or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Measles 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Measles 2013 - Page 2

post #21 of 33
And only in well nourished, healthy, non-immuno compromised kids.
post #22 of 33

It will be interesting to see the Welsh statistics.

 

This link out of Quebec, which saw a mealses outbreak in 2011, said the average age for mealses (n=776) was 15.  1/9 were hospitalised - no deaths.

http://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/en/sujets/prob_sante/measles/portrait2011.php

 

Measles is highly contagious and outbreaks in the pre-vaccine era came around every 2-3 years.  I think it is very likely most people did get mealses before age 10 or so in the pre-vaccine era, and that our current systme of vaccination is pushing the age of measles forward - which might be part of the reason why we have higher complication rates.  

post #23 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

How polite of it to stay only in that age range.

 

Huh? Measles is not a disease of infants; they should be benefiting from maternal antibodies, from mothers that have real immunity from natural infection. Then you get the teens, who's vaccine induced immunity as worn off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

And only in well nourished, healthy, non-immuno compromised kids.

 

Right, that excludes vaccine damaged children, with compromised immune systems. No wonder the rate of complications seems to be so high these days, given that 51% of children today are chronically sick. 

post #24 of 33

oops

post #25 of 33
Maternal antibodies don't last until five.
post #26 of 33
Thread Starter 
post #27 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Maternal antibodies don't last until five.

Really? Then why were the vast majority of cases in the 5 to 9/10 age bracket? Why are we seeing infants too you to be vaccinated contracting measles now (see above chart) compared to pre-vaccine era?

post #28 of 33
None of that changes basic biology, even if I stipulate your claims are true, which I don't.
post #29 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

None of that changes basic biology, even if I stipulate your claims are true, which I don't.

Are you saying that measles pre-vaccine was a common disease in infants? If so you are totally wrong.. Most children contracted the disease in childhood. But whatever, you can believe what the heck you want, if it gives you comfort.

post #30 of 33
No. I'm not saying that.
post #31 of 33

What are you saying, Rachel? I am little confused as to what your point is….

 

I agree maternal antibodies do not last til 5, but they do give the baby some protection under age 1 (assuming the mother is unvaxxed).

 

Likewise, it seems most people did get the measles under age 10 in the prevaccine era, and that might have been the best (safest) time to get the measles.

post #32 of 33
My point is exactly what I said. Maternal antibodies don't last until five.
post #33 of 33
Thread Starter 

I actually didn't say that naturally derived maternal antibodies last until five, however, I don't think they suddenly go poof at 12 months. If they did, then the disease, pre-vaccine, would have predominantly been seen in infants and toddlers, and this just wasn't the case. Until now when vaccine induced maternal antibodies no longer provide protection for the very young - as evidenced by the incidence figures I posted above. Unless, of course you don't believe those either.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Measles 2013