Re: Measles epidemic feared

November 28, 2008

Give him articles to read

or both of you take my class and if he doesn't read all or much, then

you will have a reason to say he can't be part of the decision unless

he researches as much as youi

Sheri

At 08:01 AM 11/28/2008, you wrote:

>My husband sent this to me this morning.

>

>http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE4AR24420081128

>

>It doesn't seem to matter what evidence I present him with. He still

>thinks our daughter should get some of the vaxes. I get so tongue

>tied with him when I try to respond to these things. He just thinks

>I'm pulling things out of my bum. What are your responses to this?

>

>Thanks,

>Caroline

>

>------------------------------------

>

November 28, 2008

I feel for you Caroline. My ex was just as block-headed about it. As

Sheri has said in the past I believe - 'If he does not read all of the

material he does not get to decide'. In this, assumed is the actual

absorption of the material you present, not read and deflect with no

direct exchange of justification to the opposite. Throwing articles

like this at you means he is fundamentally trusting what is out there

and paid for by the pharmaceuticals in the media and medical

professions. If you can meet on some common ground at a more basic

level, he might come to see the light on where the strings lead and

why. There is tons of information on that level, historical and current.

Good luck,

Liz

>

> My husband sent this to me this morning.

>

> http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE4AR24420081128

>

> It doesn't seem to matter what evidence I present him with. He still

> thinks our daughter should get some of the vaxes. I get so tongue

> tied with him when I try to respond to these things. He just thinks

> I'm pulling things out of my bum. What are your responses to this?

>

> Thanks,

> Caroline

>

November 28, 2008

I am concerned that a measles epidemic is possible not because of a

decrease in MMR uptake, per se, but because of a quantitative and

qualitative shift in the extent to which infants under 12 months of

age are protected by measles-specific maternal antibodies. I

understand that, among women who contract wild-strain measles, their

infants will benefit from the presence of maternal antibodies for the

first 12 months of life. Conversely, women who did not contract

wild-strain measles but who were vaccinated with MMR, their infants

will benefit from the presence of maternal antibodies for

approximately the first two months of life. Considering that MMR is

not administered before 12 months of age, at any given point in time,

there exists a very large at-risk population of infants between 2 and

12 months of age who are at great risk of not only contracting measles

but also suffering substantial adverse health outcomes should they

contract the disease so early in life.

Vicky

> >

> > My husband sent this to me this morning.

> >

> > http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE4AR24420081128

> >

> > It doesn't seem to matter what evidence I present him with. He still

> > thinks our daughter should get some of the vaxes. I get so tongue

> > tied with him when I try to respond to these things. He just thinks

> > I'm pulling things out of my bum. What are your responses to this?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Caroline

> >

>

November 28, 2008

Well, you can also say that everyone is at risk for everything. The only measles

epidemics these days in developed countries are in VACCINATED people. Some

" protection " that vaccine gives.

My mother did not breastfeed any of my brothers and me, so I had no benefit of

maternal antibodies. There was no MMR vaccine when I was growing up in the

1950's-60's, and I had mumps and rubella (don't even remember the rubella, but a

blood test says I had it). No one I know had measles. I didn't die. No one I

know died.

Two of my kids had the MMR, two didn't. None got measles, mumps or rubella.

They're all still alive. However, my oldest had his health ruined by the MMR.

But I suppose that's okay as long as he doesn't get measles???

Winnie

Re: Measles " epidemic " feared

Vaccinations

> I am concerned that a measles epidemic is possible not because

> of a

> decrease in MMR uptake, per se, but because of a quantitative and

> qualitative shift in the extent to which infants under 12 months of

> age are protected by measles-specific maternal antibodies. I

> understand that, among women who contract wild-strain measles, their

> infants will benefit from the presence of maternal antibodies

> for the

> first 12 months of life. Conversely, women who did not contract

> wild-strain measles but who were vaccinated with MMR, their infants

> will benefit from the presence of maternal antibodies for

> approximately the first two months of life. Considering that

> MMR is

> not administered before 12 months of age, at any given point in time,

> there exists a very large at-risk population of infants between

> 2 and

> 12 months of age who are at great risk of not only contracting measles

> but also suffering substantial adverse health outcomes should they

> contract the disease so early in life.

>

> Vicky

>

> > >

> > > My husband sent this to me this morning.

> > >

> > > http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE4AR24420081128

> > >

> > > It doesn't seem to matter what evidence I present him with.

> He still

> > > thinks our daughter should get some of the vaxes. I get so tongue

> > > tied with him when I try to respond to these things. He

> just thinks

> > > I'm pulling things out of my bum. What are your responses

> to this?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Caroline

> > >

> >

>

November 28, 2008

As I understand it, the maternal antibodies spoken of come across the placenta,

not through breastfeeding. Breastfeeding probably provides additional

protection, but everyone gets some through the placenta. And they last for a

year, hence why MMR isn't given until then. Except that now that isn't the case

with the new generation of mothers who were vaxed instead.

I hadn't thought about babies being the victims in a new epidemic. And just

picture if that's true, the fear being ramped up to the nth degree, because it's

happening to babies, not older children. I fear their fear.

Bronwyn

Wife to Kurt since 5/02

Mom to:

Dorian (7/04)

Faith (2/06)

Quinn (4/08)

and my faithful steed Teo (4/91) since 9/95

From: wharrison@... <wharrison@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Measles " epidemic " feared

Vaccinations

Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 2:31 PM

Well, you can also say that everyone is at risk for everything. The

only measles epidemics these days in developed countries are in VACCINATED

people. Some " protection " that vaccine gives.

My mother did not breastfeed any of my brothers and me, so I had no benefit of

maternal antibodies. There was no MMR vaccine when I was growing up in the

1950's-60's, and I had mumps and rubella (don't even remember the rubella, but a

blood test says I had it). No one I know had measles. I didn't die. No one I

know died.

Two of my kids had the MMR, two didn't. None got measles, mumps or rubella.

They're all still alive. However, my oldest had his health ruined by the MMR.

But I suppose that's okay as long as he doesn't get measles???

Winnie

November 28, 2008

I would ask him four things: 1) How many of those 1,049 children were

vaccinated? 2) How many in England and Wales who were not vaccinated got

measles? 3) How many of those who got measles had severe health problems as a

result? 4) How many died?

If the answer is 1) most; 2) don't know; 3) none; and 4) none (and I suspect

none because you can bet your bippy they'd have mentioned it), then what's the

big deal?

Winnie

Measles " epidemic " feared

Vaccinations

> My husband sent this to me this morning.

>

> http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE4AR24420081128

>

> It doesn't seem to matter what evidence I present him with. He still

> thinks our daughter should get some of the vaxes. I get so tongue

> tied with him when I try to respond to these things. He just thinks

> I'm pulling things out of my bum. What are your responses to this?

>

> Thanks,

> Caroline

>

November 28, 2008

Can you delay him " until public school " (5yo)? Sometimes if you

postpone the decision it might give more time for the facts to present

themselves clearer, even in the media perhaps. He might think clearer

when the baby is not a baby anymore and survived perfectly fine. Once

the children get to school age it seems easier to understand they

have immune systems themselves. <g> -Arlynn

November 28, 2008

You know what I wonder (not truly worry about, but " think about " ) is

that all of us kids of the 60's and 70's who got all these shots are no

longer " protected " , so if measles, mumps and rubella start springing up

again, us old folks (relatively speaking) will be very, very sick. We

should have gotten them as little children, when the sickness is not as

dangerous. That's the true course of nature. But now we've screwed it

up. I'm thinking mumps, measles or rubella at age 43 could be quite

dangerous. Thanks, docs!! But there's always a booster, huh? ; )

November 28, 2008

Assuming the vaccines worked. If they didn't--and I don't believe they do--then

there's no reason to think that the diseases will be gotten later. It's entirely

possible those who were vaxed actually got the disease (as I did with Rubella)

and never knew it. It might have been called something else, or it could been

mild enough not to have been called anything because you weren't taken to the

doc.

So, probably nothing to worry about. Sure it can happen, but it doesn't mean

automatic death. I do know someone who got chicken pox as an adult 10 years ago

and she was covered from head to toe. But then she got over it and was fine.

Winnie

Re: Measles " epidemic " feared

Vaccinations

> You know what I wonder (not truly worry about, but " think

> about " ) is

> that all of us kids of the 60's and 70's who got all these shots

> are no

> longer " protected " , so if measles, mumps and rubella start

> springing up

> again, us old folks (relatively speaking) will be very, very

> sick. We

> should have gotten them as little children, when the sickness is

> not as

> dangerous. That's the true course of nature. But now we've

> screwed it

> up. I'm thinking mumps, measles or rubella at age 43 could be

> quite

> dangerous. Thanks, docs!! But there's always a booster, huh? ; )

>

November 28, 2008

People should do the responsible thing and let nature correct itself

meaning no booster shots and let measles and mumps happen.