or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › The Herd Immunity Myth and How it Pits Parent Against Parent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Herd Immunity Myth and How it Pits Parent Against Parent - Page 2

post #21 of 38
Quote:
The thing with rubella is it is so mild, you could have been exposed and not shown much in the way of symptoms. I remember German Measles as joke, ie a week off school for pretty much nothing! I remember being out on my bike riding around the neighborhood with it!

I know with me, I have an extensive detailed medical history (my mother wrote EVERYTHING!!! I mean each thing!!) I have 18 years of every fever and cough I had.

I never had more than two days off in a row from school either.

post #22 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

More on rubella:

 

I was curious whether this lower immunity on titer testing held outside of Canada, and it seems it does.

 

http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/fm/2013/602130/

 

Once again, younger women (under 20 ) showed less immunity than older women (age 20-40).  Interestingly enough (to me, at least) native women  were the least likely to show immunity to rubella on titer testing.  Assuming everyone or almost everyone was vaccinated as a child (a big assumption, but the study does not mention otherwise) it seems natives are less likely for the vaccine to take - kind of the like the children from Mozambique and measles, up thread.  

 

"NRI was found in 6.9% of the study population. The highest prevalence rate of 10.2% was found among adolescents. NRI was highest among Native American women at 17.3%, compared to Whites 7.3%, African Americans 5.9%, and Hispanics 4.6%."

 

It does make me wonder what will happen in the future, as the immunity to rubella rate does seem to be lower in up and coming mommas.

 

Preaching to the choir coming:  I would be thrilled if wild rubella (and CP for that matter) was circulating, and teen girls (around age 15 or so) were given titer testing to determine if they had had it.  If they were not immune to rubella, they could determine how to proceed.  I am not sure why they abandoned this plan - probably issues with compliance and being overly optimistic about how much immunity the vax would offer.  I think if it were firmly followed through on, it might be the plan that offers the most protection for pregnant women and their fetuses.  

 

I wonder how maternal antibodies play into this? Mothers of the older women are more likely to have had the natural disease as child and therefore immunity, whereas the mothers of the younger women were probably vaccinated and may/may not have had the natural infection.

post #23 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

I wonder how maternal antibodies play into this? Mothers of the older women are more likely to have had the natural disease as child and therefore immunity, whereas the mothers of the younger women were probably vaccinated and may/may not have had the natural infection.

Good point.

 

The only other thing I can think of (other than the obvious: older mothers were more likely to have had wild rubella and younger ones were not) is that the formula changed and is less effective now.  A poster upthread mentioned that rubella used to be given separately from Mumps and measles, so there might be something to that as well.

 

Despite the lower immunity in younger women, congenital rubella is not on the rise. It will be interesting (and sad) to see if it does rise as the number of people who are immune to rubella decreases.  Maybe I am jumping the gun - I have only looked at 2 studies but both showed immunity is lower in younger women.  It is a scary suspicion, none-the-less.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 3/6/13 at 5:47am
post #24 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssun5 View Post

Kathymuggle:

It is really odd, as it seems younger pregnant women (less than age 20) are less likely to be immune to rubella than older mother (35-39).  I assume both groups were vaccinated so what the heck is going on??  Wouldn't you expect that younger women would be more immune given they had less time for the vaccine to wear off and were more likely to get 2 vaccines versus an older mother's one?  "

 

I am 35 and when you look back at my records and all my friends in that age group, no one got the MMR. We all received the individual vax for it as well as my older family bro/sis etc that are now in that age range. Perhaps the individual shots offered better immunity? My sis who was born in 79 was the first of us kids to even be offered the MMR so maybe that is what is really going on???

**It could be regional, or something else, but it is a thought**

Regardless, I just had the measles as well this last summer (mildly) but still.... I have always shown amazing amounts of immunity to all 3...and when I turned 5, a new school required us to get the MMR regardless of my past history, so I got it then and then my mom for some bizarre reason made me get it AGAIN at 15.... still got measles. I personally am not impressed. Why all that risk for NO reward???

It also makes me wonder about the titler test.. I am suppose to have immunity off the charts but I still got it.... what does that mean??? Oh well, another topic for another thread!
 

This last summer I posted on here about my whole family getting the measles and thankfully the non supporters aren't here. They were SURE that we didn't have it cause that's impossible and my 75 year old doc who has seen a zillion cases of it was to stupid to give a real diagnosis from the symptoms and sending him pics via the Internet. Yep... impossible!!!!

 

I also thought that it was a newly vaxed kid in Sunday school that gave it to my DD at 15 months old but was told in ALL of history, that has never happened either...... sigh, it is so nice they can't comment anymore.

 

SOOO, as the OP was stating, I think that herd immunity is a false sense of security. How many adults are up to date? And how about efficacy? How will we REALLY ever know

1)with the diagnostics always changing,

2)refusal of diagnosis if you have been vaxed,

3)mild /symptomless cases than no one knew,

4)including non-vax who did have a VAD but was never reported to anyone.

 

 

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

Hmmm I was born in 1972 and got the MMR. Maybe it was regional??

post #25 of 38

All this talk of rubella has got me thinking.  I was born in '83 so I did recieve the MMR at some point but it was later on in my childhood (elementary school maybe).  When I was pregnant for my daughter, I don't recall ever being asked specifically about rubella.  I'm sure somewhere on the forms I was asked about my vax status in general, but I have no idea of dates.  And while I did turn down anything invasive during my pregnancy, I was never asked about rubella nor given an option for titering to determine any immunity.  So how common is it that in lieu of turning down a vax, titer would automatically be an option?  I know we plan to have more kids and now this has got me curious.

post #26 of 38

I am fairly sure it is standard to do rubella titers at the beginning of pregnancy.  It is usually one of the things they test with that initial blood draw.  If you do not have enough rubella immunity, you are offered a vaccine after pregnancy.  I have had it tested in all 3 pregnancies - 1 with a family doctor, 2 with licensed midwives.  

post #27 of 38
Quote:
  So how common is it

it's common now but it also was 50 years ago! to know

 

in the 60's (perhaps even farther back) dr. most definitely wanted to know if you had it!! I know a girl my age who is deaf because of it-her mother contacted it at 8 months. People did know it was a risk (and sadly I feel most no longer do know this or other things they should when pregnant because we think nothing can go wrong anymore-in some minds) - my mother knew the risks and had not had Rubella or Mumps (her family keep good records and this is where she got it from) - she left work pregnant with me at 6 months to isolate herself because of the Rubella that was around at the time - people (IMO) did pay more attention, knew what things were and knew more vs what I see today. It was a really big deal at one point (at the time my mother was pregnant with me) German Measles were circulating- my father's mother and my mother's father got both got them at the same time when my mother was 7 months a long with me- neither had it as children- don't assume everyone did have it. Also people knew when people were sick- another "art" I feel we lost along the way to now.

 

Both my parents had very detailed baby books were all this was recorded - my baby book even had a space for these diseases to be recored along with others- it was a VERY different time!!

 

http://deafness.about.com/cs/featurescauses/a/rubella.htm  there is a lot out there on the 60's and Rubella 

post #28 of 38

I was unable to look at the links, but it appears that study was done in my home province (the quotes mention Alberta). I just turned 39 and according to my vax records, I did have the MMR, but not until I was around 5 or 6. I would have to find my record to check for certain. I only had prenatal testing done with my first baby, when I was 27, and I obviously had high enough antibodies for rubella, because no one ever mentioned getting the MMR to me. It would not surprise me at all to learn I had had rubella naturally before I had the MMR.

 

My mother does not remember us getting any of the childhood diseases, but we clearly did at least get chicken pox as my sister recently had shingles. She does, however, remember me being very sick from scarlatina...which she believes is a relative of scarlet fever, though a quick google shows they are the same thing.

post #29 of 38

Hmmm I was born in 1972 and got the MMR. Maybe it was regional??

 

Marnica.... it could be regional, as I said.... when we moved to Florida, they told my parents they only did the MMR there and wouldn't accept our seperate shots which is why they got us that again.  I asked my mom about it today and she said they never even mentioned the MMR to her ever until my little sis was born so she just did what her doc told her... shrug.gif 

 

 

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

post #30 of 38
Thread Starter 

I thought this article was appropriate to post in this thread:

 

17 Examples of Admitted Vaccine Failure

post #31 of 38

Mirzam, I think it's perfectly appropriate for this thread--but might get more views if it gets a thread of its own.

post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

I thought this article was appropriate to post in this thread:

 

17 Examples of Admitted Vaccine Failure

One of those 17 stories involves me - sort of.

 

I was 17 in 1989 when a large measles outbreak swept through Quebec.

 

The school board had a rule that anyone who could not show proof of immunity to vaccines would be asked to leave school if a measles case happened in their district.  The government was being quite picky about what constituted proof - your vaccine record had to be signed, dated and stamped on each entry.  My doctor only signed once for the whole book - so my vaccine did not count.  I was revaccinated - along with a huge portion of my school.  If I was to estimate I would say 1/3.  There is no way 1/3 of my class was unvaxxed as babies.  I would bet real money it was less than 10 % (and very probably less than 5%).  So whenever a government agency says "60% of cases were in individuals who were not fully vaxxed" I always wonder what they mean exactly.  What they really mean is 60% of cases were in individuals who could not prove to our standard that they were immunised."

 

I think non-vaxxed, undervaxxed and "can't prove to the government you were vaccinated" all get lumped together -which is to the benefit of those trying to prove vaccines work and that epidemics are among the unvaccinated - but is not necessarily the whole picture.

 

Here is a paper out of Australia, showing a somewhat similar thing:

http://vaccinationdilemma.com/whooping-cough-australian-children-how-many-were-vaccinated.

 

"For the years 2008-2010, there were a total of 9333 cases of whooping cough reported in children aged 0-4 years. Among them were 754 who were either too young or otherwise not eligible to have been vaccinated, and 1497 for whom vaccine status was not known."

 

Why on earth is the status unknown so high???  I could get it being high in adults, but the Australia stats look at kids 0-4 year old.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 3/5/13 at 7:03pm
post #33 of 38
May I interject with another beef of mine about herd immunity? It's a classic case of blame-shifting. Why on earth aren't health care consumers baraging drug companies with demands to produce a more effective vaccine? Seriously. Where is the outrage? Can you think of one other consumer product whose failure to work sufficiently results in demanding that everyone else use it? Suddenly, Merck's vaccine failure turns into my responsibility...and Their rationale for taking away exemption rights, (in the US, anyway).
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

May I interject with another beef of mine about herd immunity? It's a classic case of blame-shifting. Why on earth aren't health care consumers baraging drug companies with demands to produce a more effective vaccine? Seriously. Where is the outrage? Can you think of one other consumer product whose failure to work sufficiently results in demanding that everyone else use it? Suddenly, Merck's vaccine failure turns into my responsibility...and Their rationale for taking away exemption rights, (in the US, anyway).

 

Yup, absolutely - it's a diversion.  It's populist demagoguery at its best, or worst.  

 

It baffles me why anyone would be against more effective and safer vaxes - esp. if they're staunchly pro-vax.

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

Yup, absolutely - it's a diversion.  It's populist demagoguery at its best, or worst.  

 

It baffles me why anyone would be against more effective and safer vaxes - esp. if they're staunchly pro-vax.

 

I wonder if the disconnect comes from denial? If you want safer vaccines, you have to acknowledge that the ones that already exist are inherently not safe. 
 

Who wants to admit that?  It's the same reaction we see from people over many controversial parenting choices.  Insistence that their way is the best to the point where they stick their fingers in their ears, cover their eyes and sing La La La, rather than even listen to information that shows that there might be a better way.  People will defend their position.

post #36 of 38
Quote:
I wonder if the disconnect comes from denial?

 

RE: vac denials - if it were highly visible (IMO here) as in an arm feel off after a shot - we would see an outcry, more mental issues (a host of really non-visible) is much easier to ignore (justify away)

 

 

 

 

Quote:
If you want safer vaccines, you have to acknowledge that the ones that already exist are inherently not safe. 
 

you answered that one! you can't have it both ways-that's way the known risks are in tiny print on a paper you have to ask to see

post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post

I wonder if the disconnect comes from denial? If you want safer vaccines, you have to acknowledge that the ones that already exist are inherently not safe. 

 
Who wants to admit that?  It's the same reaction we see from people over many controversial parenting choices.  Insistence that their way is the best to the point where they stick their fingers in their ears, cover their eyes and sing La La La, rather than even listen to information that shows that there might be a better way.  People will defend their position.

When the US government called for a ban on thimerosol in vaccines, critics of the measure whined about how people would lose trust in vaccines. Great thinking. Let's keep the mercury. Anything to hold on to public trust. irked.gif
post #38 of 38

i had rubella in 1964 at 4mos old..when i had kids and they tested me, last test in '96, i was 98% immune, so they said the blood test revealed.  I wonder how much if any immunity passed onto my kids?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › The Herd Immunity Myth and How it Pits Parent Against Parent