Melanie's Marvelous Measles

[Mirzam]

Is the backlash justified?

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/melanie’s-marvelous-measles-backlash-justified

[Jennyanydots]

Read some of the reviews of this book on amazon. It's amazing how much hate, sarcasm, and seething anger it stirs up.
Edited by Jennyanydots - 2/8/13 at 1:26pm

[Dakotacakes]

The critique of this book is definately justified.  I have read it, sadly. 

The plot is this:  Melanie has the measles.    Tina states that she hasn't been vaccinated , a kid named Jared chastises her with "vaccination propoganda"    Then Tina goes home and is very concerned her mother explains to her that Measles are actually a GOOD thing and Melanie is lucky and they should go right over so that she can get the Measles too.  They go over so she can catch the measles.  But she can't catch the Measles because she drinks a lot of water and eats healthy.  Turns out Melanie was actually vaccinated (implication vaccinations don't protect you).  Ironically Jared even though he has been vaccinated does get the measles because he eats chips (no I am not kidding this is actually in the book is penance for eatching potato chips is allegedly getting measles even though he is vaccinated).  Tina is dissapointed she can't have Measles.

I do feel this is dangerous.  The idea that it is great to be sick is asinine regardless of your vaccination beleifs.  I mean why encourage children to wash their hands?  or eat healthy?  those things might hinder being able to get sick which is "marvelous".  Also drinking water and eating healthy are not going to protect you from contracting measles if you had the direct contact this book implies was going on in an attempt to get Measles.  And vaccination effectiveness for Measles is Much higher than this book implies (With Melanie and Jared both being vaccinated).

This book is idiotic.  If you choose not to vaccinate that is one thing.  Cheering your child getting a disease that is serious is another. Hoping for illness is odd behavior and frankly the book implies that Measles don't hurt and that it is "no big deal you just feel a little hot" that is not accurate talk to people who had Measles they weren't running around playing with their friends hoping to give them the Measles.  Fevers and feeling like crap is not no big deal and shouldn't be sought out.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Dakotacakes 

The critique of this book is definately justified.  I have read it, sadly. 

Thanks for taking the hit and for the summary. I've been avoiding it for the good of my blood pressure! ;) 

[erigeron]

I can understand wanting your child to catch natural infection instead of getting a vaccine, but it seems like Tina's mom's way of explaining it is strange. And the whole "if you're healthy you won't catch it"... well, I think that's demonstrably false in a lot of cases, although I know some posters on this board believe that. *shrug*. Even if I were non-vax I couldn't see reading this to my child. 

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't understand intentionally exposing your child to a disease like measles that has a relatively high (compare to vaccination, at least) rate of serious complications.

[prosciencemum]

I posted this already in Mindful Vaccination (http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1374818/a-response-to-melanies-marvelous-measles-by-john-stumbles-and-roald-dahl)

But here's a (partial) cross posting in this relevant thread: 

Just came across this response to "Melanies Marvelous Measles"

http://stumbles.org.uk/John/2013/Marvelous_Measles/

It includes the story "Measles, A Dangerous Illness" by Roald Dahl  - the author of "Georges Marvelous Medicine" among many other children's books, and father of a daughter who died age seven of (a rare) brain swelling due to measles infection. 

[Rrrrrachel]

It's not that rare. One in one thousand measles cases.

[Dakotacakes]

I think that making light of VPDs is dangerous all the way around. If someone decides the risks outweigh the benefits of the vaccine and opt not to vaccinate that is their decision. But I don't think it is right to then act like the diseases are no big deal and not something to go into the vaccination decision equation. Measles CAN be lethal as the Dahl essay shows. This book implies you just play dolls with your friends and it is no big deal (unless you eat chips for some reason he is bed ridden when he gets measles, but that is just because he eats bad). WHen a child gets PErtussis it is serious business and not as simple as taking a dose of sodium ascorbate and going about their business. These diseases are serious and pretending they aren't is not an answer.

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

I can understand wanting your child to catch natural infection instead of getting a vaccine, but it seems like Tina's mom's way of explaining it is strange. And the whole "if you're healthy you won't catch it"... well, I think that's demonstrably false in a lot of cases, although I know some posters on this board believe that. *shrug*. Even if I were non-vax I couldn't see reading this to my child. 

Yeah, I'm cautious of vaccines, and not particularly worried about measles, but I'm not impressed by the description of that book, it just seems far too extreme and a bit ridiculous, and there's no way I'd read it to my kids since they would be too likely to repeat some of the more objectionable stuff from the book in the wrong company. 

[grisandole]

Huh. I'd need to actually read the book but based on it's own description I find it silly at best. I don't vax and am not afraid of VPD, but this seems over the top even to me, lol. A book where the character has the measles and gets over it is fine (like the Arthur book where he gets the chicken pox). But "wonderful measles"? This is just as extreme as the fear around measles.

[dalia]

Seems like bad writing is bad writing no matter what side you're on LOL. I don't vax but this book sounds awful!