parents who dont vaccinate your babies??

How can you say there's nothing harsh about your view? You said "I have no understanding for non-vaccination". You did not answer any of the questions I posed. So again, I ask you. Would you have sympathy (thus understanding) for a mom whose first child had a life-threatening reaction to the MMR, if she chooses NOT to give her 2nd child the MMR? If you answer no, then I stand by my point...your view is harsh.

And for those that agreed with Piper, I think your views are just as harsh (unsympathetic with a mom who went through something like almost loosing a child).

Secondly, you said: "seeing as this is a thread asking for opinions on parents who don't vaccinate their babies". I beg to differ on this point with you. The OP asked for opinions FROM parents who don't vaccinate. Not opinions ON parents who don't vaccinate....
I have sympathy for any mother whose child is ill, but what do you want me to say about your friend? Your evidence is anecdotal and you live in a country where children are ill a lot more than in other parts of the world. I prefer to get my information from official sources which are relevant to where I live and, believe it or not, from my child's doctor.

Can you provide any information to suggest that MMR vaccinations kill babies? I found none when I did the research before my child was vaccinated except those where the children were already ill when they got their jabs and cot deaths which were consistent with the general rate.

However, I did find evidence of re-emerging childhood diseases taking lives and undoing the hard work done to eradicate them.
JleStar25569897 said:
Not true!
Is that really all you have to offer?
 
Here's more information on the Finnish study and points out that the study did actually show that there is no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease - with a sample size of nearly 2 million people I would say thats a pretty conclusive study!
https://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

The twin study that was done as well is pretty damning evidence as it was a proper double blind study, half of the twins were given the MMR and half were giving a placebo (can't really do that kind of study now I guess, unethical) and it showed no increase in autism in the vaccinated twins and very low levels of side effects.

Anyone still think the MMR isn't safe??
 
^^^^ Thats a great study. I think one of the problems, is the inability to proceed with an ethical double blind study, hence anti vaxers ability to jump on the 'well i want a study between vaccinated and vaccinated,' which, of course is not possible, due to ethics.
 
Yeah ethical limitations these days just can't allow something like that. Must have been different in the 80s, but at least we have one study. Would love to hear a response to this from an anti-vaxer.
 
How can you say there's nothing harsh about your view? You said "I have no understanding for non-vaccination". You did not answer any of the questions I posed. So again, I ask you. Would you have sympathy (thus understanding) for a mom whose first child had a life-threatening reaction to the MMR, if she chooses NOT to give her 2nd child the MMR? If you answer no, then I stand by my point...your view is harsh.

And for those that agreed with Piper, I think your views are just as harsh (unsympathetic with a mom who went through something like almost loosing a child).

Secondly, you said: "seeing as this is a thread asking for opinions on parents who don't vaccinate their babies". I beg to differ on this point with you. The OP asked for opinions FROM parents who don't vaccinate. Not opinions ON parents who don't vaccinate....
I have sympathy for any mother whose child is ill, but what do you want me to say about your friend? Your evidence is anecdotal and you live in a country where children are ill a lot more than in other parts of the world. I prefer to get my information from official sources which are relevant to where I live and, believe it or not, from my child's doctor.

Can you provide any information to suggest that MMR vaccinations kill babies? I found none when I did the research before my child was vaccinated except those where the children were already ill when they got their jabs and cot deaths which were consistent with the general rate.
Gosh man, you can dance around the issue. I wish you'd answer my question. Will you have sympathy for a mom who refuse the MMR vaccination to her younger children when an older one got a serious reaction after getting the MMR?

I guess you're pushed into a corner, that's why you refuse to answer. If you answer No, you look like what I called you...having a harsh opinion. If you answer yes, then it's in direct oppositition of what you said "I have no understanding for non-vaccination" about the MMR.

Forget about my friend, I don't want you to say anything about that. Forget about where I live, I don't care about that. Forget everything, just answer my question with a simple yes or no?

If you don't want to, I'll drop this here. It serves no purpose to this debate anymore. :shrug:
 
Here's more information on the Finnish study and points out that the study did actually show that there is no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease - with a sample size of nearly 2 million people I would say thats a pretty conclusive study!
https://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

The twin study that was done as well is pretty damning evidence as it was a proper double blind study, half of the twins were given the MMR and half were giving a placebo (can't really do that kind of study now I guess, unethical) and it showed no increase in autism in the vaccinated twins and very low levels of side effects.

Anyone still think the MMR isn't safe??
That study looks immensely interesting, I'd be sure to read all of it tonight, thank you.

But, I don't agree that you can say the MMR is safe based on that study. That implies that there's no adverse effects, or no dangerous ones. A child my husband know had an anaphylactic episode after a vaccination (not MMR), and today he's braindamaged. He might not be dead, but that doesn't mean the reaction wasn't serious enough for other moms to consider. So anaphylactic shock CAN be something dangerous, something awful.

I notice that in that study you gave, 5 out of every million doses caused anaphylaxys. That means, that in the 3 million doses given, about 15 caused anaphylaxys. If you assume that after such an episode, the child didn't get another shot, that means about 15 children in that study might be brain damaged, or came close to being brain damaged. I wouldn't call that safe.

Same with some of the other conditions it caused. My son has epilepsy, and the neurologist said it might be from his vaccinations. I wouldn't call a vaccine that did that to him, safe. Vaccines are risky. Yes, I still took the risk with my other kids, because the risk of disease in my opinion was higher. But I wouldn't blame a mom who decided different from me.

I don't understand how moms can't get this? Why is it so difficult to understand that people are SCARED of what vaccines might do to their kids? I'm a vaxer, I'm mostly pro-vaccines, but I feel like I'm fighting on the side of non-vaxers because I can place myself in their shoes. Why can't other vaxers do this too? :shrug:
 
JleStar25569897 said:
Not true!
Is that really all you have to offer?[/QUOTE]

I didn't want to debate this any longer since I have been a part of many on this forum--and to be quite honest it is draining. I was just merely observing the thread. However, when you say things like " unvaccinated children are the reason for outbreaks of childhood diseases," then I take offense to that and couldn't stay quiet. From what I have read you have your "facts" mixed up.
 
Here's more information on the Finnish study and points out that the study did actually show that there is no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease - with a sample size of nearly 2 million people I would say thats a pretty conclusive study!
https://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

The twin study that was done as well is pretty damning evidence as it was a proper double blind study, half of the twins were given the MMR and half were giving a placebo (can't really do that kind of study now I guess, unethical) and it showed no increase in autism in the vaccinated twins and very low levels of side effects.

Anyone still think the MMR isn't safe??
That study looks immensely interesting, I'd be sure to read all of it tonight, thank you.

But, I don't agree that you can say the MMR is safe based on that study. That implies that there's no adverse effects, or no dangerous ones. A child my husband know had an anaphylactic episode after a vaccination (not MMR), and today he's braindamaged. He might not be dead, but that doesn't mean the reaction wasn't serious enough for other moms to consider. So anaphylactic shock CAN be something dangerous, something awful.

I notice that in that study you gave, 5 out of every million doses caused anaphylaxys. That means, that in the 3 million doses given, about 15 caused anaphylaxys. If you assume that after such an episode, the child didn't get another shot, that means about 15 children in that study might be brain damaged, or came close to being brain damaged. I wouldn't call that safe.

Same with some of the other conditions it caused. My son has epilepsy, and the neurologist said it might be from his vaccinations. I wouldn't call a vaccine that did that to him, safe. Vaccines are risky. Yes, I still took the risk with my other kids, because the risk of disease in my opinion was higher. But I wouldn't blame a mom who decided different from me.

I don't understand how moms can't get this? Why is it so difficult to understand that people are SCARED of what vaccines might do to their kids? I'm a vaxer, I'm mostly pro-vaccines, but I feel like I'm fighting on the side of non-vaxers because I can place myself in their shoes. Why can't other vaxers do this too? :shrug:

The ones that suffered anaphylactic shock recovered, they didn't get brain damaged or it would have been noted as incidents of irreversible harm. The incidence rate of getting the shock was 0.5 per 100000 - compare that to the harm of the actual diseases. For example mumps affected 25% of the conscripts (consider every man has to be a conscript at some point) making many of them sterile (which if my calculations are correct then thats an incidence rate of irreversible damage of 520 per 100000, that a hell of a lot worse and thats only mumps)

Edit: Your epilepsy example is even more rare, only one case occurred making it a rate of 0.03 per 100000
 
Here's more information on the Finnish study and points out that the study did actually show that there is no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease - with a sample size of nearly 2 million people I would say thats a pretty conclusive study!
https://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

The twin study that was done as well is pretty damning evidence as it was a proper double blind study, half of the twins were given the MMR and half were giving a placebo (can't really do that kind of study now I guess, unethical) and it showed no increase in autism in the vaccinated twins and very low levels of side effects.

Anyone still think the MMR isn't safe??
That study looks immensely interesting, I'd be sure to read all of it tonight, thank you.

But, I don't agree that you can say the MMR is safe based on that study. That implies that there's no adverse effects, or no dangerous ones. A child my husband know had an anaphylactic episode after a vaccination (not MMR), and today he's braindamaged. He might not be dead, but that doesn't mean the reaction wasn't serious enough for other moms to consider. So anaphylactic shock CAN be something dangerous, something awful.

I notice that in that study you gave, 5 out of every million doses caused anaphylaxys. That means, that in the 3 million doses given, about 15 caused anaphylaxys. If you assume that after such an episode, the child didn't get another shot, that means about 15 children in that study might be brain damaged, or came close to being brain damaged. I wouldn't call that safe.

Same with some of the other conditions it caused. My son has epilepsy, and the neurologist said it might be from his vaccinations. I wouldn't call a vaccine that did that to him, safe. Vaccines are risky. Yes, I still took the risk with my other kids, because the risk of disease in my opinion was higher. But I wouldn't blame a mom who decided different from me.

I don't understand how moms can't get this? Why is it so difficult to understand that people are SCARED of what vaccines might do to their kids? I'm a vaxer, I'm mostly pro-vaccines, but I feel like I'm fighting on the side of non-vaxers because I can place myself in their shoes. Why can't other vaxers do this too? :shrug:

The ones that suffered anaphylactic shock recovered, they didn't get brain damaged or it would have been noted as incidents of irreversible harm. The incidence rate of getting the shock was 0.5 per 100000 - compare that to the harm of the actual diseases. For example mumps affected 25% of the conscripts (consider every man has to be a conscript at some point) making many of them sterile (which if my calculations are correct then thats an incidence rate of irreversible damage of 520 per 100000, that a hell of a lot worse and thats only mumps)

Edit: Your epilepsy example is even more rare, only one case occurred making it a rate of 0.03 per 100000
I don't disagree. It's rare and the risks of disease outweighs the risk of vaccination for me too. But that doesn't mean vaccination, in particular MMR in this case, is safe. It's just not as dangerous as the diseases.

I'm very happy to hear those children all recovered!!!
 
Here's more information on the Finnish study and points out that the study did actually show that there is no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease - with a sample size of nearly 2 million people I would say thats a pretty conclusive study!
https://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

The twin study that was done as well is pretty damning evidence as it was a proper double blind study, half of the twins were given the MMR and half were giving a placebo (can't really do that kind of study now I guess, unethical) and it showed no increase in autism in the vaccinated twins and very low levels of side effects.

Anyone still think the MMR isn't safe??

Do you have the link for the actual study? This link just seems more like a summary of the study itself. I tried copying and pasting one of the references into Google, but the Lancet link no longer exists.
 
Here's more information on the Finnish study and points out that the study did actually show that there is no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease - with a sample size of nearly 2 million people I would say thats a pretty conclusive study!
https://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

The twin study that was done as well is pretty damning evidence as it was a proper double blind study, half of the twins were given the MMR and half were giving a placebo (can't really do that kind of study now I guess, unethical) and it showed no increase in autism in the vaccinated twins and very low levels of side effects.

Anyone still think the MMR isn't safe??
That study looks immensely interesting, I'd be sure to read all of it tonight, thank you.

But, I don't agree that you can say the MMR is safe based on that study. That implies that there's no adverse effects, or no dangerous ones. A child my husband know had an anaphylactic episode after a vaccination (not MMR), and today he's braindamaged. He might not be dead, but that doesn't mean the reaction wasn't serious enough for other moms to consider. So anaphylactic shock CAN be something dangerous, something awful.

I notice that in that study you gave, 5 out of every million doses caused anaphylaxys. That means, that in the 3 million doses given, about 15 caused anaphylaxys. If you assume that after such an episode, the child didn't get another shot, that means about 15 children in that study might be brain damaged, or came close to being brain damaged. I wouldn't call that safe.

Same with some of the other conditions it caused. My son has epilepsy, and the neurologist said it might be from his vaccinations. I wouldn't call a vaccine that did that to him, safe. Vaccines are risky. Yes, I still took the risk with my other kids, because the risk of disease in my opinion was higher. But I wouldn't blame a mom who decided different from me.

I don't understand how moms can't get this? Why is it so difficult to understand that people are SCARED of what vaccines might do to their kids? I'm a vaxer, I'm mostly pro-vaccines, but I feel like I'm fighting on the side of non-vaxers because I can place myself in their shoes. Why can't other vaxers do this too? :shrug:

The ones that suffered anaphylactic shock recovered, they didn't get brain damaged or it would have been noted as incidents of irreversible harm. The incidence rate of getting the shock was 0.5 per 100000 - compare that to the harm of the actual diseases. For example mumps affected 25% of the conscripts (consider every man has to be a conscript at some point) making many of them sterile (which if my calculations are correct then thats an incidence rate of irreversible damage of 520 per 100000, that a hell of a lot worse and thats only mumps)

Edit: Your epilepsy example is even more rare, only one case occurred making it a rate of 0.03 per 100000
I don't disagree. It's rare and the risks of disease outweighs the risk of vaccination for me too. But that doesn't mean vaccination, in particular MMR in this case, is safe. It's just not as dangerous as the diseases.

I'm very happy to hear those children all recovered!!!

Well you have a point there, nothing in life is truely safe but I think its fair to say the MMR is the safer choice.

Here's more information on the Finnish study and points out that the study did actually show that there is no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease - with a sample size of nearly 2 million people I would say thats a pretty conclusive study!
https://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

The twin study that was done as well is pretty damning evidence as it was a proper double blind study, half of the twins were given the MMR and half were giving a placebo (can't really do that kind of study now I guess, unethical) and it showed no increase in autism in the vaccinated twins and very low levels of side effects.

Anyone still think the MMR isn't safe??

Do you have the link for the actual study? This link just seems more like a summary of the study itself. I tried copying and pasting one of the references into Google, but the Lancet link no longer exists.

Haven't been able to find a link yet, might be too old a study to be still located but I'll keep looking
 
All of them exist on The Lancet - However you need a subscription to view them.
 
In a different thread someone posted some stats which showed the chances of being killed/damaged by an illness versus the chance of vaccine damage. It was a huge difference.

I understand why people wouldn't vaccinate if there was a family history of reactions to vaccinations but if there is not, it is best to vaccinate.
 
Finally finished reading those studies! :thumbup:

For the first one, from what I got from it, it was mostly about the efficacy of the vaccine . . correct? I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it interesting, however, I do still think the risks associated with any reactions outweigh the benefits in my opinion. I know that a lot of you won't agree with that, but there are still adverse reactions that COULD happen and I find those worse than dealing with the disease itself should my son get it.

That said, I found this study on the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in Finland with regards to an outbreak that occured in 1989, so not long after the MMR vaccine campagne started. I also want to point out that this study was done by one of the same researchers that did the studies Natsku posted. https://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/148/11/1103.full.pdf

A few points I wanted to post on here directly from the study:

1) Outbreaks have occurred among highly vaccinated schoolchildren, especially after documented airborne transmission, even in groups with close to 100 percent vaccination coverage.

2) Some clarification may be afforded by a theory which postulates that a large measles inoculum can cause vaccine failure, since airborne transmission might occasionally entail a massive inoculum

3) An 18-year-old male nonvaccinee at the high school developed symptoms.The 18-year-old index case was unvaccinated because he did not belong to the birth cohorts included in the official vaccination programs, nor had he been exposed to live virus in the sparsely populated rural areas covered by the Mo vaccination program beginning in 1975. **Yes, I realize that an unvaccinated teen started the spread of this within in school, but I think it's worth noting that even in this study they mention there was no way to track how he even got the measles . . whether or not it was from another unvaccinated person or a vaccinated person.**

4) 21 13 to 15-year-old junior high school students and one senior high school student developed measles in one generation during days 8-14 of the epidemic


5) All vaccinees who contracted measles had received their first vaccination after 15 months of age.

6) Vaccinated individuals contracted the disease earlier, on average, than unvaccinated individuals, and two incubation period distributions seemed to be superimposed on the first bimodal wave of high school cases

7) Thirty-six percent of the vaccinated junior high school students
and 8 percent of the vaccinated senior high school students with no history of measles were attacked

8) Unexpectedly, the attack rate among unvaccinated senior high school students who had no record of previous measles was only 6 percent

9) Measles risk was high among within-family exposed subjects, regardless of the number of vaccinations

10) In relatively new and airtight buildings, the vaccine failure rate was 48 percent. In contrast, no cases occurred in the older, more air-permeable houses. At least 69 percent of vaccine failures occurred after intense indoor exposure, either in the local high school or at home.

11) Both properly vaccinated and unvaccinated primary patients were equally contagious within families: The attack rates among family members were 47 percent and 43 percent, respectively.

12) Almost 80 percent of vaccinations could have been technically deficient, as seven out of nine failed when a sibling shared a bedroom with an index case

13) Furthermore, even if the division of vaccine failures into clearly either primary or secondary failure was accurate, an increased inoculum of measles would not have altered vaccine failure risk

14) However, our vaccinated index cases were no less contagious than unvaccinated index cases

15) In general, one has to be cautious when making generalizations from exceptional outbreaks, as they need something "unusual" in order to be
triggered, not just an unvaccinated individual.


16) Since airborne transmission might occasionally exceed the measles inoculum threshold, this could explain why even revaccinated individuals get
measles. It would thus appear that the presence of airborne transmission is one reason why eradication of measles has been much more difficult than originally anticipated.

I also wanted to post this:
"Peltola and Associates contributed a research letter to The Lancet, which was published in May 1998. The study terminated in 1996, two full years before Wakefield published his original findings and when he was specifically questioned, Professor Peltola stated that the study had not been designed to identify autism as a complication. Professor Peltola reported that about three million doses of the combined live-virus vaccine [MMR or Virivac Merck, West Point, PA, USA] had been administered in Finland between 1982 and 1996. He also listed the adverse events reported shortly after vaccination and their follow-up. The study, which was supported by a grant from Merck, did not investigate or report complications, which started weeks or months after vaccination. Again, Autism and IBD were not suspected to be, in any way related to MMR vaccination before 1998, and had not once been mentioned in the original 1994 publication." Here's a link to that letter: https://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)24018-9/fulltext

Lastly, I found this study published in 2005 on the increase in autism in Northern Finland. I do want to point out that I don't think the MMR vaccine is the primary cause of autism, however, I do believe that the heavy metals in vaccines can trigger autism in some children. Here's the link for the study: https://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514276221/isbn9514276221.pdf

Some points from the study I wanted to post:

1) About three to fourfold prevalence of AD in Northern Finland was found when compared to 16 years ago. **16 years ago, according to this study, would have been 1989 . . only 7 years after the MMR campaign started**

2) More concerning is the fact that the increase in younger children, all born in the second half of the MMR campaign, was even more spectacular. The cumulative incidence in the 5-7 age group specifically was 20.7/10,000 or more than 1 in 500 children.

3) A cumulative incidence of autism in Northern Finland of 12.2/10,000 an alarming increase when compared to the previously reported incidence of 4.75/10,000 in 1991.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind when I post my opinion or studies I find, but one of the main reasons I chose not to vaccinate my son was because there really are no long-term safety tests done on these vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies and the FDA have a bad reputation for releasing certain drugs and deeming them safe and it's not until years later that we find out the damage they truly cause. I strongly believe this could be the case with vaccines. If, at some point, I feel the need to vaccinate my son . . if we travel somewhere, etc . . then of course I'll revist the idea of getting him vaccinated, but until then, I believe that he is better off without them for various reasons including the long-term safety testing mentioned above.
 
In a different thread someone posted some stats which showed the chances of being killed/damaged by an illness versus the chance of vaccine damage. It was a huge difference.

I understand why people wouldn't vaccinate if there was a family history of reactions to vaccinations but if there is not, it is best to vaccinate.

What about those parents with children who have allergies (egg, dairy, etc) and they don't know how their child will react to the vaccine because of these allergies? Do you think that these parents should get their children vaccinated in hopes that they don't have an allergic reaction to them?
 
All of them exist on The Lancet - However you need a subscription to view them.

The Lancet link for the last study Natsku posted actually didn't work when I tried.

Edit: Nevermind, I found it through another source :)
 
I also wanted to post this study done on the serious adverse reactions of the MMR vaccine . . it was actually done by one of the same researched in the studies Natsku posted. https://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/MMR.pdf

Immunization of 1.8 million individuals and consumption of almost 3 million vaccine doses by the end of 1996 gave rise to 173 potentially serious reactions claimed to have been caused by MMR vaccination. In all, 77 neurologic, 73 allergic and 22 miscellaneous reactions and 1 death were reported, febrile seizure being the most common event. However, 45% of these events proved to be probably caused or contributed
by some other factor, giving an incidence of serious adverse events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with MMR vaccination of 5.3 per 100 000 vaccinees or 3.2 per 100 000 vaccine doses.

According to Dr. Patja, "Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura was also excluded because it has been analysed previously", this in spite of the fact that thrombocytopenic purpura following MMR vaccination was the most frequent complication requiring hospitalisation.
 
They do also note in the study that you posted cmarie that the incidence if these are higher in th actually diseases themselves, I think I read in one case 400 fold higher? I'm on my phone at mo so wasn't able to quote detail directly.
 
Finally finished reading those studies! :thumbup:

For the first one, from what I got from it, it was mostly about the efficacy of the vaccine . . correct? I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it interesting, however, I do still think the risks associated with any reactions outweigh the benefits in my opinion. I know that a lot of you won't agree with that, but there are still adverse reactions that COULD happen and I find those worse than dealing with the disease itself should my son get it.

That said, I found this study on the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in Finland with regards to an outbreak that occured in 1989, so not long after the MMR vaccine campagne started. I also want to point out that this study was done by one of the same researchers that did the studies Natsku posted. https://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/148/11/1103.full.pdf

A few points I wanted to post on here directly from the study:

1) Outbreaks have occurred among highly vaccinated schoolchildren, especially after documented airborne transmission, even in groups with close to 100 percent vaccination coverage.

2) Some clarification may be afforded by a theory which postulates that a large measles inoculum can cause vaccine failure, since airborne transmission might occasionally entail a massive inoculum

3) An 18-year-old male nonvaccinee at the high school developed symptoms.The 18-year-old index case was unvaccinated because he did not belong to the birth cohorts included in the official vaccination programs, nor had he been exposed to live virus in the sparsely populated rural areas covered by the Mo vaccination program beginning in 1975. **Yes, I realize that an unvaccinated teen started the spread of this within in school, but I think it's worth noting that even in this study they mention there was no way to track how he even got the measles . . whether or not it was from another unvaccinated person or a vaccinated person.**

4) 21 13 to 15-year-old junior high school students and one senior high school student developed measles in one generation during days 8-14 of the epidemic


5) All vaccinees who contracted measles had received their first vaccination after 15 months of age.

6) Vaccinated individuals contracted the disease earlier, on average, than unvaccinated individuals, and two incubation period distributions seemed to be superimposed on the first bimodal wave of high school cases

7) Thirty-six percent of the vaccinated junior high school students
and 8 percent of the vaccinated senior high school students with no history of measles were attacked

8) Unexpectedly, the attack rate among unvaccinated senior high school students who had no record of previous measles was only 6 percent

9) Measles risk was high among within-family exposed subjects, regardless of the number of vaccinations

10) In relatively new and airtight buildings, the vaccine failure rate was 48 percent. In contrast, no cases occurred in the older, more air-permeable houses. At least 69 percent of vaccine failures occurred after intense indoor exposure, either in the local high school or at home.

11) Both properly vaccinated and unvaccinated primary patients were equally contagious within families: The attack rates among family members were 47 percent and 43 percent, respectively.

12) Almost 80 percent of vaccinations could have been technically deficient, as seven out of nine failed when a sibling shared a bedroom with an index case

13) Furthermore, even if the division of vaccine failures into clearly either primary or secondary failure was accurate, an increased inoculum of measles would not have altered vaccine failure risk

14) However, our vaccinated index cases were no less contagious than unvaccinated index cases

15) In general, one has to be cautious when making generalizations from exceptional outbreaks, as they need something "unusual" in order to be
triggered, not just an unvaccinated individual.


16) Since airborne transmission might occasionally exceed the measles inoculum threshold, this could explain why even revaccinated individuals get
measles. It would thus appear that the presence of airborne transmission is one reason why eradication of measles has been much more difficult than originally anticipated.

I also wanted to post this:
"Peltola and Associates contributed a research letter to The Lancet, which was published in May 1998. The study terminated in 1996, two full years before Wakefield published his original findings and when he was specifically questioned, Professor Peltola stated that the study had not been designed to identify autism as a complication. Professor Peltola reported that about three million doses of the combined live-virus vaccine [MMR or Virivac Merck, West Point, PA, USA] had been administered in Finland between 1982 and 1996. He also listed the adverse events reported shortly after vaccination and their follow-up. The study, which was supported by a grant from Merck, did not investigate or report complications, which started weeks or months after vaccination. Again, Autism and IBD were not suspected to be, in any way related to MMR vaccination before 1998, and had not once been mentioned in the original 1994 publication." Here's a link to that letter: https://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)24018-9/fulltext

Lastly, I found this study published in 2005 on the increase in autism in Northern Finland. I do want to point out that I don't think the MMR vaccine is the primary cause of autism, however, I do believe that the heavy metals in vaccines can trigger autism in some children. Here's the link for the study: https://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514276221/isbn9514276221.pdf

Some points from the study I wanted to post:

1) About three to fourfold prevalence of AD in Northern Finland was found when compared to 16 years ago. **16 years ago, according to this study, would have been 1989 . . only 7 years after the MMR campaign started**

2) More concerning is the fact that the increase in younger children, all born in the second half of the MMR campaign, was even more spectacular. The cumulative incidence in the 5-7 age group specifically was 20.7/10,000 or more than 1 in 500 children.

3) A cumulative incidence of autism in Northern Finland of 12.2/10,000 an alarming increase when compared to the previously reported incidence of 4.75/10,000 in 1991.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind when I post my opinion or studies I find, but one of the main reasons I chose not to vaccinate my son was because there really are no long-term safety tests done on these vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies and the FDA have a bad reputation for releasing certain drugs and deeming them safe and it's not until years later that we find out the damage they truly cause. I strongly believe this could be the case with vaccines. If, at some point, I feel the need to vaccinate my son . . if we travel somewhere, etc . . then of course I'll revist the idea of getting him vaccinated, but until then, I believe that he is better off without them for various reasons including the long-term safety testing mentioned above.

The study you link to gave two possible explanations for the vaccine failures - the large measles inoculum that you pointed out and a break in the cold chain as the vaccines were transported in a handbag rather than in a refrigerated container and if the vaccines are exposed to warmth for too long (which it seems was quite possible in that situation) then they become much less effective. I think the fact that the MMR has been shown to be very effective since then makes it seem quite likely that it was caused by something like that.

And about my study, I'm sure I remember reading that it was particularly noteworthy because it did not set a time limit on reporting adverse effects so surely that means it would have considered issues that came up weeks or months later?

Interesting about the increase in autism in Northern Finland. I do wonder what the cause of that is. They certainly do have more issues than the rest of Finland, healthwise, I remember there is a certain town up north that has its own form of mental ******ation named after the town as they were so inbred, trying to remember what it was, damn my memory.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,650,216
Messages
27,142,036
Members
255,685
Latest member
queenmom14
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "c48fb0faa520c8dfff8c4deab485d3d2"
<-- Admiral -->