measles scare at the US airports - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 26 Old 02-26-2011, 08:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
newmum35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Wow Im surprised nobody has mentioned the measles scare at the airports yet. I cam on to see  the discussion and there is none so I thought I'd start one.  You won't believe this article. We know measles typically has a very low mortality rate (I can't recall at the moment, isn't it like 1 in 5000 or 1 in 10,000 pre vaccination?)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/217615.php

I'd love to know what people think about this excerpt:

"If the virus enters an area where nobody has ever been exposed or vaccinated, the results can be devastating. An outbreak in Cuba in 1592 killed nearly two-thirds of the native population of the island. Two years later another outbreak in Honduras killed half of all the people in that country. In the 1850s about 20% of the people in Hawaii died from an outbreak of measles."

Any thoughts on whether or not this is true, and if so, what could the reason be? Do you think those people were severely vitamin A deficient?

 

also its interesting they have to dig this deep in history to find some scary statistics like this. Also find interesting that the ADULTS who have come down with measles are just fine they haven't died, and yet there is the huge scare to find everyone who might have been exposed..


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
newmum35 is offline  
#2 of 26 Old 02-26-2011, 08:58 PM
 
allnaturalmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

1592.... Are you kidding me?? Why didn't they use more current stats?


All natural sahm to dd1(12yo) and dd2(6yo). Married 16 years.

Time for the Master Tonic! thumb.gif

allnaturalmom is offline  
#3 of 26 Old 02-26-2011, 09:07 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newmum35 View Post


I'd love to know what people think about this excerpt:

"If the virus enters an area where nobody has ever been exposed or vaccinated, the results can be devastating. An outbreak in Cuba in 1592 killed nearly two-thirds of the native population of the island. Two years later another outbreak in Honduras killed half of all the people in that country. In the 1850s about 20% of the people in Hawaii died from an outbreak of measles."

Any thoughts on whether or not this is true, and if so, what could the reason be? Do you think those people were severely vitamin A deficient?


It is very much true.  However, while it is an interesting sidebar, it is not really relevant to the current situation. 

 

Europeans had been dealing with measles and other European diseases for thousands upon thousands of years.  Over that time the population grew more resistant to measles by means of natural selection - those who were the weakest at fighting it off were the most likely to die and so not pass on their genes, while those with genetic factors that helped them through the illness passed those on to their children.  Also, most people got it as children, which was fortunate as like chicken pox, measles is a lot harder on adults who get it than children. 

 

Then Europeans came to the Americas where there was no natural resistance built up over thousands of years and the adults were still vulnerable as they had not been exposed to measles as children.  The results were absolutely devastating.  

 

But our population still has all our genetic resistance and the vast majority of people are protected either by having had measles in their youth or vaccination, so no, no worry that that will be happening here. 

 

Still, measles can kill as many 1 or 2  or so per thousand cases in the first world, but still, to put it in perspective my kid's school has close to 500 students, some with other illnesses or underlying conditions as all schools do, and if we were back in the times when measles spread freely and everyone could be expected to get it at some point or another, well, to lose even just one of those kids as would be expected statistically would be quite the challenge.  And there are many more complications which are more common than death and can result in the need for hospitalization and potential permanent effects such as damaging eyesight.  

 

As I said, most people here are protected, and with any luck the infected passenger didn't pass it on to anyone vulnerable.  Also, there are indeed many worse diseases than measles.  But having a highly contagious disease in an airport is a bit of a disease prevention nightmare as it has the potential to send it off in so many directions at once, and I can see why they do want to track down potential cases that might have resulted from this so as to try and keep it from spreading at their destinations.  

pers is offline  
#4 of 26 Old 02-26-2011, 09:32 PM
 
Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Where the end of the world began
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by newmum35 View Post

We know measles typically has a very low mortality rate (I can't recall at the moment, isn't it like 1 in 5000 or 1 in 10,000 pre vaccination?)

 

"One hundred years ago in Scotland, the measles case-fatality rate was 30-40 deaths per 1000 cases. In the United States, mortality from measles decreased from 25 per 1000 reported cases in 1912 to 1 per 1000 reported cases in 1962." (Citations omitted; here.) The measles vax was first introduced in the U.S. in 1963, right?

Otto is offline  
#5 of 26 Old 03-02-2011, 05:45 AM
 
mama1803's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
mama1803 is offline  
#6 of 26 Old 03-02-2011, 06:31 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

They should be contacting all the passangers who were ever on a flight with someone who then came down with the flu shortly thereafter - after all the flu can cause "severe symptoms and even death"

peainthepod likes this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#7 of 26 Old 03-02-2011, 06:12 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

They should be contacting all the passangers who were ever on a flight with someone who then came down with the flu shortly thereafter - after all the flu can cause "severe symptoms and even death"



thumb.gif


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#8 of 26 Old 03-02-2011, 06:15 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

How is 150 cases in the U.S. a year considered "eradicated"?  What is the CDC's definition of eradicated if that's the case?


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#9 of 26 Old 03-02-2011, 07:23 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

From the article: "Instead, authorities are now engaged in a protracted, costly process of contacting all passengers -- about 319 -- on the applicable flights."

Just wondering, but what is so costly about calling 319 people and warning them about measles?

 

Also, I had a thought. What about those of us who would rather be exposed to the measles virus so we can have natural immunity (like having chicken pox parties)? Since so many people are vaccinated, there is little chance of us finding the wild virus. [Which says something about the success of the vaccine, I hate to admit. I'm still more concerned about vax reactions, rather than actually getting measles, which is why I'm still against the vax]

In a way, the vaccinations have robbed us of our chance for natural immunity lol! Can we sue for that, for being deprived of finding the natural virus?


               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#10 of 26 Old 03-02-2011, 07:40 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

From the article: "Instead, authorities are now engaged in a protracted, costly process of contacting all passengers -- about 319 -- on the applicable flights."

Just wondering, but what is so costly about calling 319 people and warning them about measles?

 

Also, I had a thought. What about those of us who would rather be exposed to the measles virus so we can have natural immunity (like having chicken pox parties)? Since so many people are vaccinated, there is little chance of us finding the wild virus. [Which says something about the success of the vaccine, I hate to admit. I'm still more concerned about vax reactions, rather than actually getting measles, which is why I'm still against the vax]

In a way, the vaccinations have robbed us of our chance for natural immunity lol! Can we sue for that, for being deprived of finding the natural virus?


 

I'm of the same mind, exactly.  I guess I'm fortunate that my mother had measles as a toddler, and breastfed me though not for very long, so she may have passed her natural immunity on to me (not totally clear on how often that works though).

 

Still, I wouldn't mind if my kids were exposed to wild measles.  As far as risks of severe complications from the illness - we face that every day, from any illness, and any injury.  Look how many people die from MRSA every year.  


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#11 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 12:41 AM
 
Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Where the end of the world began
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Also, I had a thought. What about those of us who would rather be exposed to the measles virus so we can have natural immunity (like having chicken pox parties)?


Pox parties are interesting in that parents can waive their own rights but not the child's. The host of a pox party really does bear substantial risk if an attempt at natural immunity goes awry.

Otto is offline  
#12 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 05:58 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

How so to both points?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post


Pox parties are interesting in that parents can waive their own rights but not the child's. The host of a pox party really does bear substantial risk if an attempt at natural immunity goes awry.



 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#13 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 06:05 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post




 

I'm of the same mind, exactly.  I guess I'm fortunate that my mother had measles as a toddler, and breastfed me though not for very long, so she may have passed her natural immunity on to me (not totally clear on how often that works though).

 

Still, I wouldn't mind if my kids were exposed to wild measles.  As far as risks of severe complications from the illness - we face that every day, from any illness, and any injury.  Look how many people die from MRSA every year.  


 

To the part I bolded.

 

Immunity from the mother is transfered via the placenta to the baby. The antibodies circulating in the baby are usually strong enough to protect the baby for 9 months, although mothers who are relying on immunity from a vaccine pass on antibodies that become weaker faster. Leaving younger babies more at risk.


Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#14 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 06:07 AM
 
ASusan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

I'm of the same mind, exactly.  I guess I'm fortunate that my mother had measles as a toddler, and breastfed me though not for very long, so she may have passed her natural immunity on to me (not totally clear on how often that works though).

 


If the mother has had measles, and therefore built up a natural immunity, then her ability to pass on immunity to her breastfed child is much greater than if she has been immunized against measles. The immunity that is passed on to the breastfed infant for only as long as the breastfeeding continues.


DS, 10/07. Allergies: peanut, egg, wheat. We've added dairy back in. And taken it back out again. It causes sandpaper skin with itchy patches and thrashing during sleep. Due w/ #2 late April, 2012.

ASusan is offline  
#15 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 06:08 AM
 
AFWife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Am I the only one that thought "Where was I?" because I WANT my son to get it while he's young and get it over with??             I also agree with the PP that said they should contact people when a passenger has the flu! Or MRSA. Or a cough (because it could be pertussis!)  Or even the common cold because someone might be on board with compromised immunity and get severely ill. (I'm being a bit sarcastic now...I'm not saying REALLY call people...)


 

 

 

 


Kas (24), Helpmeet to Stefan (25), Mom to Franklin Gaudelio 4/15/09, Jonathan Boswell 1/2/11
AFWife is offline  
#16 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 07:30 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ASusan View Post





If the mother has had measles, and therefore built up a natural immunity, then her ability to pass on immunity to her breastfed child is much greater than if she has been immunized against measles. The immunity that is passed on to the breastfed infant for only as long as the breastfeeding continues.



Good to know, thanks!  I was immunized anyway.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#17 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 07:47 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post


Pox parties are interesting in that parents can waive their own rights but not the child's. The host of a pox party really does bear substantial risk if an attempt at natural immunity goes awry.


1. Vaccinating a child also waives the child's rights, doesn't it?

 

2. I don't know the law on this, but it's my opinion that the host of the party would not be at fault. The person who knowingly took the child to the party would be at fault.

 

I don't like to use the word "fault" though. If your child is vaccine damaged, or pox-party damaged, the parent always takes the blame. Whatever decision we make for our children, we will be blamed if something goes wrong.

 

 

 


               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#18 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 12:03 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I see we posted at the same time. If you have the time, and the resource readily available, I would be interested to read the evidence that breastfeeding is protective for measles in babies of mothers who were not vaccinated, and did have measles.

 

TIA
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASusan View Post





If the mother has had measles, and therefore built up a natural immunity, then her ability to pass on immunity to her breastfed child is much greater than if she has been immunized against measles. The immunity that is passed on to the breastfed infant for only as long as the breastfeeding continues.



 


Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#19 of 26 Old 03-03-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Where the end of the world began
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

1. Vaccinating a child also waives the child's rights, doesn't it?


I'm not sure what you mean by "also," but no, it doesn't. Keep in mind that the basis for recovery would be different, as well.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

2. I don't know the law on this, but it's my opinion that the host of the party would not be at fault. The person who knowingly took the child to the party would be at fault.


The person who knowingly took the child to the party would likely have a difficult time recovering any of their damages, but the host of such a party is still separately on the hook to the child, since the entire point of their actions was to try to transmit an infectious disease to someone who by definition cannot consent. And intent opens you up to punitive damages.

Otto is offline  
#20 of 26 Old 03-04-2011, 10:28 AM
 
ASusan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'll look into it. It was a few years ago when I learned this, and Im at work now, so it might be a few days.


DS, 10/07. Allergies: peanut, egg, wheat. We've added dairy back in. And taken it back out again. It causes sandpaper skin with itchy patches and thrashing during sleep. Due w/ #2 late April, 2012.

ASusan is offline  
#21 of 26 Old 03-04-2011, 12:09 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

ASusan - it's been a good three years since I was reading the specifics on measles and immunity to measles. I remember concluding that mothers who acquired immunity from the wild virus passed on a longer lasting immunity via the placenta. I do not remember reading about specific immunity in breastmilk. Although I am sure an infant that is breastfeeding will have a superior immune system, all other things being equal.

 

I could very well have that wrong though.


Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#22 of 26 Old 03-05-2011, 09:30 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I happened to come across this.

 

Breast-feeding and a subsequent diagnosis of measles

Quote:
Results: Breast-feeding for more than three months was negatively associated with a diagnosis of clinical measles infection after adjustment for crowding, social class, measles vaccination, parity and sex with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.69 (0.60–0.81) compared with those who never breast-fed. Measles vaccination was highly associated with low risk for measles with: 0.14 (0.13–0.16). Age at acute measles infection was not associated with breastfeeding. Breast-feeding did not notably alter measles immunization efficacy

 


Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#23 of 26 Old 03-06-2011, 09:36 AM
 
ASusan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So if AGE of measles acquisition isn't associated with breastfeeding...does that imply that the immunity provided by breastfeeding is indefinite?

 

 

I just found the abstract from which you quoted. The cohort tested is from 1970..,wouldn't most of the mothers of infants born in 1970 have had the measles - wild virus? The vaccine wasn't introduced until 1963, so if the mothers WERE vaccinated, it would have been as adolescents/adults. SO, the article doesn't give us any information about measles protection via breastfeeding of vaccinated mothers vs. naturally-immunized mothers (those who have had measles themselves).

 

I wonder if that research exists.

 

Ahhh, and when you google measles breastfeeding, the third link is a mothering.com discussion of 2008, which leads to this article - about passive immunity via the placenta NOT breastfeeding, right?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9178461

Quote:

Vaccine. 1997 Apr-May;15(6-7):620-3.

Passive immunity against measles during the first 8 months of life of infants born to vaccinated mothers or to mothers who sustained measles.

De Serres G, Joly JR, Fauvel M, Meyer F, Mâsse B, Boulianne N.

 

 

Neutralizing antibody titers of 47 infants whose mothers sustained measles (measles group) and 70 whose mothers were vaccinated (vaccine group) were compared at birth, 4 and 8 months of age. All children had antibodies at birth and 88% at 4 months. At 8 months, 49% had antibodies in the measles group and 15% in the vaccine group (P < 0.001). The geometric mean titers were significantly lower in the vaccine group than in the measles group and the difference corresponded to the antibody loss occurring in only 1.5 months of life. This small difference may reflect past exposure to wild virus of many vaccinated mothers.

 

And if we believe our own posters I was wrong about protection provided via breasfeeding -

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/957350/here-s-what-worries-me-about-the-measles-epidemic/20

 

 


DS, 10/07. Allergies: peanut, egg, wheat. We've added dairy back in. And taken it back out again. It causes sandpaper skin with itchy patches and thrashing during sleep. Due w/ #2 late April, 2012.

ASusan is offline  
#24 of 26 Old 03-07-2011, 02:22 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, it does look like there is something protective beyond the period of breastfeeding. But, as you pointed out, this would have applied to children born to mothers who had had wild measles. And measles was in circulation, possibly offering 'boosters' that are not around today. So yeah, I do not think this study would be relevant today. Although it could be that the protective element in breastmilk is not antibody dependent. But we don't know. I am not aware of a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated breastfeeding mothers.

 

Another interesting bit of information in the table, is the 31.2% failure rate for the monovalent measles vaccine (not MMR). And that 23% of children aged 10 in the UK in the year 1980 had not had measles despite not being vaccinated.
 

The whole study is available in the link in my previous post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASusan View Post

So if AGE of measles acquisition isn't associated with breastfeeding...does that imply that the immunity provided by breastfeeding is indefinite?

 

 

I just found the abstract from which you quoted. The cohort tested is from 1970..,wouldn't most of the mothers of infants born in 1970 have had the measles - wild virus? The vaccine wasn't introduced until 1963, so if the mothers WERE vaccinated, it would have been as adolescents/adults. SO, the article doesn't give us any information about measles protection via breastfeeding of vaccinated mothers vs. naturally-immunized mothers (those who have had measles themselves).

 

I wonder if that research exists.

 

Ahhh, and when you google measles breastfeeding, the third link is a mothering.com discussion of 2008, which leads to this article - about passive immunity via the placenta NOT breastfeeding, right?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9178461

 

And if we believe our own posters I was wrong about protection provided via breasfeeding -

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/957350/here-s-what-worries-me-about-the-measles-epidemic/20

 

 



 


Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#25 of 26 Old 03-07-2011, 06:03 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post

 

 

Another interesting bit of information in the table, is the 31.2% failure rate for the monovalent measles vaccine (not MMR). And that 23% of children aged 10 in the UK in the year 1980 had not had measles despite not being vaccinated.
 

 


 


I am from the UK and my sister would have been 10 in 1980, I know for sure she wasn't vaccinated for measles (had a severe reaction to the DPT at four months so my mother stopped vaccinating her altogether), and she has never had measles. I am a few years older than her and did get measles before she was born, I wasn't vaccinated for it either.

 

She was never breastfed, I was breastfed for about two weeks.

 


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#26 of 26 Old 03-07-2011, 07:59 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post




I am from the UK and my sister would have been 10 in 1980, I know for sure she wasn't vaccinated for measles (had a severe reaction to the DPT at four months so my mother stopped vaccinating her altogether), and she has never had measles. I am a few years older than her and did get measles before she was born, I wasn't vaccinated for it either.

 

She was never breastfed, I was breastfed for about two weeks.

 



Thanks for sharing.

 

I was born in th UK, but would have been too young for this study. I was not vaccinated, was breastfed for a couple of weeks (not sure how long) and did get measles when I was 9. I was not vaccinated. My brother, younger than me, was breastfed for 5 months, and he had measles at the age of 7. He also was not vaccinated.

 

It's interesting looking at studies and seeing what fits with your personal experience, and what does not.


Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off