I'm thrilled! Mumps keeps spreading! - Page 15 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-30-2006, 03:40 PM
 
Emmeline II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinoismommy
That's not at all what I am saying. I believe them. I am saying that the "fear mongering" is on both sides. On the pro-vax side people say that if you don't get the vaccine you could get one of those diseases and have complications, on the anti-vax side people say that if you get the vaccine you could get complications of the vaccines. It is just hard to figure out.
Well this is true. You can get the vaccine and have a mild, moderate, or severe reaction, plus the known and unknown long term concequences on your immune system (plus all the other vaxes you may be getting). You could also not vax get the mumps and have complications. What you have to decide is where the greater risk is. For me, there appears to be a greater likelihood that my child will have a vax reaction (plus the unknown impact on long term health) than not only to get mumps, but to have commplications.

"It should be a rule in all prophylactic work that no harm should ever be unnecessarily inflicted on a healthy person (Sir Graham Wilson, The Hazards of Immunization, 1967)."
Emmeline II is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-30-2006, 03:53 PM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by marilynmama
Does anyone know if there are cases of mumps in Oklahoma? I heard there were some uncomfirmed cases but wasn't sure where to look for sure.
I can't access the Oklahoma DOH website, but this is the most recent information I could find from a news report (4/18/06):

There were no confirmed cases in Oklahoma Tuesday, though 10 are under investigation. Brett Cauthen, the state epidemiologist, said the suspected cases are spread across the state in nine counties.
LongIsland is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 06:12 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nursingnaturalmom
Hi mama's!!!
I had a longer reply but my kids closed it out. Anyway, I have 3 kids one of whom was vaccinated as a baby but has not had kindergarten boosters and 2 that are unvaxed. I am prepared to keep my daughter home for the rest of the school year rather than vaccinate her.

HOwever, I am wondering about the effects of mumps on pregnancy? I am 25.5 weeks pregnant. I was vaccinated as a child. I was born in the 70's.

Chandi
***I am not sure what 'keep my daughter home' has to do with vaccination? In our state, homeschoolers are still required to document proof of vaccination or provide documentation of vaccine exemption. If you believe staying home will protect her from mumps, I am more confused. Most of us are seeking mumps exposure for our young children.

And as I understand it, all schools are required to accept vaccine exemption, maybe it is only public schools?

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 06:38 PM
 
amydidit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Azeroth
Posts: 4,806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I read that to mean that, in the case where kids are sent home from school until they're vaxed, she would rather keep her child home instead of conforming to the vax request to send her child BACK to school.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.
amydidit is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 06:56 PM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amydidit
I read that to mean that, in the case where kids are sent home from school until they're vaxed, she would rather keep her child home instead of conforming to the vax request to send her child BACK to school.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.
No you're not wrong, that's exactly what she meant and I agree 100%, I would keep my sons home as long as it took as well.
LongIsland is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 07:28 PM
 
tayndrewsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: WI
Posts: 10,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amydidit
I read that to mean that, in the case where kids are sent home from school until they're vaxed, she would rather keep her child home instead of conforming to the vax request to send her child BACK to school.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.
Yep, that's exactly what she means.
tayndrewsmama is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 11:31 PM
 
marilynmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland
I can't access the Oklahoma DOH website, but this is the most recent information I could find from a news report (4/18/06):

There were no confirmed cases in Oklahoma Tuesday, though 10 are under investigation. Brett Cauthen, the state epidemiologist, said the suspected cases are spread across the state in nine counties.
Thanks! We will just wait and see I guess.

Marilyn,psych RN. Homeschooling mom to Taylor (12) and Lauryn (8)
marilynmama is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 01:48 AM
 
mom2tig99Nroo03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: praying, researchin' and bedrestin'
Posts: 9,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
....

marking my spot. still no cases in this state that i know of...

l, <>< wife to my sweetie, proud mama to 3 cubs, 2 who clw & 1 that i i ep for . baby was evicted early by induction due to severe pre-e/hellp syndrome
mom2tig99Nroo03 is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 04:54 AM
 
rareimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: bc, canada
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinoismommy
That's not at all what I am saying. I believe them. I am saying that the "fear mongering" is on both sides. On the pro-vax side people say that if you don't get the vaccine you could get one of those diseases and have complications, on the anti-vax side people say that if you get the vaccine you could get complications of the vaccines. It is just hard to figure out.
i'd say they're BOTH right...well, mostly. actually, i'd add in the option that you get the vaccine AND you still get one of those diseases and have complications.

Robyn - In stillheart.gif with Tyson, Gothy Mama to fairy.gif Jasmyn (March 12 2003), jammin.gifGrayson (August 2 2005), my angel3.gif Aurora Hope (m/c Nov 10 2010), and baby.gif Sydney Rayne (September 17 2011)     ribboncesarean.gifx3

rareimer is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 06:03 AM
 
dingogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oztralia
Posts: 1,739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Someone thinks you are an idiot because you were too stupid to check Google before asking a question. They gave you a link to this site as a joke. The fact that you followed it pretty much proves the point.
What did Chandi do to deserve this?
dingogirl is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 06:38 AM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2timesmommy
Additionally, it's been suggested that the CDC and health authorities are mistaken (or lying) when they say the vaccine is working. Look at the numbers. Iowa's population is around 2.9 million (http://www.areaconnect.com/population.htm?s=IA), give or take. Even assuming a 98% vaccination rate, that leaves 58,000 totally unvaccinated. Then figure that if the vaccine is 95% effective, another 142,000 people (5% of 2.842 M) will lack immunity. If it's 90% effective, that increases to 284,000 people (plus the 58,000 unvaccinated). 80%, over half a million people...I'm sure you get the point. Now, some will have acquired infection naturally and that will reduce the number of susceptibles, but we're still talking about a pretty damn big number here. 1000 cases doesn't mean the vaccine isn't working--it means it's not working 100%, which isn't news to anyone.
are you assuming that Mumps has been delivered evenly across half a million people and squirted in every single vaccinated person's face as well as all the unvaccinated, and therefore that the vaccine prevented every single other vaccinated person who didn't get the disease?

Really?

Honesty?

Is that what you are trying to say with that maths mishmash?

You must be. Otherwise you couldn't make such a statement.

YOU should know that that isn't how it works.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 06:40 AM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You know, a rattlesnake vaccine would have a 100% efficacy in this country.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 07:06 AM
 
Rico'sAlice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Berkshire County, MA
Posts: 1,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK, so I get what you are saying about how we can't assume efficacy rates based on infection rates b/c not everyone has been exposed to disease X, or hasn't been fully exposed, etc.
I did google (vaccine efficacy determin*) and read about rates determined from clinical trials. But still couldn't quite process how these are done.
But, more relevantly, how we can revise these rates based on real-world data coming in? The rate keeps getting dropped down as more and more vaccinated persons are getting mumps. If there isn't 100% exposure, is the pool of current mumps cases vs. population really big enough to refigure these?
How does one determine efficacy rate outside of clinical trials? And what does the number mean? If vaccine X has an YZ% efficacy rate, does that mean that that level of protection would apply if everyone swapped spit with an infected person.

Or does the number work in a totally different way. That it "takes" in YZ% of people, and if you are one that it does "take" in, you have 100% protection against disease X? Somehow the difference in birth control failure rates between "perfect use" and "average occurrence" keep popping into my head.

I also know that we could do titer testing. But I thought that titer testing often showed a false negative (as in false lack of reaction) if one hasn't had any recent environmental exposure, but they could actually have sufficient immunity.

So, you've kind of got my head spinning on this one. (Not in a bad way, learning is fun!) I apologize if I am being stupid and just really missed something. And I'm not trying to argue for vaccines at all, I just don't get how we, the CDC, whoever, can determine these numbers.
Rico'sAlice is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 10:32 AM
 
guestmama9924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Conch Republic
Posts: 2,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I understand your thinking here, and appreciate your point of view. However, there was recently a varicella (chick pox) outbreak in my child's school- all vacinated kids. ALL. The unvax'd ones ( mine and 1 other) did not get the infection. My first child receive some vaccines, and that included varicella, in which she got a nice prompt case of yes....CHICKEN POX!

I am not of the camp that deliberately chooses to expose my kids to infections for the sake of getting it over with, so I am with you on that, but please, don't fall for the "my kids are protected with shots" belief either!


Quote:
Originally Posted by alley cat
Why would you want to expose your precious child to a illness like mumps, I.....needless to say after seeing the pain, and sickness he went through [ he still has nerve pain on that site] quickly got my children vaccinated against that so they would never have to risk getting a horrible disease like that as a adult.
guestmama9924 is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 11:23 AM
 
tayndrewsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: WI
Posts: 10,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dingogirl
What did Chandi do to deserve this?
It was totally a joke and I am 100% positive she knows this. Why do I know this? 'Cause we were just taking about her concerns on the phone before she posted it. I wasn't being mean. I'd never post that to anyone in seriousness. Besides, I also posted a useful link right after that.
tayndrewsmama is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 01:13 PM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I must say the CDC is doing a bang-up job keeping us informed on "the worst mumps epidemic in 20 years." Their mumps epidemic page doesn't even have a "tally page" listing each of the affected states and a breakdown. Instead, you have to go to individual DOH websites in order to get any information.

It would be nice to see a universal breakdown, a map (or two), etc.

The CDC should confer with the Iowa DOH webmaster in order to get some pointers. I must say, the Iowa DOH website's mumps pages are very impressive.
LongIsland is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 04:13 PM
 
UlrikeDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Should we start a betting pool?

1) Mumps tends to be seasonal, and most "epidemics" die out on their own when summer rolls in.
2) The outbreak in Iowa is happening mostly on college campuses, and summer break will start in a week or two for most Iowa universities (ISU has finals this week, Drake, UofI and UNI have finals next week), which will all but empty the dorms.

These two factors mean that the epidemic is likely reaching it's natural life expectancy anyway.

So, who wants to place a wager on when the CDC will start claiming that their new vaccination program is what really ended the current mumps season?

Ulrike, mom to:
Roman (3/98), Evalina (3/00), Nadia (3/03), and Kira (11/07)
UlrikeDG is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 04:21 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland
I must say the CDC is doing a bang-up job keeping us informed on "the worst mumps epidemic in 20 years." Their mumps epidemic page doesn't even have a "tally page" listing each of the affected states and a breakdown. Instead, you have to go to individual DOH websites in order to get any information.

It would be nice to see a universal breakdown, a map (or two), etc.

The CDC should confer with the Iowa DOH webmaster in order to get some pointers. I must say, the Iowa DOH website's mumps pages are very impressive.
I was just going to post the same thing.
Seriously, I bet we'll get that when/if there's a vax supply.

I have never seen such an underwhelming response from the CDC for an infectious disease outbreak, ever.
mamakay is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 04:30 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2timesmommy
That's a different topic. The CDC has quarantine power, as do the states (as do local health departments, given to them by the states, etc.) The article I linked was specific to Iowa.

Could you provide a reference for the 70% number? I've not seen it cited that low.
Can you explain how a seroconversion rate of 95% jives with 70% effectiveness for the mumps virus?

:
mamakay is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 06:10 PM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice
OK, so I get what you are saying about how we can't assume efficacy rates based on infection rates b/c not everyone has been exposed to disease X, or hasn't been fully exposed, etc.
I did google (vaccine efficacy determin*) and read about rates determined from clinical trials. But still couldn't quite process how these are done.
But, more relevantly, how we can revise these rates based on real-world data coming in? The rate keeps getting dropped down as more and more vaccinated persons are getting mumps. If there isn't 100% exposure, is the pool of current mumps cases vs. population really big enough to refigure these?
The fact is you can't, and they can't.

they "guess" from their assumptive little crystal ball.

they never studied it. They knew that pre-vaccine, that about 15% of the susceptible population would actually get mumps, but they have no idea how it spreads through society. Obviously it will hit randomly, and people who are immune will also carry and spread it to those who aren't.

That's the history of disease.

But what medical people do is promote hysteria hoping that you won't think properly.

We KNOW that in the pre-Salk days 98.2% of the population had immunity to all three types of polio, because they did large blood testing surveys that showed that....

So why when that vaccine came out, and the sabin, did they hysterically line up everyone and make them have SALK and then SABIN vaccine, when 98.2% of the people had permanent natural immunity?

They whipped up hysteria to make everyone think that everyone could catch polio and everyone should have the vaccine, and every sucker on the face of the planet believed the paranoia.

That has got to show you how stupid some people can be.

BUT.... the reason the medical people did that was:

a) because they know how stupid most people are, and how trusting they are of people thy view as intelligent gods... and...

b) jabbing everyone was a lot easier than blood testing everyone to locate the 1.8% of people they would have said were susceptible to polio.

The medical profession always takes the easiest and cheapest route, particularly if it enables them to control people and condition a thought process to make it easier to pull the same trick the next time.

Quote:
How does one determine efficacy rate outside of clinical trials?
You can't. You can only guess, based on how many cases do happen, and if it makes a vaccine look good, to assume that every jack person in IOWA would have come across mumps that's exactly what they will do, because they know that people will fall for it.

Quote:
And what does the number mean? If vaccine X has an YZ% efficacy rate, does that mean that that level of protection would apply if everyone swapped spit with an infected person.
The numbers mean nothing, because as I've said before, my husband was a teacher for 40+ years, and our children were his second family and HE got mumps at the age of 63 for the first time.

Why didn't he get it before? After all he must have been exposed to it multiple times?

He didn't get it, because his body threw it off without infection the first few times. And when he did eventually get it, he just lot lumps under his jaw that hung down like the flap of skin on an Indian cow. Well, not quite, but almost. You have to appreciate that my husband is skinny, as in two celery sticks tied together, so the lumps were a considerable landscape feature to give his family heaps of inspiration for teasing.

Quote:
Or does the number work in a totally different way. That it "takes" in YZ% of people, and if you are one that it does "take" in, you have 100% protection against disease X? Somehow the difference in birth control failure rates between "perfect use" and "average occurrence" keep popping into my head.
It comes down to the individual's body and what happens at X moment, and that's not something that can be factorred into nice equations.

Quote:
I also know that we could do titer testing. But I thought that titer testing often showed a false negative (as in false lack of reaction) if one hasn't had any recent environmental exposure, but they could actually have sufficient immunity.
I've had hepatitis B twice (different subtypes), and only had detectable antibodies for 13 years. After that they disappeared. But there is a thing called anamnestic response, which means that if I get exposure again, my body will reaction quickly as it has memory.

so yes, the same can happen with vaccines. You can have immunity and memory immunity, and detectable immunity will drop away. But with measles, mumps and rubella in children, the levels are usually detectable.

That does not mean that you suddenly become susceptible again, but the medical profession say that it does.

But they know it doesn't becuase when you give a person with no detectable antibodies a booster shot, their body responds with a completely different antibody curve which indicates that MEMORY has kicked in, which is not the same process as the body requires for the first series of shots.

But you are right. Even if a child has no detectable antibodies a few years after they had had clinical mumps (or a vaccine), that doesn't mean that child is necessarily susceptible.

Quote:
So, you've kind of got my head spinning on this one. (Not in a bad way, learning is fun!) I apologize if I am being stupid and just really missed something. And I'm not trying to argue for vaccines at all, I just don't get how we, the CDC, whoever, can determine these numbers.
They can't determine the numbers, but they like to make you think they can, and that they know everything, when we know that they actually know very little.



They would just rather you didn't realise that.


“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 06:31 PM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay
Can you explain how a seroconversion rate of 95% jives with 70% effectiveness for the mumps virus?
Mamakay, you and I both know that they are just "guessing" and putting a figure out there so that people "think" they've looked at the issue, when the reality is that they haven't.

The modus operandi is one guess after another and just hope that people believe them.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 06:32 PM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 08:54 AM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay
I have never seen such an underwhelming response from the CDC for an infectious disease outbreak, ever.



. . . and it's not like they can't provide (and continuously update) very specific outbreak statistics in some way, shape or form: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/mump...-reporting.htm

For some reason, our national disease control organization is leaving the dispensing of general statistical information ("the worst mumps outbreak in 20 years") solely up to the state department of health offices.


.
LongIsland is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 05:20 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Can anyone find the original 95% seroconversion claim anywhere on the CDC website now?
I just scowered the site, and I think it's gone...

ETA:
Nevermind. It's still there on the technical Q&A page.
mamakay is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 11:35 AM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Iowa DOH update: http://www.idph.state.ia.us/adper/co...ate_050206.pdf


Iowa: 1487
Nebraska: 225
Kansas: 382
LongIsland is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 01:24 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
http://www.kdheks.gov/news/web_archi...6/05022006.htm

Quote:
May 2, 2006

Kansas Mumps Cases Increase to Total of 382
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has received reports of 382 mumps (confirmed/probable) cases in 40 Kansas counties to date. Local health departments are also investigating an additional 57 patients with potential symptoms of mumps.


And our friends across the pond are still suffering from the “epidemiological shift”…
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...764617,00.html

Quote:
Sunday April 30, 2006
The Observer

A mumps epidemic continues to sweep across universities, new figures from the Health Protection Agency (HPA) have revealed. The number of cases in a 12-month period has jumped 600-fold in a decade, from 94 to 56,390 last year.

What has been happening in the UK is very relevant to the US. They use the same mumps vax.
mamakay is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 01:27 PM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay
What has been happening in the UK is very relevant to the US. They use the same mumps vax.

The CDC has been calling the UK situation, an "ongoing epidemic."
LongIsland is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 01:50 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland

The CDC has been calling the UK situation, an "ongoing epidemic."
Allright...everybody sing along!

Epidemiological shift
Eee iii EEE iii Oooh....

The CDC is full of *%^!
Eee iii EEE iii Oooh....

With an outbreak here, an outbreak there
Here's some mumps, there's some mumps, 7 states with mumps mump

Epidemiological shift
Eee iii EEE iii Oooh....
mamakay is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 02:08 PM
 
mom2tig99Nroo03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: praying, researchin' and bedrestin'
Posts: 9,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay
Allright...everybody sing along!

Epidemiological shift
Eee iii EEE iii Oooh....

The CDC is full of *%^!
Eee iii EEE iii Oooh....

With an outbreak here, an outbreak there
Here's some mumps, there's some mumps, 7 states with mumps mump

Epidemiological shift
Eee iii EEE iii Oooh....

l, <>< wife to my sweetie, proud mama to 3 cubs, 2 who clw & 1 that i i ep for . baby was evicted early by induction due to severe pre-e/hellp syndrome
mom2tig99Nroo03 is offline  
Old 05-03-2006, 02:12 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
https://www.merckvaccines.com/proqua...age_frmst.html

95.8 - 98.8 % huh?
For the first dose?
mamakay is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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