Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First off, to the OP, I wish you wouldn't put a political label on people. To counter your label, I'm far more liberal than conservative, but I am for vaccination, among other issues.
Having said that, the reason many people get measles after they've had a measles shot, is because the immunity wanes after several years. The best thing to do is to get a booster shot. One of the things you don't want to do is get any childhood disease if you're an adult. If you've had the shot, maybe it won't be as bad, but why risk measles and chicken pox in your throat, your stomach lining, and/or your eyelids, when you could have just gotten a vaccination?
Measles is 90% transmissible. That means that 90% of all people exposed to measles who have not been vaccinated or have no immunity to it, will get it. You are infections for several days before and several days after you have the disease, before you even know you've been exposed. That means if you or your child go out in public, you are exposing others.
I've had measles myself when I was a child, but I've also had measles vaccinations - three of them several decades ago. Since the only record I had of having measles was in my baby book 2000 miles away, I was vaccinated when we had two epidemics at the college I was attending and once when I joined the Army National Guard. And none of those vaccinations harmed me or gave me measles.
I can't imagine parents caring so little for their kid today that they wouldn't get them vaccinated.
Over a certain age they were vaccinted with the killed virus vaccine, As the aricle stated, back in the 60s when they vaccinated previously exposed in their time period to measles, some came down with an Atypical strain. Their bodies had just enough antibodies to keep them from catching the disease, but when they were vaccinated, it produced a mutant strain of meases; some but not all. I do remember as a child they came to our school and asked who had measles and who didn't. Kids who had measles were not given the vax. Kids who never had measles, but had obviously been exposed to it in back then, were given the vax. Did this create that Atypical Measles in them?
Older adults vaccinated with the killed virus vaccine might today come in contact with measles from the Disney outbreak and not only get measles, but maybe that Atyplical strain as others did in the past? Will they even admit these older adults got the mutant strain of measles today?
The 70 year old man? Did he actually have a full blow case of measles, or simply had been exposed to it and never caught it himself? Similar to the other older adults with the killed virus vax? Produce just enough antibodies for a time but when exposed later in life, did not have enough antibodies to ward off the measles?
Point. The new MMR is a live virus, but not enough of the virus to cause a full blow case of measles. As such over time, may wane. Why more boosters may be needed? Actual Measles? Far more of the virus than the smaller live virus vaccination. Produce more antibodies from the disease itself. While even the greater antibodies from the actual disease might decrease over time, maybe are still enough to ward off being exposed and catching meases from either the killed vax, small virus vax, or being exposed to the disease in the past.
Does all of this may you think, and question, universal vaccinations for everyone? If someone had measles before and has antibodies to it, would giving them that MMR vax of live virus, just cause their antibodies to just kill off the virus in the vaccine? Wouldn't be pointless?
The earlier versions of the vaccine that increased risk of atypical measles were long ago discontinued, before 1970. You can check it on CDC website. This is a classic example of where people might get scared away from the virus today with information that hasn't been relevant now for a few decades.
As far as whether a person who had measles needs a shot now... they can run blood tests to check if you have the antibodies.
so no, this doesn't change my mind about whether immunization is an appropriate policy for a modern country.
No medical treatment is 100% guaranteed to be risk-free. but what has already been demonstrated is that when you sufficiently discontinue immunization, serious preventable infectious diseases will spread. One needs to weigh the risk of that against the risk of vaccination. Most of the naysayers just look at the vaccine and assume they will be lucky enough to avoid the diseases since they haven't encountered them thus far (and know that they benefit from others being immunized).
Point. The new MMR is a live virus, but not enough of the virus to cause a full blow case of measles. As such over time, may wane. Why more boosters may be needed? Actual Measles? Far more of the virus than the smaller live virus vaccination. Produce more antibodies from the disease itself.
This isn't accurate. The MMR vaccine is a attenuated vaccine, which means that they've taken the virus and mutated it to be less virulent. When you get the MMR vaccine you are in fact getting a full blow case of the modified diseases (they are even contagious) but they aren't virulent. Getting real measles instead of the mutant strain doesn't result in greater immunity to the disease in the future, in both cases you get lifelong immunity in the vast majority of cases. The MMR booster is recommended to deal with the small percent of children that failed to develop immunity from the first dose not because the vaccine wears off over time.
Getting the measles vaccine if you've had measles would be pointless and is not required, you can get a simple antibody test to confirm immunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
Having said that, the reason many people get measles after they've had a measles shot, is because the immunity wanes after several years. The best thing to do is to get a booster shot.
The measles vaccine does not, in general, wane over time instead some people fail to develop immunity after getting the vaccine.
The fear of vaccinations far predates your celebrity spokesperson and liberal root fixations. And, yes, lots of very conservative religious groups were also early in.
Without endorsing any position one way or the other, I would also point out that fear of toxic medical and pharmaceutical procedures is actually pretty well founded. So while it might make you feel superior to viciously condemn liberals as being inferior beings, I don't find it a bit unintelligent to question modern medical / pharmacological dogma. Modern medicine is brilliant in many many ways and applications. It's also big business with big business interests and agenda - and rife with unintended consequences learned after disastrous effects - and with intentional obfuscations and fraud.
Scientists have been working on vaccines since Jenner in 1796. It's not exactly a new concept. As far as "intentional obfuscations and fraud", that's exactly where the current increase in vaccine refusal is coming from: Andrew Wakefield's intentionally fraudulent "study" designed to discredit measles vaccine so he could sell his own measles vaccine.
Literally billions of doses of various vaccine have been given, and complications from them are recognized, but for every single vaccine we have the risk of serious injury or death is greater for the illness the vaccine prevents than from the vaccine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
Exactly - that's the amazing thing. These are supposed to be the intelligent, educated people with ample access to information and resources to take advantage of long-proven medical advancement that eliminates some serious diseases. Instead, they choose to live with the exposures and superstitions of people of a third-world country.
Actually most third world countries have no problems accepting vaccines.
How supposedly intelligent people fail to understand the science behind vaccines and fall for the pseudoscience instead:
"In 2006, Daniel Kahan, a professor at Yale Law School, performed a study together with some colleagues on public perceptions of nanotechnology. They found, as other surveys had before, that most people knew little to nothing about the field. They also found that ignorance didn’t stop people from opining about whether nanotechnology’s risks outweighed its benefits.
When Kahan surveyed uninformed respondents, their opinions were all over the map. But when he gave another group of respondents a very brief, meticulously balanced description of the promises and perils of nanotech, the remarkable gravitational pull of deeply held sacrosanct beliefs became apparent. With just two paragraphs of scant (though accurate) information to go on, people’s views of nanotechnology split markedly—and aligned with their overall worldviews. Hierarchics/individualists found themselves viewing nanotechnology more favorably. Egalitarians/collectivists took the opposite stance, insisting that nanotechnology has more potential for harm than good.
Why would this be so? Because of underlying beliefs. Hierarchists, who are favorably disposed to people in authority, may respect industry and scientific leaders who trumpet the unproven promise of nanotechnology. Egalitarians, on the other hand, may fear that the new technology could present an advantage that conveys to only a few people. And collectivists might worry that nanotechnology firms will pay insufficient heed to their industry’s effects on the environment and public health. Kahan’s conclusion: If two paragraphs of text are enough to send people on a glide path to polarization, simply giving members of the public more information probably won’t help them arrive at a shared, neutral understanding of the facts; it will just reinforce their biased views."
The purveyors of pseudoscience about vaccines have a problem. Having jumped on the anti-vaccination bandwagon and profited financially from it, leaping off the wagon would be fiscally fatal. They cannot admit they are wrong, even when confronted with Wakefield's perfidy and mountains of evidence showing vaccines do not cause autism, because it calls into question everything they say. That means they lose paying customers for all the woo they sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Why were so middle aged vaccinated peoplecoming down with measles from Disney outbreak?
Over a certain age they were vaccinted with the killed virus vaccine, As the aricle stated, back in the 60s when they vaccinated previously exposed in their time period to measles, some came down with an Atypical strain. Their bodies had just enough antibodies to keep them from catching the disease, but when they were vaccinated, it produced a mutant strain of meases; some but not all. I do remember as a child they came to our school and asked who had measles and who didn't. Kids who had measles were not given the vax. Kids who never had measles, but had obviously been exposed to it in back then, were given the vax. Did this create that Atypical Measles in them?
Older adults vaccinated with the killed virus vaccine might today come in contact with measles from the Disney outbreak and not only get measles, but maybe that Atyplical strain as others did in the past? Will they even admit these older adults got the mutant strain of measles today?
The 70 year old man? Did he actually have a full blow case of measles, or simply had been exposed to it and never caught it himself? Similar to the other older adults with the killed virus vax? Produce just enough antibodies for a time but when exposed later in life, did not have enough antibodies to ward off the measles?
Point. The new MMR is a live virus, but not enough of the virus to cause a full blow case of measles. As such over time, may wane. Why more boosters may be needed? Actual Measles? Far more of the virus than the smaller live virus vaccination. Produce more antibodies from the disease itself. While even the greater antibodies from the actual disease might decrease over time, maybe are still enough to ward off being exposed and catching meases from either the killed vax, small virus vax, or being exposed to the disease in the past.
Does all of this may you think, and question, universal vaccinations for everyone? If someone had measles before and has antibodies to it, would giving them that MMR vax of live virus, just cause their antibodies to just kill off the virus in the vaccine? Wouldn't be pointless?
Viera Scheibner has no training or expertise in vaccines. She's a paleontologist and a quack.
Someone who demonstrates immunity to measles would not be offered the vaccine because it is unnecessary.
Someone who has had measles can indeed get it again, though it is very rare.
The vaccine associated with atypical measles has not been used since 1967. People who took that vaccine were offered re-vaccination with the live virus vaccine and should not be at risk. There was no "mutant" strain. The vaccine did not protect against measles in some recipients but did alter the response of the vaccinated person to it. That altered response was what was "atypical", not the virus itself. By the way, that is another example of the way vaccines are improved if and when problems with them do happen.
Two doses of measles vaccine are highly protective for life. Boosters are not recommended. However, the vaccine is not 100% effective and a small percentage of people who are vaccinated are susceptible and can still get the disease.
The majority of the people in the outbreak linked to Disney were not vaccinated. Age really does not matter. If you are middle-aged, unvaccinated, and never had measles, you are susceptible.
"Vaccination status is documented for 34 of the 59 cases [in just California]. Of these 34, 28 were unvaccinated, one had received one dose and five had received two or more doses of MMR vaccine."
Scientists have been working on vaccines since Jenner in 1796. It's not exactly a new concept. As far as "intentional obfuscations and fraud", that's exactly where the current increase in vaccine refusal is coming from: Andrew Wakefield's intentionally fraudulent "study" designed to discredit measles vaccine so he could sell his own measles vaccine.
Literally billions of doses of various vaccine have been given, and complications from them are recognized, but for every single vaccine we have the risk of serious injury or death is greater for the illness the vaccine prevents than from the vaccine.
And this has what to do with the point I was making? I haven't suggested vaccinations are bad, nor have I defended anyone who promotes vaccine refusal. My entire reason for posting was to confront illogical, inappropriate stereotyping as counterproductive.
See, and therein is a reflection of your bias. You seem to regard vaccination on par with a personal choice akin to politics, cars, or exercise routines as opposed to a highly safe, important, and effective medical procedure necessary to safeguard not just yourself but other people from historically very contagious and dangerous diseases. And you seem to imply that behaviors / preferences regarding vaccination have "nothing to do with the science of the threat," which would be a pretty ballsy statement, if that's what you mean. What this really is on par with is those cases where you hear parents foregoing medical treatment for their kid's life-threatening illness because they are religious and were going to trust in God to heal it...and then the kid of course dies due to their neglect.
I know there are some people who can't take vaccines, and I think you know as well as I do that those are a drop in the bucket compares with the well-to-do families in $2.5M homes in places like Marin who don't vaccinate their kids because Jenny McCarthy spread some discredited BS about MMR and autism. That's where the real problem is.
You're making things up. I haven't indicated any bias whatsoever - except against illogical, inappropriate stereotyping as a methodology for correcting people's fear-based opinions. Your OP was an ugly smear attack full of irrelevancies right out of the blocks. Counterproductive to your stated concerns to accomplish greater, if not total, vaccination compliance. As I asked before and you didn't answer: when was the last time this approach helped you win over opposing opinions, resulting in a positive outcome?
And you must be very young, eh? You don't realize that - "the real problem" - opposition to vaccinations, has existed since long, long before Jenny McCarthy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
I realize that I can't fix stupid people.
No. And apparently you can't even recognize when you increase the very alienation you are concerned about. You know, like by calling people stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
But it would be nice to at least be able to safeguard myself from them, since their selfish actions endanger not just their own kids, but others as well. The vaccine doesn't work equally well in everyone, and the greater the number of unvaccinated people around, the greater the risk to everyone. Why should I and my family members take on more unnecessary risk due to others' selfishness?
What's next - a bunch of rich people start a fad where they forego modern water sanitation because of some arguments about the pipes, etc...and then we get malaria and tuberculosis back as well? Sounds ridiculous? Well, so does what's going on now, with the result of previously eliminated things like measles whooping cough making epidemic comebacks. We know who we have to thank for that.
And this has what to do with the point I was making? I haven't suggested vaccinations are bad, nor have I defended anyone who promotes vaccine refusal. My entire reason for posting was to confront illogical, inappropriate stereotyping as counterproductive.
You said, "Without endorsing any position one way or the other, I would also point out that fear of toxic medical and pharmaceutical procedures is actually pretty well founded. So while it might make you feel superior to viciously condemn liberals as being inferior beings, I don't find it a bit unintelligent to question modern medical / pharmacological dogma. Modern medicine is brilliant in many many ways and applications. It's also big business with big business interests and agenda - and rife with unintended consequences learned after disastrous effects - and with intentional obfuscations and fraud."
I pointed out that "intentional obfuscation and fraud" is behind the recent upsurge in anti-vaccine sentiment, and the obfuscation and fraud was not promulgated by the pharmaceutical industry. "Toxic" medical and pharmaceutical procedures are actually pretty uncommon. Use of the words obfuscation, fraud, toxic, and disastrous is pejorative and belies the claim that you are not "endorsing any position one way or another". You certainly said nothing using similar buzzwords about vaccine refusal.
You said, "Without endorsing any position one way or the other, I would also point out that fear of toxic medical and pharmaceutical procedures is actually pretty well founded. So while it might make you feel superior to viciously condemn liberals as being inferior beings, I don't find it a bit unintelligent to question modern medical / pharmacological dogma. Modern medicine is brilliant in many many ways and applications. It's also big business with big business interests and agenda - and rife with unintended consequences learned after disastrous effects - and with intentional obfuscations and fraud."
I pointed out that "intentional obfuscation and fraud" is behind the recent upsurge in anti-vaccine sentiment, and the obfuscation and fraud was not promulgated by the pharmaceutical industry. "Toxic" medical and pharmaceutical procedures are actually pretty uncommon. Use of the words obfuscation, fraud, toxic, and disastrous is pejorative and belies the claim that you are not "endorsing any position one way or another". You certainly said nothing using similar buzzwords about vaccine refusal.
Pure baloney. My premise was that intentional obfuscation and fraud has always been rampant in the pharmaceutical industry in general - and did not in any way tie such to vaccinations.
"Obfuscation, fraud, toxic, and disastrous" are accurately descriptive words entirely applicable to the pharmaceutical industry - commonly. The industry is and always has been absolutely rife with all four of those things. Viciously so. Immorally so. Overwhelmingly so. Intentionally executed. Industry players are caught, prosecuted, fined, and even jailed on a fairly regular basis for their chicanery. They lobby with war chests rivaling budgets of entire advanced nations. They control, cheat, lie, steal, and murder.
And ordinary, scientifically unsophisticated people are often aware of the capitalist motivations behind Big Pharma's excesses.
Meanwhile, whatever obfuscations, intentional or otherwise, behind the anti-vaccine movement are driven by pennies in comparison to Pharma's crimes against humanity. So it is little wonder at all that some people distrust medical dogma and are thus susceptible to errors of thinking.
Again, my entire point has been to illustrate the counter productivity of the OP's attack. The fact that I vaccinated my own children speaks volumes about my own opinion of the science and its place in our society. I simply, and vigorously, oppose illogical, irrelevant, hyperbolic attacks that are counterproductive to achieving a successful realization of the value of the vaccinations.
And now this, on productive communications from the 1700's:
Note the resistance to vaccines was pre-"Jenny McCarthy" by a few years.
Quote:
Crucially, the pouf à l’inoculation wasn't an explicit critique of the 18th-century anti-vaxxers, but simply a visible expression of support for inoculation. Instead of picking a fight, it presented inoculation as something normal and harmless. And because the pouf was worn by the fashionable elite of society, it went one step further, making inoculation look not just normal, but also cool.
An "I Vaccinated" sticker could start a revolution, or at a least a conversation.
A sense of normalcy is exactly what’s missing from today’s vaccination debate. Already stressed-out new parents are bombarded with the alarmist, emotional accusations of the anti-vaxxers who claim vaccination can cause autism on one hand, and the strident, jargony denials of the medical establishment on the other. We hear a lot about the risks of vaccinations—or, alternatively, the much more serious risks of foregoing them and losing herd immunity as vaccination rates drop below 92 percent—but little about the vast majority of parents who quietly continue to vaccinate their children according to CDC guidelines, without complications.
This is where fashion could once more play a role. Just as those "I Voted" stickers have a certain election-day cachet and effectively shame those who haven’t voted into getting to the polls, an "I Vaccinated" sticker could start a revolution, or at a least a conversation. Some clinics already give out similar stickers during flu season—not to reward the vaccinated, but to remind the rest of us to get our shots.
Me putting a "Fully Vaccinated—You’re Welcome" T-shirt on my two-year-old is unlikely to bring about a breakthrough in public health, though it will undoubtedly raise a few eyebrows at the local playground. (I live in California, where 11 percent of public elementary schools have kindergarten vaccination rates below 92 percent, including the one my older child attends.) But just imagine what would happen if the paparazzi snapped the likes of Blue Ivy Carter, Nori West, or the Jolie-Pitt kids wearing one. Without saying a word, these instantly recognizable, robustly healthy, enviably privileged children could drown out the Jenny McCarthys and Donald Trumps of the world. Suddenly, vaccination would look not just normal, but incredibly cool.
... as opposed to calling people stupid and ridiculing their cars, exercise routines, and political preferences.
... as opposed to calling people stupid and ridiculing their cars, exercise routines, and political preferences.
Those who continue to try to link vaccines and autism on web sites like Mercola's were indeed anti-vax before Wakefield, but used Wakefield to win converts. However, the current uptick in vaccine refusal is a direct result of the reaction to Wakefield, the likes of McCarthy, and the inability of a group of vocal, mostly educated people, who cannot accept that Wakefield is a crook. No one likes to admit he has been duped. It makes him look weak.
I like the T shirt idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And now this, on productive communications from the 1700's:
