Posted on 04/01/2006 1:01:10 AM PST by neverdem
Check out posts 4 and 9.
The person that brought the mumps with him/her from Britain could have had the proper vaccinations. Being vaccinated does not ensure that you will not get or spread the disease. It is still possible to be infected. (hence the 66% that were previously innoculated in the news story)
Anyone can do a little research and find cases of epidemic outbreaks where a large majority were previously innoculated. (Even on the CDC's website, even though they claim on the FAQ site that the vaccination will insure that you DO NOT get the disease)
We have a genetically inherited immune diseases in my side of the family. It is the type that can lie dormant and be triggered by an illness, a certain medication, a pregnancy, a trauma, a surgery, etc... In some Austistic cases there could be a genetic factor that is already in place at birth, but is triggered by something in the vaccine. There needs to be a thorough, long-term study done instead of the medical community trying to sweep it under the carpet. Parents are tired of the "shut-up and vaccinate, we know more than you" mentality that most in the medical community impose upon them.
My family suffered the loss of a child due to an adverse reaction to a vaccine. Even though it was thoroughly investigated and determined without a doubt that the vaccine was the c.o.d., the pediatrician who innoculated my cousin later told other new, concerned parents that he had never personally known of a child dying from a vaccination. My husband had one hot aunt who stormed his office when one of those new moms happened to tell her.
The mother still had her child immunized, but at a different facility. She lost all trust in that doctor. Why lie about it? The risk of a child dying from an immunization is FAR FAR lower than the risk of putting that child into a vehicle every day. Why the cover-up mentality? The "cover-up mentality" along with the "shut-up and vaccinate because we know best" mentality is the cause of so many parents questions and their lack of trust in the program.
I researched vaccines thoroughly before deciding whether or not to vaccinate my children. While I do believe there is enough evidence for further research into a link between some forms of Autism and vaccinations, I chose to vaccinate my children because I believe the benefits outweigh the risks. I have the right to that belief, as I have the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate my own children. I also know that my children could still get measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, pertussis, or polio, even though they've been immunized. If they ever do, I would hope that the vaccination would lessen their illness greatly, and decrease the risk for death.
There are more questions that need to be asked too. If people do not beleive that their immunized children could get the disease, why do they feel so threatened by unimmunized children?
If we are no longer immune in our adulthood,(as proven by studies that show we should be given boosters every 10-12 years) why isn't there a huge pandemic amongst the adult population?
Why do so many women end up having to get the MMR in their 20's because routine blood tests during pregnany show that they are no longer protected? How many other adults are walking around unprotected? I thought the CDC said that once a child received the MMR, they would forever be immune???
It would appear that the only outcry is against unvaccinated children, when the truth is, the majority of adults in the United States are no longer protected.
Here is something else to think about. If a child that is vaccinated and a child that is not vaccinated gets the mumps for instance, which child is more likely to have a milder case which isn't diagnosed right away, or at all so that the child is around other children spreading the germs?
I'm more afraid of that mom who worships the almighty dollar so much that she sends her sick kid to school on Tylenol so she can go to work or to the mall. And by the way moms...when your kids are sneezing green snot everywhere and they have a low-grade fever, it's not allergies!
The best way to prevent the spread of any disease or infection is to keep your kids at home when they are sick and to keep hands washed and tissues over mouths when coughing.
And by the way...Diseases do not just "start up" in an unvaccinated person. (and they were never gone to begin with)
This happens ALL the time. A friend of mine used to own a daycare and he said they saw it constantly. And alot of the people that do it are not lowlifes, they are your neighbors and relatives, many are responsible people otherwise. Also, it's amazing how many people will give the advice to other people.
You might find this link interesting concerning the beneficial and vital role of fever in overcoming illness. The human body was made to have fevers to keep viruses from replicating. Stopping that process can have devastating results.
The role of fever in illness
I worked at a mother's day out program for a few years so my child could have others to play with during the day. I had to quit because we were sick every month. Those mothers were not going to work though, and they were wealthy women. They had their kids in MDO so they could have lunch with their girlfriends, get a pedicure, or go shopping. They ALWAYS brought their kids in sick on tylenol and it would wear off half-way into the morning. They would say their kids were having allergy problems and that's why their noses were running. I would call the mothers on their cell phones and demand that they come and pick up their sick child. Of course they would act all surprised and put on a show once they got there.
My sister does the same thing. She brought her kids over sick all of the time when they were little saying the pollen was bothering them. (even in December) She would invite everyone to her house for a birthday party, and then tell everyone her husband had the flu or one of them had strep-throat once we got there. Then she'd act like I was way too knit-picky and over-protective when I got mad. I remember one time, years ago, she had a birthday party for my nephew and he was so sick that he was coughing all over the cake and felt too bad to open all of his presents.
(Of course she has a $15 co-pay and we are self-employed and have to pay out-of-pocket, which generally ends up costing $130 per sick kid.)
These are the parents who are going to spread the diseases and infections that could cause a pandemic this century. They are too self-absorbed to care about other people.
Thanks for the link. It looks very interesting!
The only times I have been sick in my life was mumps, chicken pox, and measles all before I was 8 and haven't been sick in the last 60 years.
Hint to CDC: check out the illegal aliens in the area for your source!
Wow. Your experience with irresponsible parents is pretty outrageous. Definitely check out that link. It's long but the info in it is worth the time.
I just saw on Fox News that the epidemic is expanding and is now in other states.
But the news reader just said that the vaccine is 95% effective against this strain of mumps. Why are they saying that when 66% of the kids in Iowa who have mumps already got the vaccine????
They like to use the word UP TO 95% effective. The packet on the vaccine states between 59% to 94% effective.
I guess they were wrong about that number too, since it looks like 66% have gotten it already.
"They like to use the word UP TO 95% effective. The packet on the vaccine states between 59% to 94% effective. "
You're kidding.
Or rather, they are kidding themselves. The article said that 66% of those infected had had two shots, and another 14% had had one shot. So a total of 80% had had some exposure to the vaccine. If that's what they think is an effective vaccine they are clueless.
You make some good points.
I heard today that the MMR is 95% effective. So yes, it is possible that the outbreak is in those that are in the 5%. However, I find it hard to believe that the 5% who aren't totally protected would be in a concentrated area, within a short amount of time. One of the other possibilities for the outbreak is that maybe it was a bad batch (they will surely be checking lot numbers by now).
While I still believe that Autism is something a child is born with, I don't totally discount the fact that a vaccine could trigger a genetic pre-disposition, although I feel that this is unlikely; more research needed.
I think that one of the problems that physicians have is that they take vaccines for granted. It is their obligation to get informed consent prior to ordering the vaccine. Does that happen? Probably not, in a large number of cases. Part of that could also be that when you tell some parents of the potential risks that are serious/life-threatening, they get worried that the vaccine will kill their child (not a legitimate excuse, but one that probably occurs). It's kind of like when you get the drug information sheet from the pharmacy, and read all of the side effects, only to find yourself having second thoughts on taking it.
As for children dying from a vaccine, most physicians probably HAVEN'T seen a child given a vaccine, and then die. It's always a possibility, but highly unlikely. I work in a large pediatric practice as a RN, and in 17 years, have never seen this. And we give hundreds of vaccines a week. But, I always have that in the back of my mind, that a child could have a life-threatening allergic reaction. Fortunately, we have a code cart in our clinic, the staff who know how to use it, and a major tertiary care center with a Peds ICU across the parking lot.
Immunity in adulthood-IIRC, there is a phenomenon whereby someone is vaccinated, does not have antibody titers when they check their blood, yet can produce antibodies when exposed to that particular antigen (their immune system "remebers" the antibodies). Are we going to see a push for adults to get booster shots? There are already plans to include Pertussis in adult Td vaccines (just as kids get). Also, when I started nursing, I had to get a MMR at the age of 26, because I had no antibodies to Rubella.
Sending kids sick to school with green snot and fever-well, several things with that. First, the kid probably got the cold from someone in school; pragmatically, there is no way to prevent that. Second, "green" snot is usually mischaracterized as being a "bacterial" sinus infection; not necessarily. The "green" is from the body's immune response (macrophages, etc), and doesn't differentiate viral from bacterial. Also, what is a fever? I frequently take advice calls from parents saying that their child has a "fever of 99". 99 is not a fever. 101 is, and you could even say that 100.4 is a low grade fever, but anything below that is not a fever. Rule of thumb: if your child has a fever, keep them home until they are afebrile for 24 hours.
Keeping kids home- there are many kids that if you kept them home whenever they had a runny nose, they would miss a major portion of the school year. Good handwashing is the best prevention; it's impractical to keep them home everytime they are sick, IMO. Besides, but exposing them to different organisms, their immune systems can produce antibodies for future protection.
I think they are clueless.
When the MMR first came out you only needed one shot. They came out later and said one was not effective enough, now you need to get two shots.
Well, it looks like two is not enough either.
"I heard today that the MMR is 95% effective. So yes, it is possible that the outbreak is in those that are in the 5%."
The article said that 66% of those infected had had two shots. That's nowhere close to 95%.
"Part of that could also be that when you tell some parents of the potential risks that are serious/life-threatening, they get worried that the vaccine will kill their child (not a legitimate excuse, but one that probably occurs)."
So you are saying that the parents shouldn't be told? In that case aren't you making the decision for them? That seems like a huge amount of liability for a medical professional to take on.
There's a percentage of the luddites in the population that refuses to vaccinate their children because of wrongheaded ideas from "naturopaths" on the internet. What you see results.
Could the vector for the Mumps be Illegal aliens ?
"I HEARD today that the MMR is 95% effective". Apparently, the information I HEARD on FoxNews conflicts with that presented in the article.
So you are saying that the parents shouldn't be told?
Reread my response (that you posted): "not a legitimate excuse, but one that probably occurs"
"There's a percentage of the luddites in the population that refuses to vaccinate their children because of wrongheaded ideas from "naturopaths" on the internet. What you see results."
Does no one read articles on FR anymore? This same comment has been made numerous times on this thread and it doesn't apply in this case. The article said that only 20% of those infected had had NO MMR vaccination. The remaining 80% had been vaccinated, 66% of those infected had had both shots, 14% had had one.
The vaccine isn't working worth a flip in this case.
If you re-read the article, you will notice that the 66% figure is specifically for those in Iowa who got mumps, and had been vaccinated. It then goes on to say "'It's working at a 95 percent efficacy rate, which is darn good,' Ms. Quinlisk said of the vaccine, which is required of school-age children.". So, my initial statement that the MMR is 95% effective is still correct; in the case of the Iowa mumps breakout, the 66% is an exception.
XeniaSt wrote, "Could the vector for the Mumps be Illegal aliens ?"
I think a new strain could indicate aliens amongst the Iowans. See comment 29.
This statement is premature. It could be that the vaccine was from a bad batch, it could be that the strain currently infecting these people mutated and is thus different than the Jeralyn strain in the vaccine, etc., etc., etc.
"Reread my response (that you posted): "not a legitimate excuse, but one that probably occurs"
Reread my response. It wasn't about excuses, it was about who has the right to make the decision based on the data. I always ask my physisican about drug side effects no matter what he is prescribing. He explains the potential dangers so that I can make an informed decision, he doesn't think he should be making the decision for me.
I said that it happens, I didn't say that I condone the practice. You seem to be having a difficult time grasping that concept.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.