Measles Parties: Then and Now

[elohiym]

In The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review we read:

"Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults."​

A medical doctor in 1915 wrote:

"There are several reasons for this, chief of which is the existence of a widespread belief that they are both comparatively mild and harmless diseases and that the sooner children have them and are done with them, the better it is for all concerned.

This belief, I regret to say, is held by not a few physicians and by a majority of the laity. Indeed, so deeply seated is it, that in some communities, when measles is present in a neighborhood, it is customary to have what are locally known as 'measles teas,' where the mothers get afternoon tea and the children get the measles."​

It is not surprising that 95%–98% of children by age 18 years had been infected with measles virus when the popular culture for a time considered it a mild and harmless disease and intentionally exposed children to infection. When you think about the high incidence of measles infection in the early 20th century, remember it was largely caused by people intentionally infecting children.

Today we have the modern measles party: vaccination.

Personally, I wouldn't intentionally allow my child to be infected with either wild-type measles or vaccine-strain measles; but lately it seems the pressure is on for everyone to join in the modern measles party. In my opinion, it's an asinine strategy if you want to eliminate measles.

 

[elohiym]

In the table, virulence of infection describes infectivity not necessarily disease severity.

 

[swanca99]

When I was in grade school, I was convinced that the real purpose of kindergarten was to get measles, mumps, chicken pox and rubella out of the way before we actually had to start learning stuff.

Our mothers didn't actually have teas, though - they just sent us over to the sick kid's house to watch television.

 

[Jonahdog]

In The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review we read:

"Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults."​

A medical doctor in 1915 wrote:

"There are several reasons for this, chief of which is the existence of a widespread belief that they are both comparatively mild and harmless diseases and that the sooner children have them and are done with them, the better it is for all concerned.

This belief, I regret to say, is held by not a few physicians and by a majority of the laity. Indeed, so deeply seated is it, that in some communities, when measles is present in a neighborhood, it is customary to have what are locally known as 'measles teas,' where the mothers get afternoon tea and the children get the measles."​

It is not surprising that 95%–98% of children by age 18 years had been infected with measles virus when the popular culture for a time considered it a mild and harmless disease and intentionally exposed children to infection. When you think about the high incidence of measles infection in the early 20th century, remember it was largely caused by people intentionally infecting children.

Today we have the modern measles party: vaccination.

Personally, I wouldn't intentionally allow my child to be infected with either wild-type measles or vaccine-strain measles; but lately it seems the pressure is on for everyone to join in the modern measles party. In my opinion, it's an asinine strategy if you want to eliminate measles.

Based on your extensive knowledge of medicine. Sorry for the ad hom but you are simply a moron.

 

[fzappa13]

I can't contribute much because I don't remember much being six at the time I went to a measles party. My mother told me where we were going and why. She said the rational was that getting the disease as a child was much less dangerous than getting it as an adult. I guess that in doing this you are choosing which risk/benefit level you prefer.

1. Deliberately expose your child to the live virus in the hope all would be well and avoid more serious consequences down the road and acquire a stronger, more long last immunity.

2. Get vaccinated and get a milder form of the disease and a lesser immunity to it hoping all will be well.

3. Do nothing and take your chances.

 

[elohiym]

When I was in grade school, I was convinced that the real purpose of kindergarten was to get measles, mumps, chicken pox and rubella out of the way before we actually had to start learning stuff.

Our mothers didn't actually have teas, though - they just sent us over to the sick kid's house to watch television.

It seems the practice was en vogue throughout the twentieth century prior to vaccination but still occurred to some extent after vaccination was available.

Is your recollection before or after the licensing of the measles vaccine?

 

[elohiym]

I can't contribute much because I don't remember much being six at the time I went to a measles party. My mother told me where we were going and why. She said the rational was that getting the disease as a child was much less dangerous than getting it as an adult. I guess that in doing this you are choosing which risk/benefit level you prefer.

That rational is consistent with the claims made by researchers and the physician in the OP; although the physician doesn't appreciate the idea of vaccination through a measles party. I wonder if he would have been critical of physicians selling "mild" measles infections, as they do today.

Is your recollection before or after the licensing of the measles vaccine?

1. Deliberately expose your child to the live virus in the hope all would be well and avoid more serious consequences down the road and acquire a stronger, more long last immunity.

I like to call it primitive vaccination. While I can understand the rationale, and can appreciate how people who had lived generations with measles outbreaks saw with their own eyes that it was a mild and harmless infection in healthy children, it unfortunately perpetuates measles infections in the population.

2. Get vaccinated and get a milder form of the disease and a lesser immunity to it hoping all will be well.

Instead of thousands of natural infections we get millions of intentional infections with an attenuated virus that can, according to scientific consensus and evidence, mutate and become virulent. A friend gets a vaccine she believes will prevent infection; it becomes virulent and she becomes infectious, infecting a number of other people. Instead of eliminating the virus, the vaccine spreads strains of virus far and wide for financial gain; the strains can mutate and do, and people are left wondering why measles hasn't been eradicated. The PR machine of those selling the infection tries to convince people it's the fault of those who refuse to be vaccinated.

3. Do nothing and take your chances.

Since the testimony of the generations who experienced natural measles infection is that it is a mild and harmless disease in healthy children, and since the known relative risk of certain complications from vaccination-strain measles infection is high, it follows it would be better to do nothing and take my chances. The researchers assessed the relative risk so I could make an informed choice.

Of course, I wouldn't "do nothing." There are steps I would take and steps I wouldn't. Intentional infection isn't a step I would take to prevent another potentially worse measles infection.

 

[Jonahdog]

That rational is consistent with the claims made by researchers and the physician in the OP; although the physician doesn't appreciate the idea of vaccination through a measles party. I wonder if he would have been critical of physicians selling "mild" measles infections, as they do today.

Is your recollection before or after the licensing of the measles vaccine?



I like to call it primitive vaccination. While I can understand the rationale, and can appreciate how people who had lived generations with measles outbreaks saw with their own eyes that it was a mild and harmless infection in healthy children, it unfortunately perpetuates measles infections in the population.



Instead of thousands of natural infections we get millions of intentional infections with an attenuated virus that can, according to scientific consensus and evidence, mutate and become virulent. A friend gets a vaccine she believes will prevent infection; it becomes virulent and she becomes infectious, infecting a number of other people. Instead of eliminating the virus, the vaccine spreads strains of virus far and wide for financial gain; the strains can mutate and do, and people are left wondering why measles hasn't been eradicated. The PR machine of those selling the infection tries to convince people it's the fault of those who refuse to be vaccinated.



Since the testimony of the generations who experienced natural measles infection is that it is a mild and harmless disease in healthy children, and since the known relative risk of certain complications from vaccination-strain measles infection is high, it follows it would be better to do nothing and take my chances. The researchers assessed the relative risk so I could make an informed choice.

Of course, I wouldn't "do nothing." There are steps I would take and steps I wouldn't. Intentional infection isn't a step I would take to prevent another potentially worse measles infection.

The medical doctor from 100 years ago?

And a citation to the "relative risk of certain complications ... is high" from the scientific literature, please.

Or I can, and did, ask my kid who is an infectious disease MD. When I asked the question about whether or not kids should be vaccinated against measles and other child hood diseases she wanted to know what I was smoking and said "Of course, who are you Jenny McCarthy in disguise?"

 

[elohiym]

Based on your extensive knowledge of medicine.

Do you want to complete that sentence?

Sorry for the ad hom but you are simply a moron.

I accept your apology for the logical fallacy.

 

[elohiym]

The medical doctor from 100 years ago?

Do you want to complete that sentence so I can answer the question?

And a citation to the "relative risk of certain complications ... is high" from the scientific literature, please.

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.

The highest risk of association with aseptic meningitis was observed within the third week after immunisation with Urabe-containing MMR (risk ratio (RR) 14.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 7.93 to 25.71) and within the third (RR 22.5; 95% CI 11.8 to 42.9) or fifth (RR 15.6; 95% CI 10.3 to 24.2) weeks after immunisation with the vaccine prepared with the Leningrad-Zagreb strain. A significant risk of association with febrile seizures and MMR exposure during the two previous weeks (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) was assessed in one large person-time cohort study involving 537,171 children aged between three months and five year of age. Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine. An increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR immunisation in children aged 12 to 23 months was assessed in one case-control study (RR 6.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 30.1) and in one small self controlled case series (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 5.38; 95% CI 2.72 to 10.62). Increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR exposure was also assessed in one other case-control study involving 2311 children and adolescents between one month and 18 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7).​

Do you understand what relative risk means? If not, here:

When a treatment has an RR greater than 1, the risk of a bad outcome is increased by the treatment; when the RR is less than 1, the risk of a bad outcome is decreased, meaning that the treatment is likely to do good. For example, when the RR is 2.0 the chance of a bad outcome is twice as likely to occur with the treatment as without it, whereas an RR of 0.5 means that the chance of a bad outcome is twice as likely to occur without the intervention. When the RR is exactly 1, the risk is unchanged. For example, a report may state ‘The relative risk of blindness in people given drug T was 1.5’. This shows that the drug increased the risk of blindness.​

Now read those risks of complication from MMR vaccine again.

Or I can, and did, ask my kid who is an infectious disease MD.

Ask her to come on here and debate me. I welcome it. What facts are in dispute?

When I asked the question about whether or not kids should be vaccinated against measles and other child hood diseases she wanted to know what I was smoking and said "Of course, who are you Jenny McCarthy in disguise?"

What a compassionate, open-minded doctor you raised. She obviously isn't interested in treating wealthy, well-educated people who are critical of vaccines for good reasons. Does she talk down to her patients when they question vaccine necessity, safety or efficacy?

 

[fzappa13]

That rational is consistent with the claims made by researchers and the physician in the OP; although the physician doesn't appreciate the idea of vaccination through a measles party. I wonder if he would have been critical of physicians selling "mild" measles infections, as they do today.

Is your recollection before or after the licensing of the measles vaccine?

Summer of '62.

I like to call it primitive vaccination. While I can understand the rationale, and can appreciate how people who had lived generations with measles outbreaks saw with their own eyes that it was a mild and harmless infection in healthy children, it unfortunately perpetuates measles infections in the population.

A calculated risk by any accounting.

Instead of thousands of natural infections we get millions of intentional infections with an attenuated virus that can, according to scientific consensus and evidence, mutate and become virulent. A friend gets a vaccine she believes will prevent infection; it becomes virulent and she becomes infectious, infecting a number of other people. Instead of eliminating the virus, the vaccine spreads strains of virus far and wide for financial gain; the strains can mutate and do, and people are left wondering why measles hasn't been eradicated. The PR machine of those selling the infection tries to convince people it's the fault of those who refuse to be vaccinated.

A lot of ideas here worthy of their own thread much less post. Remember Typhoid Mary? One person's immunity is another person's infection. PR? I have learned to view the latest weekly call to fear with something of a jaundiced eye.

Since the testimony of the generations who experienced natural measles infection is that it is a mild and harmless disease in healthy children, and since the known relative risk of certain complications from vaccination-strain measles infection is high, it follows it would be better to do nothing and take my chances. The researchers assessed the relative risk so I could make an informed choice.

All any of us can do is access the info and make our best choice. We will all no doubt be judged but I have come to believe that intent is at least as important as outcome as it concerns said judgement.

Of course, I wouldn't "do nothing." There are steps I would take and steps I wouldn't. Intentional infection isn't a step I would take to prevent another potentially worse measles infection.

That's the neat thing about life ... we all get one to show everyone else how it ought to be done.

 

[Jonahdog]

What a compassionate, open-minded doctor you raised. She obviously isn't interested in treating wealthy, well-educated people who are critical of vaccines for good reasons. Does she talk down to her patients when they question vaccine necessity, safety or efficacy?

I'll check when she gets back from a medical trip to Central America.

 

[elohiym]

I'll check when she gets back from a medical trip to Central America.

Check what specifically? Do you have anything to say about the high relative risk of certain complications from measles vaccination? You asked me to prove that claim and now you seem to have nothing to say about it.

 

[fzappa13]

Check what specifically? Do you have anything to say about the high relative risk of certain complications from measles vaccination? You asked me to prove that claim and now you seem to have nothing to say about it.

Well, when you start off with invective anything good seldom follows.

 

[swanca99]

Is your recollection before or after the licensing of the measles vaccine?

According to info I've just found "googling," it was before the development of the measles vaccine.

I suffered all four of those ailments I mentioned in 1957-58.

Had a vaccine been available, I'm sure my parents would have had us vaccinated. They believed in vaccinations - I even had to suffer through the polio vaccine when it was still a series of shots. If those shots prevented me from getting polio, they were darn well worth it.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I've been lurking on the active vaccine threads for the past few days.

It's been educational. I'm really glad to see logical arguments being made, because the pro-forced-vax-for-all and the pro-any-vax crowds seem to have nothing more than emotional arguments, with a seeming blindness towards what the problem is with the pressure to vaccinate everyone without consideration for getting true informed consent, despite knowing that not everyone has a strong enough immune system and might prefer to avoid exposure for individual reasons, religious, moral, etc.

It's insulting (to say the least) to the intelligence of concerned, rational parents. Rather than actually addressing our concerns they expect us to be quieted by their threat to treat us as outcasts and shame us for questioning or disobeying popular protocol.

It's amazing that there would be people who assume that all vaccines are safe for all people in their minds; a doctor must have said so somewhere.... and so all people should be forced submit to a doctor's vaccination schedule without discussion. They are using politicians to attempt forcing their will on us as we speak.

That's what draws people like me to read these threads, and I'm sure that's what draws parents to post this information. We just don't want to be coerced by a bunch of sentimental sheep following greedy businessmen who lobby politicians to forcibly sell their measles parties in a needle.

 

[Jedidiah]

...

The highest risk of association with aseptic meningitis was observed within the third week after immunisation with Urabe-containing MMR (risk ratio (RR) 14.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 7.93 to 25.71) and within the third (RR 22.5; 95% CI 11.8 to 42.9) or fifth (RR 15.6; 95% CI 10.3 to 24.2) weeks after immunisation with the vaccine prepared with the Leningrad-Zagreb strain. A significant risk of association with febrile seizures and MMR exposure during the two previous weeks (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) was assessed in one large person-time cohort study involving 537,171 children aged between three months and five year of age. Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine. An increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR immunisation in children aged 12 to 23 months was assessed in one case-control study (RR 6.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 30.1) and in one small self controlled case series (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 5.38; 95% CI 2.72 to 10.62). Increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR exposure was also assessed in one other case-control study involving 2311 children and adolescents between one month and 18 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7).​

Do you understand what relative risk means? If not, here:

When a treatment has an RR greater than 1, the risk of a bad outcome is increased by the treatment; when the RR is less than 1, the risk of a bad outcome is decreased, meaning that the treatment is likely to do good. For example, when the RR is 2.0 the chance of a bad outcome is twice as likely to occur with the treatment as without it, whereas an RR of 0.5 means that the chance of a bad outcome is twice as likely to occur without the intervention. When the RR is exactly 1, the risk is unchanged. For example, a report may state ‘The relative risk of blindness in people given drug T was 1.5’. This shows that the drug increased the risk of blindness.​

Now read those risks of complication from MMR vaccine again...

I understand relative risk. What are the absolute risks of these ailments ?

For instance, in the sentence: "Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine," what is the absolute risk of febrile seizure in children aged between 12 to 23 months, and 12 to 35 months, within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine ?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

​

I understand relative risk.

Yeah, but you didn't ask the question. People keep asking him stupid or easily answerable questions without daring to venture a risk of making their own assertions, quotes etc.. It's too easy to expect the other person to take exposure to questions, never offering anything of your own that might risk critique.

Are you just going to ask questions and supply no provable assertions of your own, or are you just starting out on that foot?

What are the absolute risks of these ailments?

You tell us. Bring something of your own for us to examine. Something better than the atheist poster Jonahdog brought.

For instance, in the sentence: "Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine,"

Why aren't you concerned with multiplying risks? Is there a small risk window for them that is acceptable? How many children is it acceptable to put at risk for seizure before we use a more sensible approach towards disease eradication?

I've had febrile seizures. I stepped on a nail and so I know I had the DPT shot, as I recall the talk with my mom and the appointment/s (pretty sure I got jabbed there more than once). Things changed after that, as I recall. They didn't just stop after I physically matured. Been to the hospital for them. Had a close shave with death during one, too, at 17. I tended to have digestive troubles and fever when stressed and one time after being bullied for weeks by relatives I got sick eventually passing out and finally I gave myself a nasty concussion; but if I'd slammed my head into the wall where I couldn't bust the drywall and instead hit the 2X4 inside that wall inches from the spot I might not be here to say anything at all.

And while you are at it, why don't you tell us if a RR of 3.0 for narcolepsy is acceptable for a person getting any vaccine? Answer questions if you are going to ask them.

what is the absolute risk of febrile seizure in children aged between 12 to 23 months, and 12 to 35 months, within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine ?

Do tell.

 

[Word based mystic]

here is the deal. earlier diets throughout the world provided the body with proper vitamins, minerals and probiotic benefits. immune systems were better equipped to handle things like measles. Now our diets vacancy of nutritional value cripples our immune system. If one does not have a healthy immune system they had better get the shots. forks over knives is a great netflix documentary

 

[1PeaceMaker]

If one does not have a healthy immune system they had better get the shots.

Actually the ones who need protection from measles most can't use a vaccine.

From a vaccine promotion piece;

Pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems and with certain illnesses are among those who should not be given the measles vaccine. The C.D.C. maintains a detailed list on its website of conditions in which the measles vaccine should be postponed or avoided.

From the CDC:

Live attenuated vaccines may cause severe or fatal reac-

tions as a result of uncontrolled replication (growth) of the

vaccine virus. This only occurs in persons with immunodefi-

ciency.