Rise of measles

[crosstalk]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/european-measles-death-toll-hits-37-after-antivax-campaigns-ztmwl9f3q

Just saying

@CoteDAzur

I take immunosuppressants for an auto immune disease (Crohns plus enteropathic arthritis). The 2 that I take do make me very susceptible to infections like chemo does. My IGG level is currently low enough for them to be contemplating infusions. As soon as I get a cold, sore throat, raised temperature or any other indication that I might have any infection I have to contact my GP or OOH. The threshold for prescribing antibiotics to me is very low.

I work in a supermarket because I have bills to pay. I can't shut myself away. My life is not made any easier by people like the mum the other day who had her young daughter with her, who was handing my items of shopping etc. Her friend comes over and mum says to daughter "lift your top up and show X your chicken pox". Little girl lifts her t shirt to reveal her body covered in chicken pox. Some people have absolutely no sense what so ever.

Mortality rate for mumps: 1 in 10,000 (WHO)
Mortality rate from vaccination: essentially zero (NIH); around 5 in 7.5 million (NIH): ‘As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically.’ (WHO)

Incidence of permanent vaccine damage in the vaccinated population: even generously taking the numbers of those who apply to the vaccine damage programme, rather than the much smaller number approved: 759 claims in the decade to Jan 2017 against a (conservatively low at 90% of children born in a year) of 6.3 million - so 0.00012%.

In the more generous US system which also compensated for non-permanent damage lasting more than six months, around 20,000 claims have been made in the last 30 years; around 6000 were awarded (including to adults from eg tetanus vaccine). The birth rate in the US is around 3.8 million a year. Even taking a very low vaccination rate, the incidence is vanishingly small.

Now of course, the incidence of mumps is pretty low at 1000-2000 cases a year, more than a third of which are in unvaccinated people (pretty significant given they are a much smaller proportion of the general population). But if the individualists hold sway and herd immunity collapses, that figure will grow, a lot (see the graph earlier in the thread on transmission), and the injury rate from mumps is at least on a par with the injury rate from vaccines.

Though I’m still taken by the idea that there’s an increased risk of damage from MMR than from single measles and (imaginary) single mumps. Any takers?

As a female who had mumps as a child and suffered permanent hearing loss as a result, I take umbrage with the poster here who says her female child doesn’t need vaccinating against mumps. Or is hearing loss preferable to getting a jab? Utter stupidity.

GirlInTheDirtyShirt hearing loss from mumps seems very rare (1 in 20000 cases) and the likehood of catching mumps is itself quite small, so the overall chance of getting hearing loss from mumps is very very slim. Unfortunately you were the unlucky one in 20000. It's not however the binary situation of "get the jab or get hearing loss"... Hearing loss is certainly not preferable to having an innocuous jab, but everyone needs to weigh up the pros and cons given the fact jabs are not innocuous.

GirlInTheDirtyShirt also mumps seems to be one of the least effective vaccines as many vaccinated people still get it. Imagine ending up with vaccine damage and then getting hearing loss as well. At least unvaccinated kids are only risking one of those outcomes and not both (with respect to mumps). My sister had mumps and had no lasting effects, and I didn't catch it from her despite sharing a room.

Thanks Jassy for an attempt at adding the numbers to the debate. Hard to boil down complicated statistics so the general population can understand. Never mind the terms risk and probability.
Also please don’t feel the need to vaccinate your child to protect mine. I don’t MOT my car for much the same reason.

Virologists know that the situation with viruses is even more controversial than the public have been led to believe.

Firstly, of all the criteria that define something as being alive; reproduction, growth, sensitivity to the environment, movement toward positive and away from negative stimulus, assimilation of nutrients to produce energy, elimination of waste products and respiration, none of these basic functions of life can be performed by viruses. Viruses are not alive!

They are simply sophisticated chemicals carrying genetic information. Most of the knowledge we have of viruses are from studying stable groups of viruses and cells where there is no disease. Viruses like bacteria can exist alongside other cells in health causing no issues whatsoever.
It is known that poisoning cells creates viruses therefore viruses are found in someone with an illness but it’s not known if the virus is present as a by-product of the disease or if it is the primary cause.

Virologists with equipment that can photograph viruses have been unable to demonstrate how viruses cause disease and yet they are injected into the body via vaccines on the assumption that they are the primary cause.

And before someone starts quoting virus theory at me, viruses entering cells and causing that cell to produce more viruses has never been demonstrated despite the electron microscopy to do so.

As @BrazenFox has just stated, sharing a room with her sister who had mumps didn’t cause her to get infected. There are more factors at play here than simply being exposed to a virus and developing the illness.

I had the rubella jab at school and the MMR whilst having IVF as I was found to be non- immune. I got pregnant after seven IVF cycles and during the routine antenatal tests discovered I am still non-immune. I am apparently in the minority of people who don't seroconvert. So it's not always as simple as pregnant women taking responsibility for their own infants, not to mention people can't be vaccinated for other reasons. Totally selfish to put these people at risk.

To all the posters stating they have been tested and found not to be immune despite having the illness, the following might be helpful:

It used to be thought that the most important component of the immune response to infectious disease were the antibodies. However since 1940 Dr Chase working with Nobel Laureate Dr. Karl Landsteiner demonstrated that a variety of white blood cells were in fact more important than antibodies in our immune response to disease. This means that the core argument about why vaccines are produced and how they work is flawed. Current vaccine policy is based on a theory of the immune system that is 70 years old and inaccurate. It’s known that people with no antibodies can still be immune to disease and other people with antibodies may not be immune. Simply presenting studies which show that vaccines can stimulate antibody production does not show whether the vaccine will be effective in preventing the illness or that the the non presence of antibodies meaning the person is not immune.

This is the graph from the UK Health Department’s book Immunisation against infectious disease implies that the vaccine was responsible for bringing down the incidence of measles.

Prior to 1940 many illnesses were not notifiable (doctors were not required to report cases of the illness to the health authorities) therefore incidence figures are unreliable before 1950. However deaths from illnesses are more reliably reported and therefore you can obtain statistics over a much wider time frame to compare the impact of vaccines on severity of illness as measured by death rate. The following graph shows that in fact the majority of the decline in severity occurred well before the measles vaccine was introduced and it is known that incidence and severity run parallel trends...

"I take immunosuppressants... The 2 that I take do make me very susceptible to infections like chemo does... As soon as I get a cold, sore throat, raised temperature or any other indication that I might have any infection I have to contact my GP or OOH... mum says to daughter "lift your top up and show X your chicken pox". Little girl lifts her t shirt to reveal her body covered in chicken pox."

... but you didn't get that chicken pox, did you? That is because you are still immune to the diseases you have had or were vaccinated against, since your T & B cells (which "remember" immune response) are not destroyed like they would be with chemo.

"It’s known that people with no antibodies can still be immune to disease and other people with antibodies may not be immune."

Known to whom? Links please.

Or CoteDAzur, she didn’t get chicken pox because the majority of people exposed to these ‘viral’ illnesses don’t actually get them.

There’s also a phenomenon called cellular immunity

"Or CoteDAzur, she didn’t get chicken pox because the majority of people exposed to these ‘viral’ illnesses don’t actually get them."

You don't seem to know just how contagious chicken pox is.

There’s lots out there ..this is one
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/cell-mediated-immunity

Well clearly not ... because this child was wondering around managing not to infect —anyone-- very many people from where I’m guessing there wasn't a subsequent reported epidemic in that area

This is because microbes normally inhabit the skin and mucous membranes of the body and all people have microbes that are associated with dangerous illnesses but actually have no symptoms at all.

Illnesses occur when those parts of the body become overloaded with toxins affecting the functions of the cells and the numbers of microbes present.

Many functions of the body serve to eliminate toxins and if they are unable to deal with the build up of these toxins then the body will produce symptoms to eradicate toxicity faster.

For example vomiting, diarrhoea and coughs etc. are all examples of the body's attempts to eliminate toxins. It is important to realise that these symptoms are reactions to the problem of toxicity and are not themselves a problem to be simply stopped. This is why it is so important not to suppress symptoms. Symptoms are an intelligent response by the body.
Which is why the routine use of antipyretics often causes illnesses to become more serious or can cause long term issues

So ......if these elimination reactions are stopped or
There is severe dehydration/nutritional deficiency or
The body is under severe trauma or stress

These external microbes may then invade the body causing symptoms of severe disease such as septicaemia, meningitis, encephalitis, paralysis etc and in fact many different kinds of microbes can then be present at this stage of disease.

I'm the same Dacre. I've had rubella and 5 MMR jabs but wasn't immune in my last pregnancy despite being immune 2 years before. I've also had mumps which prompted the 4th MMR.

My dc's have all been fully vaccinated. My dds will be having the HPV when they're old enough and I'll pay for my ds to get it too

I've been having issues with this. A few weeks ago, knowing there were outbreaks and stuff, I called the GP surgery to see about MMR for myself and my DH. DH doesn't remember having his jabs and I may have only had one, almost sure I didn't have the second. Explained on the phone and the receptionist fobbed us off saying 'you don't need it, you will be immune and don't worry' which I had already read wasn't true AND she ignored the fact my DH might not be immune at all. I also explained that I would like to conceive in the near future so wished to top up the vaccine. She also said I didn't need it but when we insisted on making the appointment, she begrudgingly booked us in.

Unfortunately we couldn't make that appointment in the end and had to cancel beforehand. I'm dreading calling up again (I hadn't had time for the doctors for a couple of weeks) because I suspect we'll get the same argument. Plus it's probably a three week wait to see the nurse at the moment. I'm thinking of going private as a one off for this.

Also please don’t feel the need to vaccinate your child to protect mine. I don’t MOT my car for much the same reason.

I vaccinate my children for complex reasons, like most people. A large part is a recognition that if as a collective we don’t vaccinate, the risk to my children from any of these diseases greatly increases. Another large part is protecting them as individuals.

A smaller part is sure, I’m a member of society and I take that pretty seriously. In a situation where I can make life easier for others and protect my kids at zero increased risk to those kids? Why wouldn’t I go for the MMR over a single measles vaccine?