Powdered Measles Vax Starting Trials

[anewmama]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...36/detail.html

[nicolebeth]

That sounds so disgusting!!

Are the nasal passages the way that measles is transmitted? Regardless, not interested.

[alegna]

Interesting. My understanding is that that would be a more "natural" measles acquisition route.

-Angela

[nicolebeth]

There's just something about nebulizing in powdered measles. I don't care for the MMR, either. But, wouldn't this lend itself to more shedding like the Flumist?

[PaigeC]

Well at least it would be a measles only option. I wonder what adjuvants it will have.

[MadameXCupcake]

Originally Posted by nicolebeth

There's just something about nebulizing in powdered measles. I don't care for the MMR, either. But, wouldn't this lend itself to more shedding like the Flumist?

Thats what I was wondering. Wouldn't it beable to cause the measles? Well I guess thats why they are testing it.

[anewmama]

It sounds freaky to me, too. But, if the trials work, aside from those little annoying issues, at least it might be an option for parents who are freaked out with the MMR. It might become the only available singles.

[Drummer's Wife]

wow! interesting, thanks.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

Well at least it would be a measles only option. I wonder what adjuvants it will have.

Probably none if it's a live vaccine.

[mamakay]

http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/...en/aerosol.pdf

[Th1Th2]

I don't see this as advancement but another precarious experimentation---nothing new. When will the medical community admit that vaccines are useless, ineffective and most of all harmful?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

I don't see this as advancement but another precarious experimentation---nothing new. When will the medical community admit that vaccines are useless, ineffective and most of all harmful?

Do you really mean that as a general statement for all vaccines, or do you in fact mean a lot of them aren't as useful as claimed, a lot of them aren't as effective as they are supposed to be and what benifits there are are outweighed by harmful side effects. I keep seeing posts like yours and I am never sure how to read them. Apologies for being dense.

[Th1Th2]

The word "safe" means the absence of harm, side effects and contraindications. We're not going to argue if vaccines are safe, are we? Vaccine failures are also well documented in history although vaccines are never really useful and beneficial in the first place. They are only effective in conferring diseases.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

The word "safe" means the absence of harm, side effects and contraindications. We're not going to argue if vaccines are safe, are we? Vaccine failures are also well documented in history although vaccines are never really useful and beneficial in the first place. They are only effective in conferring diseases.

OK. To me, safe is relative. I'm certainly not going to argue that vaccines are safe in an absolute sense. Bad things can and do happen. It's only meaningful (to me) to talk about the safety of a course of action if you consider it against the safety of the alternative. I'm a newbie her, but I am trying very hard to get a handle on that comparison.

I don't know what you mean that vaccines are never really useful. The small pox vaccine (in combination with quarantine) seems to have gotten quite a bit of support on this forum as an example of a useful case of vaccination.

I agree that some vaccines can and do create new cases of disease, but nobody has shown me any evidence that this isn't more than compensated for by the reduction in the number of cases that the vaccine itself prevents. Again, I'm working to get a better handle on this.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't know what you mean that vaccines are never really useful. The small pox vaccine (in combination with quarantine) seems to have gotten quite a bit of support on this forum as an example of a useful case of vaccination.

The smallpox vaccine that brought an epidemic of smallpox cases in the Philippines since mass immunization? Have you ever heard of provocation polio or vaccine-induced poliomyelitis?

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I agree that some vaccines can and do create new cases of disease, but nobody has shown me any evidence that this isn't more than compensated for by the reduction in the number of cases that the vaccine itself prevents. Again, I'm working to get a better handle on this.

Better health has to be credited for the curtailing of human diseases unfortunately vaccines prevent health.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

The smallpox vaccine that brought an epidemic of smallpox cases in the Philippines since mass immunization?

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Have you ever heard of provocation polio or vaccine-induced poliomyelitis?

I know that some vaccines can create new incidence of the illness they are tying to prevent. Is that what you're talking about? No question that that is a problem, but it isn't at all the same as saying they don't work.

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Better health has to be credited for the curtailing of human diseases

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

unfortunately vaccines prevent health.

Support for this claim is something I would be very grateful for.

[mkmoro311]

Would this form of treatment be able to filter the vax enough that it would cause little to no side effects unlike the injection that has no filter when administrating it directly in the blood stream!

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I know that some vaccines can create new incidence of the illness they are tying to prevent. Is that what you're talking about? No question that that is a problem, but it isn't at all the same as saying they don't work.

You just nullified your own statement.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Support for this claim is something I would be very grateful for.

The putative practice of childhood immunization throughout the first year of life is an utter cruelty given to a NON-DISEASED newborn by intentional and invasive exposure to at least 14 diseases. Do you think that is something healthier than babyfood and breastmilk?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

I know that some vaccines can create new incidence of the illness they are tying to prevent. Is that what you're talking about? No question that that is a problem, but it isn't at all the same as saying they don't work.

You just nullified your own statement.

I don't think that I nullified anything. It's all a question of the size of the effect. If it happens once out of every million vaccination it doesn't matter. If it happens every time it's a huge problem. You can't just say that because it happens vaccines are no good.

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

The putative practice of childhood immunization throughout the first year of life is an utter cruelty given to a NON-DISEASED newborn by intentional and invasive exposure to at least 14 diseases. Do you think that is something healthier than babyfood and breastmilk?

But who is asking people to choose between vaccines and breast milk. I agree that the vaccine is given to babies who aren't ill and that this poses ethical problems. To be honest that's something that I am still trying to resolve in my own mind, but I do feel a lot of sympathy for this position. Equally many people seem to be very keen to expose non diseased children to the wild forms of these illnesses. Are you against that also?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't think that I nullified anything. It's all a question of the size of the effect. If it happens once out of every million vaccination it doesn't matter. If it happens every time it's a huge problem. You can't just say that because it happens vaccines are no good.

Like I said before, vaccines never played a significant role towards better health so it is useless in giving merits.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

But who is asking people to choose between vaccines and breast milk. I agree that the vaccine is given to babies who aren't ill and that this poses ethical problems. To be honest that's something that I am still trying to resolve in my own mind, but I do feel a lot of sympathy for this position. Equally many people seem to be very keen to expose non diseased children to the wild forms of these illnesses. Are you against that also?

You mean to say vaccines are as healthy as breast milk when it comes to choice? Wild-type diseases are the ones recognized by the body to facilitate NORMAL immune response. They are never deadly or severe. I am not against natural exposure but it's not my priority either.