C
CMarie
Guest
Finally finished reading those studies!
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.
I read that too, but they could not determine the exact reason for the outbreak so it could be either one of those reasons.
Weeks and months later are different than years later. It could take years for someone to show they had a certain reaction to a vaccine, it may not be immediate
so ended up getting three doses (though at least that means I'm more likely to still be immune, always a good thing)
