infants are at greater risk because we prevent school aged children from getting it. The immunity wanes for adults, and is not passed to infants because the adults don't have immunity. So her point is not that the vaccination doesn't protect school aged children, but that protection puts infants and adults at greater risk, because not everyone takes to the vaccine. This of course, means unvaccinated, but measles was never on the list I have quoted before (polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains, hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus). Here is one of the studies she referenced for that section. At this point, measles was considered eliminated from the US.

...Projections suggest that the proportion of persons with low antibody levels may increase over time....Declining titers suggest the need for vigilance in ensuring disease protection for the vaccinated population.

About Hib B, it's not that it doesn't work, it works great, but it has increased the incidence of OTHER types of Hib, which are dangerous for adults. Here is the abstract from the source:

Since the introduction of the Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, the incidence of invasive H. influenzae type b disease among children has fallen dramatically, but the effect on invasive H. influenzae disease among adults may be more complex. In this population-based study we examined the epidemiology and outcomes of invasive disease caused by typeable and nontypeable H. influenzae among Utah adults during 1998-2008. The overall incidence increased over the study period from 0.14/100,000 person-years in 1998 to 1.61/100,000 person-years in 2008. The average incidence in persons >65 years old was 2.74/100,000 person-years, accounting for 51% of cases and 67% of deaths. The incidence was highest for nontypeable H. influenzae (0.23/100,000 person-years), followed by H. influenzae type f (0.14/100,000 person-years). The case-fatality rate was 22%. The incidence of invasive H. influenzae in Utah adults appears to be increasing. Invasive H. influenzae infection disproportionately affected the elderly and was associated with a high mortality rate.

Has anyone addressed the incidence of ER visits from vaccines? I have heard "1 in a million" chance of a serious reaction, does anyone have a response for that?

A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment

The study conclusion:

There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12 and 18 month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented.

(This study is in Canada)

 

[Natsku]

I must have got hep A and B confused. Although I just checked and the NHS recommends that daycare workers are vaccinated so they are considered at risk.

As for measles, the obvious answer is to give additional boosters to maintain immunity. What would you suggest otherwise? It definitely wouldn't be better to go back to pre-vaccination ways and have pretty much everyone suffer measles.

What issue do you have though with the Hib B one? Hib B was still the leading cause of hib meningitis so even if the other ones are rising we are still collectively (as a society) better off than we were before. And who knows, maybe vaccines will be created against those other strains too. Less disease is always better than more disease and there is certainly less disease altogether now.

But do we know what those emergency room visits were for? For instance I would expect most parents to take their baby to the ER if they have a febrile seizure, which is a potential side effect of vaccines but isn't actually dangerous. They might also visit the ER if baby gets a high fever.

 

[misspriss]

I must have got hep A and B confused. Although I just checked and the NHS recommends that daycare workers are vaccinated so they are considered at risk.

As for measles, the obvious answer is to give additional boosters to maintain immunity. What would you suggest otherwise? It definitely wouldn't be better to go back to pre-vaccination ways and have pretty much everyone suffer measles.

What issue do you have though with the Hib B one? Hib B was still the leading cause of hib meningitis so even if the other ones are rising we are still collectively (as a society) better off than we were before. And who knows, maybe vaccines will be created against those other strains too. Less disease is always better than more disease and there is certainly less disease altogether now.

But do we know what those emergency room visits were for? For instance I would expect most parents to take their baby to the ER if they have a febrile seizure, which is a potential side effect of vaccines but isn't actually dangerous. They might also visit the ER if baby gets a high fever.

These are not my issues, I was clarifying what was in the letter. I don't have a personal issue with Hib B anymore than I have with any other vaccine.

I wondered if someone would say that, how do you get from 1 in 168 to 1 in a million? Even the study concludes that there is an increase in ER visits immediately following vaccines. To me, and ER visit is a serious event. My son has never been to the ER, I've been once in my life (thought I broke a bone). To me, 1 in 168 (or even 1 in 730) going to the ER doesn't scream "safe" and "risk-free".

So if my child has a risk of 1 in 168 of going to the ER after their 12 month shots, what do YOU say the risk is of a "serious" event? Don't just say 1 in a million (or "highly unlikely").