I was debating what to blog about last night, and it wasn’t easy. We’re in the midst of yet another embarrassment of riches, as far as topics relevant to this blog go. Then I noticed something that I considered to be quite appropriate, given that we are now right in the middle of the yearly autism quackfest known as Autism One in Chicago. This week, Nature published an issue with a special section devoted specifically to vaccines. The timing seemed just too deliciously appropriate to ignore. Think of it. In Chicago (well, Lombard), there is a collection of anti-vaccine cranks meeting to present fallacious “science” claiming that vaccines cause autism and all manner of chronic health problems. In contrast, one of the oldest and most distinguished scientific journals in existence publishes several articles in a single issue about vaccines.

Yep, karma, even more so, given that the CDC published a new Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) last week discussing the status of measles in the U.S.

The Nature vaccine issue has a number of articles on the topic of vaccines, ranging from an editorial, to news items, to scientific articles. For my purposes, three articles caught my attention:

The article discussing the case of measles is particularly relevant today, as we are in the middle of a resurgence of measles cases, both here in the U.S. and a much worse outbreak in Europe. In the U.S. we have had thus far this year 118 cases of confirmed measles, the most cases since 1996. Of these cases, 47 resulted in hospitalization and 9 in pneumonia. Fortunately, none had encephalitis, and none died, but that’s only because the risk of encephalitis is between 1:1,000 and 1:5,000. In an outbreak of 118, there’s only around a 10% chance (at the most) of having a case of measles encephalitis among the children. However, the more children there are who are infected, the greater the chance of complications such as encephalitis, and let’s not forget that we already have an 8% pneumonia rate.

Fortunately, MMR vaccine uptake in the U.S. remains generally high, although there are increasingly pockets of low uptake susceptible to outbreaks. Indeed, that’s what appears to be happening. As reported in Nature and the MMWR report cited above, measles was in essence eliminated from the U.S. in 2000. This was not easy to do; measles is one of the most contagious viruses that exist. Indeed, it’s the contagiousness of the measles virus that has allowed it to find its way back into the U.S. from other countries, as described in the MMWR report:

Among the 118 cases, 105 (89%) were import-associated, of which 46 (44%) were importations from at least 15 countries (Table), 49 (47%) were import-linked, and 10 (10%) were imported virus cases. The source of 13 cases not import-associated could not be determined. Among the 46 imported cases, most were among persons who acquired the disease in the WHO European Region (20) or South-East Asia Region (20), and 34 (74%) occurred in U.S. residents traveling abroad.

More worrisome, of the 47 hospitalized patients, all but one were unvaccinated, and the statistics were:

Unvaccinated persons accounted for 105 (89%) of the 118 cases. Among the 45 U.S. residents aged 12 months−19 years who acquired measles, 39 (87%) were unvaccinated, including 24 whose parents claimed a religious or personal exemption and eight who missed opportunities for vaccination. Among the 42 U.S. residents aged ≥20 years who acquired measles, 35 (83%) were unvaccinated, including six who declined vaccination because of philosophical objections to vaccination. Of the 33 U.S. residents who were vaccine-eligible and had traveled abroad, 30 were unvaccinated and one had received only 1 of the 2 recommended doses.

Do you see the pattern here?

Leaving a child unvaccinated leaves that child at a greatly increased susceptibility to measles and therefore a highly elevated risk of catching the virus when exposed. This is particularly true when enough people refuse vaccines to compromise herd immunity, so that the unvaccinated can no longer rely on the herd, which they’ve gotten away with doing in the past. Nowhere is this more evident than in Europe, where more than 6,500 cases were reported in 2010, and we have Andrew Wakefield to thank for decreased vaccination rates that are only now starting to recover, as this story in–of all places–The Huffington Post describes:

To prevent measles outbreaks, officials need to vaccinate about 90 percent of the population. But vaccination rates across Europe have been patchy in recent years and have never fully recovered from a discredited 1998 British study linking the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella to autism. Parents abandoned the vaccine in droves and vaccination rates for parts of the U.K. dropped to about 50 percent.

The disease has become so widespread in Europe in recent years that travelers have occasionally exported the disease to the U.S. and Africa.

Although overall vaccine uptake rates are high, thanks to Andrew Wakefield, there are pockets of children whose parents fear the vaccine more than measles and have therefore not vaccinated. These pockets have been enough to allow measles not just to come roaring back in Europe, but to allow Europe to export its measles to the U.S.

Perhaps the most interesting perspective this week on the issue of vaccine rejectionism is the second article I cited above, Vaccines: The real issues in vaccine safety by Roberta Kwok, who notes in the beginning of her article that “hysteria about false vaccine risks often overshadows the challenges of detecting the real ones.” She begins by citing the case of John Salamone. We’ve met him before in the context of my review of Paul Offit’s most recent book, Deadly Choices: How the Anti-vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. Salamone’s son is an example of a real adverse reaction to a vaccine. Basically, his son got polio from the live oral polio vaccine, a known complication. His son got that vaccine, even though an inactivated polio virus vaccine known to be safer was available at the time, because the oral polio vaccine was cheaper and more easily administered. As a result, Salamone became a real vaccine safety activist, in contrast to the anti-vaccine activists at Generation Rescue masquerading as “vaccine safety” activists. He and other parents worked together to effect change, and the U.S. shifted to the safer vaccine in the late 1990s.

Kwok’s overall point is that these fake vaccine safety scares, such as the widespread belief that vaccines cause autism, have made it more difficult to identify real vaccine safety issues:

Vaccines face a tougher safety standard than most pharmaceutical products because they are given to healthy people, often children. What they stave off is unseen, and many of the diseases are now rare, with their effects forgotten. So only the risks of vaccines, low as they may be, loom in the public imagination. A backlash against vaccination, spurred by the likes of Andrew Wakefield — a UK surgeon who was struck off the medical register after making unfounded claims about the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine — and a litany of celebrities and activists, has sometimes overshadowed scientific work to uncover real vaccine side effects. Many false links have been dispelled, including theories that the MMR vaccine and the vaccine preservative thimerosal cause autism. But vaccines do carry risks, ranging from rashes or tenderness at the site of injection to fever-associated seizures called febrile convulsions and dangerous infections in those with compromised immune systems.

Serious problems are rare, so it is hard to prove that a vaccine causes them. Studies to confirm or debunk vaccine-associated risks can take a long time and, in the meantime, public-health officials must make difficult decisions on what to do and how to communicate with the public.

The article then goes on to describe how public health officials have become increasingly vigilant about vaccine side effects, setting up intensive surveillance systems, most recently and famously for the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Specifically, scientists were looking above all for evidence of a link between the H1N1 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome, based on studies that suggested a link between the 1976 swine flu vaccine and this debilitating neurological syndrome. Studies thus far have not shown a link between the latest H1N1 vaccine and Guillain-Barré, which is good, but vigilance continues, not just for H1N1 vaccines but for every vaccine. The result of this surveillance has been to find a link between a rotavirus vaccine and intestinal intussusception, as well as a link between the measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (MMRV) vaccine and febrile convulsions. As a result, use of these vaccines was halted.

Unfortunately, links are often not clear, and during the period of uncertainty between the first report of a possible vaccine complication and studies that either confirm or refute the link, public health officials are forced to make decisions on incomplete evidence. One current example is the possible link between the H1N1 vaccine Pandemrix and narcolepsy in young people. It is not yet clear whether this association is spurious or likely to indicate causation. Another aspect of this issue is whether there are genetic susceptibilities to adverse reactions due to vaccines. Contrary to what the anti-vaccine movement claims, scientists have never denied that there might be genetic factors resulting in increased susceptibility to vaccine injury. However, in science actual evidence is required, rather than speculation, and what we have now on this issue is, for the most part, speculation. It’s also not at all a straightforward issue to determine genetic determinants of increased risk for adverse reactions. Just as finding a genetic cause of autism has been difficult and full of dead ends, despite clear evidence of a strong heritable component, finding evidence of a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury is anything but a trivial task. Moreover, even in children who might have such a hypothetical predisoposition to vaccine injury, when the risk-benefit calculation is done it may well end up that the benefits of vaccines still outweigh the risks. Such would seem to be the case for children with mitochondrial disorders.

So how do we convince parents that the fear mongering by the anti-vaccine movement about vaccines and autism (or vaccines and all the other the movement tries to link with them, for that matter) is without basis in evidence and science and that it is safe to vaccinate? I agree with Julie Leask is at the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia, who wrote the last article that caught my interest, Target the fence-sitters. This is the way to go; the hard core anti-vaccine believers are not going to change their minds, no matter how much evidence you throw at them. We’ve seen this time and time again right here on this very blog, right here in the comments, stretching back over six years.

That’s why it’s a waste of time and effort to try to change the mind of the likes of J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Barbara Loe Fisher, Ginger Taylor, and others. There was a time when I thought that I could, but six and a half years of beating my head against the wall has taught me that I’m about as likely to succeed in changing their minds as I am to convince the Pope to become an atheist. It’s just not going to happen; these people are true believers in what, for all intents and purposes, can be considered a religion. The bottom line is that I don’t really care about changing, for example, J.B. Handley’s mind; I only care about countering his influence whenever possible. The fence-sitters can still be reached. They haven’t (yet) fallen down the rabbit hole of pseudoscience, autism “biomed,” and conspiracy mongering. There’s still hope to reach them, and reach them I try to do, using a variety of techniques ranging from pure sarcasm and full frontal assault to humor to dispassionate discussions of scientific papers. What works the best? I really don’t know, because I have no way of measuring. I do, however, keep trying.

In the meantime, as the MMWR report on the 2011 measles outbreak in the U.S. and the articles in Nature demonstrate, the anti-vaccine movement is doing real damage as it reverses hard-won gains made against measles over the last four decades.

Comments

  1. #1 AnthonyK
    June 6, 2011

    Yeah, easy enough. Sigh. OK, well, I still hold to my previous point that augie and id1id2 are usually two distinct idiots.

  2. #2 Krebiozen
    June 6, 2011

    @Th1Th2

    How many people here have I embarrassed? You don’t know since you’re new here. Ask lilady, Chris, Gray, CG, Krebiozen et al. You will have your turn soon too.

    I suppose it is a bit embarrassing to see someone make such an idiot of themselves and apparently not even realize it. You come out with the most moronic and ignorant nonsense about immunology I have ever seen.

    I’m guessing you are referring to the Urabe mumps strain used in vaccines that sometimes (1 in 143,000 cases) caused aseptic meningitis, and was blamed by some for deaths but that was never proven. It is no longer used in most countries. Post marketing surveillance of vaccines works. Your point?

  3. #3 Th1Th2
    June 6, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    That’s not it. Try again. WHO-recommended and was pulled out in 1992. What is….

  4. #4 herr doktor bimler
    June 6, 2011

    Th1Th2 seems to regard himself or herself as the argumentative equivalent of a chess grandmaster, playing multiple games simultaneously and winning them all… thanks to the combined powers of arbitrary word re-definitions, dishonesty, and simply boring people until they give up and do something else.

  5. #5 Venna
    June 6, 2011

    @thingy

    Do you only read and pick up the parts you want to see and understand? Maternal antibodies through breast milk no longer protect a child after 3 months postpartum in most cases.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17473095

    Essentially, they are no longer present in breast milk after that point.

    This actually doesn’t say anything about measles though, only specifically enterovirus infections. So here’s a measles specific link: http://popular-science.net/to-vaccine-capable-of-circumventing-the-maternal-antibodies-in-the-baby.html

    *Maternal antibodies passed to the fetus during pregnancy and the newborn in breast milk.

    The antibodies protect infants against the disease in the FIRST MONTHS OF LIFE, but the protection has a cost: its presence also interferes with the generation of a natural immune response to vaccination. As a result, the majority of infants receive measles vaccine at age 12 to 15 months, when maternal antibodies disappear.*

    If a child is breast fed, and let’s face it not all of them are, then the mother’s antibodies will protect a child through the first months of life, infancy, but not into toddler-hood. But the child is not able to respond to a vaccine that would be administered for measles virus because of the mother’s antibodies being present. So they wait until the mother’s antibodies are free of the child’s system before administering the MMR to allow the child it’s own immunity. How much deeper do you need me to dig? All this is easily found by just typing a question or relevant phrase into Google. Are you looking for people to do the research for you? Are you that lazy?

    I must ask, how many children do you have? What are their ages? And is their father more intelligent then you because I fear for their futures if they inherited your dizzying intellect.

  6. #6 augustine
    June 6, 2011

    Once more, allow me to apologise to all here. I am still having an unsuccessful and extremely unhappy childhood. I regard myself as uneducated and unloved and I have many deep dark issues that have consistently poisoned my relationships with everyone.
    I have no knowledge whatsoever of science and medicine, and have unfortunately chosen this blog to demonstrate my inadequacy. I know that I need to seek help.
    I do not have any children.
    That, at least, is true.
    x augie

  7. #7 AnthonyK
    June 6, 2011

    Heh. Welcom to RI, Venna. Methinks you’ll become a regular….

  8. #8 Venna
    June 6, 2011

    Thanks Anthony! I have read a few of RI’s blogs before now but I’ve not commented on them. I guess when you’ve been shouted down in the anti-vax forums you get slightly gun shy, ya know? Sometimes I might even be just looking for information. I certainly don’t know everything there is to know about autism, immunology and vaccines, but I’m at least willing to learn. There’s a lot of information out there and it’s difficult to sift through the chaff and get the kernels of truth and wisdom.

  9. #9 Th1Th2
    June 6, 2011

    Venna,

    Maternal antibody protection (I’m assuming you mean through breast milk) will only protect a child completely until the age of 4 – 5 months at which time they begin to produce their own antibodies and what they might get from the mother is useless to them.

    You fool. Do you even realize that you’re talking nonsense? Take note of the bolded part.

    But the child is not able to respond to a vaccine that would be administered for measles virus because of the mother’s antibodies being present. So they wait until the mother’s antibodies are free of the child’s system before administering the MMR to allow the child it’s own immunity.

    So bozzo, why are you contradicting yourself? Why is that MMR not given immediately after the age of 5 months? Dig deeper, fool.

  10. #10 Venna
    June 6, 2011

    Hmm, this is just too pathetic to continue. Thingy just won’t ever get… anything.

    It isn’t contradictory, if we are speaking of maternal antibodies in general. After a period of time they are no longer present in breast milk, thus the child is no longer receiving them from the mother and begins to build their own immunity as they are exposed to things in their environment. The mother’s antibodies diminish while the child’s own immune system takes over.

    For measles specifically, it appears data show maternal measles antibodies linger longer then other antibodies in the child, particularly if the mother’s immunity is from the actual disease rather then a vaccination. Therefore, the administration of the vaccine to the child is held off until 15 – 18 months to make sure no maternal antibodies are still present so the child’s own immune system can fight it off and he/she can develop it’s own immunity. It really isn’t that difficult a concept to grasp, why are you having such a hard time with it? And I’d appreciate if you didn’t insult me anymore. While put downs such as ‘bozzo’ and ‘fool’ really don’t mean a lot coming from you, it’s still annoying. Kind of like that fly that keeps buzzing around your head no matter how many times you swat it away.

  11. #11 Th1Th2
    June 6, 2011

    Venna,

    The antibodies protect infants against the disease in the FIRST MONTHS OF LIFE, but the protection has a cost: its presence also interferes with the generation of a natural immune response to vaccination. As a result, the majority of infants receive measles vaccine at age 12 to 15 months, when maternal antibodies disappear.*

    That is the expected protective function of maternal antibodies naturally acquired by newborns against infections, that is, against natural infection and vaccine-induced infections. Hence, measles vaccines are NOT recommended in the first months of life when maternal antibodies are dominant. The measles vaccine virus will be neutralized by maternal antibodies (passive immunity). Therefore, infection-promoters like you will have to wait for the opportunity wherein induced-infection will be likely when maternal antibodies are no longer present—that’s why bozzo, children of age 12 months are intentionally infected with the live measles virus.

    Learn from your mistakes, fool.

  12. #12 Venna
    June 6, 2011

    WOW, did that really just happen? What mistake? Your argument just proved my point! Maybe back in the 1930s parents would purposefully infect their children with disease when someone else near by contracted it, but that was back before vaccines did the job of creating the immunity these parents seek without the child having to live through the disease and the potential risks involved.

    Weren’t you just last week screaming about how people don’t get sick because they avoid infection? Now who’s contradicting themselves?

  13. #13 Todd W.
    June 6, 2011

    @Venna

    Don’t bother arguing with Thingy. She has her own bizarro definition of “infection.” Her error has been explained to her over and over, both here and at Science-Based Medicine, yet she persists in using the same, misguided and erroneous definition.

    To paraphrase Rep. Barney Frank, talking to Thingy is like talking to a dining room table.

  14. #14 Venna
    June 6, 2011

    @ Todd

    Yeah, I have realized that but for some reason it causes me physical pain to see someone go through life completely ignorant yet thinking they know what they are talking about. I try to offer assistance to learn. Often times it’s appreciated, sometimes it’s an exercise in futility, like now. My bad, thingy will just be ignored from now on because to continue in this vein will only inflate it’s already over-inflated ego.

  15. #15 Jud
    June 6, 2011

    I’ve held my tongue through all the ridiculousness, but this latest travesty cannot stand. Someone can’t manage to spell ‘bozo’ correctly?

  16. #16 Narad
    June 6, 2011

    I have realized that but for some reason it causes me physical pain to see someone go through life completely ignorant yet thinking they know what they are talking about.

    It knows exactly what it’s doing. Ignore it. It will squirm and start shooting blanks.

  17. #17 Giliell
    June 7, 2011

    I admit this thread has gained some enterteinment value

    First of all: welcome, Venna

    So you think the measles virus had a clean record since it was licensed back in the 1960’s?

    Wow, they actually licensed the virus? Can we just revoke the licenses for all kinds of viruses and then sue them?
    Thingy is becoming curiouser and curiouser.

    @MMR(V) vaccine
    To my knowledge it isn’t administered before the age of 11 months because it carries an additional risk before that.
    And since measles are a much greater problem in Europe than the US, this is also the usual age when it’s given. So that age is unrelated to any maternal protection that may come with brestfeeding.

    Oh, btw, how should mothers get the antibodies to transmit to their children? Risk the serious complications of a wild-type infection or just getting vaccinated themselves? Sorry, you can’t have your cake and eat it.
    Unless, of course, you suggest that we should all get all those nasty diseases at some point in our lives because that’s a good thing.

  18. #18 Antaeus Feldspar
    June 7, 2011

    Don’t bother arguing with Thingy. She has her own bizarro definition of “infection.”

    I’ve suggested that for the sake of clarity, we use “Thinfection” to designate Thingy’s weird redefinition of “infection.”

  19. #19 Th1Th2
    June 7, 2011

    Venna,

    Maternal antibodies through breast milk no longer protect a child after 3 months postpartum in most cases.

    My..my..my.. Wherever did you hear breast milk “no longer protect a child after 3 months postpartum”? Do you know that breastfeeding will continue to provide newborns with maternal antibodies for as long as breast milk is produced? Do you know that WHO emphasizes continued breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond? That was a very irresponsible statement of yours let alone dangerous.

    Essentially, they are no longer present in breast milk after that point.

    Geez. Did you ever read the abstract? I see where you got confused. You’ve misconstrued serum maternal antibodies as the same as secretory antibodies found in breast milk. Read.

    Maternal serum was available from early pregnancy, delivery, and 3 months postpartum.

    That does not in any way pertain to breast milk (just imagine colostrum in early pregnancy?? And where’s the hungry bambino??)

    This actually doesn’t say anything about measles though, only specifically enterovirus infections.

    Well, it does not because measles virus is NOT an enterovirus. But that is not the point. Breast milk, not only protects the gut (from enterovirus) but also coats the upper respiratory tract and oral mucosa from other mucosal pathogen such as the measles virus.

    The antibodies protect infants against the disease in the FIRST MONTHS OF LIFE, but the protection has a cost: its presence also interferes with the generation of a natural immune response to vaccination. As a result, the majority of infants receive measles vaccine at age 12 to 15 months, when maternal antibodies disappear.*

    Do you see the contradiction here? What do you mean by FIRST MONTHS OF LIFE? Is it 3 months, 4-5 months or 12-15 months? Whatever that is, is it also the time when maternal antibodies disappear? You’ve got a lot of numbers in your head you don’t even know where to start.

    So they wait until the mother’s antibodies are free of the child’s system before administering the MMR to allow the child it’s own immunity.

    But you said ….

    Maternal antibody protection (I’m assuming you mean through breast milk) will only protect a child completely until the age of 4 – 5 months at which time they begin to produce their own antibodies

    So why do you have to wait until the age of 12-15 months for measles vaccination when maternal antibodies no longer “interfere” at the age 4-5 months or as early as 3 months like you claimed it to be?

    How much deeper do you need me to dig?

    You didn’t even try. It’s just mere posturing.

  20. #20 lilady
    June 7, 2011

    @ Venna: See Narad’s posting at # 416 above. Thingy will just go on and on and starting shooting blanks…truly not worth your energy or intellect on the Thing.

    In the future, we should all ignore the Thingy by invoking Rule #14 and not feed the troll.

  21. #21 Th1Th2
    June 7, 2011

    Giliell,

    Wow, they actually licensed the virus?

    It’s called measles virus vaccine. If it is poliovirus, then they will issue a license for polio vaccine and so on and so forth. Even dead pathogens get licensed (killed vaccines).

    Can we just revoke the licenses for all kinds of viruses and then sue them?

    Were you born yesterday? Rotashield, the Cutter incident, Lymerix, Immravax/ Pluserix(MMR), HD E-Z measles vaccine?

    Oh, btw, how should mothers get the antibodies to transmit to their children?

    1. In utero. 2. Breast milk. They are free and natural.

    Risk the serious complications of a wild-type infection or just getting vaccinated themselves?

    You’ll get infected either way which means you will carry all the risks, complications and even death. So why take the risk?

    Unless, of course, you suggest that we should all get all those nasty diseases at some point in our lives because that’s a good thing.

    Who said mothers need to get infected or have to have a history of all infectious diseases to provide her newborn with antibodies? Who told you it’s a requirement?

  22. #22 Johnny
    June 7, 2011

    Who said mothers need to get infected or have to have a history of all infectious diseases to provide her newborn with antibodies? Who told you it’s a requirement?

    Wait…. what?

    Are you saying that mothers will provide antibodies to their children if the mothers have *never* been exposed to the disease? Or are you misreading Giliell’s statement that you seem to think we should be exposed to all diseases?

    Because one of those is just stupid, and the other is dishonest, and either could be true of you. I’d just like to know which it is.

  23. #23 Jacob
    June 7, 2011

    Trolls are easily enchanted. Just eat their language.

  24. #24 Jacob
    June 7, 2011

    oh please to thingy!

    infected infacted
    infocted infucted
    inflicted it’s sickness
    on everything cute did.

    Fuck off, and stop trying to kill babies with stories about germs.

  25. #25 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    *sticks fingers in ears and says* “LaLaLaLaLaLa” I’m done! It is pointless. I’ve never seen anyone talk in circles so much or take things QUITE so out of context before…

    So … How ’bout them Yankees? (not really a Yankee’s fan, just trying to get off this subject because it’s painful to see such ignorance)

    I was researching last night to see if thee measles outbreak has touched Oregon, where I live, and it’s really difficult to find accurate information. Does anyone have a good reliable link to the complete and updated story?

  26. #26 augustine
    June 7, 2011

    The antibodies protect infants against the disease in the FIRST MONTHS OF LIFE, but the protection has a cost: its presence also interferes with the generation of a natural immune response to vaccination.

    Venna, you and Lilady have confused yourselves.
    If an infant has maternal fetal antibodies then it would not NEED a vaccine. And could you give sound reasoning as to why the date of the article 1977 no longer applies? Is it just your new is in and old is out mantra or do you have anything substantial to negate this article and it’s implications for protection and vaccine compliance.

    When you try to fit every child into a box and treat them all the same by giving them the same shots in the same time frame this is the type of problems you run into.

    You have fallen victim to propaganda thinking. You believe that vaccination is the only protection from measles virus and if less than 1 year old hasn’t had the vaccine then they will get sick and possibly die. Your continual statements that less than 1 year olds are to young to vaccinate and therefore at risk is factually wrong. All less than1 yo are not at great risk.

    The 12 month Measles vaccine recomendation is a broad policy. Obviously it doesn’t fit everyone. If the recommendation was to vaccinate at 6 mos then there would be many more vaccine failures than later mos. The CDC believes that if vaccinees wait until 15 mos. that the majority(population) of maternal fetal protection will be gone. So guess what they do? They arbitrarily establish 1 year as the age. Is it science? No it’s a guess based on policy. They need conformity so this mass rounding up can be easier on them.

    And the pink book quote that lilady cites demonstrates that wild measles infection confers GREATER protection to the infant than the vaccine conferred protection. It shows a new vaccine phenomen. “The lower quantity of antibody resulted in immunity that waned more rapidly, making infants susceptible at a younger age than in the past.” This is BECAUSE of the vaccine.

    Per CDC Pink Book in 1963, the highest incidence was among 5-9 year olds.

    Mass vaccine lovers don’t like maternal fetal antibody protection because they hinder vaccine efficacy and they pose a small problem for compliance.

  27. #27 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    augie,

    Didn’t you apologize to everyone yesterday and say you weren’t going to post again? Or did you mean something else when you said,

    “I do apologise for all my hate-filled, stupid posts. I will cease henceforth. Love and peace to all”

  28. #28 lilady
    June 7, 2011

    Ugh troll, did you read the 2011 Pink Book statement I provided that clearly states that children whose maternal passed immunity against measles was somewhat stronger and lasts longer if that immunity was a result of actual infection in the mother…as opposed to more recent scientific findings of maternal immunity that is present in the immunized young mother.

    After I thoroughly debunked your cherry picked 34 year old citation with newer scientific epidemiology of measles immunity and transmission, you now quote something that you state you located in the 1963 CDC Pink Book. Are you for real?

    Why don’t you get some education? I told you that McDonalds was hiring 50,000 entry workers and perhaps you could matriculate into Hamburger U. Sorry, but I don’t think Flipping Burgers 101 or Proficiency in McDonalds Cash Register 101 are “tranferable credits” into a real college. Go back to your cave now, you bore me.

  29. #29 augustine
    June 7, 2011

    “Didn’t you apologize to everyone yesterday and say you weren’t going to post again?”

    NO.

    I know it’s confusing when somebody does a sockpuppet. It’s like when somebody uses the name “Science Based Medicine”. People think it’s really science when it’s not.

  30. #30 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    Well, I’ve officially decided augie is going to get as much of my attention as thingy will. That being none. Have a nice day!

  31. #31 triskelethecat
    June 7, 2011

    @Venna: wise choice. I rarely respond to either because thingy will either twist your words or create new definitions. Augie is just obnoxious. Sometimes (like augie’s maternal immunity post above) my brains just cry out to correct him, but since he never learns anyway, I won’t always bother. If there is someone new reading, who might be misled, I would answer because I don’t want people who want to learn the truth to learn augie’s lies instead.

    @Lilady: well, we all know that 1963 MUST have been a better year than 2011. No MMR vaccine! So the data in the 1963 Pink book MUST be much better than the 2001 Pink book, right? (/sarcasm) Somehow, I doubt augie remembers 1963 from his own personal perspective.

    Measles has hit Virginia and New Jersey/New York, much to my dismay. Keeping my fingers crossed because I am a non-converter so at risk (kids fortunately developed immunity from vaccine).

  32. #32 augustine
    June 7, 2011

    After I thoroughly debunked….

    You haven’t “debunked” anything. For the second posting in a row you have talked around your arse and said absolutely NOTHING.

    BTW isn’t your highest level of education from the 1960’s. I guess it doesn’t count anymore. You’ve been debunked. Should’ve gone for the doctorate.

    Are you arguing that the pink book is wrong? It clearly conveys that infant protection wanes earlier now because the mothers have been vaccinated against measles as opposed to getting wild infection. Mother nature knows more about immunity than a nurse with a needle from 50 years ago.

    If you want to read it again for yourself, here’s the link:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

    During the 1989–1991
    measles resurgence,… The
    mothers of many infants who developed measles were
    young, and their measles immunity was most often due
    to vaccination rather than infection with wild virus. As a
    result, a smaller amount of antibody was transferred across
    the placenta to the fetus, compared with antibody transfer
    from mothers who had higher antibody titers resulting
    from wild-virus infection.
    The lower quantity of antibody [from the vaccinated mothers]
    resulted in immunity that waned more rapidly, making
    infants susceptible at a younger age than in the past.[This was in lieu of the epidemiological finding that incidence was 2x as high in infants than any other age group. Previously, before vaccination, the 5-9 yo age group was the largest. This weakening of baby resistance is a direct result of mass vaccinations of the mothers when they were children. ]

  33. #33 lilady
    June 7, 2011

    @ Venna: I don’t actually follow the Yankees, preferring to watch political commentary and the fools who posture themselves on TV….much more entertaining.

    I also enjoy following the posts here (trolls excepted) for the great information. At times Orac’s blogs go a bit over my head…but then some great posters break down the science into simpler terms…truly informative.

    I love your recent entry into our group and am in awe of your mental prowess. Six children in Oregon are very fortunate to have you as their mommy.

  34. #34 augustine
    June 7, 2011

    Well, I’ve officially decided augie is going to get as much of my attention as thingy will. That being none. Have a nice day!

    You are going to cause a train wreck on here. These other posters are going to have to dig you out of a lot of holes. You have several factual errors and logical errors in your posts. You’ll make more. I’m certain of it.

  35. #35 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    Thanks lilady, that’s very sweet of you to say. I don’t watch much TV, well, any TV. We have a TV hooked to a DVD players and it’s pretty much playing various Disney or Pixar movies all day. We don’t have cable so it doesn’t pick up a TV signal anyway. So I guess that’s why I’m so reliant on the Internet for proper news. Sometimes our news station and newspaper is uhh, unreliable. Living in a very liberal community has benefits, especially if you have a child with autism because people are here are generally much more accepting and understanding, but the media will put anything out and label it news even if it’s just well, not. It can sometimes be difficult knowing what is truth and what is smokescreen, although with people like the trolls (love that term by the way) the attitude that glimmers behind the statements are always a dead give away they are not providing news.

  36. #36 augustine
    June 7, 2011

    Lilady Revere

    now quote something that you state you located in the 1963 CDC Pink Book. Are you for real?

    From 1989 through 1991, a dramatic increase in cases occurred. During these 3 years a total of 55,622 cases were
    reported

    OOOOH, must have been Dr. Andrew Wakefield who caused this. He started the anti vaccine movement you know. There was no problem with sheep herding mentality until he came along.

    From 1985 through 1988, 42% of cases occurred in persons
    who were vaccinated on or after their first birthday. During
    these years, 68% of cases in school-aged children (5–19
    years) occurred among those who had been appropriately
    vaccinated. The occurrence of measles among previously
    vaccinated children (i.e., vaccine failure) led to the recommendationfor a second dose in this age group.

    Vaccine FAILURE! Oops!

    You do know the Pink Book is not a scientific 1st source, right?

  37. #37 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    I was having a conversation with my partner the other day and I found he and I have slightly different views on the current vaccine situation, particularly as it relates to the measles outbreaks. He doesn’t follow the anti-vaccine movement and his feelings on it are basically: if people are stupid enough to follow something that isn’t based in actual fact and science then Darwinism takes over and it becomes a natural selection type of situation. In this sense though it’s those who are intellectually superior that will remain while those that fall into the trap of the anti-vaccine faith will be eliminated by the diseases they are so afraid to get the vaccines for. While it’s a harsh point of view (I believe that education should be made available to give everyone every chance to accept logic and reason to avoid the death or maiming because of ignorance) I can kind of see his point.

    Is this in the lines of natural selection if people who fall victim to the anti-vaccine movement’s propaganda and die when they get something there is a vaccine for? I know there haven’t been any deaths yet, but if the cases continue to rise, it’s only a matter of time before statistics catch up.

  38. #38 triskelethecat
    June 7, 2011

    Well, there haven’t been any deaths in the US yet, but, like you, I am sure that eventually we’ll catch up to Europe on cases and deaths. But don’t worry. Unless you are one of little Augie’s imaginary children, you aren’t important anyway.

  39. #39 augustine
    June 7, 2011

    You’re partner?
    Is that like a boyfriend…or a co-worker?

    Natural selection? That’s too much freedom for this group to stomach. It’s all about fear, security, and control. You know. All the “science” based stuff.

  40. #40 augustine
    June 7, 2011

    ..or is partner like a baby-daddy.

  41. #41 Calli Arcale
    June 7, 2011

    Venna — the Darwinistic argument makes a sort of surface sense, but given that vaccination opinions are poor predictors of intelligence and other measures of fitness, it’s not likely to make much of a difference. This was also one of the major problems (besides the gigantic moral problem) behind the eugenics movements of the early 20th century — in the end, they weren’t achieving a damn thing, while doing tremendous evil in the process.

  42. #42 augustine
    June 7, 2011

    This was also one of the major problems (besides the gigantic moral problem) behind the eugenics movements of the early 20th century — in the end, they weren’t achieving a damn thing, while doing tremendous evil in the process.

    Eugenics. Wasn’t it originally calling itself Science Based Medicine also?

  43. #43 JohnV
    June 7, 2011

    “Natural selection? That’s too much freedom for this group to stomach.”

    Ahh yeah the compassionate side of our trolls rears its ugly head again. If you’re not one of the master race, better to let you wither and die, right Herr Augustine?

  44. #44 Th1Th2
    June 7, 2011

    Johnny,

    Are you saying that mothers will provide antibodies to their children if the mothers have *never* been exposed to the disease?

    Absolutely. Hence, the term naturally acquired passive immunity.

    Or are you misreading Giliell’s statement that you seem to think we should be exposed to all diseases?

    Giliell is implying that maternal-derived antibodies only exist if mothers get infected or have had history of the disease otherwise the fetus or newborn will not have immunity against that specific disease. Therefore, Giliell has concluded that mothers MUST be exposed to ALL known infectious diseases particularly those diseases covered by vaccines. Now what kind of 21st century barbarism was that?

  45. #45 triskelethecat
    June 7, 2011

    Well, Thingy manages to quote Giliell correctly. Thingy’s conclusion is incorrect, but at least he/she/it apparently read what Giliell said (how she interpreted it, on the other hand…)

    Thingy: a mother cannot pass on immunity to a fetus/infant if she does not have antibodies to an illness, and a mother does not have antibodies to an illness unless she has been exposed to the illness or had a vaccine to stimulate antibody formation in the first place. A fetus/newborn cannot attain “naturally acquired passive immunity” without maternal exposure which leads to antibody formation. Humans do not create antibodes without a stimulus, either the illness or a vaccine.

    Now, tell us all about the naive children.

  46. #46 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    June 7, 2011

    It’s the ability to see asymptomatically infected people and avoid them by staying on the sidewalk that’s passed along in the mother’s milk, DUH!

  47. #47 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    @Calli

    There is a bit of a difference between eugenics and the anti-vaccine people and natural selection, to a degree. Trying to limit the people who should reproduce is nearly impossible without sterilization and that is taking away basic human rights. Eugenics is dangerous because without the widely accessible diversity in the gene pool, the second or third generation of people born will be no better off then before the practice would have been started simply because too much inbreeding causes all kinds of problems, not always external or physical in nature. We’d be right back where we started but worse because there would be no genetic diversity available to counter act it.

    The anti-vax movement is willful manipulation with misinformation passed off as reputable science. But it is a choice and nobody ever gets ‘forced’ to vaccinate. For those that take the word of those preaching the anti-vax litany without doing the research to find out the truth (nobody can know the truth without looking at both sides of the picture/topic objectively) they *almost* deserve to be naturally selected out of the gene pool by the diseases they could be protected from had they don’t the research properly. Therefore, their example would be a learning tool to those who survive and the next generation will be much wiser because of the previous generations lack of knowledge.

  48. #48 JohnV
    June 7, 2011

    Th1Th2 if the mother hasn’t been exposed to the disease (via natural exposure or vaccine or whatever), where exactly do the antibodies come from?

    “Naturally acquired immunity occurs through contact with a disease causing agent, when the contact was not deliberate,”

    “Passive immunity is acquired through transfer of antibodies or activated T-cells from an immune host, and is short lived”

    So unless you’re proposing that the antibodies are passed down along the maternal line and that they are not short lived but infact last a lifetime, you haven’t explained where they come from if the mother hasn’t been exposed to the disease.

  49. #49 Th1Th2
    June 7, 2011

    triskeleton,

    Humans do not create antibodes without a stimulus, either the illness or a vaccine.

    You are so very very wrong. Disingenuous. Misinformed. Ignorant.

    Wiki–

    Natural antibodies

    Humans and higher primates also produce “natural antibodies” which are present in serum before viral infection. Natural antibodies have been defined as antibodies that are produced without any previous infection, vaccination, other foreign antigen exposure or passive immunization.

    Now do you want an immunophysiologic explanation as to how they are produced? Just let me know.

    A fetus/newborn cannot attain “naturally acquired passive immunity” without maternal exposure which leads to antibody formation.

    The fetus/newborn will receive its maternal antibodies regardless of any prior maternal history. Which part of Naturally Acquired Passive Immunity don’t you understand?

    Thingy: a mother cannot pass on immunity to a fetus/infant if she does not have antibodies to an illness, and a mother does not have antibodies to an illness unless she has been exposed to the illness or had a vaccine to stimulate antibody formation in the first place.

    Well if that’s the case then why are you vaccinating newborns if you know there aren’t pre-existing antibodies that will interact with vaccine antigens since you’re claiming newborns born of mothers without prior disease history are antibody-deprived?

    Dig that.

  50. #50 lilady
    June 7, 2011

    @ triskelethecat, JohnV & Venna: I thought I tossed out the garbage earlier but returning from an errand and opening up the computer, I smell an awful odor…something between dead rotting troll flesh and the mustiness of a cave. Aired out my home now and the reek has just now begun to dissipate.

    Venna, I never had a TV…that is until after my son was born…it helped to wile away the interminable nighttime hours while care for the little one.

    Orac of course, is one of my favorite bloggers when I want a good dose of reality. I also visit Politifact and Fact Check.org for their analysis of national politics and the pols rhetoric.

  51. #51 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    I’ve concluded that the trolls here are only here to provide entertainment value to the debate. They actually don’t add anything to the debate. Thingy troll talks around in circles, completely missing the point and only debates for the sake of debate and brings nothing other then our own points back to us. Augie troll is just argumentative, obviously lacking in any actual opinion unless it differs from everyone else’s and gives him an arguing point.

    That being the case with the resident trolls here, nothing they say is worth paying attention to other then for a good laugh, and I have definitely found myself laughing at some of the ridiculous things they have posted. May natural selection be kind to them…

  52. #52 Th1Th2
    June 7, 2011

    Venna,

    *sticks fingers in ears and says* “LaLaLaLaLaLa” I’m done!

    Great. Now, that you’ve learned your lesson. Next time, don’t mess with Science and don’t mess with me. OK? So how do you want the crow served? In fairness, I warned you that your turn will come and you’ll be severely humiliated.

    Just an ordinary day for me anyway.

  53. #53 Gray Falcon
    June 7, 2011

    Th1Th2, declaring victory without cause once again, despite clearly not understanding that science is more complicated than two lists of things, one good and one bad.

  54. #54 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    Is it for real? Does it actually think it got the best of me? Does it actually think I feel humiliated by anything it said? Man, talk about clueless!

  55. #55 lilady
    June 7, 2011

    Actual Lysol spray is good for rotting garbage and the festering smell of rotten troll flesh. Troll bird droppings should be treated with household bleach and all the rags used to clean the droppings should be incinerated…outside. Fomites that trolls touch or breathe on should also be treated with bleach/rags incinerated as well.

    Don’t allow young children to go near trolls or their caves and notify the local police whenever they venture from their caves or crypts. If you spot any of their imaginary children, warn your kids to not play with them…the trollism may rub off on them.

    And lastly, remember Rule # 14 Don’t Feed the Trolls (and)

    Rule 14a. especially if Thingy/Augie is posting

    Rule 14b. especially if Augie/Thingy is posting

  56. #56 triskelethecat
    June 7, 2011

    Venna: yes, it thinks it won. It does this frequently.

    @Thingy: if you are going to quote Wikipedia, at least have the courtesy to quote the WHOLE paragraph, with the citations, to show the information isn’t quite what you imply (emphasis mine):

    Humans and higher primates also produce “natural antibodies” which are present in serum before viral infection. Natural antibodies have been defined as antibodies that are produced without any previous infection, vaccination, other foreign antigen exposure or passive immunization. These antibodies can activate the classical complement pathway leading to lysis of enveloped virus particles long before the adaptive immune response is activated. Many natural antibodies are directed against the disaccharide galactose α(1,3)-galactose (α-Gal), which is found as a terminal sugar on glycosylated cell surface proteins, and generated in response to production of this sugar by bacteria contained in the human gut.[28] Rejection of xenotransplantated organs is thought to be, in part, the result of natural antibodies circulating in the serum of the recipient binding to α-Gal antigens expressed on the donor tissue.[29]

    So yes. Humans CAN develop antibodies without exposure to an antigen. There is NOTHING there that says that these antibodies can be passively transmitted in pregnancy to protect the newborn nor is it said that these natural immunities will protect against all diseases. And, if you read the original article, it states that the natural antibodies are protective against viral infections if the viruses contain THAT specific antigen:

    Human serum contains high levels of antibodies specific for α-Gal because the human gut contains bacteria that produce this sugar. Over 2% of serum IgM and IgG antibodies are directed against α-Gal. This antibody binds to the membrane of enveloped viruses that contain α-Gal antigens and triggers the classical complement cascade, leading to lysis of virions and loss of infectivity.

    Takeuchi Y, Liong SH, Bieniasz PD, Jäger U, Porter CD, Friedman T, McClure MO, & Weiss RA (1997). Sensitization of rhabdo-, lenti-, and spumaviruses to human serum by galactosyl(alpha1-3)galactosylation. Journal of Virology, 71 (8), 6174-8 PMID: 9223512

    Ochsenbein AF, Fehr T, Lutz C, Suter M, Brombacher F, Hengartner H, & Zinkernagel RM (1999). Control of early viral and bacterial distribution and disease by natural antibodies. Science (New York, N.Y.), 286 (5447), 2156-9 PMID: 10591647

    Now, tell me again how this protects against all diseases?

  57. #57 Krebiozen
    June 7, 2011

    This thread is getting surreal.

    According to Th1Th2, we all have natural immunity that protects us completely and is passed from mother to child. If that’s true infectious diseases are impossible and must be imaginary. It must be an illusion that more than 95% of people got measles before vaccination, because their natural antibodies protected them and their children from infection. Who knew?

    And Augustine claims that the best way to prevent measles in children is allowing children to get measles.

    Weirder and weirder.

  58. #58 Giliell
    June 7, 2011

    Thingy, so, if the mother has only got your wonderful natural antibodies that would not protect her against wild-type measles if she encountered them, what protection do you think would the baby get from her?

    BTW, pleas, learn what irony means

    @Venna
    On bad days I agree with your partner. But there are always implications:
    Most important: children are not to blame for the fact that they have shitty parents. It’s not their fault and they are suffering.
    Children of sensible parents are also at risk, whether their vaccination didn’t work, whether they are too young, whether they can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons. They don’t deserve this either.

  59. #59 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    @triskele

    I think the reason thingy didn’t use the entire paragraph is because it couldn’t understand the second half of it. Therefore, we are back to selective understanding or partial understanding of how science works. If it doesn’t make sense to the thing then it isn’t science and anyone else who can understand it will be “humiliated”!

    @Giliell

    I know, and I don’t always agree with my partner’s point of view. He can be extremely cynical at best and down right morose at worse. In his defense, he has been hurt a lot in his life so really has a great mistrust and dislike for humanity and society in general. He is of the opinion that death is preferable to life and almost envies people who die prematurely. He’s extremely intelligent, but at the same time has PTSD, anxiety and schizotypal personality disorder which sometimes cross wire his thought processes and can steer him off into not quite scientific or logical paths. He had just mentioned this a couple nights ago and he said it really callously, but I could see his point, in a milder, more compassionate way though.

  60. #60 Vicki
    June 7, 2011

    Venna,

    The problem with the “natural selection” argument is that the things you’re selecting against include having credulous neighbors, and bad luck in which people to trust. You can argue that trusting a parent who has been misled is an example of natural selection, but is selecting the wrong doctor, perhaps on the basis of good ratings in a magazine, really something it’s reasonable to put down as “natural selection”?

  61. #61 Venna
    June 7, 2011

    @Vicki

    The evidence in support of vaccines and the positive changes they’ve had on society is out there in abundance, one just needs to have the patience and perseverance to look for it weed through the anti-vaccine echo chamber and make sure all the information is understood.

    I’ve never looked for a doctor in a magazine so not sure how that process works. Usually I call my insurance coverage provider and get a list of covered practitioners from them (obviously if they aren’t covered by my insurance it’s pointless for me to go to them). I’ll visit them each to discuss whatever might be important to me, ask them questions, etc. and choose the one that I feel best suits my needs and that I feel most comfortable with. Since I’m paying them for services, I only intend to give my money and patronage to someone I feel I can support. I thought this is what most people do, am I wrong in that?

    But that’s the thing about living where we live in the time that we live. Doctors provide a service and patients are just customers who purchase that service. Like anything else, if the service sucks, take your business elsewhere. Everyone is always entitled to a second opinion from another doctor about anything if one doctor tells you something you aren’t comfortable with. Therefore, anyone who suffers because of misinformation given to them by a doctor kind of has nobody to blame but themselves because doctors are human and fallible and some (I’ve met them, I know they’re out there and that’s usually when I seek that second opinion) are too arrogant to know when they are doing harm versus helping someone. If they are too self important and more concerned with the bottom line or being right, they aren’t really a doctor anymore. They have crossed over into the realm of Andrew Wakefield and company.

  62. #62 lilady
    June 7, 2011

    Hi Venna: I have a few suggestions for you to evaluate some doctors. The AMA Doctor Finder (website) provides information about AMA physicians and non-AMA physicians.

    Also you mentioned in an earlier post that it was a financial strain to provide timely immunizations. Oregon has the federally funded VFC (Vaccines for Children) Program…which provides all the Recommended Childhood Vaccines for uninsured and under-insured children from birth through 18 years of age. You probably can access VFC providers through Oregon’s or your County’s Department of Health websites.

    I have been very fortunate with health care coverage…most physicians and specialists in my area are on the list of “preferred providers”. I also live in a nearby suburb of a large city and have many hospitals to chose from…most are university-affiliated teaching hospitals.

    Yes, you are right, you are the consumer of medical care and you can take your business elsewhere, should the physician’s service not be to your liking. I’ve done that (on rare occasions) when it came to my son’s medical care…I’ve also “bailed out” of a hospital and hospital emergency room, IV running to schlep my kid to another hospital or called another doctor in, who has privileges in a nearby hospital and transferred him via ambulance. That’s what we do for our kids.

    Isn’t it wonderful to have the internet to go armed intellectually before we see a new doctor.

  63. #63 Venna
    June 8, 2011

    lilady

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. I’m learning now about all kinds of programs that are available that I didn’t know about when it could have made a difference for my son and getting him immunized on schedule. I am fortunate that during the time he wasn’t immunized he didn’t catch anything, I don’t think I could have forgiven myself for that.

    Essentially, when he was 5 months old, I got a new job and in December I got benefits through that job. The company paid for my premiums, but I wanted to add my son and then planned to get him immunized. He was still under a year so hadn’t missed much, but when I found out how much it would cost me each month to add him to my insurance, I just couldn’t afford it (nearly $400 a month and I was only making $11.50 an hour and supporting my household alone). I cancelled adding him, I still got coverage which didn’t cost me anything but I didn’t need it for me so I felt frustrated.

    It was a little less then a year later, just a month after we moved into our current apartment that I realized I needed to get my son back on medicaid if I could, he tried to climb the blinds in his bedroom and fell braking both bones in his left forearm. When I lost my job in October and realized I would no longer be able to make the monthly payments on those bills, I emptied my IRA and paid them off with that. Now the only bills I have to worry about are regular monthly bills, rent, electricity, phone/internet.

    It was still another year before I was finally able to get my son back on medicaid because they came out with the Healthy Kids program to provide coverage for all children in Oregon regardless of household income (prior to this, I made too much for him to qualify, which I felt was ridiculous, but hey, I don’t make the rules.) It was around the same time he was taken for his evaluation for suspected autism and was found to have profound developmental delays and qualified for Early Intervention and began their services. That was in October 2009 when he was just over 2 and a half. Now he’s four and we are finally getting additional services besides what he’s been getting through Early Intervention, but one less worry for me is, his immunizations are current. If you haven’t ever been in that position, you don’t know how much of a stress that really is. Granted Oregon has a fairly low vaccine exemption rate (I believe in 2004 is was 2.4% exemption. It has gone up since then and in 2010 was 3.6% most likely attributed to the vaccine autism scare). But still people in Oregon are getting their children vaccinated and though there may be a lot of things I disagree with them about (I’m native from AZ and don’t understand the fascination with the Blazers) I’m glad they at least have that kind of common sense, with the exception of Ashland, Oregon.

    Even though I had 5 other children, I wasn’t single, I was married and my husband always had a job with medical coverage so I didn’t know what services were available for children or where to look. I know a lot have been added since my other children were little like Viktor too. I’ve been given a lot of information and assistance to find resources from Early Intervention and from OHSU CDRC Autism Clinic and believe it or not Autism Speaks as part of their 100 Day Kit. Anyone can order one and it will be sent for pick up to a FedEx location and it’s tailored to each specific area so don’t have to wade through pages and pages of listing for other states, it only has listing in Oregon and in the Portland Metro area too. Sometimes though, there is a such thing as too much information and my mind has to take a break from it for a couple days or I won’t be able to absorb it all.

    Well, now you know my story regarding my son anyway. If you don’t mind, how did your son pass away?

  64. #64 lilady
    June 8, 2011

    (Special for your Venna) Anthony died peacefully. He was still breathing but totally unconscious when the nurse in his group home was summoned to his bedside. Nurse and EMTs tried resuscitation and he died in the ambulance. Most probably he had a grand mal seizure in his sleep. Two days from now will be the seventh year since he passed.

    He was a delightful child, totally dependent wheel-chair bound with spastic quadriplegia, immune suppressed and with blood dyscrasias resulting in internal bleeding episodes.

    He lives on in our hearts and in the hearts of the many people whose lives he touched. His heart valves were donated as well as his corneas, so he lives on in the lives of people whose vision was restored and whose broken hearts were mended.

    I’m so glad that you are connecting with social services for insurances and for services for Viktor. I recall 40 years ago when my daughter was an infant, our health insurance did not pay for immunizations or “well baby” doctors visits and immunizations (a few less then) were a major expensive. And, there were no free vaccines through the VFC program…I learned how to stretch the budget.

    I’m sure you will meet some like-minded mommies through Viktor’s school program…that’s where I met my best buddy when Anthony was 14 months old. We have been through a lot…both families…and neither family could have gotten through it all without the support of our good friends.

    It is 1:18 AM here on the east coast and I need my rest…also need to neaten up a bit as friends are coming from Germany for a visit on Friday. So good night, catch you later, I’m sure.

  65. #65 Giliell
    June 8, 2011

    Venna, your story makes my heart hurt. I’m German so I’m living in a country where you have a right to health insurance, so reading again and again about people who cannot get adequate treatment because they cannot get insurance makes my heart hurt and my blood boil

  66. #66 Lawrence
    June 8, 2011

    It annoys me greatly that I live in a country where large swaths of the population can be convinced to vote against their own self-interests.

    Lower & lower-middle income families file for bankruptcy because of medical debt more than any other cause – either they can’t afford insurance or work lower-wage jobs that don’t provide it.

    I don’t understand how making health insurance mandatory is a bad thing. When you compare the amount of money lost every year because of a lack of an ability to pay (plus the cost of an overwhelmed ER system – since those who can’t afford health insurance are also likely to use the ER as their primary care facility – and ERs have to run many more tests to determine diagnosis “no medical histories or personal physician relationships”) – the overall cost to the country is negligible, perhaps a wash, or even less expensive than what we are doing now, adding 40 million people on the insurance rolls, but providing a better measure of care.

  67. #67 lilady
    June 8, 2011

    @ Lawrence: Oh yes indeed, large swaths of the population have voted against their own self interests. So…the Republicans and Tea Party contingent took over Congress and we see that the Bush tax cuts, set to “sunset” January 1, 2011 have been extended for the wealthy.

    The “theory” for this extension is that the wealthy are the “major job creators”…not…not true when Reagan did it 30 years ago, either. Modern day voodoo economics and “trickle down theory” from the Reagan administration.

  68. #68 Venna
    June 8, 2011

    The whole ‘mandatory insurance for everyone or be fined’ thing has me confused. If I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong) if a person doesn’t have insurance for themselves and their family they have to pay a fine. What if that person doesn’t earn enough to pay for the cost of insurance for themselves and their family? What if the cost of insurance would mean they can’t pay for other things, like, oh, I don’t know, food? Housing? What happens then? They have insurance so won’t get fined, but they are homeless because they can’t afford rent, or are malnourished and starving because they can’t afford food. How is that going to help anyone? If you have no place to live and no food to eat, going to the doctor isn’t going to help you. I find myself in that situation. We have coverage through welfare, because we don’t have jobs that provide an option for coverage. Maybe I’m confused on how that whole thing is supposed to work.

    @lilady *HUGZ* You are so amazing with what you have gone through and harboring no bitterness in your soul. My heart reaches out to you. I’ve not ever lost a child so I can’t fathom what that must be like. You are an inspiration of strength to me though. I appreciate your contributions.

  69. #69 lilady
    June 8, 2011

    Hi Venna: The takeaway lesson from my prior posting is that there is a world of support out there for you and your family. Also, family can “disappoint”,a few lifelong friends may drift away, but you make new (and better) friends who are the real deal through Viktor. I believe firmly in the kind good nature of people and absolutely strangers as well as doctors and therapists have “gone the distance” for my son and our family.

    There is a good lengthy article on the Fact Check.org website about H.R. 3200. Use their search engine, keying in “Twenty-Six Lies about H.R. 3200”

    Scrolling halfway down the article and you will find:

    “Claim: Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5 % of income”

    This provision IMO is to prevent people who can afford health care, but “opt out” to save money from using the Emergency Room and/or hospital services and then not paying…which drives up the costs of health care for everyone. You have health care; it doesn’t apply to those who have government health care such as Medicaid or CHIP coverage for their children.

  70. #70 txmom
    August 30, 2011

    My happy, healthy, 12 month old daughter received her MMR shot 12 days ago. Today she is covered in the measles and is apparently having an allergic reaction to the vaccination. We just got back from the doctors office a few hours ago. I’ve been told to wait it out 3-4 days. I am feeling helpless and now second guessing future vaccinations. She also had a reaction to her flu shot received at the age of 6 months. This doesn’t seem right.

  71. #71 Lawrence
    August 30, 2011

    txmom – I would have a very in-depth discussion with your pediatrician. That sounds like I very bad reaction & you should take steps with him/her to make sure that everything is okay & there isn’t an underlying problem that may be part of the reaction.

  72. #72 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    @ txmom: The rash as you describe it really isn’t an allergic reaction…approximately 5 % of people who receive the vaccine develop an allover rash…and your baby is not infectious.

    You said your baby had an influenza vaccine 6 months ago and probably didn’t have a second shot of the same vaccine which was the vaccine manufactured for the 2010-2011 flu season. Your little one will require the seasonal 2011-2012 flu vaccine shortly and if your baby did not have a second shot 6 months ago, he/she will require 2 shots this flu season. (Children ages 6 months – 8 years of age require a one time “double shot” giving 4 weeks apart, the first time they receive seasonal influenza vaccine).

    There are VISs (Vaccine Information Sheets) for each of the recommended vaccines that you should have been given before your baby received immunizations. The are all available on the internet.

    An excellent website to answer any of your questions regarding immunizations (very parent “friendly”) is the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) website:

    IAC Information about Measles Vaccine

    IAC Information about Influenza Vaccine

  73. #73 txmom
    August 30, 2011

    Lawrence and Lilady – thank you both for the feedback and information. I am going to look into those sites and also talk with our doctor. I sincerely appreciate the feedback.

  74. #74 augustine
    August 30, 2011

    Here is a review of the literature study you may want to read before you continue with the influenza vaccine.

    http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html

    “In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo. It was not possible to analyse the safety of vaccines from the studies due to the lack of standardisation in the information given but very little information was found on the safety of inactivated vaccines, the most commonly used vaccine, in young children.”

  75. #75 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    @ txmom: You did the right thing to take the baby to the doctor and follow-up with the doctor…if you have any other concerns.

    I hope you enjoy the IAC sites…they are a wealth of information…and very reassuring for parents who have concerns about immunizations.

    Take care and give baby a hug for us.

  76. #76 Th1Th2
    August 30, 2011

    Thank you? Your baby just got the measles and these voracious infection promoters are the culprit. Now grow up, educate yourself and make no more mistake.

  77. #77 Narad
    August 30, 2011

    Now grow up, educate yourself and make no more mistake.

    Th1Th2, did you ever respond to my query whether you’ve ever gained a single adherent? I’ve been looking out, but I may have missed it.

  78. #78 How to tell
    August 30, 2011

    “I know it’s confusing when somebody does a sockpuppet.”

    It’s not that confusing – if a post labelled “augustine” contains decent, Christian words, it’s a sockpuppet. If it’s hated-filled lies, it’s the real you.

  79. #79 Miks
    September 16, 2011

    Hey.
    My entire school went on a mass vaccination drive for this whole MMR thing, but now there is a ton of people with it… Was that batch simply null or is there something harsh about the South African strain of Measles.
    Thanks for reading, 16 and covered in itchy spots that scare me to death…
    🙂

  80. #80 Chris
    September 16, 2011

    More data required. Perhaps a link to a news report, a public health page or something other than your rather cryptic comment.

  81. #81 Th1Th2
    September 16, 2011

    My entire school went on a mass vaccination drive for this whole MMR thing, but now there is a ton of people with it…

    Established fact since 1960’s.

  82. #82 Gray Falcon
    September 16, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you still think you have a right to speak after what you said in #329?

  83. #83 Science Mom
    September 16, 2011

    Oh good grief, I didn’t see that comment until just now. On top of being a garden-variety dumbass, Th1Th2 is a vile twat and waste of oxygen.

  84. #84 Th1Th2
    September 16, 2011

    Absolutely. People should learn from their mistakes.

  85. #85 Th1Th2
    September 16, 2011

    Science Mom,

    You’ve been exposed and humiliated. You’re just a typical mom, there’s no Science whatsoever.

  86. #86 Narad
    September 16, 2011

    Absolutely. People should learn from their mistakes.

    Oh, the irony.

  87. #87 Gray Falcon
    September 16, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you know what science is?

  88. #88 Science Mom
    September 16, 2011

    OMH, after that comment, please don’t engage this odious hag. We’ve all had our “fun” with her and she has exposed herself to be ignorant, delusional and despicable.

    Seriously, bozo bin the bitch.

  89. #89 lilady
    September 16, 2011

    Thingy, at one time was a (relatively) harmless troll, but has become increasingly nasty toward parents who have disabled children…so similar now, as our filthy-mouthed “christian” troll.

    Thingy used to be more specific about his/her/its opinions regarding immunizations and epidemiology because of his/her/its imaginary career in health care.

    Well that didn’t work out, because he/she/it was nailed about his/her/its pseudoscience and deplorable lack of any education in the sciences.

    Ignorant disease-promoting troll needs to be “terminally disinfected”.

  90. #90 Th1Th2
    September 16, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you know what science is?

    Of course. For example, measles vaccine causing primary measles infection is science-based and evidenced-based. However, to claim that the vaccine has prevented measles infection is pure pseudo-science, myth and fantasy.

  91. #91 lilady
    September 16, 2011

    Thingy why don’t you tell us about your imaginary career in the health care field? In particular tell us again how you and your colleagues “in the hospital where you work”, *handle a potential exposure to a suspect measles case in the Emergency Room?

    * Thingy thinks that containment for measles consists of “terminal disinfection” of the exam room where a suspect measles case was examined.

  92. #92 Th1Th2
    September 17, 2011

    lilady,

    What are you disputing? My “career” in the healthcare field or “terminal disinfection”?

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.