Sunday, February 8, 2015

Your freedom of choice - somebody else's baby

I am having discussions with my non-vaccinating friend at the moment, who describes herself as "pro-choice" when it comes to vaccination. What seems absolutely impossible to grasp for vaccine refusers is that their choice makes other parents' children ill, and, potentially, kills them. The parents whose babies contract measles did NOT get a choice, NO say in their children's infection. That is the effect of vaccine refusal:

The below is Mobius - there are 24 hours between those pictures - the photographer, a friend of Mobius' family, Donavan Freberg, describes their feelings (shared from Refutations against Anti-Vaccine Memes page with kind permission of Mobius' mum):

This is Mobius Loop. He is the son of my dear friends Ariel Loop and Christopher Loop. He has measles. It was just confirmed. This is real, this is awful and these two photos are 24 hours apart. The good news? He's getting better. Quarantine ends tonight and the baby seems to be recovering well. The bad news? This was caused by one thing only, total and complete ignorance and selfishness of the anti-vaxxers. Because of people not vaccinating their kids (and when I say "people", I mean much of the upper crust westside of Los Angeles) this little sprout (who was too young to be protected) fell sick to a HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS epidemic that up until recently, had been a thing of the past. This is infuriating, sad and worst of all, needless. The Loops are dear friends, long time photo clients and informed, smart people. Ariel is a nurse. You don't just vaccinate your kids to protect them, you do it to protect other's who are too wee to get the shots. You are doing it as a selfless act. Please send good thoughts and prayers to this little muppet and to his parents, who are truly some of the best people I know.

Side note: I was scheduled to photograph this sweet everlasting gobstopper, but then this happened. I intend to photograph him the moment he has fully recovered and will be donating 100% of my shoot fees to charity to raise awareness of the necessity of vaccines. As a photographer, I must do everything within my power to document this and see that the awareness of this spreads faster than the disease in question. To all people reading this and for those who may be on the fence about vaccinating your kids, please, for Mobius and for all those who are affected by this terrible and PREVENTIBLE disease, DO IT. Vaccinate!!!! Don't even think twice. Just think.

ETA: Mobius' mum, Ariel, also weighs in:


I have a lot of mixed feelings right now, but ultimately I'm relieved that Mobius is doing so well. The horrific cough aside, he's doing way better than anyone expected at this point.
However, I'm furious that we're now part of the problem. While he's up to date with his vaccines, at 4 months he isn't old enough for the one that should have made this whole outbreak almost impossible. During the four days he was contagious before his rash appeared, we went out to eat twice, ran countless errands, and have potentially infected other kids who are too young to have to go through this. That kills me. And might kill one of them.
I understand that vaccines are scary. Having to hold him tight while a stranger hurts him is hard. Having three people hold him still to get the blood to test him for measles, however, was infinitely harder. Even at the time I had this passing thought of, "Am I being paranoid? Am I putting him through more trauma while he's sick for no reason?" I found myself almost hoping it was measles then so at least having to torture him would be "worth it."
It isn't, though. He shouldn't have had to go through any of it. I shouldn't have had to set alarms for myself in the middle of the night to make sure he was still breathing. It's bittersweet--I can't be as comforted by his recovery as it is clouded with guilt and fear that we might put another family through this.
Please, don't put other families through this.

65 comments:

  1. Annnnnnd all the FEAR for nothing. Child is perfect. Also has true cell mediated immunity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and SSPE and the risk of having infected someone else looming over him.

      Delete
    2. Oh really anonymous? SSPE and the baby has not recovered yet. You're probably one of the clueless gits who worship natural immunity while at the same time whining how an infant's immune system is "too immature" to handle vaccinations. How many "toxins" are being dumped into an infant's system during full blown measles infections?

      Delete
    3. You use words like "cell mediated immunity" yet you probably have zero understanding of even basic chemistry or biology. One gets cell mediated immunity from vaccine too and it's far safer to be infected with a weaker version of a virus than the actual virus.The baby can still get complications. Roald Dahl's daughter was doing better until she got encephalitis and died.

      Delete
  2. epidemic...lol. Obesity and heart disease are an EPIDEMIC, yet no one wants to outlaw pizza or cheeseburgers.

    And yes, obese people can cause health problems for others. The parent that doesn't leave the couch and forces kids to become lazy and obese. This is an epidemic.

    Less than 100 cases is a small...very small and unfortunate outbreak. Calling it an epidemic is pure unadulterated FEAR MONGERING. BTW, most adults (nearly EVERY baby boomer) are not vaccinated against measles so why is it that "This was caused by one thing only, total and complete ignorance and selfishness of the anti-vaxxers. Because of people not vaccinating their kids"?

    Sounds like an uninformed, highly educated...photographer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SSPE is still a potential concern (a rare but terminal side-effect of measles infection in babies).

      And what should have been ZERO cases is now over 100 in less than a month - with many more exposed - and considering the highly infectious nature of measles, the fact that more people haven't been infected shows that the vaccine still works in adults, decades after it was administered.

      God, anti-vax people have no common sense.

      Delete
    2. Clueless anon

      it is 121 cases now and growing
      most baby boomers will be immune through measles, measles vaccine or MMR (many having been caught through College catch up programmes), but thank you for the reminder to anyone to check that they have had 2xMCV. It is actually quite shocking that there are adults in caring functions (teachers, nurses) who are not immune. An obvious oversight of them and their employers.

      Delete
    3. do you have data to prove that the boomers are caught up?

      Delete
    4. 121 cases of measles? scary.

      we had 6 in one house in 1984 and shocking... the pediatrician was not worried even the slightest bit. Now we have more sophisticated methods of treating it yet we are more worried. Relax. Your body can protect itself. That is why we have an immune system.

      We are worrying about the wrong things. We should be worried about the nearly 100k deaths per year due to PROPERLY prescribed medications. That is a bigger concern than the "epidemic". This entire thing is fear mongering.

      Delete
    5. "Now we have more sophisticated methods of treating it yet we are more worried."

      What would those be?

      And new cases are being reported daily for a disease that should not even have one case.

      Delete
    6. Relax. Your body can protect itself. That is why we have an immune system.

      Except if it's a vaccine. Gawd I love the hypocrisy and ignorance of anti-vaxxers and Gaia-worshippers.

      Delete
    7. Why would any person who replies to a blog list himself as anonymous? Perhaps so that he can "blend in" with intelligent people, and they won't know how irresponsible he is.

      If the immune system can protect people from devastating diseases, why did so many thousands die of smallpox, diphtheria, and polio? I watched as some of those children died of polio, and I almost followed them in death. I survived, but spent six months in an "iron lung."

      Anonymous, you need to get out more often. You obviously lack understanding or compassion for your fellow human beings.

      Delete
    8. "121 cases of measles? scary."

      Which could double in a week, and then double again in another week. Measles is that infectious.

      Delete
    9. Science Mom/ brain dead: does a vaccine give immunity or is the literature WRONG? Last I checked it only provides protection from infection via antibodies and NOT immunity which required CD8+ T cells to control the viremia. Any chance a measles vaccine provides this?

      Chris:They are Vitamin A, Human Immunoglobulin, and ribavirin.

      Richard: are we talking about polio and smallpox or Measles. They are vastly different.

      Delete
    10. Go away Thingy.

      Most Americans do not have deficiencies of Vitamin A.

      By the way the MMR vaccine gives immunity to 95% of the population it is given to. It gives immunity to 97% to 99% to the population who get a second MMR vaccine.

      Unfortunately the vaccine schedule only vaccinates babies at six months at the earliest, due to confounding immunities from the mother. An immunity that is imperfect. It neither protects the baby, nor allow this particular vaccine to work.

      That is due to the complexity of biology. Deal with it.

      Dear brave Anonymous (Thingy) if you have a better way to protect babies under age six months from measles, please share it with the rest of us. Make sure you provide the PubMed indexed papers that show your method will work on suburban American babies in the 21st century.

      Delete
    11. "babies at six months at the earliest, "

      There has to be a really good reason to give it so soon, and they still have to get two more MMR vaccines. One at about fifteen months and another at age four to five years old.

      So this is immaterial to the subject of this article, a baby who only four months old and is obviously breast fed.

      Just like my youngest who got chicken pox when she was six months old... she was very reluctant to eat mushy rice cereal with breast milk, so her only nutrition was from mom. As a twenty year old college student with a nasty cold, she was quite willing to eat packaged chicken soup that I augmented with fried carrots and mesquite seasoned chicken bits.

      So, seriously, dear brave Anonymous (otherwise known as "Thingy"), tell us exactly why the MMR is more dangerous than measles with PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers.

      By the way, I got an MMR vaccine last Monday (born in 1957, going to California in a couple of months). It stung my arm for all of thirty minutes. Since I had and remembered the mumps the second time I got it... my arm hurting for less than an hour is a pittance.

      So really, why is the MMR so much more scarier than measles?

      Delete
    12. I never said it was "scarier". I said it didn't provide immunity. Which it doesn't . It provides protection from infection, but if infected you are not immune. And YES this is very different.

      Delete
    13. "Science Mom/ brain dead: does a vaccine give immunity or is the literature WRONG? Last I checked it only provides protection from infection via antibodies and NOT immunity which required CD8+ T cells to control the viremia. Any chance a measles vaccine provides this? "

      The current measles vaccine is a LAMV so it does trigger cell-mediated immunity. So STHU, you don't know what you're talking about.

      Delete
    14. Do you have a source?

      Delete
    15. http://jvi.asm.org/content/70/4/2627

      Delete
    16. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X02004073

      Delete
    17. This one is actually about how people with waning immunity to measles from the vaccine is from memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells and not memory B cellls. So, they must be created if they can wane http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/190/8/1387.full

      Delete
    18. Not to mention all sugar conjugate vaccine for bacteria create only memory killer T cells and opsonizing antibodies instead of neutralizing antibodies.

      Delete
  3. Here is some good information for you.

    http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v14/n6/full/nm.f.1774.html

    I hope they DO figure this out because it would "change the game" so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am open to learn more. If anyone can help me find the answers I would be forever grateful.

    Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

    Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

    Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

    Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do over 200 years of documented effectiveness of vaccines prove nothing to you?
      Rabies was treated thanks to vaccines. So was smallpox. So is (almost) polio.
      And the only constant in treating them has been vaccines: vaccines worked independently of the vaccinated access to current health care, sanitation or enough food. You got vaccinated, you didn't get the disease. You didn't get vaccinated and you were buying tickets for that disease. Unless, of course, you think that the correlation between vaccination campaigns in poor areas of Africa, Asia and the Americas is just coincidence.
      Vaccines do not prevent viruses (or bacteria) from mutating. Fortunately for us, most vaccinable diseases belong to germs that do not mutate easily (flu is an example to the contrary, and that is why a new vaccine is needed almost yearly).
      Anyway, you want evidence of disease reduction. Here's a bit about smallpox and measles: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11005184

      Delete
    2. "Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?"

      You tell us. The following is USA census data for the 20th century on measles incidence. You will notice that between 1960 and 1970 measles cases dropped 90%. If it was not the vaccines introduced in 1963, you explain it with some actual documentation. Just do not mention deaths (mortality), any other decade, any other disease nor any other country (England and Wales are not in the USA):

      From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
      Year.... Rate per 100000 of measles
      1912 . . . 310.0
      1920 . . . 480.5
      1925 . . . 194.3
      1930 . . . 340.8
      1935 . . . 584.6
      1940 . . . 220.7
      1945 . . . 110.2
      1950 . . . 210.1
      1955 . . . 337.9
      1960 . . . 245.4
      1965 . . . 135.1
      1970 . . . . 23.2
      1975 . . . . 11.3
      1980 . . . . . 5.9
      1985 . . . . . 1.2
      1990 . . . . .11.2
      1991 . . . . . .3.8
      1992 . . . . . .0.9
      1993 . . . . . .0.1
      1994 . . . . . .0.4
      1995 . . . . . .0.1
      1996 . . . . . .0.2
      1997 . . . . . . 0.1

      Delete
    3. I was seeking a study. Something that is more than just correlation. After all, correlation is NOT causation.

      Since you want to show numbers, I will play. These numbers DO not help your cause at all. Draw a trend line with that data and stop before the vax. Then do a trend line with the entire set and look at the difference.... it is a very small change. It doesn't take a genius to see that the trend was moving south.

      Delete
    4. What was the percentage drop from 1935 to 1945? What caused that drop? I think it was probably coca-cola.

      Delete
    5. @anon - please visit Project Tycho (https://www.tycho.pitt.edu/) - because it contains all of the information that you could possibly want.

      Delete
    6. @Anon (again) - Measles outbreaks also followed the typical cyclical pattern of outbreaks, usually predicated on the size of the previous outbreak & the number of individuals added to the population who weren't now immune (i.e. babies) - since the "Baby Boom" didn't occur until after the end of WWII & there was a dip in the overall birth rate in the US due to the Great Depression, one would expect to see (and it was borne out in the infection numbers) a decrease in the total number of infected - but then you see a bump in the rate and number of infected after WWII, with the Baby Boom.

      Again, this isn't rocket science & trying to deny that measles incidence didn't drop significantly only upon the widespread use of the vaccine, is just plain stupidity.

      Delete
    7. "What was the percentage drop from 1935 to 1945?

      You obviously skipped too many classes in high school history, along with basic reading comprehension. What part of "Just do not mention deaths (mortality), any other decade..." did you not understand?

      Delete
    8. No Lawrence, saying that correlation is CAUSATION is plain stupid and shows a disregard for basic science. Also, please explain how a RATE of infection would be changed by a dip in birth rate. Isn't this why we use rates and not just overall incidence?

      This is the same argument used to "prove" that autism is "caused" by increases in the vaccine schedule (which is also a ridiculous argument).

      I am not saying it was not a factor, but saying that any ONE thing was responsible is "plain stupidity".

      Chris: What part of humans being alive in other decades "do you not understand"? So you are telling me that I need to look at one decade to see causation? That is crazy town.

      Delete
    9. The following is just food for thought. Remember, many people can claim causation by means of correlation. In fact (and in no way am I saying any of these are causation, although they certainly helped)...


      In 1957, the AAP’s new committee on nutrition released the new guidelines that doctors would use. In 1958 and 59, when almost every single baby was drinking formula instead of breastmilk, commercial infant formulas were finally fortified with iron. In 1960, Miles Laboratory developed Chocks, the first chewable multivitamin aimed at children. Flinstones followed shortly thereafter. In January of 1961 Kennedy’s first executive order mandated that the USDA donations to the poor include a variety of fresh foods rather than whatever was at a surplus that year. Later, that same year, the USDA was required to donate foods to schools for children who could not afford food. Kennedy continued to support initiatives that helped the poor and minorities until his death in November 1963. The work he began continued after his death. In 1964, President Johnson launched the “War on Poverty.” 1964 brought on the “Food Stamp Act.” Medicare and Medicaid were offered to Americans in 1965. Additionally, by 1965 the proportion of people living in poverty decreased by about 1/3 when compared to the numbers in 1950.

      Delete
    10. "I was seeking a study"

      A census is a type of study.

      "So you are telling me that I need to look at one decade to see causation? That is crazy town."

      No, what is crazy is that you think that a 60% reduction between an economic depression and the end of a major war is significant compared to a 90% drop just twenty years later. Especially since the rates of measles increased after WWII, just five years later they were doubled.

      But there is no year since 1970 that had as high the numbers of measles cases (1970 was an epidemic year).

      By the the "war on poverty" in the early sixties was a spectacular failure. One of the reason for the 1990 epidemic was the lack of vaccination among the poor. By the way the 1990 epidemic was half as high as the 1970 epidemic.

      Just tell us why the incidence of measles dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970. Do not mention mortality, nor another decade, nor another disease, nor another country.

      By the way here are some studies:

      Public Health Rep. 1967 Aug;82(8):659-66.
      Measles epidemiology and vaccine use in Los Angeles County, 1963 and 1966.

      Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1968 Oct;58(10):1883-90.
      Mass measles immunization in Los Angeles County.

      Public Health Rep. 1975 May-Jun;90(3):205-7.
      The benefits from 10 years of measles immunization in the United States.

      JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.
      Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.

      West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.
      Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.

      Clin Microbiol Rev. 1995 Apr;8(2):260-7.
      Measles control in the United States: problems of the past and challenges for the future.

      West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
      Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.

      J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
      Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

      J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S17-22.
      Evolution of measles elimination strategies in the United States.

      Delete
    11. IWhere are the RCT's? Why is it so hard to see that the gold standard in research is being ignored. Why do you suppose that every other intervention is studied this way, yet vaccines are not (referring to the schedule)?

      Those are helpful studies (thank you), but FAR from definitive and FAR from the gold standard. Yes a census is a population study, but it is not even considered in medicine nor does it have any application to our care.

      Delete
    12. "IWhere are the RCT's?"

      Actually, they are epidemiological studies. You wanted to see if the vaccine caused a reduction of the disease, which is what these do. Now you are just moving the goal posts.

      Though here is one RCT that should do: Efficacy of measles vaccine. Look at the third column of Table 1, and explain why that would be acceptable under the rules of the Belmont Report.

      Now, where is the explanation of why measles rates in the USA dropped 90% between 1960 and 1970? Remember to not mention deaths, other decades, other diseases nor other countries.

      Delete
  5. "No, what is crazy is that you think that a 60% reduction between an economic depression and the end of a major war is significant compared to a 90% drop just twenty years later. Especially since the rates of measles increased after WWII, just five years later they were doubled."

    Are you telling me that health conditions were good during this small 60% drop? Yes I do find it significant given the state of public health and the economy.

    "Just tell us why the incidence of measles dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970. Do not mention mortality, nor another decade, nor another disease, nor another country."

    I would never make an assumption on a MULTIFACTORIAL concept. It is not only irrational, but it is reckless. Many contributors helped this and vaccines were a part of it, but there is absolutely no way to know the true impact because it was not documented and it doesn't matter. We are onto an new vaccine schedule that again has not been studied long term and in an RCT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you are refusing to answer the question because the real answer goes counter to your beliefs.

      Delete
    2. read my answer again. It has nothing to do with any "beliefs". I believe in facts and that science is correct. Correlation is NOT causation.

      Delete
    3. All of the information you asked for and required has been provided to you - it isn't our fault that you just want to go all "three monkeys" and pretend this doesn't exist....

      Delete
    4. Correlation and causation seem to be used interchangeably when it's convenient/supports the argument-by 'both sides' of this argument. Indeed, stating that the 'only' thing that caused decrease in measles is the vaccine is not that different than saying the 'only' thing that caused the increase in autism is introduction of vaccines/certain vaccines. Saying certain variable don't matter seems to be the legitimate domain of those who refute any questioning of 'Science' (the god of data)- not science the actual questioning process, a field that would welcome such debate.

      Delete
    5. Actually look at the follow-up research...that tells the tale.

      Delete
  6. Give me a long term RCT on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated and show me the health outcomes (again, LONG TERM) and I will be the first to line up and get jabbed if vaccines show better health outcomes.

    Unfortunately, this will NEVER happen because it makes ZERO financial sense given our current vaccination rates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go learn about the Belmont Report. Then you go and design a study that will make you happy, get it approved by an Independent Review Board and write a grant for funding. Submit that grant to organizations like Safe Minds, Dwoskin Family Foundation and Autism Speaks. Then get that study done.

      But since you have no clue on the science, or ethics on human studies I doubt you would get anywhere.

      Delete
    2. Tell that to the pharmaceutical companies that do these double blind RCT's EVERY SINGLE DAY.

      I realize that it would be a VERY difficult study to get past an IRB, but it is not impossible. It may have to be single blinded.

      Very broad assumption on what I do or don't know.

      Delete
    3. Conducting a search of "vaccine" in Clinical Trials. gov gives us more than 6000 results:

      https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=vaccine&Search=Search

      So, yes - these are done all the time.

      Delete
    4. Dear brave Anonymous, you have no clue. You just keep moving those goal posts without learning a thing.

      Delete
  7. Take a look at China.... they are up their shots (MMR)

    CHINA VAX RATE

    Yet they still get these pesky Measles. Looks like they are at roughly 50k cases this year.
    Measles cases

    I would think that efficacy would be a concern... in China.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. China vaccinates on a slightly different schedule than we do in the US - and more individuals receive just one dose of the MMR - in fact, the conclusions of the study that anti-vaxxers like to cite for China Measles, is that there should be a re-evaluation of the schedule and greater consistency in getting the second dose of the MMR given at the proper time.

      Delete
    2. So why did the measles rate in the USA drop 90% between 1960 and 1970? Again do not mention another decade, nor mortality, nor another country.

      And provide verifiable documentation to support your statements.

      Delete
    3. CHRIS... you do not get it do you? It is multifactorial and there is no single answer. Are you that dense?

      Delete
    4. Lawrence, They do only get one MMR, but we also have the same problem here.

      People are starting to see that you are more likely to be injured by a vaccine than you are to contract measles and the chances of it being a bad case are even slimmer in the United States.

      You are also more likely to commit suicide or die in a car crash than get measles.

      Delete
    5. You are more likely to get struck by lightning or drown in a toilet than suffer a serious reaction from a vaccine....wow, you are incredibly dense, aren't you?

      Delete
    6. "It is multifactorial and there is no single answer."

      No. Because you have not provided any real evidence.

      "Are you that dense?"

      I don't know. You have yet to provide a viable explanation other than the vaccines. Perhaps you can provide with an education if you would just produce the PubMed indexed papers explaining exactly what those factors are and why they are more compelling than the several epidemiological papers I listed.

      If you don't like the mathematics of epidemiology, then I suggest you find a way to disprove all of Sir Ronald Ross' work in showing the malaria was spread by mosquitoes. Because in your world it is all wrong because it was not an RCT.

      By the way, China as a population of 1,355,692,576 according to the CIA World Factbook. The 50k cases of measles comes to about four per hundred thousand, which is comparable to the USA 1990 rate. Still much less than the American levels in 1970.

      "You are also more likely to commit suicide or die in a car crash than get measles."

      It is because the MMR vaccine exists. If you don't believe that, then provide a better explanation with actual verifiable documentation to support you statements.

      Delete
  8. What happened in the Netherlands in 2013?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A bunch of anti-vax religious extremists were the focus of an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease?

      Delete
    2. What happened in the USA between 1960 and 1970 to have a 90% reduction in measles cases?

      Delete
  9. Chris, there is a post above that shows other factors that contributed.

    Now prove that vaccines were more of a factor.

    You need some help learning about basic science? Correlation is not causation.

    I will post this FACT AGAIN. You are more likely to commit suicide or die in a car crash than get measles.

    You say it is because a vaccine exists. I can prove mine with absolute certainty with numbers as it is NOT multi factorial. You on the other hand make a bold claim that is unsubstantiated.

    I will say it again since you cannot read. There is NO POSSIBLE way to answer why measles cases were reduced by 90% in the 60's. But a 3rd grader could look at a trend line and see" they look about the same before and after the advent of a vaccine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I can prove mine with absolute certainty with numbers as it is NOT multi factorial. You on the other hand make a bold claim that is unsubstantiated."

      Go ahead post your proof using real citations.

      "I will say it again since you cannot read."

      How can I read something you have not provided? You have made lots of unbelievable claims, but have provided one shred of evidence.

      "But a 3rd grader could look at a trend line and see" they look about the same before and after the advent of a vaccine."

      Ah, I see your problem. That was the last year of your formal education. No wonder you do not understand the census data, nor know 20th century history, nor statistics, nor comprehend that you need to past real citations instead of blatant assertions.

      Delete
    2. "but have not provided one shred of evidence"

      Delete
  10. Lawrence, proof or just hoping that the double jab didn't fail?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon - http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20580

      Notice that north of 96% of the infected were unvaccinated.

      And your point was again?

      Delete
    2. So in spite of the fact that the unvaccinated make up only 5% of the population of people, they make up 96% of the infected. That suggests the vaccination reduces the likelihood of infection by a factor of several hundred! Good news, for the vaccinated.

      Delete
  11. Hi; So, I'm not clear from reading the article, maybe I missed the info: How did the baby contract measles? Was it from a vaccinated adult or child? Or for sure from an unvaccinated person? California's MMR vaccine rate has increased in the last few years, particularly since PBE rates went DOWN after passing of AB2109 requiring a physician's signature. IIRC, the current measles vaccination rate in CA is around 97%; herd immunity is reported to be anywhere between 84% and 92% (again, IIRC). Also, I haven't been able to find clear information regarding how many Disneyland cases were residents of CA; the info I have found says that half were adults-most vaccinated-and that the children who were too young to have been vaccinated were counted among the statistics of unvaccinated transmitters. Meaning the actual number of purposefully not vaccinated yet contracted measles during the Disneyland outbreak is not as high as is being reported.
    The information is so often conflicted. Also, when you look at measles cases prior to this year, it's difficult to find long term graphs of actual cases. (meaning not just ones that start in 1950's when there was a large outbreak). Regardless, I am not clear from your article (although it's an appeal to emotion to see a sweet baby nursing with measles, remember that breast feeding has only recently received some legitimacy to be seen as 'best for baby'--or even good for baby at all, amazingly! And in some parts of the world, the formula industry is still winning out... Goes to show how perceptions and 'facts' change over time.)

    ReplyDelete