Hi Ragusa. Well, if you believe in the WHO, you can find the following statement on their website at www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ :
Severe complications from measles can be avoided though supportive care that ensures good nutrition, adequate fluid intake and treatment of dehydration with WHO-recommended oral rehydration solution. This solution replaces fluids and other essential elements that are lost through diarrhoea or vomiting. Antibiotics should be prescribed to treat eye and ear infections, and pneumonia
I will support my case with peer reviewed research if this provides further comfort. Please see below. However, before I do this, and though it will appear to undermine my own argument, let me explain why ?peer reviewed research? should not necessarily provide reassurance. I say this because often people trying to counter those who question vaccines portray us as unscientific and suggest ?peer reviewed research? supports vaccines but does not support questioning them.
First, there is the system itself. People imagine a robust and objective methodology which proves such research is superior to other evidence-based opinions. Richard Smith, who was editor of the BMJ for 13 years, knows a thing or two about it. I encourage you to read his article, here:
jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full
If you don?t have time, some of his conclusions are as follows:
People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process?
?.So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.
There are many more well-informed articles and even peer reviewed studies (!) about this. What Smith doesn?t really get into (and others do) is the degree to which universities and researchers are funded by drug companies, and their power to destroy the careers of anyone who dares to question their products. He does however show that there is a strong bias against ?negative? research, (ie which shows that drugs do not work).
The other point I would make is this: Our best scientists readily admit we know comparatively little about the human brain. The same is true about how cancer works. They simply do not know how the relatively recent practice of injecting vaccine ingredients into the human bloodstream affects these or other areas. In societies where vaccine intake has increased markedly, so have certain cancers and behavioural disorders. Yes, I know correlation is not causation. But you should also know that our ability to research causation is limited, and the opportunities to debate or research it are being stifled, which ought to cause concern. The focus instead is on proving the positives of vaccination. And even here, the system of peer review lets us down. See for example the recent case of the US government suing Merck after two of its former employees blew the whistle on its fraudulent ?peer reviewed? studies, which exaggerated the efficacy of its MMR vaccine. Here?s a report by Forbes on this matter. I?m using Forbes purposely as it?s pro-vaccine and uses the case to argue for more vaccines (ie it?s not a nutty anti-vax site):
www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Another article which uses awful vaccine damage to argue for more vaccines is below. NBC argues that the fact that 69 healthy Nigerian children have been paralyzed by the Polio vaccine since 2005 is a clear case for why we need vaccines:
www.nbcnews.com/id/21149823/ns/health-infectious_diseases/t/polio-outbreak-sparked-vaccine-experts-say/
Note, you do not necessarily need peer reviewed research to tell you that these children have been paralyzed, or to help you make many other judgements for your children. As Richard Smith says, believing in peer review requires a leap of faith as it can so easily be abused. When you realise that it?s companies like Merck who have a vested interest in vaccines, your faith that it won?t be abused has to be very strong ? see not only above but also the Vioxx case, HPV vaccine injuries, etc for clear evidence that they lie. Unfortunately it is all too easy for Merck and conflicted interest people like Paul Offit (recently quoted by the BBC as an American ?measles expert? calling for mandatory vaccination in the UK, but also a multi millionaire vaccine patent owner and Merck consultant ? see his abstention on the matter of withdrawing a dangerous rotavirus vaccine, for example, for evidence of his moral compass) to dismiss those who question vaccines as conspiracy theorists, unscientific nutjobs, etc.
Anyway, I could continue about this, about the occasional influence of Big Pharma on WHO and other medical institutions, about the questionable claim that vaccines eradicated polio, etc, but on to nutrition and measles. I think MMR does provide some temporary resistance to some strains of measles for some kids. But all this vagueness in return for taking unknown risks doesn?t do it for me. I hate disease and I?m scared of it. But my opinion is that if I send my well-nourished, healthy daughter to play with a friend who has measles or chicken pox (for example), as all the previous generations of my family have done to get guaranteed immunity, I am doing better for her than if I have her vaccinated. This is because the MMR carries known and possible risks, and does not provide guaranteed protection. When she becomes pregnant later in life, I want to know she is definitely immune. Similarly for my son, I don?t want to take the risk of vaccination only for the ?immunity? to wane when he is an adult and when it is far more dangerous to get measles. I want him to be immune from this disease for life. Though both courses of action involve risks, I personally believe that if in our well-nourished communities we were all to do this, we would have much more chance of a herd immunity that actually works.
So here are some studies
These show that you are much more likely to be seriously affected by measles if you are malnourished, immunocompromised or pregnant
^ a b c d e f g Chen S.S.P. (October 3, 2011). Measles (Report). Medscape.
^ "Vitamin A".
Polonsky, J. A.; Ronsse, A.; Ciglenecki, I.; Rull, M.; Porten, K. (2013). "High levels of mortality, malnutrition, and measles, among recently-displaced Somali refugees in Dagahaley camp, Dadaab refugee camp complex, Kenya, 2011". Conflict and Health 7 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/1752-1505-7-1. PMC 3607918.PMID 23339463.
And this shows that it is better to have the disease when young:
^ Sabella, C. (2010). "Measles: Not just a childhood rash".Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 77 (3): 207?213.doi:10.3949/ccjm.77a.09123. PMID 20200172.
I am sure there must be many more but I am sure anyone who loves their kids will put the time in themselves. Actually, despite the risks of virus shedding that vaccinated kids present to my normal, healthy children, I still believe it is the absolute right of any parent to decide for themselves on vaccination, given the considerable ?unknowns?. And, following from this, I believe strongly that we shouldn?t stigmatise anyone for doing so. That is my problem with the OP.
Hugs to all your kids and may they be happy and healthy!
xxx