why do parents want their unvaxed kids to catch measles?

[wobbema]

i've heard about parties parents organise sometimes when 1 kid has the measles, hoping the other (unvaxed) kids will get this disease as well.
Why?

[alegna]

Why would someone vaccinate for measles?

Same reason- immunity. Only difference is there is a much better chance of lifetime immunity from catching it than from the vax.

-Angela

[cravenab00]

catching measles confirms lifetime immunity. Best do it while they are young!

My grandmother told story after story of how when anyone in the neighborhood had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, all the kids would go to that house so they could catch it.

It was just one of those things back then.

When I was a kid, people did that with chicken pox.

Now we are taught to be deathly afraid of these childhood illnesses. it just doesnt make sense to me.

[wallacesmum]

I want my children to develop immunity to the childhood diseases while they are children, so that they don't have to worry about them post-puberty.

Also, I am intrigued by the folk wisdom (which is starting to be confirmed scientifically) that having these diseases actually boosts the immune system function.

I know that bf is associated with lower instances of breast cancer, and I wonder about a lot of other things that happen to our bodies as we age, particularly cancer risks. Is it possible that having the childhood illnesses reduces the risk of having some of these other diseases? I don't know, and to argue such without any evidence would be conjecture. Since there have never been comprehensive long-term trials comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, there is no way to know.

[Plaid Leopard]

We should also mention that women who have had natural measles infection pass measles antibodies on their babes in utero and through breastmilk, thus protecting those infants in the first year of life.
THe same cannot be said for mothers with vaccine-induced immunity.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...3?crawler=true

Here is an archived thread from MDC with lots of info, links (scroll down)
http://www.mothering.com/discussions.../t-393220.html

[bczmama]

I believe other posts on this board have quoted studies that show that immunity from breastfeeding substantially reduces 6 months (not a year) following birth.

[Mirzam]

Personally, I am not going out of my way to expose my children to measles, but if they got it, I wouldn't be heart broken. As a measles survivor myself, its no big deal!

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by uccomama

Personally, I am not going out of my way to expose my children to measles, but if they got it, I wouldn't be heart broken. As a measles survivor myself, its no big deal!

Did you catch measles in childhood? I would be happy for my kid to have measles now, but not as a teen or adult. I know the chances of him catching it then are still slim, but after I get his titres checked, I may consider that one for later on. I may not.

[MonkeysRUs]

Breastmilk immunity

Originally Posted by bczmama

I believe other posts on this board have quoted studies that show that immunity from breastfeeding substantially reduces 6 months (not a year) following birth.

The immune components in breastmilk do not decrease after 6 months, or even a year. They actually increase as baby gets older.

http://www.kellymom.com/nutrition/mi...nefactors.html

From the above link:

"Some of the immune factors in breastmilk have been shown to increase in concentration as the baby gets older and nurses less, so older babies still receive lots of immune factors. So as a baby starts to nurse less (weaning) and milk supply decreases, the concentration of immunities increases. This isn't age-dependent, but depends on the amount of milk that baby is removing from the breast"


In terms of immunity to illnesses that the mother has had, or has been vaccinated against, being conferred to baby via breastmilk, there isn't enough of the immunities passed on through breastmilk to offer real protection, however it is helpful, and all of the other immune factors in breastmilk are an important part of the baby's immune system.

http://www.kellymom.com/health/meds/...rotection.html

The info below is from the above link and has a good explanation:

"Many moms wonder whether their babies will be protected from any illness that mom has been immunized against as long as breastfeeding continues. Breastfeeding will enhance baby's response to immunizations that he receives, however, breastfeeding will not act as a substitute for immunization.

The immunities that our bodies generate when we get an illness or receive a vaccination are IgG immunities. IgG is the major immunoglobulin circulating in the blood and is the type of antibody that provides long-term resistance to illnesses - the IgG antibodies 'recognize' germs that we've been exposed to previously so that they can be destroyed more quickly.

IgG protection from mom primarily comes to her baby via the placenta prior to birth --this maternal IgG in baby's system gradually disappears by 6-8 months postpartum. A child's own IgG synthesis gradually increases until it reaches adult levels by 7-8 years of age [ref: Behrman: Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 16th ed., Copyright © 2000 W. B. Saunders Company. p. 595]. The child continues to get some IgG protection from breastmilk for as long as nursing continues, but IgG does not enter the breastmilk in quantities high enough to "vaccinate" baby (though it's certainly helpful).

Immunities that babies receive from nursing are primarily IgA (IgG and other immunoglobulins are present in much lower quantities). IgA concentrates in body fluids such as tears, saliva, and the secretions of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts and has an important protective function.

The many immune components in breastmilk can make a huge difference when it comes to keeping baby healthy. Even though baby does not receive enough of mom's IgG immunities via breastmilk to qualify as an immunization against a particular illness, there are many other immunities (IgA, certain fatty acids, etc) in the breastmilk that are active against the same illnesses."


The only type of immunity that decreases substantially after about 6-8 months is the passive immunity passed from mom to baby in utero.

[Plaid Leopard]

bczmama I believe other posts on this board have quoted studies that show that immunity from breastfeeding substantially reduces 6 months (not a year) following birth.


I was going by what I read here:
http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998081109.shtml

“Because such protective (maternal) antibodies have traditionally persisted through the first year of life, the recommended vaccination age in the US was set at 12 to 15 months.
However, most infants are now born to mothers who were immunized against measles rather than mothers who have antibodies due to infection with the measles virus themselves. Studies have shown that vaccine-induced antibodies are passed from mother to infant, but are lost earlier than disease-induced antibodies. Among the infants studied, only 52% of 6-month-old infants and 35% of 9-month-old infants had antibodies present before vaccination. No 12-month-old infants did.
"As a result, more infants younger than 12 months now lack... measles immunity, leaving them unprotected and in the highest-risk group for life-threatening complications," according to the report. “
SOURCE: The Journal of the American Medical Association 1998;280:527-532.

and here.(bolding mine)

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...3?crawler=true :
Natural measles infection usually confers life-long immunity which is transferred from mothers to their offspring, protecting them from natural measles until the age of about 12 months. Recently, however, natural measles has been observed with increased frequency in infants under the age of 12 months. Natural measles outbreaks in the city of Sapporo have been suppressed by widely applied measles vaccination. Passive measles immunity in 160 neonates (cord blood), born during the last 17 y in Sapporo, Japan was determined by a neutralization (NT) antibody test. The mothers of these infants had had natural measles infection during childhood. Geometric mean titres (GMTs) of cord blood NT antibodies gradually decreased after 1989 and the GMTs of the most recently born infants were significantly lower than those of infants born in the first few years of the study. These observations suggest that even in mothers who experienced natural measles in childhood, recurrent exposure to natural measles is necessary in order to maintain adequate antibody levels for effective passive immunity of their infants

Authors: Ohsaki M.; Tsutsumi H.; Takeuchi R.; Kuniya Y.; Chiba S.
Source: Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases

and here:

http://cdli.asm.org/cgi/content/full/6/6/868

”With an increasing proportion of women with vaccine-acquired immunity, a further shift to the left of the seroprevalence curve in the infant population is expected to occur. As predicted by Wilkins and Wehrle (37), by the time most infants are born to vaccinated mothers, vaccination recommendations must be adapted, because of the premature loss of maternally derived antibodies (4, 18, 21, 23). Studies that have been conducted in Africa (8), Israel (9), and Turkey (1) have shown that most infants of well-vaccinated populations become susceptible to clinical measles after 6 months of age. The consequences of a shift from long-lasting passive immunity in infancy to early loss of maternally derived vaccine-induced antibodies are evident from investigations of an epidemic of measles in the United States in 1992 which showed that 22.2% of all cases were in infants aged less than 1 year (5). “

[Deborah]

Aha! This is indeed very interesting. So when I had measles in 1958 or so, my younger siblings could, indeed, have still had immunity due to the boosting from circulating measles exposure. [This was discussed on another thread] Nowadays, thanks to vaccination, infants are increasingly vulnerable to measles at lower and lower ages.

Solve one problem, create another problem.

[Joyful Mama]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

I want my children to develop immunity to the childhood diseases while they are children, so that they don't have to worry about them post-puberty.

Also, I am intrigued by the folk wisdom (which is starting to be confirmed scientifically) that having these diseases actually boosts the immune system function.

I know that bf is associated with lower instances of breast cancer, and I wonder about a lot of other things that happen to our bodies as we age, particularly cancer risks. Is it possible that having the childhood illnesses reduces the risk of having some of these other diseases? I don't know, and to argue such without any evidence would be conjecture. Since there have never been comprehensive long-term trials comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, there is no way to know.

in the video "vaccination: the hidden truth", vera scheibner (LOVE her!!!!!) says that having measles decreases the risk of several forms of cancer and other diseases...

it would be very interesting to see studies on this.

[wobbema]

thanks for your replies all of you...

i didn't know that measles was, like rubella and mumps, a disease that is relatively harmless for young kids and more dangerous for older kids/adults.

[suschi]

Originally Posted by wobbema

thanks for your replies all of you...

i didn't know that measles was, like rubella and mumps, a disease that is relatively harmless for young kids and more dangerous for older kids/adults.

That sums it up nicely.

Add to it, the better protection passed on the infants.