or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › would you do MMR?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

would you do MMR? - Page 2

post #21 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Here's one (case) in Philly, from May 25 2012.

 

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/05/25/case-of-measles-identified-in-philadelphia-resident/

I think dakotablue's doctor needs to read up on the definition of "outbreak." One or two recent cases of measles in Philadelphia is certainly not an "outbreak," and would still be in line with the annual national average of 60.

post #22 of 59
Thats what I thought. The last time there could have been a classification of "outbreak" in her area was 1991. It seems like scare tactics to me.
post #23 of 59

I take measles pretty seriously.  I can understand how you might decline the MMR because of concerns about safety, or allergies to vaccine ingredients, or a family history of auto-immune issues or vaccine reactions, or because you just aren't certain about vaccines and your child won't be in group care situations for some time yet.  If you were thinking about declining the MMR because measles, mumps, and rubella aren't serious diseases, I would urge you to get the shot. 

 

All three of those diseases were once common childhood illnesses.  Small numbers of people each year faced serious complications as a result.  As others have said, those small numbers were significant. 

 

People with underlying health conditions are more likely to suffer complications (though they are not the only people who do).  My kid has an underlying health condition.  She's a pretty remarkable kid when people meet her, but not because of her underlying health condition.  Unless you've seen her dad turn pale when she develops a fever with sniffles, you would never guess (I freak out too, but without changing skin color).  Until your kid has gotten sick a few times and you've seen the results, you won't know if your child has an underlying health condition that would make measles, mumps, or rubella more dangerous than it would be for the average person.  And even at that point, a bad case of the wrong illness can give your kid an underlying health condition - for example, Reactive Airway Disorder is a common consequence of RSV.  RAD is an underlying health condition that increases the risks associated with measles, mumps, and ear and respiratory infections.

 

It makes me furious when people discount deaths from disease outbreaks because "those people had underlying health conditions" or "we don't know what kind of underlying health conditions those people had."  People with underlying health conditions are real people.  Their complicated illnesses and deaths really matter to the people who care about them.  They count.  Part of the purpose of vaccination is to provide herd immunity for people with underlying health conditions.   

 

Last year, MA had an outbreak of measles that involved a transit worker at South Station in Boston.  If I can get to Philly on the Amtrak from South Station, so can measles.  While your doc may be over-stating the Philadelphia outbreak, I can understand why doctors would be concerned about keeping the MMR uptake rate high on the east coast.  Population density is high and there's a lot of travel between cities.  A large-scale outbreak could quickly overwhelm hospitals in the area.

post #24 of 59
Quote:
A large-scale outbreak could quickly overwhelm hospitals in the area.

 

 

The vast majority of people with measles do not need to be hospitalized, there is no conventional medical treatment for it. What kind of disease are you imagining measles is? Since the vaccine was introduced, it has not changed into some new kind of super killer virus, it is just the same disease it was 40 years ago and the vast numbers who got sailed through it. Now given the fact that a great number of people in the US are now immune compromised from vaccines, environmental pollutants, and malnourished from processed foods, and consume vast amounts of food additives, and frankenfoods like GMOs and mercury laden HFCS, then it is possible they wouldn't fare as well and children of the previous generation who were less health compromised.


Edited by Mirzam - 6/30/12 at 10:36am
post #25 of 59

Some benefits from having childhood diseases:

 

Properly managed (meaning not mismanaged by the administration of antipyretics and antibiotics), having measles not only results in a life-long specific immunity to measles, but also in a life-long non-specific protection against degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, immunoreactive diseases (such as allergies, asthma), sebaceous skin diseases and cancers. As Ronne (1985) demonstrated, not having measles with a proper rash is not desirable. It predisposes to the above diseases; and these were just the diseases that he studied. There could be other non-specific benefits from measles. West (1966) published already several decades ago that having mumps prevents ovarian cancer.  [My bolding] -  Viera Scheibner, PhD

post #26 of 59
double post
post #27 of 59
Measles is an extremely contagious disease that causes serious complications in a small percentage of people who get it, mostly in the very young, the very old, the immune-compromised and people with underlying health conditions. Because measles is so contagious, hospitalizing that small percentage of people who need hospital support as a result of measles is complicated. Hospitals are full of immunocompromised people who have serious health conditions and who are highly likely to suffer serious consequences if they get measles. There aren't that many quarantined hospital wards.

Mirzam, you've made it very clear that you think anyone who gets sick has only themselves and their dietary choices to blame. I find your reasoning flawed. You ignore germ theory and massive problems in public health infrastructure in favor of blaming sick people. I think your analysis would benefit from greater consideration of a wider variety of factors.
post #28 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

It makes me furious when people discount deaths from disease outbreaks because "those people had underlying health conditions" or "we don't know what kind of underlying health conditions those people had."  People with underlying health conditions are real people.  Their complicated illnesses and deaths really matter to the people who care about them.  They count.  Part of the purpose of vaccination is to provide herd immunity for people with underlying health conditions.   

 

 

I don't think people are discounting the deaths of people with underlying health conditions.  Any death or serious reaction from a VPD or vaccine injury is a horrible thing!  

 

What I think people mean when they say "underlying health conditions" is that measles (mumps, rubella, chicken pox) are not typically dangerous for healthy individuals.

 

If a mother comes on this forum worrying about whether she needs to worry about a disease, the stats on  the health profile of those affected is vitally important.  If my child is healthy, and I learn healthy children have a 1/2000 serious complication rate, that is very different than if my child is not healthy and has (statistically) a 1/200 rate of complication.  

 

I have 2 children who are perfectly healthy, and one who is prone to chest infections.  I am seriously considering getting a pneumonia vax for my pneumonia prone daughter - and I am not getting it for my healthy children.  They have different health profiles.


Edited by purslaine - 6/30/12 at 11:37am
post #29 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

.

It makes me furious when people discount deaths from disease outbreaks because "those people had underlying health conditions" or "we don't know what kind of underlying health conditions those people had."  People with underlying health conditions are real people.  Their complicated illnesses and deaths really matter to the people who care about them.  They count. 

So why doesn't it make you furious when people discount deaths, brain damage, or autism that results from vaccinating people who had underlying health conditions?

Where is your outrage over the fact that Hannah Poling's autism resulted from vaccination on top of mitochondrial disorder, yet nobody is testing babies or children for mitochondrial disorder before vaccination--in spite of indications that autistic children are likely to have mitochondrial disorder? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130161521.htm)

What about the recent study that indicates that the Hep B vaccine may play a role in causing mitochondrial disorder? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249285)

What if Hannah Poling's mito disorder was actually CAUSED by all the vaccines she'd had since birth? After all, her mother apparently has the same mito disorder; she was vaccinated as a child--but with far fewer vaccines than Hannah, that were given far later.

I don't understand how doctors can be furious at complacency about the possibility of complications from a usually harmless disease, but then turn around and be complacent about the complications from a usually harmless (we think....we don't know for sure) vaccine.
post #30 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

I don't think people are discounting the deaths of people with underlying health conditions.  Any death or serious reaction from a VPD or vaccine injury is a horrible thing!  

 

What I think people mean when they say "underlying health conditions" is that measles (mumps, rubella, chicken pox) are not typically dangerous for healthy individuals.

 

If a mother comes on this forum worrying about whether she needs to worry about a disease, the stats on  the health profile of those affected is vitally important.  If my child is healthy, and I learn healthy children have a 1/2000 serious complication rate, that is very different than if my child is not healthy and has (statistically) a 1/200 rate of complication.  

 

I have 2 children who are perfectly healthy, and one who is prone to chest infections.  I am seriously considering getting a pneumonia vax for my pneumonia prone daughter - and I am not getting it for my healthy children.  They have different health profiles.


You might want to consider that they all breathe on each other, and that vaccinating all of them will provide more protection for your kid who is prone to chest infections than vaccinating just the one.

 

My other major point about underlying health conditions that I think is being over-looked here is that people with underlying health conditions are often healthy.  The major factor that allows doctors to diagnose an underlying health condition is an illness that goes badly.  It's often a retroactive diagnosis.

post #31 of 59

OP, which disease do you worry about, measles or mumps too? We are only worried about measles and are able to get that monovalent in Europe. In case you travel there frequently, something to think about, it's made by Merieux (Sanofi).

post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


So why doesn't it make you furious when people discount deaths, brain damage, or autism that results from vaccinating people who had underlying health conditions?
Where is your outrage over the fact that Hannah Poling's autism resulted from vaccination on top of mitochondrial disorder, yet nobody is testing babies or children for mitochondrial disorder before vaccination--in spite of indications that autistic children are likely to have mitochondrial disorder? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130161521.htm)
What about the recent study that indicates that the Hep B vaccine may play a role in causing mitochondrial disorder? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249285)
What if Hannah Poling's mito disorder was actually CAUSED by all the vaccines she'd had since birth? After all, her mother apparently has the same mito disorder; she was vaccinated as a child--but with far fewer vaccines than Hannah, that were given far later.
I don't understand how doctors can be furious at complacency about the possibility of complications from a usually harmless disease, but then turn around and be complacent about the complications from a usually harmless (we think....we don't know for sure) vaccine.


If you read my first post in the thread, you will note that concerns about vaccine safety are among the concerns that I think are valid when considering getting the MMR vaccination.  My remarks were focused on the seriousness of measles, mumps, and rubella, and the perception that they aren't worth worrying about, and at the perception that if something only affects kids with underlying health conditions, it somehow doesn't count. 

 

Further, I reserve the right to direct my fury where I will.  I'm not obligated to be furious about everything on the planet, or even about everything you're furious about.  Why don't your favorite issues make me furious?  I just don't think about them that much, and as we have well established over the past several months, when I do, I don't interpret them the same way you do.  You don't need my support to share your concerns about the MMR vaccine. 

post #33 of 59
nm

Edited by purslaine - 6/30/12 at 2:34pm
post #34 of 59

FWIW - I do think there has been a decent number of mumps floating around in the past few years.  This might be a sign the vaccine is not that  effective wink1.gif

 

The time to vaccinate against mumps, IMHO and if one feels so inclined, is post puberty for males.  It is a relatively benign disease for most in childhood.  


Edited by purslaine - 6/30/12 at 3:10pm
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

FWIW - I do think there has been a decent number of mumps floating around in the past few years.  This might be a sign the vaccine is not that  effective wink1.gif

 

The time to vaccinate against mumps, IMHO and if one feels so inclined, is post puberty for males.  It is a relatively benign disease in childhood.  


Things that cause thick mucous, like mumps, are not benign to my child.  That's a recipe for pneumonia.  Just FYI, as a mom who has a couple years of dealing with chest infections to a mom who is still considering what vaccines would help protect a child from chest infections. 

post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post


Things that cause thick mucous, like mumps, are not benign to my child.  That's a recipe for pneumonia.  Just FYI, as a mom who has a couple years of dealing with chest infections to a mom who is still considering what vaccines would help protect a child from chest infections. 

 

Thanks, stik.

 

K.

post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Measles is an extremely contagious disease that causes serious complications in a small percentage of people who get it, mostly in the very young, the very old, the immune-compromised and people with underlying health conditions. Because measles is so contagious, hospitalizing that small percentage of people who need hospital support as a result of measles is complicated. Hospitals are full of immunocompromised people who have serious health conditions and who are highly likely to suffer serious consequences if they get measles. There aren't that many quarantined hospital wards.

Mirzam, you've made it very clear that you think anyone who gets sick has only themselves and their dietary choices to blame. I find your reasoning flawed. You ignore germ theory and massive problems in public health infrastructure in favor of blaming sick people. I think your analysis would benefit from greater consideration of a wider variety of factors.

stik,I have heard your argument many times before. Fear-based, worst case scenarios is your reality not mine. You are so very wrong to assume that I believe anyone who gets sick has themselves or their diet to blame. However, wouldn't you say nutrition plays a huge role in how a person handles disease. I am sure you don't feed your children processed cr@p, laden with food additives, hfcs etc because diet has nothing to do with disease.  But I certainly don't blame germs. The germ theory is just that theory, and public health policies are based on dogma that the religion of medical science takes as holy truth, so will never question their beliefs. I have questioned, I will continue to question, my beliefs are not fixed in stone. Public health and its fear-based, one-size fits all policy is the problem, not those of us who choose not to believe in their religion. One of the most most important things I have learned over the past few years is the nature of reality, and how one creates one's own reality. Here is my reality: I have two completely unvaccinated children who are now in their teens (I also have a completely healthy partially vax adult child too), they have no behavioral issues, have never had an ear infection, strep, chest infections, UTIs etc, they do not have asthma, eczema or any food allergies. They are both honor roll students and excel in their respective sports of sport climbing and soccer, as in top in state/region. I have suggested to you before, if I am a source of annoyance for you to please put me on ignore.

 

I am glad you vaccinate your children if it gives you a sense of security and peace. 

post #38 of 59

As I have said before, I would regret putting you on ignore, even though you and I disagree on practically everything.

 

My children are every bit as delightful as yours, despite their excema, allergic rhinitis, asthma, and less-occasional-than-I-would-like-to-admit consumption of processed crap.  I'm pretty sure that's because of a fortuitous combination of luck and genetics.  And that is the full extent to which I am willing to allow my children to be involved in this or any other conversation about vaccination on MDC.  If I feel the need, I will bring them up.  Please stop talking about them now. 

 

Should you ever come across a scientific study that disproves germ theory, please do share. 


Edited by stik - 6/30/12 at 4:00pm
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Here is my reality: I have two completely unvaccinated children ...

 

they have no behavioral issues, have never had an ear infection, strep, chest infections, UTIs etc, they do not have asthma, eczema or any food allergies. They are both honor roll students and excel in their respective sports...

 

That is my reality too. And it's not due to good genes. In fact, my husband got his genes tested and he has the absolute worst possible genetic combination in terms of autoimmunity, ability to detox, etc. For reasons I don't want to get into here, I'm almost sure my kids got those genes from him. I know they'd suffer from chronic illness and behavioral problems and learning problems if they were vaccinated. I've also never given them Tylenol.

 

We're not the best with diet, but certainly better than some.

 

I'm just really, really, really glad I got interested in the topic of vaccines before I knew what I know now about my kids. It's just one of those really lucky things.

post #40 of 59

Are we playing "whose children are better" now?  Because I really don't see that as relevant to the OP.  There are great kids on both sides of the debate.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › would you do MMR?