or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Selective & Delayed Vaccination › MMR - Yes or no??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MMR - Yes or no?? - Page 2

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
This is real break down for the 131 cases:

6 vaccinated completely
5 vaccinated partially
63 unvaccinated for rel/philo reasons
17 unvaccinated for age reasons
50 of undetermined status
Regardless, of the vaccination status of 131 people that caught measles, the vaccine has not saved any lives. Measles is a benign childhood disease.
post #22 of 29
I'd argue you are wrong about not saving any lives, but I don't think it would get anywhere here

But I agree that, without international travel as a factor, residing in the USA would make you very unlikely to catch measles. Though all of the cases this year were traced back to importation: travel to switzerland, an international conference, an international sports competition, etc.

Quote:
For some reason, my gut tells me to wait.
If your gut is telling you that, I would take that intuition and work with it. Definitely put it off and research it some more.

Quote:
Now with our nb here, I'm leary of him contracting something and passing it to her, which is also our peds newest arguement for me to vaccinate my son with MMR.
This would go back to the low probability here in the USA. We don't get a lot of measles cases and, when we do, they seem to come via travel. SO, in your research, I would really try and figure out how you feel about the actual risk of getting measles. Kinda weigh that in with your risk benefit analysis.


Quote:
I've never heard of the titer test that you are speaking of...what is it?
Sometimes we gain immunity without showing symptoms. So, you could have that checked and see if immunity is present...if so, then all this worry is for nothing!

Quote:
Also, does prolonging the vac MMR help lower his odds of having a reaction to it-both physically and neurologically?
It's a possibility. I think that is why a lot of people choose to delay as much as they feel comfortable with (or, obviously, choose not to do them at all)
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
I'd argue you are wrong about not saving any lives, but I don't think it would get anywhere here
If you contracted measles in 1955 (no vaccine) you would have had a 0.25% chance of dying, if you got it in 2007 (vaccine available), you would have had a 0.27% of dying. Of course more people died of measles in 1955 because more people caught it, so in that way it saved lives, but percentage-wise the vaccine hasn't done a thing to improve death-rate.

But you are right, no point discussing it with me, neither of us will get anywhere.
post #24 of 29
:
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by uccomama View Post
Gitti posted these figures on measles and I think it puts it into perspectively very nicely:

..

In 1959 basically everyone had measles. So that would be 2,000,000 kids a year. And as recorded, 385 died.


So that means the MMR has done nothing to save lives, and, with 131 reported cases of measles in the entire country in 2007, really how likely is your child to get them and pass them onto your newborn? There is more chance of the vaccine shedding.

The titer test tests for antibodies. An older child has a more mature immune system, so would probably deal with the vaccine more easily, no guarantees though.
Wow. That's some strange logic. First you and Giti state a time when everyone had measles and there was no vaccination and deaths were reported.

Then you state the current stats where the majority vaccinate and there are no deaths.


So just HOW do you arrive at the conslusion that measles vax has done nothing to save lives?!!

Upon what are you basing this information on ?!
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by uccomama View Post
Regardless, of the vaccination status of 131 people that caught measles, the vaccine has not saved any lives. Measles is a benign childhood disease.

Your proof that it has not saved any lives?
post #27 of 29
Can anyone tell me what is so terrible about measles, mumps or rubella? I personally see them as natural childhood diseases which in the developed world do not cause many severe complications or deaths. I am currently deciding not to vac my 15 month old, basically again as a gut reaction, she has had all her other shots up until now.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenajm View Post
Can anyone tell me what is so terrible about measles, mumps or rubella? I personally see them as natural childhood diseases which in the developed world do not cause many severe complications or deaths. I am currently deciding not to vac my 15 month old, basically again as a gut reaction, she has had all her other shots up until now.
I find the mmr diseases benign, but I think nowadays the way doctors and parents treat it makes it more dangerous.
post #29 of 29
I think that the impact of rubella on a pregnant woman has nothing to do with a developed nation or not.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Selective & Delayed Vaccination
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Selective & Delayed Vaccination › MMR - Yes or no??