Vaccine related autism study?

Thankyou, I was going to raise this point myself. People don't stay home when they have the sniffles because the sniffles, by themselves, are not serious. The sniffles, by themselves, could signify nothing more than an allergic reaction to perfume. I, for one, am guilty of going to work with the sniffles.

Indeed - where I work now (as the IT manager, not on the production floor thankfully), half the heating has gone out (it's a warehouse separated into two sections with a large garage door between them) - as a result, one side of the warehouse is about 20 to 30 degrees colder than the other side... especially when they have to open the dock doors to receive deliveries or take out trash/recycling. Almost half our staff is out sick at the moment with the same symptoms, because we have some "troopers" that come in even when they are all but dying, hacking and coughing and generally spreading the love (and this includes our general manager).

People don't really stop to think about what happens when they go to work sick... even worse, when I was in elementary school thru high school, my mother would make me go to school even if I was vomiting - she always said that "the nurse could send me home if she felt it necessary"... so of course, i'd spend from 30-45 minutes on a school bus that was packed full to the point we were sometimes sitting 3 in a bench, then go to class, wandering through the building, and then hope and pray that I'd have a fever because unless I threw up in front of a teacher or the nurse, or I had a fever over 101 degrees, they often wouldn't send you home.

It was a lovely place to be an infection disease... almost like a foreign exchange program for bacteria and viruses!
 
How many would take a sick kid out into public anyway? I wouldn't.
So if your child had a serious illness you would not take them to a doctor? And if one day they complained that they were tired you'd keep them home from school? Something tells me you've never had kids.
 
Only problem is, the "best age for vaccination" isn't a matter of opinion, but of scientific and biological fact. If the mother has immunity to a disease, she will pass that immunity to the child
Note that this is not "immunity" per se; the infant does not develop the cell memory that allows the child's cell-mediated immune system to mount a response to an infection. Instead, the antibodies produced by the mother pass into the baby's blood through the placenta, and while they survive, will perform their tasks and attack any foreign infection that they are specific for.

That's the main reason to delay vaccination. The purpose behind vaccinations is to provoke the body to mount a cell-mediated response; once it does that (even for dead or attenuated pathogens) then the response is "remembered" for the next infection. Since the mother's residual antibodies will mount the attack instead of the infant's, often this "memory" is not formed if the vaccine is given too early. The downside is that maternal antibodies fade away pretty quickly and thus provide minimal protection compared to a vaccination.

breastfeeding prolongs this acquired immunity.
Note that breastfeeding only protects against GI infections and (to a small degree) respiratory infections, since the GI tract and the pharynx are the only places where the antibodies in breast milk survive. The baby's digestive system destroys them before they can pass into the bloodstream.
 
So if your child had a serious illness you would not take them to a doctor? And if one day they complained that they were tired you'd keep them home from school? Something tells me you've never had kids.

With the kind of critical thinking skills and the deep display of research capabilities we have seen in this and other threads... let us hope that it stays that way...

Note that this is not "immunity" per se; the infant does not develop the cell memory that allows the child's cell-mediated immune system to mount a response to an infection. Instead, the antibodies produced by the mother pass into the baby's blood through the placenta, and while they survive, will perform their tasks and attack any foreign infection that they are specific for.

That's the main reason to delay vaccination. The purpose behind vaccinations is to provoke the body to mount a cell-mediated response; once it does that (even for dead or attenuated pathogens) then the response is "remembered" for the next infection. Since the mother's residual antibodies will mount the attack instead of the infant's, often this "memory" is not formed if the vaccine is given too early. The downside is that maternal antibodies fade away pretty quickly and thus provide minimal protection compared to a vaccination.


Note that breastfeeding only protects against GI infections and (to a small degree) respiratory infections, since the GI tract and the pharynx are the only places where the antibodies in breast milk survive. The baby's digestive system destroys them before they can pass into the bloodstream.

Oh? I was under the impression that the colostrum in early breast milk (first few feedings I believe) was able to pass antibodies along as well:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/939.aspx?CategoryID=62

mmunity in newborn babies is only temporary and starts to decrease after the first few weeks or months. Breast milk also contains antibodies, which means that babies who are breastfed have passive immunity for longer. The thick, yellowish milk (colostrum) produced for the first few days following birth is particularly rich in antibodies.

Or are they referring to what you said, about the GI and respiratory infections? I thought an infants digestive tract could transfer IgA into the bloodstream?
 
You feel the symptoms at the point it starts to be contagious. And most everyone I know stays home when they feel sick. So where's this big threat from antivaxxers you keep talking about?
R0 for Measles is 18 (i think it might be 18.2 or 18.4). This means that someone who contracts measles infects, on average, 18 other people.
This, in turn means that in order for herd immunity to be effective you require a 94-95% vaccine uptake rate.
Now, given that the vaccination is ineffective in 3% of cases this means that when the rate of exemptions (or refusal) exceeds 2-3% we expect to begin to see measles outbreaks.
For Mumps it's a 90% uptake rate, and for Rubella it's an 85% (IIRC) uptake rate to provide herd immunity.

This in turn tells us that if the MMR vaccine is the main source of immunity, then as uptake rates decline we expect to see increasingly frequent and large outbreaks of measles outbreaks, followed bu increasingly frequent and large mumps outbreaks, followed by increasingly large and frequent outbreaks of Rubella.

So there's your risk right there.
 
Oh? I was under the impression that the colostrum in early breast milk (first few feedings I believe) was able to pass antibodies along as well.
It does, and it plays a critical role in early formation of gut flora in infants, and also plays a role in protecting them against respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. It just doesn't make it into the bloodstream. For example, breastfeeding does not confer immunity to measles at all; breastfed babies do no better or worse than non-breastfed babies when it comes to resistance to measles.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2013/07/02/breast-milk-is-not-a-substitute-for-vaccination/
 
This sounds great in theory but not so easily practiced in reality. When / if you have kids, you'll find they often get the "sniffles". It's not feasible to yank them from school every time this occurs, nor would it be worth the risk (IMHO) of exposing other children to a potentially fatal disease based on such unsubstantiated "caution".

This is not your normal ghost story MR, this is real - with real consequences. Such irresponsible advocacy of relying on parents to detect the presence of measles early enough to prevent infecting others seems extremely dangerous. I usually like to watch you get our neighbors all worked up but this topic is nothing to play with - there are people that actually follow this "vaccine abstinence" advice - their children and others pay the price for such a cavalier attitude. I advise that you reign it in here, but advice can fall on deaf ears...
It's not just the sniffles though. The children are contagious before those symptoms can even start.

The biggest irony of anti-vaxxers like MR come to the fore with arguments like this:

Babies too young to be vaccinated are protected by their vaccinated mother's antibodies. But even that fails sometimes. So your pathetic baby-killing accusation is exposed. Besides, the unvaccinated at Disneyland are believed to have been foreigners. NOT antivaxxers. I've already stated this. You really should read the whole thread.

Here are people pushing people to not vaccinate their children, and then one of their defenses for non-vaccination for babies is because the babies will have passive immunity from their vaccinated mothers.

Then of course, he points out how the outbreak at Disneyland was caused by someone who was not vaccinated and then whines that we are coming down too hard on the anti-vaccine brigade who push for people to not vaccinate their children.

MR believes that anti-vaxxers do not exist in other countries. The reality is they do.

But here is someone pointing out how someone who was not vaccinated caused the current Measles outbreak in the US, while pushing for non-vaccination...

The hypocrisy of the movement itself, the unscientific nature of it, is obscene.

And then, as I also pointed out in my previous post, when your child gets sick, you do take them out in public by taking them to the doctors. And he completely ignores the fact that Measles, for example, is contagious before any symptoms even make themselves known. So short of taking blood tests every few days, you can't really know when a child is going to come down with it and you won't know they have come down with it until the symptoms appear. And the child is highly contagious before those symptoms even appear.

The arguments he makes is so dangerous. My family live with what no vaccine was like back 40+ years ago. So do all the families we know from there. It is so dangerous and absolutely irresponsible.

And people will die. Others will be affected for life. And it isn't just from the onset of measles. People who have suffered from measles can die several years down the track. And the only way to get it is if you have suffered from Measles, especially if you caught measles before you are 2 years of age (such as those 5 babies in the daycare center in the US). The only way to guarantee you won't get it is if you are vaccinated. SSPE was not that uncommon in SE Asia and the ME. It isn't anymore because more and more people are getting their children vaccinated. Now, imagine going backwards and having less and less children immunised.

Which is why MR's stance and what he is actively advocating is deadly ideology. Literally. The reason this outbreak occurred in the US is because so many parents are not immunising their children. Going backwards in regards to medicine is nothing to laugh at, as MR laughs at it. It is so irresponsible, selfish and downright stupid.
 
It does, and it plays a critical role in early formation of gut flora in infants, and also plays a role in protecting them against respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. It just doesn't make it into the bloodstream. For example, breastfeeding does not confer immunity to measles at all; breastfed babies do no better or worse than non-breastfed babies when it comes to resistance to measles.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2013/07/02/breast-milk-is-not-a-substitute-for-vaccination/

*nods* I knew the immunity was temporary, but I didn't realize it was so selective as well - interesting!
 
Did you know vaccinated people can spread the virus too for a period of time? Considering the vast numbers of vaccinated, who's really spreading the measles around?
Some information:
Can you get a disease from the vaccine that’s supposed to prevent it? And why do some vaccines have live pathogens but others have killed pathogens?
  • Vaccines that are made with killed versions of pathogens—or with only a part of the pathogen—are not able to cause illness. When a person receives these vaccines, it is impossible for him or her to become ill with the disease.
  • Live, attenuated (or weakened) vaccines are theoretically capable of causing illness: because they can still replicate (though not well), mutation is possible, which can result in a virulent form of the pathogen. However, they are designed with this in mind, and attenuated to minimize this possibility. Reversion to virulent form is a problem with some forms of the oral polio vaccine (OPV), which is why only the inactivated form (IPV) is now used in the United States.
  • It is important to note that attenuated vaccines can cause serious problems for individuals with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients. These individuals may receive a killed form of the vaccine if one is available. If not, their doctors may recommend against vaccination. In such cases, individuals rely on herd immunity for protection.
  • As to why some vaccines contain live pathogens and others contain killed pathogens, the reasons vary by illness. However, generally speaking, live, attenuated vaccines generate longer-lasting immunity than killed vaccines. Thus, killed vaccines are more likely to require boosters to maintain immunity. Killed vaccines, however, also tend to be more stable for storage purposes, and can’t cause illness. The medical community must weigh these trade-offs in deciding which approach to use against a particular disease.
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/top-20-questions-about-vaccination#7

What kind of vaccine is given to prevent measles?
The MMR vaccine prevents measles and 2 other viral diseases—mumps and rubella. These 3 vaccines are safe given together. MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine. This means that after injection, the viruses grows and causes a harmless infection in the vaccinated person with very few, if any, symptoms. The person's immune system fights the infection caused by these weakened viruses and immunity develops which lasts throughout that person’s life.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm


So, could a vaccinated person contract the full blown illness or spread the disease?
Unlikely, but possible.
It is a trade off.
Say you have cancer. The surgeon wants to remove it.
Could you die on the operating table?
Yes. It's a trade off.

Sites that distort the facts in order to scare people very often have their own agenda.
They often wish to sell their own overpriced products as an alternative treatment or prophylactic.
 
Last edited:
Which is why MR's stance and what he is actively advocating is deadly ideology

Like I said, nobody in the U.S. has died of measles since 2004. So no, this is not a deadly outbreak threatening civilization. In a month or so all those people who got the measles will be naturally immunized from it. They will stay at home, drink plenty of fluids, and get well again. Nobody will die and the world will move on as it always has. Like when we had our "deadly" ebola outbreak of like 3 people a few months ago. lol! People nowadays think any appearance of a disease is a deadly epidemic. It isn't.
 
Last edited:
So according to other quoted sources, measles can be contagious up to 4 days before the rash appears. Well, that four days is when you are sick with other symptoms like a fever, runny nose, and sore throat. So ofcourse you would feel sick when it is becoming contagious. And most people stay at home then. Here's my source:

"Measles symptoms generally appear in two stages. In the first stage, which last two to four days, the individual may have a runny nose, cough and a slight fever. The eyes may become reddened and sensitive to light while the fever gradually rises each day, often peaking as high as 103° to 105°F. Koplik spots (small bluish white spots surrounded by a reddish area) may also appear on the gums and inside of the cheeks. The second stage begins on the third to seventh day and consists of a red blotchy rash lasting five to six days."===https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/measles/fact_sheet.htm
 
Like I said, nobody in the U.S. has died of measles since 2004. So no, this is not a deadly outbreak threatening civilization.
That's a red herring argument, for two reasons:

First, the reason nobody dies from measles in the US is because the number of cases is so low. And the reason the number of cases is so low is vaccination. So your argument is self-contradictory.

Second, whether it kills you or not, measles is a pretty bad disease on its own and also has other permanent effects besides death. So you are downplaying the seriousness of it.
And most people stay at home then.
But clearly not everyone -- not enough to prevent outbreaks.
 
Did vaccines save us from measles? Not really. The rate of measles deaths was already dropping down long before the vaccine came around. So what DID lower the measles death rate? Better nutrition, better sanitation, and better medical care.

US-Measles.jpg
 
Like I said, nobody in the U.S. has died of measles since 2004. So no, this is not a deadly outbreak threatening civilization. In a month or so all those people who got the measles will be naturally immunized from it. They will stay at home, drink plenty of fluids, and get well again. Nobody will die and the world will move on as it always have. Like when we had our "deadly" ebola outbreak of like 3 people a few months ago. lol!
You mean the deadly ebola outbreak that is still ongoing in Africa and that has killed thousands of people?

You do realise that the world exists outside of the US, yes?

I had heard of rumours that some simply did not realise that there were other countries outside of America, I had always put it down to a myth. And yet, here you are..

Here are some facts about measles:

    • Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
    • In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
    • Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.
    • In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.
    • During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

While we can only wonder at your feelings of self entitlement, self absorption and your selfishness, we cannot ignore the facts.

The same measles outbreak that the US is currently experiencing arrived in the US by an unvaccinated person, who returned to the US with the disease. The measles outbreak in the Philippines which is currently the same strain as the US outbreak has already killed 110 people in the Philippines. Your flippant attitude that these people in the States will now have developed an immunity to it is obscene. Do you really think that the measles is such a fun disease to have? That it is harmless?

The only reason the figure is down to 145,700 in 2013 was because of the effort to vaccinate more people was underway. Prior to vaccination, measles was a leading killer of children.

So according to other quoted sources, measles can be contagious up to 4 days before the rash appears. Well, that four days is when you are sick with other symptoms like a fever, runny nose, and sore throat. So ofcourse you would feel sick when it is becoming contagious. And most people stay at home then. Here's my source:

"Measles symptoms generally appear in two stages. In the first stage, which last two to four days, the individual may have a runny nose, cough and a slight fever. The eyes may become reddened and sensitive to light while the fever gradually rises each day, often peaking as high as 103° to 105°F. Koplik spots (small bluish white spots surrounded by a reddish area) may also appear on the gums and inside of the cheeks. The second stage begins on the third to seventh day and consists of a red blotchy rash lasting five to six days."===https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/measles/fact_sheet.htm
The ignorance is strong in you.

Like most people, if their child is sick, they take their child to the doctors. Are you now advocating that people with sick children not seek medical care?

What you are preaching in this thread is reprehensible MR, because you are literally encouraging people to endanger their children's lives by 1) not vaccinating and 2) not seeking medical care now.

Here's a case of a measles outbreak in 2011 that was started by a VACCINATED person. Apparently they aren't clear on how long a vaccine keeps you immune. Am I immune? Who knows?

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2...ak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time
I take it you did not read the whole article:

If it turns out that vaccinated people lose their immunity as they get older, that could leave them vulnerable to measles outbreaks seeded by unvaccinated people—which are increasingly common in the United States and other developed countries. Even a vaccine failure rate of 3% to 5% could devastate a high school with a few thousand students, says Robert Jacobson, director of clinical studies for the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, who wasn’t involved with the study. Still, he says, “The most important ‘vaccine failure’ with measles happens when people refuse the vaccine in the first place.”

Gee, what a surprise. Unvaccinated still pose the biggest danger because they are more than likely to seed the disease in the population. In short, it is the unvaccinated who impact the most in herd immunity.
 
Did vaccines save us from measles? Not really. The rate of measles deaths was already dropping down long before the vaccine came around. So what DID lower the measles death rate? Better nutrition, better sanitation, and better medical care.

US-Measles.jpg

Where is that graph from?

Can you link it please.
 
Here's a case of a measles outbreak in 2011 that was started by a VACCINATED person. Apparently they aren't clear on how long a vaccine keeps you immune. Am I immune? Who knows?

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2...ak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time
That's a red herring too (and worse). Clearly, this tells us the vaccine isn't perfect. But it was still good enough to eliminate measles in the US until the anti-vaxers intervened and brought it back. So that is an argument against your point, not for it: It highlights the need for 100% vaccination..
 
Back
Top