Mothering Forum banner
101 - 110 of 110 Posts
I meant to go to another doctor, outside of the practice.

Possibly another city, county or state.

I know that sounds like a tall order, but I have known people who did this (!), to get to the bottom of the issue.

Because we have de facto required/de jure recommended vaccinations in this country, and most doctors believe in them, most practitioners do not recognize or want to recognize the real disease when it is in front of them.
 
I was kicked out of this same practice last Feb. after going there for 5 years because I "was delaying vaxes until I felt comfortable giving them." Their theory was, they are the doctors and if you can't follow though with their reccomendations, because they are the doctors, then you should go find another doctor who is willing to allow you to do this. I wish I had the actual letter on this computer, but I do not. It is on a different one I don't have access too right now.

It is nice to know you no longer have choices in your medical care. You either do exactly a your doctor says or get lost.
 
Poor Tina (and daughter). That sounds like a horrendous experience.

Here are a few thoughts about the situation, with the disclaimer that I'm no infectious disease expert by any stretch of the imagination.

Pus-filled glands under the jaw is a an exact discription of something called pyogenic lymphadenitis. Some types of bacteria (not viruses) have the ability to evoke an immune response that results in lots of a particular type of fighter cell called a neutrophil. Huge numbers of dead neutrophils = pus. So generally speaking, an abscess in a lymph node indicates an infection with one of these types of bacteria (although it could be a secondary infection after a primary viral infection). The major offenders are staph and strep bacteria, although there are a few rare ones that can do this as well (including the ones that cause cat scratch disease and something called tularemia).

The mumps virus doesn't infect the lymph nodes but rather the salivary glands (and the pancreas and the testicles). Your lymph nodes are involved in the process, because that's where the immune response happens, but the primary infection is generally in the parotid glands, which are located on top of the jaw, in front of the ear.

So what you're describing sounds more like a bacterial infection in the lymph node itself. They often don't cuture those things because it's hard to get a good result with all the dead stuff in there. Was mumps somehow involved? Maybe, maybe not. This kind of thing often goes along with strep throat or a staph infection.

I don't think an antibody test would be able to distinguish naturally acquired from vax-acquired mumps.

By the way, morphine has one very classic side effect: respiratory depression. Your breathing gets slow and shallow, and if you've got enough morphine in your blood, it stops altogether. So your daughter may well have had some breathing problems if they gave her a bit too much morphine. Of course, they may have overreacted as well.

Anyway, I'm glad she came through it alright, and I'm sorry it was such an ordeal. Not only that, but what a drag that you never got an explanation for what was going on. That kind of thing drives me crazy.
 
OT -- I just watch First, Do No Harm on Lifetime this morning. The bottom line was that the doctors were putting a child on medications, treating the reactions to the meds, one medication eat through a foam cup!!! Toxins running while trying to cure his epilepic seizures to no avail. When all the while there had be a dietary answer dating back to the early 1900s (even mentions fasting in the Bible as a cure for epilepsy). The mother found out about a diet Ketogenic at John Hopkins, the doctor at the hospital dismissed her find as antadotal at best and refused to allow the woman to leave with her son, threatened CPS and the institution to take custody to do surgery etc. Luckily she had a family friend a doctor who stepped up and would take the boy to John Hopkins, an MD turned Airline pilot. The movie had many actors that were epilepics cured by the Ketogenic diet. And was based on a true story in the early '90 in Kansas City, MO.

This just really hit me that doctors in general suck Medicate and Cut!!!
 
This will be my last post for awhile.

I've loved participating in this debate -- it's been wonderfully challenging and has gotten me thinking about things in ways that I haven't before. But it has also taken up an immense about of time and energy. Each new post raises so many new questions that I want to investigate; I end up feeling like a dog trying to chase down hundreds of pigeons at once. So I'm going to temporarily ban myself from this board, at least until after my licensing exam.

I'm going to add one last bit of fuel to the debate about vax-transmitted MMR, then leave. Since I won't be back to read the rebuttals (I hope there will be some!), y'all will have the last word.

Since it's been shown that M,M and R can be shed by vaccinees, I've been really wondering about why we don't seem to have an epidemic of vax-transmitted disease on our hands (maybe we do and just don't see it, for reasons discussed in previous posts, but I still think it unlikely.)

The fact that the attenuated strain of measles is so genetically close to wild measles means nothing in itself. Consider the fact that an alteration in one of the ~3 billion DNA base pairs that make up the human genome is enough to cause a chloride channel to malfunction, and another single base pair change will make hemoglobin misfold. If a child inherits one copy of these changes from each parent, she will have cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease, respectively.

So how does the attenuated measles virus differ from the wild one? I'll assume that everything posted by MT is correct, but I'd like to qualify one thing: infectivity is certainly necessary for the vax virus to work, but that's something that can be influenced by the way the virus is delivered.

The attenuated measles virus contains a mutation in its hemagluttinin protein. This is the protein that allows the virus to bind and gain entry to the body, so it's conceivable that the attenuated strain would have a harder time getting into the body by a natural route.

Another important parameter is virulence/pathogenicity: how well the virus can reproduce and how much trouble it can cause. The attenuated virus seems to differ in this respect as well.These studies discuss this, although the second one suggests that the virus could regain some of its virulence if allowed to hang out and reproduce for long enough.

So that might go some way toward explaning the complete lack of documented real-world vax-transmitted measles. Food for thought, anyway.

Adios amigas.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael
Since it's been shown that M,M and R can be shed by vaccinees, I've been really wondering about why we don't seem to have an epidemic of vax-transmitted disease on our hands

The measles rate had gone way down, the death rate almost none existent before the measles vaccine.
So why would the attenuated measles make us vulnerable?

The child who is directly injected with the pathogen must fight it off, but when we are not vulnerable to diseases because of better living standard, it would only make sense that we just don't get infected.

That goes for the attenuated measles as for the wild measeles.

Therefore, even if we would no longer vaccinate, measles, for one, would not return.

Quote:
infectivity is certainly necessary for the vax virus to work, but that's something that can be influenced by the way the virus is delivered.
Or what is delivered with the injection besides the virus.

When the virus alone is injected into the body it does nothing. It causes no reaction, produces no antibodies. The vaccine relies on the adjuvants.
 
Actually, Gitti if vaccinations stopped measles would return for several reasons:

1) Doctors would now start reporting everything they now call "morbilli-like" illnesses "measles" in order to show the other side how misguided they were (which is exactly what happened in Japan after the whole cell vaccine was dropped as a result of failure of public confidence in it).

2) There would still be a sector in the community who were nutritionally immunologically "challenged" (or should I say "informationally challenged") whose children would be very susceptible, as they are now, to complications and deaths from measles...

3) There are far higher rates now, of immunodeficient children than there were in the past (another story!) and these children, who are the ones who succumb to these diseases, will be used as an example.

So, using the time honoured methods of statistical sculpturing, and diagnostic manipulation, the "official" statistics would be 'made' to show what a criminal thing it was to drop the vaccine.

I say this, because, unlike Smallpox, measles syndromes still exist in large numbers.

They couldn't get away with it, with Smallpox, because even 'alastrim' had done its dash, and the vast array of side-effects from the smallpox vaccine in the developed world were then so glaringly obvious, they really had no option but retire that vaccine, even if they chose to do it under the media manipulated banner of "what a clever boy are we, having "got rid" of it".

But measles will be different. Partly because it "just" will be, but also, because the vaccine companies have staked their future on multiple vaccines with at least 10 antigens in it. To alter that paradigm would be to not just throw a hand grenade in their bunkers, but a neutron bomb instead.
 
Actually Tracy, its sheer blood mindedness that has kept me at this thread.

Here's why.

This morning it took 4 minutes and 42 seconds to get the index page of this forum to come up. A comparable amount of time, to get whatever page it was, to come up. Then to read. Then, unless you use the quick response form, a similar amount of time to get the reply to thread to come up. So potentially 15 plus minutes can be "wasted" going up the wall, while you have formulated your reply half a million times, and feel like throwing the computer and whole caboodle out the window.

Of course, "you" don't do that, since this is the only internet board for me, which is a slow as a dead dog's hind leg.

However, to post here, intrudes so much on whatever else goes on in a day, that I suspect a time will come when it simply isn't worth while by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, to answer Ishmael.

Even though she 'says' she won't come here, I suspect she won't resist the temptation to view the results of her quitting post:

Quote:
The fact that the attenuated strain of measles is so genetically close to wild measles means nothing in itself. Consider the fact that an alteration in one of the ~3 billion DNA base pairs that make up the human genome is enough to cause a chloride channel to malfunction, and another single base pair change will make hemoglobin misfold. If a child inherits one copy of these changes from each parent, she will have cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease, respectively.

Okay, that's a wonderful example of how a single genotypic change can result in a big phenotypic change. But it is not appropriate to just suppose that this indeed has happened. If so, then I can just suppose that while the neighbor has a severe case of wild-type measles, it won't infect me because that virus will certainly mutate while in his body and there is a chance the mutation will will render it non-infectious. The reality is that the vaccine virus is the progeny of a wild-type strain. It is a wild-type strain that was propagated in chick eggs so that it would accumulate a few mutations. All of those mutations are known. The only characteristic that was selected for in the progeny virus (the vaccine) was high infectivity.

Quote:
So how does the attenuated measles virus differ from the wild one? I'll assume that everything posted by MT is correct, but I'd like to qualify one thing: infectivity is certainly necessary for the vax virus to work, but that's something that can be influenced by the way the virus is delivered.

The wild-type measles virus infects the pharynx through respiratory droplets and spreads from there. The vaccine virus is injected, produces a viremia (spreads all over the body) and winds up infecting the pharynx where it can be coughed onto other people. The observation that the vaccine virus infects the pharynx of the vaccinee means that it will also infect the pharynx of other humans. Incidentally, since the vaccine is injected, it has the potential to infect peripheral nerves from whence it travels through the axons into the brain.

Quote:
The attenuated measles virus contains a mutation in its hemagluttinin protein. This is the protein that allows the virus to bind and gain entry to the body, so it's conceivable that the attenuated strain would have a harder time getting into the body by a natural route.

Conceivable, but not true. These mutations have been characterized. The mutation in the hemagluttinin protein allows the vaccine virus to bind with high affinity to CD46, a cell surface protein. CD46 is a cell receptor present on the surfaces of all nucleated cells in your body. So while the wild-type measles virus is tissue-restricted, the vaccine virus is not: it can infect any cell. The safety implications of this have not been explored. Although it is assumed that the vaccine virus is quickly cleared from the body, the reality is that the virus could hide anywhere, causing persistent infections. The asymptomatic nature of the vaccine (with respect to classical measles symptoms) may make persistent infections very hard to identify. For example, measles virus has been identified in the bowels of IBD patients who received MMR but never had measles. Also, the vaccine virus has been shown to grow in neurons and travel through the axons to other neurons - all the while invisible to the immune system because no extracellular virus is shed.

Scary stuff - and mostly ignored.

These are things, Ismael, that as a future paediatrician, you might like to consider very carefully.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara
Actually, Gitti if vaccinations stopped measles would return for several reasons:
I forgot the politics of the disease.

At the very beginning of the thread there was a sentence that I should always keep in mind:



Quote:
....there is something else that determines who will develop disease and who does not, besides vaccination condition.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara
There was a very funny (funny to me, that is...) study published in BMJ years ago, but a startled doctor, who found that a select group of children tested, found that 50% of those with antibodies to measles had never had any clinical disease, and a small subgroup with rising titres also had no clinical symptoms.

This study was the first to alert me to the fact that non-symptomatic clinical measles was a common entity. Although not as spectacular as other USA studies that show that 98.8% of people with polio antibodies never exhibitted clinical symptoms once, let alone three times (you can get clinical polio again, if it is to a different "type" than you "got" before) it shows that to use antibody statistics as proof of either how dangerous or widespread a disease is, is a false argument.

Just wanted to note that something similar was found with chickenpox,

Most ten-year-old children with negative or unknown histories of chickenpox are immune.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
 
101 - 110 of 110 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top