or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccine Safety Curriculum for Medical Residents - American Academy of Pediatrics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccine Safety Curriculum for Medical Residents - American Academy of Pediatrics - Page 2

post #21 of 247
I don't know what "a lot" of pregnant women means, exactly, but according to the pink book the rubella vaccine is 95% effective for at least 15 years and immunity is believed to be lifelong.

It also says that second rubella infections are "very rare," I swear I recently read they weren't that rare but maybe I'm mistaken.
post #22 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Historically, measles has a good record of terrifying parents.

 

You are quoting revisionist post-vaccine propaganda again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


That's just not true.
Historically, measles has been considered a routine childhood disease--annoying, uncomfortable, and contagious, but with only rare complications, and those in children with underlying health problems.
Before vaccination, parents weren't terrified of it--they expected it. It was common practice to put children to bed with an infected sibling so they would get it and be done with it, according to many, including author and historian John Fitzgerald, author of "The Great Brain" children's books.

 

This, I was brought up in the UK and am old enough to not to have been vaccinated against measles, I can assure you that no one was afraid of measles in the 60s in Britain. My mother certainly would have been if there was a fear campaign running for this disease. 

post #23 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You can get rubella more than once, the vaccine isn't perfect (no vaccine is) and natural infection does not necessarily prevent you from getting it again.
There is no evidence that measles or mumps immunity fades significantly over time. Mir you have some data on fading titers I'd love to see it, but otherwise guessing is exactly what you're doing.

 

That's exactly why I specified "I'm guessing."

 

I believe Mr. Offit was stating here " natural infection with 'systemic' viruses such as measles, mumps, rubella, or varicella often confers life-long protection against mild disease associated with reinfection."

 

that not only do those vpds give lifelong immunity, if there is reinfection, it is mild.

 

I'm not the only one with that opinion about MMR immunity. Dr. Russel Blaylock:

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/01/29/forced-vaccinations-government-and-the-public-interest/

 

 

Quote:

In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.

 

 

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/154/16/1815

Quote:
The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles. The longterm success of a two-dose strategy to eliminate measles remains to be determined.

 

I don't have numbers about adult women lacking rubella immunity, I have seen several posts here about women finding out in pregnancy and looking to vax themselves post partum for future pregnancies. 

post #24 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

The first thing I posted, this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/pdf/pubhealthreporig00027-0069.pdf

 

from 1967? puts herd immunity level at 55%. I guess that's why they thought they could eradicate measles in a year. Nowadays I believe they think we need at least low 90s for herd immunity.

 

I wonder how many adults who received MMR as kids no longer have immunity. 

 

I wonder what will happen when baby boomer generation is out of the picture, the last generation with significant natural immunity.

 

The problem is immunity through the measure of antibodies is meaningless because it is bogus. Antibody response is merely an indication that the body has "wounds", wounds created from the adjuvants and other toxins in vaccination. I have pointed out before that no one has ever isolated, purified and categorized the measles virus (or any other human, animal or plant virus for that matter), so how does one measure immunity to a yet to be identified virus? Before anyone posts wiki pics of the measles virus, I will tell you now that they are fakes, none of them are of the actual measles virus, they are indeterminate cell particles. Ask the CDC for genuine EM photos of the isolated purified measles virus, you won't get it because they don't have such a thing.

post #25 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

You are quoting revisionist post-vaccine propaganda again.

 

This, I was brought up in the UK and am old enough to not to have been vaccinated against measles, I can assure you that no one was afraid of measles in the 60s in Britain. My mother certainly would have been if there was a fear campaign running for this disease. 

And in the US 1969 - Brady Bunch season 1 episode 13

 

Peter, then Jan, then the rest of the Brady siblings become ill with the measles. During their recovery, they begin debating the abilities of male and female doctors.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0531101/

post #26 of 247
We're back to a basic disagreement over the facts, so I'll just leave it at the statistics I posted earlier on measles deaths and complications. I disagree with the statement on antibodies being meaningless and I also disagree with the idea that there is a huge difference between natural and vaccine induced immunity, particularly as concerns mmr. I also think here immunity as a result of vaccines is as much an epidemiological fact as is possible to have.
post #27 of 247
So I guess we're substituting anecdotal evidence about women who've posted they had to be reimmunized for the actual research that shows the mmr vaccine is long lasting, probably for life?
post #28 of 247

I am persistently confused by the use of the Brady Bunch as a measure of disease risk.

post #29 of 247
There is no booster suggested for mmr, there is a second dose to catch the people who didn't get immunity from the first dose. There's also no booster for chicken pox. I'm not sure where the person you're quoting gets the idea that there's some kind of secret strategy to boost people so they won't realize their immunity fades, and their statement about 2-10 years just flat contradicts research.

When there has been a situation where immunity fades significantly over time (pertussis) we have realized it and there hasn't been some kind of quiet push for boosters, there's been a major public education campaign to get the word out and encourage people to get their booster!
post #30 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

I am persistently confused by the use of the Brady Bunch as a measure of disease risk.

 

Just a primary source of cultural perception of measles in 1969. smile.gif

post #31 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There is no booster suggested for mmr, there is a second dose to catch the people who didn't get immunity from the first dose. There's also no booster for chicken pox. I'm not sure where the person you're quoting gets the idea that there's some kind of secret strategy to boost people so they won't realize their immunity fades, and their statement about 2-10 years just flat contradicts research.
When there has been a situation where immunity fades significantly over time (pertussis) we have realized it and there hasn't been some kind of quiet push for boosters, there's been a major public education campaign to get the word out and encourage people to get their booster!

 

Well I was wondering outloud, if that after the generations with natural immunity to mmr and cp fade out, if more boosters will be added to schedule for teens and adults, since the major chunk of population that you could rely on to help real herd immunity numbers is no longer around.

post #32 of 247
I am always annoyed by these articles that say "vaccines don't work because most people who get sick are immunized.". Well OF COURSE most people who get sick are immunized, 99.6% of the population is immunized!

Think about it this way. Someone comes to school with the measles. They expose 100 students. Let's say 10 of those students aren't immunized. Let's assume the vaccine is 95% effective. We should expect 5-6 of the immunized group to get sick and I think 90% is the number for the non immunized group, so 9 of them. OMG! 30-40% of the people who got sick were vaccinated! The vaccine must not work! Call geraldo!

If you take the high end of vaccine rates quoted, 99.8 percent, you end up with 5 sick immunized children and 0-1 sick unimmunized children. OMG 100% OF THE OUTBREAK WAS IMMUNIZED KIDS!
post #33 of 247
Except immunized people ARE real herd immunity. By that logic we should be having a resurgence of both small pox and polio.
post #34 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Except immunized people ARE real herd immunity. By that logic we should be having a resurgence of both small pox and polio.

 

Unless other factors really are responsible for their decline.

post #35 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

Just a primary source of cultural perception of measles in 1969. smile.gif

Which is a great deal more reliable than that spouted by the revisionists.

post #36 of 247

The Brady Bunch is a primary source of popular depictions of measles in 1969.  It's a poor source for cultural perceptions of measles at that time:

 

- Stories of children who died of measles made for depressing stories unsuitable for a continuing television series.  Roald Dahl's description of his daughter's death from measles is an excellent example of the tragic nature of these stories.

 

- The general public was not relying on the Brady Bunch or any other television series in the late 1960s to tell them what measles was like. 

post #37 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

The Brady Bunch is a primary source of popular depictions of measles in 1969.  It's a poor source for cultural perceptions of measles at that time:

 

- Stories of children who died of measles made for depressing stories unsuitable for a continuing television series.  Roald Dahl's description of his daughter's death from measles is an excellent example of the tragic nature of these stories.

 

- The general public was not relying on the Brady Bunch or any other television series in the late 1960s to tell them what measles was like. 

 

In 1969 there were 25,826 cases measles and 41 deaths. 1968 - 22,231 and 24 deaths. 1960 - 441,703 and 380 deaths. So 0.08% - 0.15% of cases resulted in death in 1960's US, and those are the only accounts that should be valid?

post #38 of 247

Many accounts are valid as evidence of the nature and consequences of measles in the 1960s. 

 

I am arguing that the Brady Bunch is not a valid source of cultural perception of measles at the time, because the average person would have had many other sources of information about measles that would have been more powerful than a single episode of a popular television series.
 

post #39 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

Unless other factors really are responsible for their decline.

So I guess it's just a coincidence that the incidence of polio dropped 85-90% once the vaccine started being used.

post #40 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

Unless other factors really are responsible for their decline.

So I guess it's just a coincidence that the incidence of polio dropped 85-90% once the vaccine started being used.

 

Exactly Rachel. Vaccines have done zero to help erradicate disease - nada, zilch, zero. Better stop vaxing. *end sarcasm*

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccine Safety Curriculum for Medical Residents - American Academy of Pediatrics