or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › Everything Else › Diseases will return because ppl. don't vaccinate??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Diseases will return because ppl. don't vaccinate?? - Page 5

post #81 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael
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.
You confuse me girl. I read you, yet read contradictions. Or is it internal tugs of war?

Quote:
how common a phenomenon is it?
Tell me. Why would they want to study that? Talk about corporate kiss of death.

Quote:
And even if viral excretion is common, how common is transmission?
ditto answer.

Quote:
Given the sheer number of MMR vaxes being injected into kids daily, why aren't measles, mumps, and rubella epidemic in the US?
See answer as above. Perhaps all non-measles rashes are simply presumed to be something else, and not correctly identified therefore. It then becomes the blind leading the blind.


Quote:
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?
Answered above. Lets admit that its in the throat but what else you don't look for, you don't have to explain.

Why is it that every year, the outbreaks of measles in unvaccinated kids in this country always follow four weeks after the yearly MMR vaccination in schools of the 11 yr old.

Doctors, no doubt, would say "oh, quite coincidental"

Quote:
Personally, I'd love to see evidence of vaccine transmission. I truly enjoy witnessing paradigms being shattered.
to do that, you'd have to run away from your lab and tissue cultures, and become an old fashioned shoe leather epidemiologist. But don't be surprised to get the sack for finding that.

Quote:
But I have yet to see any evidence that is not circumstantial.
Well, you won't, just looking down a microscope for a job will you?

Quote:
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.
You are funny Ishmael. I can just see you saying that...

And... "There is no moon there tonight, so I would need proof that it is still there...."

Quote:
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.
Yes, we have measles epidemics, large scale every four years. But also, every year, the public health nurses roll up to schools and vaccinate kids there. At the time my kids got it, the age group vaccinated were 11 year olds.

My kids were homeschooled from start to finish. But played with local kids. They caugh it both times, from kids vaccinated at school, who came down with measles and had to stay at home.

And not being an infection phobe, I was quite happy for my kids to rub noses with their kids. And sure enough, my kids got measles.

I didn't expect it the second time, because like most people, I'd been brainwashed into thinking it could only happen once. So it was a surprise when it did.

By the way, did you actually read the BMJ measles thread I suggested people here read?

If you had, you would not have had to ask me that question.

And if you had, perhaps you might be structuring your rebuttals a little more precisely?
post #82 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael
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."
Are you saying that it wasn't possible for this case of measles, serious enough to be admitted to hospital, to be transmitted to others?

If so, that's illogical.

And the problem was, that case was later PCR analysed and found to be vaccine virus, not wild virus

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

as was this case:

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

so to suggest that transmission as a result of no references confirming it, is impossible, stretches credibility a lot. Since it is assumed that transmission occurs under all other viremic situations...

Quote:
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.
Why bother?

At least 50% of the rest of whats in that text book is already outdated, or sheer bollocks. If you know it is, what's the point in throwing little hand grenades at them?

I was taught the half life of medical information. Weren't you?
post #83 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara
And the problem was, that case was later PCR analysed and found to be vaccine virus, not wild virus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11544404
Um, that's the same abstract you posted before, the one that concludes "Our analysis [restriction digest + PCR] indicated that the case was a wild-type MV infection though the timing of the vaccination was compatible with the vaccine-associated case." Were you intending to post an updated version that overturned their conclusions?

Right. When you posted that abstract previously, I agreed with you that viral excretion has been documented. I still have not seen any evidence that this happens frequently, or that it results in transmission to others.

I've never said that either is impossible. I've just said that I suspect it's very rare.

Transmission of other live-vax viruses has been documented repeatedly -- you could practically hear the authors' glee when they described a case of tertiary transmission of smallpox via vax last year (vaccinated soldier --> wife's breast --> breastfeeding baby. Yikes!!!). Because of these multiple published reports, I don't think that cases of measles, mumps, and rubella transmission are being suppressed by the medico-lego-pharma conspiracy. I think they just haven't been found yet. My opinion, of course.

Then there's the notion that vax-transmitted measles is right under our noses and we don't see it because we're not looking for it. That's definitely a possiblity. Based on my clinic experience so far, I don't think that's what's happening, but perhaps when I'm back among the rashy kids I'll look at them a whole new way and start sending out measles IgMs right left and center. Until then, I'm stuck in the lab, and my best way of gaining information is via journal articles. As soon as I see one documenting transmission of measles via vax, I'll admit that it may not be such an exceedingly rare event after all.

I'd even settle for compelling circumstatial evidence. I'll check out the epidemiology of measles in other countries when I get time. Were you referring to England?

Off to have a beer. Cheers!
post #84 of 110
Quote:
And measles (vax and wild) is notorious for causing immune suppression.
Based on this, would you prefer to get Attenuvax rather than MMR or the soon to be MMRV?
post #85 of 110
Ishmael, I'll respond to you with another Pm

I think I've messed up the urls... might have clicked the wrong one.
post #86 of 110
MT,

When you do find the right ones, we ALL want to see them. Please.!There are a lot of moms reading and learning (I'm included).

Don't continue this via pms now, you hear.
post #87 of 110
Quote:
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 that she would NOT HAVE CONTRACTED THE DISEASE IF I HAD VACCINATED.. : :LOL
ITA.

My Father told me that when a person is vaccinated, they become a carrier of that disease, and capable of spreading it, much like Typhoid Mary.

Vaccinating keeps the disease at hand, not at bay as a healthy immune system would.
post #88 of 110
Gitti, there are some things I need to say, which I can't say on the board okay?

But I do have an "answer" for Ishmael:

If the vaccine strain has been demonstrated to be shed via the respiratory route (as it has) then it is de facto contagious. De facto meaning it is not incumbent upon "me" to prove anything more than that demonstration. The vaccine strain and wild-type strain are identical except for a few well-documented genomic mutations.

Let me try to explain this better: the vaccine virus and the wild-type virus are greater than 99.9% identical. So much so that the vaccine strain is substituted in more than half the published research characterizing the wild-type strain. For example, in order to prove that wild-type measles can travel through peripheral nerves into the brain, researchers showed that the vaccine strain can do it - wild-type strains were never tested yet the conclusion is extended to them. Why? Because the vaccine strain and wild-type strain are so very nearly identical. Therefore the onus is on anyone who makes the claim that the virus strains have functional differences, to prove their claim. So the vaccine manufacturer has to prove that their vaccine is attenuated.

Therefore the onus is on anyone who makes the claim that the virus strains have functional differences, to prove their claim. So even though the vaccine manufacturer has created a strain that is a few mutations different than the wild-type strain, they still have to prove that their vaccine is attenuated. Likewise anyone who claims that the vaccine strain is non-infectious while the wild-type is, needs to offer up some evidence to that effect.


And attenuation is not the answer. The vaccine strain is not attenuated with respect to its potency (infectivity). In fact one of the first tests done in vaccine research is to test their attenuated vaccine for potency. If it has low infectivity they throw it out and start again. This is because (for live virus vaccines) the stimulation of antibody production is predicated on the vaccine establishing an infection.

And so the observation that the vaccine virus is shed via the respiratory route de facto means that the vaccine is contagious. If someone hasn't seen any documented cases in the literature, well that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

A better question would be to ask why the system isn't documenting it - but that's a different matter.



don't ask me to provide references...
post #89 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
MT,

When you do find the right ones, we ALL want to see them. Please.!There are a lot of moms reading and learning (I'm included).

Don't continue this via pms now, you hear.
I've stuffed my data system..

But the case in Japan, that was initially hypothesised to have been a "coincidental" wild infection, was sequenced and was a vaccine virus, not a wild virus.

Not that it matters, because as above, the answers are blindingly obvious...

Just because there are no references to prove it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means, as I said, that if you don't look for something, you don't have to admit anything.
post #90 of 110
ACtually, that last post should read that its probably my brain that's stuffed.

Being somewhat computer challenged, what's the bet the abstract is there, but I've dragged and dropped it into the wrong place.

Now I have to try to figure out which haystack the needle is in.

And no. I'm not downloading the new google data base search thingy...

I did that a month ago, and it brought spyware in with it, and was a PITA so I deleted it, and then had to do a "scour" of the whole system, so sometime, I'll reopen my eyes, and check it out.

To me, its not important, because as far as I am concerned, my case is proven enough.
post #91 of 110
Well it seems pretty obvious to me that the vaccine strain virus IS shed and so it IS capable of being transmitted to others. The question really is more about what it does once it gets to that second person. I wouldn't generally expect it to produce the clinical symptoms that we know as "measles" since it is attenuated & all. So why would anyone really care to look for it?
post #92 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac
Well it seems pretty obvious to me that the vaccine strain virus IS shed and so it IS capable of being transmitted to others. The question really is more about what it does once it gets to that second person. I wouldn't generally expect it to produce the clinical symptoms that we know as "measles" since it is attenuated & all. So why would anyone really care to look for it?
I've done some careful reading and concerned that viral shedding may happen more frequently than I thought, and so secondary (and tertiary) transmission is possible, even likely -- though I still haven't encountered anything to convince me that it happens routinely. Given that it's been readily documented in other vaccines (some of which, like varivax, are a big financial boon to their producers), I'm still puzzled by why not a single case has been documented. In fact, viral shedding has sometimes even been spun as a good thing -- it's a way of "vaccinating" or "boosting" folks who wouldn't otherwise be vaxed. Granted, that'd be a harder sell these days. So I'm still convinced that it's a rare phenomenon, but I'll keep an open mind.

Measles and rubella might be able to hide in plain sight, but I'm less confident that congenital rubella syndrome would. And mumps is such a distinct clinical entity -- a low-grade unilateral case might masquerade as pyogenic lymphadenitis, but "classic mumps" should be instantly recognizable.

Which leads to amnesiac's notion of modified or sub-clinical infections. There may be a huge financial and political disincentive not to look for them, but it's an important question. Even if they produce no symptoms, these viruses can have serious consequences -- congenital rubella syndrome and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (what a mouthful) come to mind. And then there's the interesting notion of measles-induced immunosuppression.

So what I'd really like to see is studies of antibodies to M,M, and R in unvaxed children who are not known to have had clinical infections. MT, you mentioned a BMJ study that address this. I did a search but found nothing (so the archive I had access to only went back to 1994, I think). Do you know the date of the study, and do you have any more info that would help me find it?

Speaking of studies, I've been trying to track down the other abstract without success. If anyone's really interested in reading it, let me know and I'll try harder. Otherwise, I'm giving up.
post #93 of 110
Quote:
The classic symptom of mumps is painful swelling of one or both parotid glands, often obscuring the angle of the jaw. The pain is especially intense when tasting sour liquids (lemon juice and vinegar have provoked many a muffled scream.
http://www.drgreene.com/21_1146.html

If I had time I would dig further for the answer to my question but for now I thought I would ask you guys since you seem very knowledgable about the subject.

When the glands swell up from mumps, are they puss filled? I will explain in more detail when I get back, hopefully after you have answered but for now I haveta go.. Thanks!
post #94 of 110
Quote:
And mumps is such a distinct clinical entity -- a low-grade unilateral case might masquerade as pyogenic lymphadenitis, but "classic mumps" should be instantly recognizable.
Not necessarily. It's the same situation as measles- other things can clinically look just like it. Sort of screws up the whole historical data for mumps too:

Quote:
As lead researcher Dr. Irja Davidkin told Reuters Health, "It is difficult to clinically differentiate mumps from other conditions causing parotid gland swelling."...
To gain more information on the etiology of mumps-like illnesses, the researchers studied serum samples collected prospectively over a period of 15 years from 601 children and adolescents who had had such acute illnesses. Antibody testing ruled out mumps as a cause.

Viral infections were found in 84 cases (14%). Overall, Epstein-Barr virus was seen in 41 patients (7%), 24 cases (4%) met diagnostic criteria for parainfluenza 1, 2 or 3 and adenovirus was detected in 17 patients (3%). HHV-6 infection was found in 5 children.

Given these findings, the researchers point out that that careful laboratory-based diagnostic testing is important in the treatment of such patients.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/500284



Quote:
Even if they produce no symptoms, these viruses can have serious consequences -- congenital rubella syndrome and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (what a mouthful) come to mind. And then there's the interesting notion of measles-induced immunosuppression.
That's the point though. These are attenuated viruses that don't behave exactly like wild viruses. I would be extremely surprised to find them causing these serious consequences.
post #95 of 110
Quote:
Originally posted by amnesiac
Not necessarily. It's the same situation as measles- other things can clinically look just like it. Sort of screws up the whole historical data for mumps too:
So if you haven't had a blood test to confirm that is IS measles or mumps, there's a chance what you have is atypical or something else that isn't measles or mumps?

Or, is there really such a thing as measles and mumps?

LOL
post #96 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katana
So if you haven't had a blood test to confirm that is IS measles or mumps, there's a chance what you have is atypical or something else that isn't measles or mumps?

Or, is there really such a thing as measles and mumps?

LOL
It's not a silly question.

What you have is a measles and mumps "syndrome". Without a blood test, its not, and never has been, possible to distinguish it with absolute certainty. Which is why some doctors in this country started doing blood tests, and were most surprised to find many of their patients, according to the blood tests, getting measles and rubella more than once.

(Course, some might argue that the lab tests were shonky, in which case, an awful lot of them are, which casts aspertions on everything else done in diagnostic labs, so for now, I'll assume their tests were actually accurate.)

Ishmael, I had a ministry of health letter (I've not had time to check it, and I'm not going to, as its not important to me) which states that rubella cannot be diagnosed through clinical symptoms, and must be diagnosed through a blood test.

But back to this business of "syndromes".

If you study the whooping cough literature, the same thing happens. Up until the use of the vaccine, anything that looked like whooping cough, sounded like whooping cough, was called whooping cough.

In the last 20+ years, you have things like adenoviruses, bronchoseptica and other "pathogens" which produce identical "syndromes" to whooping cough. Some even last as long. It's a subject not much discussed, unless the group concerned is all fully vaccinated and they really want to try to vindicate the vaccine.

Like in Holland a few years ago. Except they failed miserably.

And another example for the medical history maniacs around here, me being the main rabble rouser.

Until the use of the diphtheria vaccine, croup was listed under diphtheria. They were similar entities which were thought to be the same, but diphtheria was thought to be a more serious version of croup.

Only after the vaccine was croup separated out, so again, diphtheria stats can't be considered to be of much value. Neither can whooping cough.

Oh, ironically, many of the whooping cough cases in vaccinated children here in the last outbreak, and in the one that started last year, and is now gaining speed, are being diagnosed as "asthma" and the kids are prescribed steroids.

After all, it can't be whooping cough can it? They are vaccinated.

And now that they've effectively barred vaccinated children from the PCR test, (only available to hospital babies at risk of dying... ) how are we supposed to resolve this connundrum?

Actually, the same thing applies to polio definitions. There wasn't something called aseptic meningitis prior to the polio vaccine. But afterwards, lots of what used to be classified as non-paralytic polio, was then transferred to the aseptic meningitis column.
post #97 of 110
I had a nice long post typed out and the baby hit the keyboard. Then POOF it was gone.

Ok so anyway, the reason I ask if when your glands swell up do to the mumps is because of an experience we had when dd#2 was 8 months old.

I noticed one day that her glands under her jaw were swollen. She had been running a low fever so I thought maybe she had the mumps. I called the doctor and made an appointment. Because it was a last minute appointment we had to see the NP. When she saw dd she seemed kind of panicky and went and got a doctor. The doctor told us not to worry they have seen this before and had us bring dd back the next day. We were in every day that week for "observation." The following week they decided they were going to lance and drain the abscess. So they drugged dd up with morphine, lance, drained, and packed it.

In the meantime they had us take a test for cat scratch fever. We didn't have a cat. DD had never been around a cat but they wanted her tested for. The test came back negative. They didn't believe it and had her tested again. Again it came back negative.

The following week they decided it needed re-lanced, so again they drugged my baby up with morphine and lanced it again. This time the doctor decided he would give her a bit more morphine since he thought she was in pain last time. duh! Well according to him she stopped breathing during the procedure so they sent her off the to the hospital in an ambulance from the office. I really don't think she stopped breathing. DD2 and 3 are both the type of children that stop breathing for a few seconds when they are crying hard. I think that is what had happened. So after observing her for a few hours they sent her home.

After 2 weeks of going to the doc almost every day, and lancing and draining this twice she started to heal. They never ever did figure out what caused this. They were quiet insistent it was not the mumps although she was never tested for it. (of course what do I know, maybe the swelling isn’t puss filled when you have the mumps.) So thanks for listening and your opinions,
post #98 of 110
Well, Tina, given that the lymph gland's function is to sequester pathogens there to stop them spreading into the rest of the body, and then "destroy" them, I can't help but wonder.

when we get a cold, at the place where the pathogens are destroyed we get a green discharge. It's the "debris" left behind after the battle.

So yes, the question has to be asked. If a battle is going on in glands, is the resultant debris sequestered green discharge.

I suspect they don't know, because in the old days they never went around drugging up, and lancing every swollen gland that came along, but it stands to reason that any infection in a gland could cause pus.

Usually, they "say" its bacterial infections that cause green discharges, but I'm not sure about that. They "say" a lot of things, but that doesn't make it so.

I mean, the logical thing would have been to test the discharge to see what it was, but did they do that?

Cat scratch is a bacterial disease, which comes from a scratch on the skin, and its sequestered in the lymph gland, and its very rare that doctors go in and drain them... normally they let the immune system deal with it, and let it go down by itself...but the fact that the test came back negative twice, tells me that there are a whole lot of things that can cause pus in glands, and that any swelling might just be green detritus from a "battle" going on in there...
post #99 of 110
As a thought Tina, why don't you TELL them you want a mumps titre done?

If they are positive, high and rising, which would show clinical mumps, then send them a bill for the refund of the money you spent feathering their ignorant coffers.

Label it Refund demand as a result of unnecessary ID ten T error
post #100 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice
Sorry that you went through this.

I would have asked for a second or third opinion.

A child should not serve as learning material for nincompoops like this...this is child abuse, and should be reported.
She was seen by EVERY doctor in the practice. There were about 7 of them at the time. No one knew what caused it. "It's not cat scratch, we don't know what it is."

As far as having the puss tested, no they did not do that. Also I can't ask them to do that now, it was 5 years ago, but it still bugs me that no one knew what it was. When I suggested mumps I was simply told no.

Another question. If I had dd tested to see if she was immune, would they be able to tell if she was immune due to the vaccine or if she had actually had mumps? Or would it only show she was immune?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Everything Else
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › Everything Else › Diseases will return because ppl. don't vaccinate??