or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › U.S measles cases in 2013 may be most in 17 years
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

U.S measles cases in 2013 may be most in 17 years - Page 3

post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych Ph.D

 

Measles immunology

 

 

She points out that vaccines have stripped mothers, and by extension, their baby, of the capacity for life-long immuno-protection, given the absence of natural childhood exposure to measles in the environment.

 

“I am very concerned that “immunologic memory” of adjuvant-containing vaccines is actually the basis of sensitization rather than the basis of immunity. Furthermore, I am very concerned that “successful” prevention of childhood diseases by means of short-term protective effects of live attenuated viral vaccines during childhood has led to the loss of maternal ability to transfer immuno-protection to their young, thereby leaving infants vulnerable to those diseases, should the exposure occur."

 

I gave this video a shot the other day when putting off laundry. Part of my problem was probably due to my laptop having crappy speakers and me having a bit of difficulty comprehending accents on occasion, but I could not make out what she was saying half the time an kept having to go back an try to hear it again.  Between the ear strain and trying to watch/read through the shaky camera work, all I really got out of it before I had to go pick up kids (I think I made it about ten minute in) was a headache.  All for information I probably could have read about in a minute.  So not worth it. 

 
Regarding maternal protection from measles, it is true that maternal protection from vaccinated mothers provides less protection (but not no protection) than from a mother who had measles.  However, the very fact that she has fatality rate information from 1961 showing how much more dangerous measles was to infants than older children is evidence that babies still got measles from time to time even back when all the mother were unvaxed, just like in our time maternal antibodies are also supposed to protect from chickenpox and usually did, but on occasion an infant would get it anyway.  I don't know how common it was in babies back then, but even if only 1 in 1000 cases occurred in an infant, the number of infant alone with measles would be far greater than currently occur for all ages in the US/Canada even in year that are said to be the worst outbreak in fifteen years or whatever..  Even if only 1 in 10,000 cases occurred in an infant prior to vaccination, there would still be far fewer babies getting measles a year today than in the days where measles circulated continuously.  
 
I'm curious about the source of her data for the Quebec outbreak - it does't quite match up with what I've seen elsewhere. The 48% with two vaxes she lists does match up to the big outbreak centered around a highschool and was more than expected leading them to question the age of the first vaccine (though I notice she doesn't bother to share attack rates which show just how much less likely vaccianted kids were to get it than unaxed).  But it's my understanding was that it the 48% was just for the highschool outbreak, and from her numbers she seems to be talking about the larger outbreak beyond the highschool, and according to the final report only about 22% were fully vaxed. Also overlooked is that just the fact that this outbreak, the final numbers of which were around 760 cases in an entire province is considered a huge outbreak because they normally have only 1 or 2 cases a year is pretty good evidence for how well the vaccine is still protecting. 
post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post
 

The MMR rate in Germany is really high, yet there are plenty of cases of measles. I'd love to know which age groups exactly are infected (maybe young adults who had MMR at 12 months and then never again?).

"According to the German Medical Association, children should be vaccinated twice: once between 11 and 14 months of age and a second time four to six weeks later. In 2011, the rate for the first vaccination was 96.6 percent; the second, at 92.1 percent.(Source: Deutsche Welle, RKI numbers)"

 

 

It is hard to find information on -  I suspect I would have an easier time though if I read German!  That and most results are for "German measles" rather than measles in Germany.  There may be pockets of unvaxed though - I did find a few articles blaming one outbreak in a town primarily on two homeopathic doctors who didn't vax their clients and a Waldorf school in the area with very low vax rate. 

 

Also, I found an article that didn't give much in the way of statistics but did seem to be saying that there were a lot of cases in older teens and young adults happening because vaccination rates were lower in the past. Germany may have a high vax rate now, a quick glance at the WHO immunization summary shows that in 1990, they only had a 75% coverage rate for measles containing vaccine, which was up from only 50% five years before that, rates much lower than in the US at those times. http://www.childinfo.org/files/immunization_summary_en.pdf

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by japonica View Post
 

:yeah

 

What gets me is the constant blaming and finger pointing at abstaining families, yet if manufacturers and health officials actually gave families more choices in both products available and the scheduling of them, they might actually see an increase in uptake for those families who have made the conscious decision to avoid the combo vaccines. 

 

We've fallen through the cracks right now because we can't get the product we'd like here and official recommendations are contradictory to what we consider reasonable. 

 

I'm sure it affects the bottom line to offer monovalent vaccines. But if officials are so concerned, I'm sure they can work with the manufacturers on a solution that works for everyone. The fact that they haven't speaks louder than words, right?

 

I've seen a few people who avoid the MMR say they would get the single shot, but it seems most people who don't get the MMR don't want to vaccinate for measles at all. It hasn't been that long since the single shot was taken off the market - did vaccination rates drop enough to notice when that happened?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

From the above article:

 

Speaking of jokes. I found this awesome picture on the CDC website today. It was published on August 24, 2013 so I’m not showing an outdated picture from the CDC website.

measles cdc websiteFIGURE 2. Number of measles cases (N = 159), by state — United States, 2013*  * As of August 24, 2013.

THIS. These numbers are what we are making a big deal about? This picture is what CNN is basing it’s breaking news story on. Are we serious?

 

Yep, those are unusually high numbers in this day and age. . Yay, vaccines :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Given that vaccines do not offer life-time protection, and lose their effectiveness anywhere between 2 and 10 years, we have not had herd immunity with fifty percent of the population for 20 or 30 years, but no, as Dr Russell Blaylock says in the first article:

 

I again, will refer back to Boulder CO with just a measly 60% fully vaccinated rate and no measles outbreaks. The two measles cases from CO shown in the above graphic was not in Boulder, but south Denver.

 

Simple: some vaccines lose their effectiveness between two and ten years, but measles isn't one of them - it gives long term/quite possibly life-long protection.  

 

Do you have a source for 60% fully vaccinate rate?  Looking at just measles, the vaccination rate for at least one MMR fluctuated right around 90% between 1997 and 2008, which is lower than most of the nation, but not nearly as low as 60%. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6004a1.htm

 

Evan at 60% though, is still jut one county, an island of low vaccination surrounded by the much higher vaccine rate of the entire country.  Just because you have a tinderbox doesn't mean it will suddenly burst into flame - you need a spark to land right still. 

post #43 of 59
Pers:
 
This abstract said 66% of people overall in the Quebec outbreak were unvaxxed.
 
I have seen the figures you quoted as well.
 
In general:  The lack of consensus on reported data is annoying!  How are we supposed to make decisions without decent data (further example:  teacozies mortality rate of 1/ 26 000 for chicken pox from the CDC, mine of 1/60 000 from the CDC)

Edited by kathymuggle - 9/16/13 at 4:58pm
post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 
This abstract said 66% of people overall in the Quebec outbreak were fully vaxxed.
 

 

I think you missed an "un" in there.  From your link:

 
Quote:
 Overall, 66% of cases were considered unvaccinated, 24% had written proof of vaccination and 10% reported being vaccinated without a written proof. In 5-19 year olds, 21% had written proof of having received measles vaccine (17% had two doses and 4% had one dose) and an additional 10% reported being vaccinated without a written proof.

 

That is through August, so before the end of the outbreak. For the final report, 79% were considered "unprotected," but note the 10% from your link who say they were vaccinated but had no record of it. Those were lumped in with unvaxed for the final numbers, so the actual numbers would be somewhere between 21% and about 31% vaxed.  http://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/en/sujets/prob_sante/measles/portrait2011.php

 

Or the mention of it here http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/measles-rougeole-eng.php gives just a little more information: 

Quote:
  Finally, the majority of cases (76%) were not considered protected against measles (0 doses, unknown vaccination history, or vaccinated without documentation), 19% were considered protected for their age and 5% had received one dose of measles containing vaccine.

 

But again, unfortunately they lump the no-claim-to-being-vaxed in with says-they-are-vaxed-but-we-don't-have-a-record-of-it (the latter most likely still being fairly close to 10% since most cases happened before numbers from your link so would have been included in it, so it probably wouldn't have shifted too much). 

 

(The reason the numbers in my two links are different is because the final report is for all 776 cases considered to be measles including those based only on clinical signs while the other link only includes the 725 cases that were confirmed as measles).  

 

I think difference how they are counted (clinical cases vs. only lab confirmed, how to count people who believe they were vaxe but the record of it isn't there, etc) accounts for a lot of the smaller differences.  For thinks like the death rate for chickenpox, it is just too hard to figure  out with any sort of accuracy.  There are few enough deaths that  few extra or a few less jut from statistical anomaly can change the numbers a lot (wide margin which usually doesn't get mentioned).  Add to that the difficulty of determining how many people have them each year when most cases don't get reported (I never even saw a doctor when I had them), and it makes sense why the numbers are so different.  All you can really say is that the vast majority of kid survive it (and most of them just fine), but a small number die.  

 


Edited by pers - 9/16/13 at 4:02pm
post #45 of 59

Yeah, missed an "un."  Fixed it.  Thanks.


Edited by kathymuggle - 9/16/13 at 5:27pm
post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

I'm not in line with the entire post, (e.g. the autism tangent), but the blogger makes some good rebuttals against media measles hysteria.

http://gianelloni.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/why-all-the-measles-outbreaks/

 

I tried to respond to some of her points in a comment on her blog last night.  My comment is still awaiting moderation.  It hasn't been that long, but the other comments have gone up since, an the author has been commenting too, so I posted a "by the way, I see you've been around and approve other comments, I think you may have missed mine" message.  Alas, now both comments are awaiting moderation. Meanwhile, the author has posted a couple times in the hours since and approved several other anti-vax comments, including a couple who write that they were just sent the link, so it's not a case of returning posters being automatically approved. 

 
Perhaps she's just giving herself a little time to think about what she wants to say so she can respond as she approves it?  She does have a very small number of comments questioning or contradicting what she says... but it appears only ones she has a easy answer to, so we shall see. 
 
What I posted there: 
 
 
Quote:
 

“Ok, so are you following? We need about 80% of people (children) to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity and prevent outbreaks.”

Please note the word “sustained” in the original quote that you left out when you paraphrased. As long as you have measles circulating elsewhere + international travel to bring it here + a population that is no 100% immune (both from vaccines are not 100% effective and unvaxed) there can be oubtreaks. Herd immunity just means they don’t get very far since there aren’t that many vulnerable people to infect/continue to spread it.

“Hmmmmm…..OR we could also say “Among those who had been stricken with measles this year, 92% may have been vaccinated or maybe not, we don’t know”.”

Yeah, CNN took a bit of a shortcut there lumping those together.

Actual numbers were 131 unvaxed (82%) and 15 unknown (9%). 13 (8%) had been vaccinated, but only 3 of those thirteen had received two doses of MMR.http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a2.htm

Amazing, isn’t that such small outbreaks could be considered worth reporting because they are so unusual right up until the vaccine was introduced virtually every single child got them.

Regarding: “Well if 2011 was the worst in 15 years, how is 2013 going to be the worst in 17 years? We haven’t surpassed the amount of cases in 2011 yet. And we are nowhere close to surpassing the amount of cases from 1996. ”

Because 2013 isn’t over yet, and given the pattern of disease, they are thinking that there may end up being more cases than in 2011. Of course, that might not happen, but if it does, it would replace 2011 as the worst year since 1996 (which is now 17 years ago).

“most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given.”

Some vaccines lose their effectiveness that time, but measles isn’t one of them (and if it was, they’d be pushing to give adults regular boosters). Measles vaccine gives long term (quite possibly lifelong immunity).

Finally, while the 3 or so per 1000 cases may be a bit high due to undercounting of cases in the past, it is based on US numbers. Mortality in developing nations where malnutrition and such are big problems can be much higher than that.

post #47 of 59

I thought this was an interesting article on measles, with a breakdown of complication rate by age.  They also discussed other risk factors for complications.  

 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.long#F3

 

post #48 of 59
Thread Starter 

That was interesting to see it broken up like that, thanks kathymuggle! 

 

I couldn't find any information on Germany that was in english but I did see some information on the Netherlands outbreak from 1999-2000

 

2,961 cases of measles reported. Three deaths. Here is the breakdown by age which is what one poster was wondering 

 

"Of the 2882 patients whose ages were known, the median age was 6 years (range: 0--52 years): 95 (3%) were aged <1 year; 949 (33%), aged 1--4 years; 1282 (44%), aged 5--9 years; 382 (13%), aged 10--14 years; 87 (3%), aged 15--19 years; and 87 (3%), aged > 20 years." 

 

 

 

post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


So what does it take for some of you guys to admit that measles is not a mild childhood illness like a cold?

 

Since you opened the door to this line of questioning:

 

My questions is, "So what does it take for some of you guys (meaning pro-vaxxers) to admit that there is a problem with the vaccine schedule (so many, so young, no adjustments for a child's gestational age - preemies, no consideration for a child's likely-hood of experiencing a reaction, lack of choice, discouragement of tailoring it to a child's specific needs)?

 

Because I know exactly what I'd need to see to convince me that I should vaccinate my child.  And the information you provided isn't even close.

post #50 of 59
I live in Germany and speak German (although it is not my native language), so I had a look around google to see what came up in German. I found this article in the Berlin daily newspaper the Berliner Morgenpost, published last week:
 
 
The key quote is: "71 Prozent der Patienten waren über zehn Jahre alt, zwei von fünf über 20 Jahre. Fast jeder dritte Patient musste wegen der Masern ins Krankenhaus – der Anteil steigt mit dem Alter." (Translation: 71 percent of the patients were over 10 years of age, two in five were over 20. Almost every third patient had to go to hospital due to the measles – the proportion rises with age)
 
According to this article, there have been 1542 cases of measles in Germany this year. There was info on the vaccination status in 1312 cases, 1121 of these were unvaccinated. 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

I couldn't find any information on Germany that was in english but I did see some information on the Netherlands outbreak from 1999-2000

 

 

post #51 of 59
I wonder if those had none or one mmr vaccination. It's odd that so many were older than 10. Many times not fully vaccinated persons are counted as not vaccinated. Once I have some time I can dig around the rki website. I just remember how on Manu outbreaks children who received mmr before 18 months had no decent titers and caught measles so I'm curious to see if that applies here. The age cohort of 10 and older might have received only one mmr at 12 months.
post #52 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosaD View Post
 
I live in Germany and speak German (although it is not my native language), so I had a look around google to see what came up in German. I found this article in the Berlin daily newspaper the Berliner Morgenpost, published last week:
 
 
The key quote is: "71 Prozent der Patienten waren über zehn Jahre alt, zwei von fünf über 20 Jahre. Fast jeder dritte Patient musste wegen der Masern ins Krankenhaus – der Anteil steigt mit dem Alter." (Translation: 71 percent of the patients were over 10 years of age, two in five were over 20. Almost every third patient had to go to hospital due to the measles – the proportion rises with age)
 
According to this article, there have been 1542 cases of measles in Germany this year. There was info on the vaccination status in 1312 cases, 1121 of these were unvaccinated. 

 

Thank you so much for finding that and sharing :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post

I wonder if those had none or one mmr vaccination. It's odd that so many were older than 10. Many times not fully vaccinated persons are counted as not vaccinated. Once I have some time I can dig around the rki website. I just remember how on Manu outbreaks children who received mmr before 18 months had no decent titers and caught measles so I'm curious to see if that applies here. The age cohort of 10 and older might have received only one mmr at 12 months.

 

If I'm reading that right, 40% of cases (2 out of 5) were in people over twenty, 31% in people between 10 and 20 (71% minus the 40%) and the remaining 29% in kids 10 and under.

 

It seems that the numbers are fairly stable between 0-10 and 10-20.  It makes sense that the over twenty group would have more cases (and not just because it is a larger age group I would bet that most people 30 and over would have had measles if not vaccinated, though I could be wrong about that).  People who are just twenty right now were born around 1992/93, which is right when measles vaccine rate went up from 75% in 1990 to 92% in 1995.  For people older than 20, the measles vaccine rate was 50% in 1985 and 25% in 1980. I would expect that there are a bunch of people between 20 and 30-ish who are not immune. The low vaccination rate of the 80s would not have been enough to keep measles at all in check, so a lot of kids would have gotten it, but I would expect it to have slowed measles circulation down enough that it wouldn't reach quite every kid leaving those who weren't vaccinate (or the small percentage vaccinated but stillnot immune) and manage to skip out on having measles a child still not immune today. 

 

Thinking about this makes me curious as to what part the history of a divided Germany played in vaccine uptake and the circulation of disease.   

 

Vaccine uptake rates from here http://www.childinfo.org/files/immunization_summary_en.pdf

post #53 of 59

Vaccination was mandatory. Us East Germans all got a measles shot at 12 months. Younger ones, starting in the mid-80ies got MMR instead at 12 months. The schedules only called for one MMR. The second one must have appeared on the schedules long after reunification in the 90ies. I'm not aware of measles cases growing up. Just mumps and chickenpox.

post #54 of 59

The 2013 Measles Outbreak: A Failing Vaccine, Not a Failure to Vaccinate

 

 

[A] 1990 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases finding that even though 95% of a population of urban African children had measles antibodies after vaccination, vaccine efficacy was not more than 68%.

Or, take a look at 2008 study that found that even when the measles vaccine successfully generates an elevation of measles specific antibodies 20.7% (6 out of 29) have non-protective titers. Or, one from 1988 that found that within a highly vaccinated community experiencing an outbreak of measles, antibody responses to measles could be found in 100% of the unvaccinated versus only 89.2% of the vaccinated. They conclude: "[A] history of prior measles vaccination is not always associated with immunity nor with the presence of specific antibodies.

post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post
 

Vaccination was mandatory. Us East Germans all got a measles shot at 12 months. Younger ones, starting in the mid-80ies got MMR instead at 12 months. The schedules only called for one MMR. The second one must have appeared on the schedules long after reunification in the 90ies. I'm not aware of measles cases growing up. Just mumps and chickenpox.

 

 

I didn't know you were from East Germany.  I was amazing to just watch the news of the wall coming down from here, I can't even begin to imagine what it was like living it.  

 

I wonder if the WHO numbers were just from West Germany then?  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

The 2013 Measles Outbreak: A Failing Vaccine, Not a Failure to Vaccinate

 

 

[A] 1990 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases finding that even though 95% of a population of urban African children had measles antibodies after vaccination, vaccine efficacy was not more than 68%.

Or, take a look at 2008 study that found that even when the measles vaccine successfully generates an elevation of measles specific antibodies 20.7% (6 out of 29) have non-protective titers. Or, one from 1988 that found that within a highly vaccinated community experiencing an outbreak of measles, antibody responses to measles could be found in 100% of the unvaccinated versus only 89.2% of the vaccinated. They conclude: "[A] history of prior measles vaccination is not always associated with immunity nor with the presence of specific antibodies.

 

Could the high level of malnutrition in the districts where the 1990 study was done, the same malnutrition which weakens the body and the immune system and thus makes measles so much more deadly there, have weakened the response to the vaccine making it less effective there?  The abstract say age of vaccination wasn't a factor, but many other studies says it is, so could the standard of giving it at nine months there have meant it was less effective than giving it at 12 months, which is when we give it as we know maternal antibodies to measles may interfere with the vaccine prior to that?  I don't think it is safe to conclude that studies from o her parts of the world would have the same results here without considering what other factors may be interfering.  The study did find that the district with higher vaccine coverage was better off, and I found it interesting how many babies under 9 months were getting measles when I assume most of the mothers giving birth there in the late 80's would have had natural measles (though I could be wrong about that). 
 
I don't think that he idea that the measles vaccine is not 100% effective will be news to anyone here.  Notice that all the studies from outbreaks in the US are from the late 80's an early '90s when most would have had only one vaccine - the second being added in the late 1980's as a response to some of these outbreaks.  
 
As for the current 159 cases being discussed, only 3 of them are known to be directly the result of the failure of the double-dose vaccine  Another ten were the result of vaccine failure in people who had one vaccine, for a total of 13 vaccine failures.  There were another 15 who may have been vaccine failures or may not have been vaccinated - it's hard to know what to do with the unknown status cases.  131 cases were unvaxed.  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a2.htm
 
18 of those who were unvaxed were too young to be vaxed, leaving 113 cases in those who could have been vaxed but weren't.  
 
Ignoring the 15 unknowns (because I don't know what to do with them), there are 13 vax failures and 18 babies too young for a total of 31 cases that couldn't be prevented by vaccinating them.  Most of the 113 cases mentioned above could have been prevented by vaccinating them, which also would have prevented it in anyone they spread it too.  For instance, in the largest outbreak of 58 people in New York, all were unaxed.  There were twelve babies infected. How many of those twelve babies would have caught measles if the 46 people eligible for vaccination had been vaccinated?  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a5.htm
 
Vaccines have failed for some people in this outbreak, as it is known that they would an will.  However, overall, vaccines seem to be doing pretty well, an vaccine failure is not the driving force behind the outbreaks.  
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I thought this was an interesting article on measles, with a breakdown of complication rate by age.  They also discussed other risk factors for complications.  

 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.long#F3

 

 

Awesome chart.  It really points out a huge double standard:  there is no such data available for vaccine reactions.

 
Since VAERS is voluntary, we have no way of knowing how many reactions DIDN'T get reported.  And since multiple vaccines are given, we have no way of knowing which vaccines cause which reactions, nor whether simultaneous vaccines cause heightened reactions.  And since vaccines are not tested against true placebos, we don't even know for sure what reactions are caused even during the testing phases.
 
And for both disease AND vaccine reactions, we have no way of knowing who is predisposed to complications, nor is the CDC at all interested in finding out.
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

 
 

We have to remember that the CDC labels someone who has received only one MMR as "unvaccinated," even though Merck claims lifetime immunity for 95% for those who receive one vaccine.

post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

We have to remember that the CDC labels someone who has received only one MMR as "unvaccinated," even though Merck claims lifetime immunity for 95% for those who receive one vaccine.

 

Not in this case. 

 

From the MMWR:

 

Quote:
 Most cases were in persons who were unvaccinated (131 [82%]) or had unknown vaccination status (15 [9%]). Thirteen (8%) of the patients had been vaccinated, of whom three had received 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Among 140 U.S. residents who acquired measles, 117 (84%) were unvaccinated, and 11(8%) had unknown vaccination status. Of those who were unvaccinated, 92 (79%) had philosophical objections to vaccination, six (5%) had missed opportunities for vaccination, 15 (13%) occurred among infants aged <12 months who were not eligible for vaccination, and for four (3%) the reason for no vaccination was unknown (Figure 3). Among the 21 U.S resident patients who traveled abroad and were aged ≥6 months, 14 (67%) were unvaccinated, five (24%) had unknown vaccination status, and two had received 1 dose of MMR vaccine.
post #59 of 59

Ah, good to know.

 

I'd be very curious to know the age of the 92 who had philosophical exemptions. Actually, I'd like to know the ages of all.

 

I'd also be curious as to the severity of the cases, whether there were any complications, and most importantly, what (if any) underlying or coexisting medical conditions existed.

 

For that matter, I'd like that same information for people who have had severe reactions to the MMR.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › U.S measles cases in 2013 may be most in 17 years