Diseases will return because ppl. don't vaccinate?? - Page 4

[crayon]

I have not read all the replys, but my thinking is that no matter what we will always have diseases... The differance now is we have (in most cases) the medicine to treat these diseases without wide spread deaths. Sure something could come up and kill off thousands or millions of people, it has happened before, but with the improvment of our hygiene our sicknesses went down. Now the key is to try to help the world in making all countries and all people have sanitation and healthy hygiene. That will cut down on diseases at a much higher rate than vax...

[Electra375]

my 2 cents worth...

Through the knowledge of better hygene, diseases have lessed in frequency and severity. Vaccines have IMO stopped epidemics, but the cost included injury to those otherwise healthy individuals -- polio vax comes to mind here.

I do not believe that Chickpox, Measles, Mumps or Rubella are dangerous disease to the age group inwhich that majority of cases were developing. I clarify this b/c CP in an older teen or adult can be more dangerous and Rubella in a newly pregnant woman can be dangerous to her developing child.

Diptheria is a hygene issue and isn't prevelent in moder industrialized nations, not from irradication by vaccination, but rather better understanding of how the disease is contracted and spread.

Tetnus is not prevelent either, however if you live on a farm where tetnus toxins thrive, well then maybe the vaccine would be good for you. Will you die if you contract tetnus today and get medical treatment -- no, not likely.

Pertusis -- well, the vaccine didn't do a thing about irradicating it. Pertusis has made a come back not b/c ppl aren't vaccinating, but b/c the vaccine doesn't hold up over time (if it ever did). I was fully vaxed as a child and contracted pertusis at age 3 or 4. My parents were told I had a cold, a flu, brochitis, athsma, etc. I was had so many blood test, I hate needles today. My coughing stopped after about 3 months!!! My immunity is passed to my breastfeeding children, and when they stop bfing if they get pertusis, well they get it and have life long immunity themselves.

Does HIB really do anything for a child? The spectrum of coverage is limited and it is impossible to tell which strain a child has if they become sick without blood testing. I don't get why ppl feel this is soooo important. This vaccine is too new, I didn't have it and I never had meningitus.

HepB, may work to prevent the spread of the disease, but it's too soon to tell if the disease will be irradicated and looking at history the answer can be assumed no. Again, it is a very limited number of ppl in the population that are even at risk of contracting HepB. Hep C is much more common b/c it is food borne and there is only the Gamma Gobulin shot for that (which is a thick painful injection) after or before exposure good for only 3 to 6 mo.

HepA vaccine is also very new, but shows promise in preventing the spread of the disease. Again, mass vaccination of a disease that affects a limited amount of the poplulation is wrong.

Smallpox vaccination and awareness did for the most part wipe out the disease, but it is not 100% gone from the planet. It was a danergous vaccine and was finally pulled in the early to mid 70s from mass poplulation and pull from those going into the armed services in the mid 90s. The attempt to re-vax in recent years was met by strong resistance and with good cause the gamma gobulin that accompanied the vaccine during it's mass population days was going to be left out. The gamma gobulin is responsible for helping to avoid adverse reactions such as the vaccines live virus spreading!!! Did everyone who got small pox the disease die? No.

A healthy body is the body's best defence against disease. Awareness of what diseases are around and how they are spread is also important. Do I think "vaccine preventable" diseases will make a come back? Yes to a point. Not b/c people are vaxing less, but b/c the vaccines do not hold up. Those individuals not vaxing will get the diseases at the appropriate times in their lives and probably for the most part have little problems and those who have been vaxed will get the disease at inopportune times in their lives and have complications and be in the news and cause mass hysteria etc.

Survival of the fittest will prevail...

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

From 1963 - 1967 USA used the killed Measles vaccine. Fortunately, it had a very low uptake. Unfortunately it was a disastrous vaccine, made with killed measles virus, which skewed the recipients immune systems, which made them more susceptible to measles after two years, but in a new form. It became called "atypical measles."

When the new live vaccine was "licensed" in 1967, it was NOT used extensively. It was naturally met with some suspicion, particularly by parents who had "experienced" the joys of the first one.

This is going to be a bit choppy, because I'm running in and out of the tissue cuture lab, so please forgive the lack of flow (I'll probably post a few times).

Huh. Looks like my data conflicts with your data. Acording to Vaccines, Plotkin & Orenstein, pp 396-398, the killed measles virus vaccine was indeed ineffective and prone to giving folks the very unpleasant atypical measles (though a single infection was thought to confer immunity; you could not get it more than once -- three refs avail on req.)

But it's not correct that the only form of vax used in the States from 1963-1967 was the killed one. In fact, the predominant form of measles vax that people received from 1963 onward was the original (and effective) live attenuated (which was not associated with atypical measles). In 1963, for example, the first year that measles vaxes were available, ~3.8 million doses of live were given (covering ~3.5 million people) and only ~0.6 million of killed (covering ~300,000 people). Other "new and improved" live, further attenuated vaccines were licensed in 1965 and 1968; these began to supplant the earlier version, which was phased out in 1975. After 1963, use of the killed continued to drop until it was suspended in 1967, and use of the lives contined to rise.

So I don't see that the live/killed question scuttles the notion that vaccines were largely (not exclusively) responsible for drop-off rate seen in the early 1960s, though granted there's a very wide margin of error in the reported incidence rates for reasons already discussed.

Hey Momtezuma, I empathize with the amount of time required to type in refs, but could you possibly provide one for your statement that docs were encouraged not to report measles in that time period? It's not that I disbelieve you -- on the contrary, in fact. But I'd like to check it out in more detail. Ta!

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

...babies vaccinated at 6 months of age developed what they euphemistically called an "altered" immune response resulting in the advised booster shot at 15 months, not "taking".

Its only been in recent years that Nature published a paper showing that babies under a year of age, have hugely different immune functions and responses (which raise more questions than they "answer") than adults do, and couldn't deal with the measles vaccine given at that age. In fact, it caused immune anergy rather than an "altered" immune response. Their word was accurate, but typically they used a word which not only obscured the issue, but deflected attention from the problem.

Sorry to be a pest, but could you give me a bit more info on that Nature article so that I can pull it up? I've done several searches but haven't come up with anything that seems to be the one your mention.

It's something that I'd love to read more about. From what I've learned, the "altered response" of infants vaxed at 6-11 months of age is well- documented and still accepted, and it is characterized by lower or different ratios of antibody titers than those seen in older children. Despite this, kids who were vaxed when they were younger still had a measles attack rate similar to children who were vaxed at 12 months and older (refs on request). There is also primary vaccine failure that is thought to stem from transplacental IgG interfering with viral replicaiton. Initially these maternal antibodies were believed to be long gone from baby by 6 months. Now it's clear that they persist for longer.

Anergy, on the other hand, is another well-known effect of measles vax (and natural measles infection) that is not age-specific. It consists of temporary suppression of cellular immune function (and is one of the reasons I didn't allow my daughter to get it this winter). When I got an MMR booster at age 20-something, I was not allowed to have a PPD at the same time, because my T-cells might not be able to generate a positive response if I did have TB.

I'll look into the 50% uptake thing that you describe. i know nothing about it.

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

[re. tetanospasmin and immunity]I have a video of a doctor who was advisor to the WHO, stating that it was well known, and many studies had been done, which showed that people do develop detectable levels of natural immunity to tetanus. I would be very surprised if a WHO doctor would lie about that.

Forgive me for overgeneralizing in my first post. Tetanus is a disease that does not reliably confer immunity for the reason stated. I've no doubt that there are folks wandering around who have picked up immunity from natural infections that they survived -- even (rare) subclinical ones. But the point I was making is that just because a natural infection doesn't generally result in an immune response doesn't mean that a modified antigen won't be able to evoke one either.

There was a very funny (funny to me, that is...) study published in BMJ years ago, but a startled doctor, who found that a select group of children tested, found that 50% of those with antibodies to measles had never had any clinical disease, and a small subgroup with rising titres also had no clinical symptoms.

This study was the first to alert me to the fact that non-symptomatic clinical measles was a common entity. Although not as spectacular as other USA studies that show that 98.8% of people with polio antibodies never exhibitted clinical symptoms once, let alone three times (you can get clinical polio again, if it is to a different "type" than you "got" before) it shows that to use antibody statistics as proof of either how dangerous or widespread a disease is, is a false argument.

haven't seen that measles study. I'll look for it! Well aware of the polio one. I agree that antibody stats are therefore not proof of how dangerous a disease is (is that a common argument?) but how can they not show how widespread a disease is? Surely high antibody rates in the population + low rate of clinical case = high rate of subclinical/undiagnosed infections.

Furthermore, as has been proven in Sweden, pertussis antibody maintenance is dependant upon regular exposure to the bacteria. Which is why in the USA, clinical pertussis is now becoming common amongst elderly, who had it clinically as children. Their long term immunity has been jeopardised by the interruption of the bacteria in the environment, so that they levels are no longer automatically boosted every four years, or so.

Yep. Article in the NYT about this yesterday. This scenario will likely be played out with many VPDs. It'll be very interesting to see what happens to shingles and adult c-pox rates over the next several decades!

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

CallmeIshmael

Looks like my data conflicts with your data.

Well, that's not unusual, .. I strike it all the time. I love compiling collections of data from many medical journals which all contradict one another. It adds to my perception that although someone doesn't know what they are talking about, its hard to figure out quite who is the one with the ball bearings missings.

Acording to my very weighty (literally) textbook, (Vaccines, Plotkin & Orenstein, pp 396-398), the killed measles virus vaccine was indeed ineffective and prone to giving folks the very unpleasant atypical measles (though a single was thought to confer immunity; you could not get it more than once -- three refs avail on req.)

Ah, well, see.... I five references which say the opposite One, which gives four other references to back it up, reads Secondary-type immune responses have been noted in a few previously vaccinated children who developed clinical measles."

The dates for the use of the measles vaccine came from a governmental health department website, so I wouldn't have thought they'd be wrong, but hey, on the other hand, with some of the wonderful other "myths" they inculcate, I shouldn't be surprised if anything on either CDC or any other website is a load of bollocks should I?

and on that subject, this medical article I have in front of me (Clinical pediatrics) tells me that by 1976 (13 years), 88 million doses of measles vaccine had been distributed to an estimated 71% of 1 - 9 year olds. And then comes up with the clever statement of "Widespread vaccination over this period has been followed by a 95% decreases in reported measles cases and has resulted in enormous economic savings"

95% decrease of incidence from when? Even if they gave 3.8 million doses in the first year, what percentage of the susceptible population would that have covered, even assuming a 90% efficacy?

The authorities here consider 95% vaccination rate the threshhold at which herd immunity will kick in, and anything less to be unacceptable. You could argue that in the early days, that because wild measles was so prevalent then, that 50% coverage would do the trick, but that doesn't wash in this country, where we have around 90% vaccination coverage, and measles still rampages about every 4 years.

Hey Momtezuma, I empathize with the amount of time required to type in refs, but could you possibly provide one for your statement that docs were encouraged not to report measles in that time period? It's not that I disbelieve you -- on the contrary, in fact. But I'd like to check it out in more detail. Ta!

I can't give you a reference or journal reference to that.

That's like asking me to provide a reference reference that doctors admit that the 2.2 million tonsillectomies they did every year during the 1950's were a total waste of time. (But I do have a prominent, important person, saying that on tape..!!!)

Here's an anecdote I have on tape (essential when one is writing a book). A notable US doctor (close friend of Dr Mendelsohn,) , who at the time was a health departmental head in one of the States in America, whose job it was to implement the polio vaccine policy.

He was called to his son's home one night, because their son was seriously ill. He arrived and was convinced that his fully vaccinated grandson had polio. They got him to the hospital, and despite everything this man, and the doctors did, they lost him. This doctor signed his own grandson's death certificate as "Polio". He submitted it to the right authorities who checked his immunisation status and actually walked right into his office and demanded that he change the death certificate because an immunised child cannot die from polio. He could admit to it happening, and they would explain it away if they chose.... He did change the certificate, because otherwise not only would he have lost his job, he would have lost his licence, and further, was told that he would never have a job in the medical profession again. And this doctor also told me on tape, that other doctors he knew, were put in the same position.

And as an interesting exercise, CallmeIshmael, go to your med library and request to view the USPSU reports from 1954 - 1964. Come back and tell me the results.

Funny. Last night after mentioning here the WHO doctor who said, on a video I have, that natural tetanus immunity was "well known" , I started to put all the videos of conferences I had attended and spoken at onto DVD. After all, it won't be long before Videos are consigned to the ark.

Naturally the quality is atrocious compared to the DVDs we have today, but the sound is great. I was staggered at some of the comments made by really important influential people. What a shame they never made it to medical journals...

but could you give me a bit more info on that Nature article so that I can pull it up? I've done several searches but haven't come up with anything that seems to be the one your mention.

Nature, Volume 2, Number 11, Novermber 1996, pages 1250 - 1254.

"A model of measles virus-induced immunosuppression: enhanced susceptibility of neonatal human PBLs"

Tishon A et al.


Though the work has been taken further, I haven't found anything newer published in such a way that you would know that they had defined a serious problem. But they "know".

There is anergy and anergy. One of the presentation I was putting to disc last night relates to long term anergy, not just the three months inserts mention with the Measles vaccine.

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

I love compiling collections of data from many medical journals which all contradict one another. It adds to my perception that although someone doesn't know what they are talking about, its hard to figure out quite who is the one with the ball bearings missings.

Yes, it's all part of the fun. Just yesterday in lab meeting we discussed two recent papers that completely contradicted each other -- the author of one was a former post-doc in the other author's lab. Quite amusing to try to discern which one was right (if either).

[Re: "the killed measles virus vaccine was...prone to giving folks the very unpleasant atypical measles (though a single infection was thought to confer immunity; you could not get it more than once -- three refs avail on req.)-CMI]
Ah, well, see.... I five references which say the opposite One, which gives four other references to back it up, reads Secondary-type immune responses have been noted in a few previously vaccinated children who developed clinical measles."

Bewildered. Are we talking about two different things? I was referring to your assertion that atypical measles could be had repeatedly. My sources suggest that, nasty as it was, you only got it once.

I'm not sure how your quotation relates to this. Though I'm not aware of the context, of course, it seems to be asking whether cases of measles that occur in vaccinated children are due to primary vaccine failure (i.e., no immune response was ever generated by the vax), or secondary vaccine failure (i.e., a faded response that was unable to prevent a breakthrough infection with wild virus). A secondary-type immune response would be evidence of the latter.

Thanks for the Nature ref. I'll go check it out. I'd be interested in learning about long-term anergy as a consequence of measles. Didn't come up with much in a lit seach. Anything in particular I should be seeking?

[Tummy]

AMAZING..
I was told when my dd who is now 2 1/2 contracted measels from DAYCARE by a child who had been vaccinated that she would NOT HAVE CONTRACTED THE DISEASE IF I HAD VACCINATED.. :
:LOL
ok.. great thing to say to a mother of a child with measels at the age of 4 MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
they dont even give the MMR til 6 months
go figure!

[aniT]

Originally Posted by Tummy

they dont even give the MMR til 6 months
go figure!

They don't get it until one year. recently changed from 15 months.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

[QUOTE=CallMeIshmael] [quote]Acording to my very weighty (literally) textbook, (Vaccines, Plotkin & Orenstein, pp 396-398), the killed measles virus vaccine was indeed ineffective and prone to giving folks the very unpleasant atypical measles (though a single was thought to confer immunity; you could not get it more than once -- three refs avail on req.)

Bewildered. Are we talking about two different things? I was referring to your assertion that atypical measles could be had repeatedly. My sources suggest that, nasty as it was, you only got it once.

Ah see, I thought you had slipped from the discussion of atypical measles to the bracketted bit which I assumed was supposed to mean

( [ I ] thought a single [attack of measles / dose of vaccine] was thought to confer immunity; you could not get it more than once...

I couldn't work out your thought pattern, so took the vaccine option in terms of a reference, becuase it stands to reason that if a vaccinated person can show secondary immune responses in the presence of clinical measles, then a natural attack of measles likewise, (as proven by my children) will not necessarily be protected by the resultant antibodies.

I'd be interested in learning about long-term anergy as a consequence of measles. Didn't come up with much in a lit seach. Anything in particular I should be seeking?

Well, you aren't going to find much. For the same reason as I stated in the thread on the lack of studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

I will PM you.

[CallMeIshmael]

ohhhh. Yes, clearly I had some forgot-to-type-the-crucial-word problems when I wrote that post. Corrected them later, but looks like you had read the uncorrected (and therefore incoherent) version.

Will await your PM.

[Gitti]

Ishmael, what do you say to this?

Originally Posted by Tummy

AMAZING..
I was told when my dd who is now 2 1/2 contracted measels from DAYCARE by a child who had been vaccinated ...

I thought that can't happen?

We've read it now several times that moms claim their child got measles from a vaccinated child.

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by Gitti

We've read it now several times that moms claim their child got measles from a vaccinated child.

A little background, for those of you who aren't sure what the issue is:

Chicken pox vax and oral (live) polio vax are shedders: recent vaccinees can occasionally give the disease to non-immune people. There are multiple documented cases of this happening. But MMR is not supposed to be a vaccine that is capable of shedding. You get it, it stays in you and does not infect anybody else. And there is not a single documented case of this ever having occured since the vaccine was licensed in 1963.

Since this is such an important issue (even more so with the rubella component, considering all the pregnant women around), several studies were done that involved vaccinating people and then testing their household contacts to see if any of them developed antibodies. None did.

Does this mean that measles cannot be caught from a recent vaccinee? No, of course not. It's certainly theoretically possible, but it's probably an exceedingly rare event. So what's going on with all these mothers who believe their kids were infected by other recently vaccinated kids?

The first thing I'd want to know is how the measles was diagnosed. Was it on the basis of a spotty rash and a fever, or was a blood test done to look for evidence of recent infection?

If they had blood tests that verified measles, then there are two possibilities: first, that they got measles from a recent vaccinee, in an unprecedented case of vaccine-based transmission. Or second, that they picked it up somewhere else. When someone tests positive for mealses, there's generally a big investigation done to figure out the source. So I'd be completely gobsmacked if the first possibility were true. But hey, I've been gobsmacked before.

If, however, the diagnosis was made only on clinical grounds without a confirming blood test, the above two possibilities still apply. But there's also a big chance of a third possibility: it wasn't measles at all.

The problem is that the "measles" rash is not at all specific for measles (unlike the chicken pox rash, which is absolutely characteristic). There are plenty of other viruses out there that can cause a rash that looks like measles.

Remember this thread?

So given that measles is quite rare in this country, but other rash-causing viruses are rampant, you can tell that I'd lean toward the not-really-measles explanation. But if I were seeing a kid in clinic whose rash was sufficiently measles-ish (especially if they had Koplik spots) and who had clinical symptoms that matched measles, I'd want to run a measles IgM to know for sure. It's important.

[TigerTail]

i was waiting to see when you'd pop in here, momtezuma. (and hi!)
i like it- you & ish both have a dog in this fight, but your highest goal is still Truth. i don't see either one of you fudging something that seems contrary to your position. i'm drowning in the science, but don't tone in down- i'd rather grasp at your meanings than be condescended to anyday. love ya both.

suse

[amnesiac]

Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael

I've delayed my daughter's MMR as well, though she'll likely get it at some point.

I'm wondering if you might share a little of your thinking behind that choice -- perhaps why you've chosen to delay & what would make you feel comfortable getting it later if you aren't comfortable giving it as recommended?

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by Gitti

I thought that can't happen?

We've read it now several times that moms claim their child got measles from a vaccinated child.

Both times, our children caught measles from vaccinated children, who had been given the vaccine, and got measles from it.

As part of my investigation, I now have on file a letter from the vaccine manufacturer stating that yes, MMR vaccinated children not only excrete measles virus into the environment, but also mumps.

Not long ago, VACCINE magazine had articles that showed that both measles and mumps viruses are excreted, so it would have been a bit rich had the manufacturers denied it, wouldn't it?

MEASLES VACCINE VIRUS:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11858860


MUMPS VACCINE VIRUS:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11163655

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

Not long ago, VACCINE magazine had articles that showed that both measles and mumps viruses are excreted, so it would have been a bit rich had the manufacturers denied it, wouldn't it?

Add rubella to the list, since that's been shown to be excreted in breastmilk (no time to check refs).

This shouldn't be too much of a surprise: MMR virus, when injected, result in low-level viremia (blood infection) at 10-14 days. The common side effects of fever and rash 10-14 days after the vax are further evidence of that process. And viral excretion is an easily-imagined effect of viremia.

But the question remians: how common a phenomenon is it? And even if viral excretion is common, how common is transmission? Given the sheer number of MMR vaxes being injected into kids daily, why aren't measles, mumps, and rubella epidemic in the US? And why is there not a single documented case of transmission, given that there are documented cases of transmission for oral polio vax, chicken pox vax, and the recent smallpox vax?

Personally, I'd love to see evidence of vaccine transmission. I truly enjoy witnessing paradigms being shattered. But I have yet to see any evidence that is not circumstantial. What I would need would be serological evidence of measles infection in a child who had not been vaxed. Then via restriction analysis or PCR, I need to see that the strain involved was vaccine-derived rather than wild-type. Until then, I'll still maintain that, though it's certainly possible, it's likely a rare phenomenon.

Curious, MT -- on what basis do you say that your kids picked it up from a vaxee rather than wild-type, since you say that measles rampages in your country every four years (which implies that it's endemic)? I'd like to know more of the story, if you're comfortable sharing it.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael

A little background, for those of you who aren't sure what the issue is:

I think all of us are sure what the issue is.

[quote]Chicken pox vax and oral (live) polio vax are shedders: recent vaccinees can occasionally give the disease to non-immune people. There are multiple documented cases of this happening.

But MMR is not supposed to be a vaccine that is capable of shedding.

Pardon?

And there is not a single documented case of this ever having occured since the vaccine was licensed in 1963.

One of many:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11544404

and the letter from the vaccine manufacturer confirms that it happens more than they would like, but they mitigate it with statements like "but we would expect measles from the vaccine virus to be a lot milder and safer than wild virus."

Which is again, crystal ball gazing stuff, since some of the most severe cases I have seen have come from the vaccine virus. And I speculate, and have no evidence, that the reason for that has something to do with the immune system being slower to get on top of the attentuated virus, because something in the gene changes, might trip up the immune system. But here, characteristically, we see more severe measles in vaccinated children, including symptoms reminiscent of atypical measles from the killed vaccine.

Naturally, that may not apply elsewhere.

Does this mean that measles cannot be caught from a recent vaccinee? No, of course not. It's certainly theoretically possible, but it's probably an exceedingly rare event.

Given that to your knowledge there had been no documented cases, you are either being contradictory or hedging your bets.

So what's going on with all these mothers who believe their kids were infected by other recently vaccinated kids?

Your use of the word believe is interesting. It's like when a vaccinated child comes in with measles and the file reads "Mother denies NOT vaccinating child"

The first thing I'd want to know is how the measles was diagnosed. Was it on the basis of a spotty rash and a fever, or was a blood test done to look for evidence of recent infection?

If they had blood tests that verified measles, then there are two possibilities: first, that they got measles from a recent vaccinee, in an unprecedented case of vaccine-based transmission.

It's not unprecedented

Or second, that they picked it up somewhere else. When someone tests positive for mealses, there's generally a big investigation done to figure out the source.

Depends where you are. In this country, everyone laughs and walks off.

So I'd be completely gobsmacked if the first possibility were true.

Please post picture. Must see this.

But hey, I've been gobsmacked before.

Well, practice makes better then, eh?

If, however, the diagnosis was made only on clinical grounds without a confirming blood test, the above two possibilities still apply. But there's also a big chance of a third possibility: it wasn't measles at all.

True, but see, in that case, as I said on the BMJ thread, you can't argue that the measles vaccine eliminated measles, since prior to the vaccine being used, all diagnosis was made on clinical grounds, never using blood work.

So you can't have your cake and eat it.

The problem is that the "measles" rash is not at all specific for measles (unlike the chicken pox rash, which is absolutely characteristic). There are plenty of other viruses out there that can cause a rash that looks like measles.

Which is why, as I said at BMJ, the historical data is as useful as a monkey's tail.

So given that measles is quite rare in this country, but other rash-causing viruses are rampant, you can tell that I'd lean toward the not-really-measles explanation.

Or could it be that without doing any blood work at all, doctors are assuming that measles vaccinated people couldn't possibly get measles and therefore all rashes are non-measles. So it could be that what is actually measles isn't thought to be measles, so no-one "thinks" there is measles around.

It's called "There are none so blind as those who don't want to see."

But if I were seeing a kid in clinic whose rash was sufficiently measles-ish (especially if they had Koplik spots) and who had clinical symptoms that matched measles, I'd want to run a measles IgM to know for sure. It's important.

that won't guarantee that they will then have immunity though. We've been through that... twice now.

So it would come as no surprise to me if my kids came down with measles a third time.

By the way, the eldest has had rubella twice as well. Just to upset the doctors somewhat.

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by amnesiac

I'm wondering if you might share a little of your thinking behind that choice -- perhaps why you've chosen to delay & what would make you feel comfortable getting it later if you aren't comfortable giving it as recommended?

My biggest reasons for delaying were those for which I had ample evidence: the longer you delay MMR, the more effective it is. After age 5 or so, though, you run the risk of nasty rubella-induced arthralgias. I had two doses of MMR in my twenties and had no problems, but still.

And measles (vax and wild) is notorious for causing immune suppression. Generally the T-cell counts bounce back after a month, I believe, but you absolutely need a fully-functional cadre of T-cells during cold and flu season. So when she gets it, it'll be in summertime.

Still haven't made up my mind about the autism & IBD connections. I'll have to do some more reading. Then I'll make a decision.

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11544404

I was all ready to admit that I was wrong (really!), but this abstract does NOT document a case of vaccine transmitted measles. Instead, it describes a girl who developed full-blown measles after she was vaxed. The genetic analysis of the virus indicated that it was wild-type, not vaccine strain:

"In June 18, 2000, a 1-year 11-month-old girl with a high fever (39.0) cough and rash, was admitted to our hospital. A diagnosis of measles was made based on her clinical symptoms and Koplik's spots on her buccal mucosa....It was unknown whether the patient had been in contact with measles patients in the previous 2-3 weeks, but she had received a measles vaccine (CAM strain, Biken, Osaka) on June 7, 2000, about 10 days before the onset of the symptoms...Our analysis indicated that the case was a wild-type MV infection though the timing of the vaccination was compatible with the vaccine-associated case."

If you can link me to an abstract showing secondary transmission of measles from a vaccinee, I'll gladly admit that I was wrong. Then I will contact the authors of the textbook in which I read it, and tell them they're wrong too. Really.