Measles outbreak in Europe

[bubbleymummy]

Interesting that there was a large outbreak in Bulgaria in 2009/2010 despite a vaccination rate of 96% Figures here

In 2000, measles was estimated to cause approximately 31 to 39.9 million illnesses worldwide with an estimated 733,000 to 777,000 deaths, making it the fifth most common cause of death in children under 5 years of age

hmmm I am clearly making up the cost of measles

"For an immunised person to contract measles is as the research states a rare occurrence."

Either it's rare, so herd immunity is irrelevant: or it's not rare, in which case it rather begs the question of why one would take the risk in the first place.

Let's say I believe you - it's rare. It obviously follows that herd immunity is an irrelevance for the vaccinated.

It's the on the insert of the MMR-II vaccine. Do you think I made them up?

Well I think to be honestre: cost, we would need to visit the argument of how much good nutrition, clean water, appropriate housing and so on affect the morbidity and mortality associated with measles.

Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccines (Combined) (M-M-R® II) and Varicella Virus Vaccine (Varivax®) adverse reactions reported with those agents. Percentages reported following one dose of M-M-R® II at 12-23 months of age.

10%:

Central nervous system: Fever ≥38.9˚C (≥102˚F) (22%)

Local: Injection site reaction: Pain/tenderness/soreness (22%), erythema (14%)

1% to 10%:

Central nervous system: Irritability (7%)

Dermatologic: Measles-like rash (3%), varicella-like rash (2%), rash (2%), viral exanthema (1%)

Gastrointestinal: Diarrhea (1%)

Local: Injection site reaction: Swelling (8%), bruising (2%)

Respiratory: Upper respiratory tract infection (1%)

I mean we'd also need to look at the cost of adverse events, which is disputed. If there is a link between MMR-mercury and Autistic Spectrum Disorder, then the cost is very, very high.

The number of cases reported of regressive autism and gut disorder after MMR are so high they provide good circumstantial evidence of a link. Along with the improvement of conditions when treated with a protocol which is predicated on such a diagnosis, and all the various clinical and subclinical evidence that's been presented by thousands of parents, it could be that the cost is phenomenally high.

I don't understand what you mean about copying and pasting. Do you want the linkie?

The benefits of this vaccine far outweigh the small risk
Every medicine has contraindications and the jab wont be for everyone, but the reduction in death from measles due to vaccination speaks for itself. Its ludicrous to try and argue otherwise

But you don't know what the risk is. No one does.

I think you keep changing the goalposts - first you say there's no risk of SSPE, then you say it's not listed as an adverse event, then you say ok but it's very small, then you say but the benefits are big enough for the risk. The you have to resort to spluttering "ludicrous". I think you just keep ducking and diving.

I mean when you say the jab won't be for everyone, that's a very casual acceptance of unknown levels of death and disability.

Lots of people would like to see extra research into vulnerable groups of people so that they know whether it's "for them" or not.

It's not like saying well tomatoes don't agree with me. It can be very serious.

the risk is three quarters of a million deaths a year, what part of that is unclear??

and thanks for the link, as you will read in catherines reference the MIBE was an isolated case with a specific severe immune deficiency
(severe immune deficiencies are a contraindication of the this jab)

unknown?
There are clear reporting mechanisms for adverse drug reactions accessible by patients and doctors in this country.
The adverse drug reactions are know and help to inform the percentages of adverse reaction that I posted above

signing off for a while, but will pick up later
Do you have any objective, academic evidence of your claims.

I have plenty to support mine :)

But you don't know how many of those deaths are due to the underlying conditions of malnutrition, filthy water, damaged immune systems, stunted development and so on.

If you read on the insert you will see that with regard to other potential reactions Merck is emphatic and explanatory when there is an opportunity to reveal how rare, what the level of causality could be and so on.

For example: Chronic arthritis has been associated with wild-type rubella infection and has been related to persistent virus and/or viral antigen isolated from body tissues. Only rarely have vaccine recipients
developed chronic joint symptoms.

It doesn't do this with SSPE. It says this: There have been reports of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in children who did not have
a history of infection with wild-type measles but did receive measles vaccine. Some of these cases may have resulted from unrecognized measles in the first year of life or possibly from the measles vaccination.

This does not in any way suggest the brains were cut up and wild measles virus was found: if it had been the case - Merck would certainly say so. It's simply an assumption that the patient suffered asymptomatic measles.

"Based on estimated nationwide measles vaccine distribution, the association of SSPE cases to measles vaccination is about one case per million vaccine doses distributed." "However, the data suggest the possibility that some of these cases may have been caused by measles vaccines."

It says it twice. If it could say "there has been only one case of vaccine induced SSPE, and all other cases were caused by wild virus" - it certainly would.

I don't like passive aggressive smileys after people have been very sarcastic and spluttered "ludicrous". They strike me as dishonest and point-scoring, rather than signalling a sincere interest in what is being said.

You are entitled to your opinion
I prefer to give a balanced argument supported by credible sources

I deal with facts, not scaremoungering
This is a decision that should be informed by the clear facts. There are very small risks that for the majority of the population are insignificant in compared to the benefits
This has been clearly and consistently evidenced

It's not very nice to take two people's names and merge them. Do you think this is a game? I take it seriously. I am sorry you don't.

"I'm afraid it's like having a debate with a conspiracy theorist or a holocaust denier." This is abusive and doesn't address any of the points made.

I think the "anti-vax" voice is more than balanced by the "pro-vax" voice. To be honest there aren't many "anti-vax" people here, I think most were very provax until something terrible happened.

Oh, I take this VERY seriously. Vaccination saves lives, scaremongering against vaccination costs them.

The problem is Pims that your own facts aren't clear: you and Caterina have claimed as "facts" things which aren't true and which you've had to accept aren't true.

I have to go now.

Shame you have to go. Would relish the opportunity to give the clear facts you are looking for.
The death toll from measles (as the primary cause of death) in 2000 alone speaks volumes. Over Three quarters of a million deaths to be factual

And your right, scare mongering does cause lives

You should try to present a more balanced argument in that case
Night

Sorry bubbly, thought you were blue
Apologies for the confusion

Agree with you completely!!!

Bubbleybertie is clearly unconvinced by his or her own arguments.

Bubbleybertie is not bubbleymummy, nor is she me, Blueberties.

She or he is a name-changer who has to resort to these kind of tactics because, I assume, she or he has no argument that will stand up without that.

She or he does not take vaccine damage seriously or she/he would not play these kind of games.

I could easily namechange to Pimsocock but I haven't the interest or the immaturity. I also have a lot of confidence that what I have to say is worth reading without using trickery.

Pims: your "clear fact" about SSPE was not a clear fact at all. It was demonstrably untrue.

Your "clear fact" that measles after immunisation is rare, thus rendering herd immunity irrelevant, flies in the face of the pro-vaccine argument that everyone must be vaccinated for the vaccines to work -- herd immunity.

I don't think you can explain these away. I don't think talk about measles deaths explains them away, it's a specious attempt to distract attention. I think scare-mongering about measles deaths is something which you have had to resort to because your "clear facts" have been shown to be nothing of the sort.

If you condone the tactics used by the namechanger then I think you must have just as little confidence in your own argument.

Namechanger -- you do NOT take this seriously. You are trying to intimidate me into stopping posting, or you are trying to give other people the wrong impression that Bubbley and I are confused in our thinking.

I am very clear. I think this exactly why you have given up and resorted to trickery.