Measles, then and now

[Plummeting]

According to the CDC

Prior to 1963, almost everyone got measles; it was an expected life event. Each year in the U.S. there were approximately 3 to 4 million cases and an average of 450 deaths, with epidemic cycles every 2 to 3 years. More than half the population had measles by the time they were 6 years old, and 90 % had the disease by the time they were 15. This indicates that many more cases were occurring than were being reported. However, after the vaccine became available, the number of measles cases dropped by 98 % and the epidemic cycles drastically diminished.

So, according to our very own CDC, prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine, mortality for measles was between 0.015% (assuming 3 million case) and 0.011% (assuming 4 million cases).

Okay, that's LOW. Then they say:

A dramatic increase in measles cases occurred between 1989 and 1991. During those three years, 55,622 cases were reported Most of the cases occurred in children under 5 years of age, with the number of cases among unvaccinated Hispanic and African American populations being four to seven times higher than among non-Hispanic whites. This also marked the first time the number of measles cases for children under 5 years of age exceeded those for the 5 to 19 years old group.

During this period, 123 people died from measles-related illnesses — almost half were under 5 years old. Ninety percent of those who lost their lives had not been vaccinated. The 64 deaths in 1990 was the largest number that had been seen in almost 20 years.

Okay, blah blah blah, ignore the part where they try to scare you into getting the vaccine. Look at the numbers. Apparently, according to the CDC, in the most recent large outbreak of measles in the US 0.221% of those who caught measles died from it. So the vaccination program has resulted in measles becoming more likely to kill those who catch it. Over 10 times more likely to kill them, in fact. Even with all the advances in modern medicine over those 30 years, you were still 10 times as likely to die if you caught measles in 1990 than if you caught it in 1960. That's pathetic. I'm sure most of that has to do with shifting infection to a younger crowd, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the vaccination program has made measles more dangerous than it once was. Of course, it's still pretty benign - 0.22% is pretty low, but it's never a good thing when your vaccination program results in a disease infecting mainly infants and adults who are more likely to die.

The above quotes from here http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/measles/history.htm

Then again, somewhere else the CDC claims there were only about 450,000 cases of measles reported in 1962, so perhaps they're lying about how many cases there were each year? And if that is the case, why? And why should we believe anything else they say if they'd lie about this? Of course, it could just as easily be that they estimate the number because they knew most parents weren't taking their kids in for a dx at that time, which I can believe. Any way you slice it up, something just ain't right here.

Anywho, that's something I mentioned a long time ago, but I thought it should get its own thread because I think it's interesting.

[guestmama9911]

First of all, I love your siggy. Labyrinth is one of my most favorite movies of all time.

Second of all...the more I learn about the CDC, the more certain I am that they are the Medical Mafia, drunk with power and destroying lives to preserve themselves and create their own importance.

[wallacesmum]

Why let the CDC get all the credit? Don't forget the AMA!

[Mirzam]

Then again, somewhere else the CDC claims there were only about 450,000 cases of measles reported in 1962, so perhaps they're lying about how many cases there were each year? And if that is the case, why? And why should we believe anything else they say if they'd lie about this?

Well they lie about the flu deaths every year, so I am not surprised they would inflate measles cases either when it suits them.

[FrederickMama]

Well, now that measles is more deadly ...... all the more reason to get vaccinated:

[mamakay]

Interesting that the deaths were in "the unvaccinated" right around 30 years after the introduction of the vax...right around the time that first generation vaccinees were having babies without passive immunity.
I wonder what % of "the unvaccinated" were babies too young to get vaxed.

If a lot of them were, those are indirect vaccine induced deaths, IMO.

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Interesting that the deaths were in "the unvaccinated" right around 30 years after the introduction of the vax...right around the time that first generation vaccinees were having babies without passive immunity.
I wonder what % of "the unvaccinated" were babies too young to get vaxed.

If a lot of them were, those are indirect vaccine induced deaths, IMO.

I agree.

[Plummeting]

I'm bumping this up for AikeaGuinea. You said that you interpret the information about measles mortality in the last outbreak and in the years prior to the introduction of the vaccine differently. Have you ever seen this data? If X number of people catch Y disease and Z die from it, then the percentage isn't open to interpretation. It's straight mathematics. You can either choose the route of saying that the CDC lied about the 3 to 4 million cases, which means they're an unreliable source of information, OR you can accept that measles infection today is 10 times more deadly than it was before the introduction of the vaccine. Either way, it doesn't make the CDC look great, because they either lied or they're pushing a vaccination program that isn't in the best interest of the general public.

What is a pro-vax interpretation of this information and how does it support continuing with the mass measles vaccination program in America? Anyone feel free to give an opinion.

[LongIsland]

You just have to make me wanna to get some more popcorn, don'tcha.

:

[Deborah]

The other night I was sitting with some folks around my age: 50s or 60s, working on a mailing. The man sitting next to me started talking about an editorial he had read which said that unvaccinated children catch terribly dangerous childhood diseases more than vaxed children and isn't that mind-bogglingly awful.

I said no, not actually. Catching diseases during childhood is a good idea. His jaw dropped. I cited the recent mumps epidemic, pointing out that the majority of the mumps cases were in teens and folks in their twenties, who had all been vaxed, but the immunity didn't hold. So now they were getting a childhood disease when it was more painful and more dangerous.

Then I asked him if he had had measles as a child. He thought for a second and said (embarassed) you know, I can't remember.

The lady sitting across the table said: I never had measles as a child. My mother kept taking me around to visit sick kids, hoping I would catch it, but it never worked.

I turned to the man and said: some deathly dangerous disease!

I also pointed out that now that there is a vax for chickenpox, it is being described as a dangerous disease. And that before there was a vax for measles it was generally assumed to be a mild childhood disease.

[BeingMe]

Me too : !

I'm happy I got through the last thread before it was closed. I told my DH to take the baby so I could finish it before it gets removed. Definitely some interesting reading. I wish I had the plethera(three amigos movie ) of knowledge that you have. One day I may get there, but right now with the sleep I'm getting, it won't be very soon.

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Then I asked him if he had had measles as a child. He thought for a second and said (embarassed) you know, I can't remember.

The lady sitting across the table said: I never had measles as a child. My mother kept taking me around to visit sick kids, hoping I would catch it, but it never worked.

I turned to the man and said: some deathly dangerous disease!

Did you ask him if he knows what H. Influenzae, Type B means?

[Deborah]

LI wrote:

Did you ask him if he knows what H. Influenzae, Type B means?

No, the conversation drifted on to other topics.

I do think he is beginning to feel some caution about debating with me on this topic.

Also today, I handed one of my staff members Romm on vaxes and asked him to read it as he and his wife are expecting. I told him about the hep B vax, that it is genetically engineered and, in some hospitals, given to newborns. I felt he needed to know that they don't have time to consider the question after the baby arrives. By then it can be too late.

I'm not usually that pushy, but I'd hate for his kid to be messed with and him caught unawares. If he considers the info and decides to vax it is his problem, but if he doesn't know what is going on then it isn't a decision at all. It is being victimized by trickery and lies.

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by Deborah

I do think he is beginning to feel some caution about debating with me on this topic.

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by Deborah

I'm not usually that pushy, but I'd hate for his kid to be messed with and him caught unawares. If he considers the info and decides to vax it is his problem, but if he doesn't know what is going on then it isn't a decision at all. It is being victimized by trickery and lies.

I know, that one is so tough because they catch them right then and parents feel like they don't even have time to think about it. Almost no one who hasn't looked into it even has any clue that they will be offered any vaccine at all, much less which one and why they should or shouldn't take it.