MMR- especially Measles - Page 2

[tanyalynn]

I agree measles isn't something to be feared, but I do respect it, and I think it's prudent to have a plan for if/when it visits.

Here's a news article from New Zealand, 12% of toddlers (6 mos to 2 years) are vitamin A deficient. And based on my experience with my kids, kids don't have to look extremely sickly to be borderline. And that study didn't look at zinc, which is critical for immune function and is often quite low in diet in the US, and although they mentioned vitamin D deficiency, I'd bet the cutoff they used for sufficient/deficient was a lot lower than I think is appropriate, so a lot of kids could benefit from more of that too. I've seen good results with my kids with nutritional supplementation for dealing with illness.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...jectid=9006061

You can google to read studies on vitamin A toxicity, 200,000 IU isn't near the threshold where toxicity has been seen.

[tanyalynn]

Originally Posted by Deborah

So why does the WHO threaten people living in countries with good sanitation with the disease rates of countries with poor sanitation?

Methinks I smell fearmongering and manipulation.

Yeah, I think so too, but (and maybe I'm naive) I think it's intended to be for a good cause. I don't know any conventional doctors who know how to deal with illness except rest, and then pharmaceuticals. Good food, let alone nutritional supplementation, isn't on the radar, and yet I've had a lot of success with my son, who gets sick a lot more than most kids.

I tend to think that the conventional view has just two choices--vaccinate, or risk the lottery of bad outcomes, and the likelihood of a bad outcome is fixed. And when your universe of choices is so narrow, there's more urgency in convincing everyone that they NEED to do this.

[Deborah]

Some of the people involved may have good intentions and a limited point of view.

But there is definitely some selective framing going on.

For example, one article I read about chickenpox claimed that 1 in 10 children would have complications and some would end up hospitalized. If you read the CDC info for parents, you'll get the impression that there is no way to tell who would have problems and who would not.

Then go read the CDC info for medical professionals: The Pink Book. The discussion there says that it is usually mild in healthy children and severe complications tend to occur in the immune impaired or children with severe conditions like leukemia.

I didn't find it difficult to find a medical journal article linking CP problems with the use of fever suppressors.

Now, if I can trace this story with a little bit of time and effort, there is no reason why a trained MD should feel helpless and hopeless when faced with a case of CP in a healthy little kid...is there?

Sorry for changing from measles to CP, but I recently did the research on this illness for a blog article so it was fresh in my mind.

[tanyalynn]

No, I think the general similarity between the two is pretty clear, even if measles does tend to be more severe overall. I remember reading about complications of measles--and in the overall percentage given, you had to read the fine print to realize they included ear infections. Which--sure, not good, and many doctors don't seem to know what to do for them other than antibiotics anyway, but intentionally misleading, I agree, for, I believe, the purpose of persuading parents to vaccinate.

I definitely agree that the words and numbers chosen by CDC (I've read more written by them than by WHO) are carefully chosen to convince parents to vaccinate. Communication of objective facts, simple information, is not their goal, but I meant that they were trying to manipulate us for our own good. Not laudable, but I haven't fallen over into the "they're trying to kill us off" conspiracy yet, was the distinction I was trying to make.

I think the other factor is an issue of control. A doctor can control the administration of a vaccine, no parental judgement is involved beyond one decision point that they work hard to influence, and can then feel that they've done their part, they have done everything they can. Feeding a kid good food, figuring out which supplements may be useful for an illness and in what dosages and giving them, those would be parental decisions, and I think putting the responsibility for illness management back in the hands of parents, where it naturally resides, is a difficult exercise given the power dynamic that seems to exist between doctors and parents.

At an even higher level, CDC makes recommendations, but then beyond that, they feel their objective is to achieve compliance with those recommendations. They could have an objective of people _knowing_ that X is CDC's recommendation, separating themselves from the outcomes people choose. Similar to--tell people that seat belts save lives, but don't make it law.

[Sileree]

A little OT but I saw this article and really could not believe the exaggeration:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...igan-tips-0420

"Young parents today don't remember, but 10 percent of kids who suffer measles are left with some degree of hearing loss. One in 20 develops pneumonia. One in 5 develops brain damage or encephalitis."

Ugh.

[cloak]

When considering the MMR know that it is an aborted fetal cell vaccine.
http://cogforlife.org/

Also an EPA study was just released and groups have used it to tie in the rises in autism with the MMR and chicken pox vaccines.

HERE

[-Grace-]

I believe the WHO discusses things on a world-wide level. The numbers, in total, sounds grim and would be cause for concern for all of us. But when broken down by are, we see a different picture. The WHO can't be expected to report on each individual region in the world.

And the CDC, no doubt, picks and chooses to get the slant they want.

[rabbitmum]

Originally Posted by Sileree

A little OT but I saw this article and really could not believe the exaggeration:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...igan-tips-0420



Ugh.

Sileree, the article says one in 1000 develops brain damage or encephalitis, not one in 5.

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by rabbitmum

Sileree, the article says one in 1000 develops brain damage or encephalitis, not one in 5.

There is a comment at the bottom of the article with the same complaint, that it said 1 in 5 will develop encephalitis. I imagine it did say that at one time, and they changed/corrected it.

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by Pirogi

There is a comment at the bottom of the article with the same complaint, that it said 1 in 5 will develop encephalitis. I imagine it did say that at one time, and they changed/corrected it.

Yup, I guess they changed it.