CDZ Childhood vaccination

[Ravi]

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 145 700 people died from measles in 2013 – mostly children under the age of 5.

Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the mucous membranes, then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.

WHO Measles

 

[Asclepias]

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 145 700 people died from measles in 2013 – mostly children under the age of 5.

Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the mucous membranes, then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.

WHO Measles

"Not known" but they admit other primates can be infected with it. Obviously this is because they have done it. If humans can do it what makes you think nature cant do it?

 

[Syriusly]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

Live virus's kill people.

Why are you willing to accept dead people now, to prevent the possible- though completely unproven- and not even considered an actual theory- future deaths?

I just do not get what you seem to be advocating here.

I'm advocating looking at it from a point of view that is conducive to nature in its solution. People/kids die all the time. All it takes is one population killing disease/virus that mutates outside of the boundaries of what we think we know today to prove once again we dont know everything and may be actually aiding the problem for short term gain.

And what is 'conducive to nature in its solution'?

So far the solutions you find less than satisfactory now are saving lives. There is no evidence to support your concern that this will cause future deaths.

So again- what is it you think should be pursued instead of vaccinations- which are proven to save lives, and prevent pain, suffering and crippling.

 

[Syriusly]

And no, vaccines are not going to create super viruses and diseases.

Nature's way is those who survive have antibodies in their system. Vaccines give you those antibodies without having to have massive loss of life from the disease. Vaccines usually involve a dead or lesser variety of the disease causing agent. The body then creates the antibodies as if you had had the disease.

So the difference between nature and science, in this case, is the body count.

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

If everyone was vaccinated against the measles, the measles would eventually die and there would be no possibility of mutation. As long as measles are spread, there is a chance of mutation.

So yes, vaccinating everyone would be the correct thing to do.

Why do you think measles for instance would eventually die?

We have two proven examples of diseases being eliminated in nature- smallpox and rindpest.

Polio is extremely close to that.

We may or may not be able to reach that with Measles- but certainly it is worth pursuing.

 

[Asclepias]

Is there anything scientific that proves your theory that vaccines will not create super viruses? We already see this occurring in pesticide resistant weeds.

Vaccines dont give you those antibodies in a natural way. I know how it works in theory. What I am saying is that no one knows what can happen once man starts messing with nature. I think its pure arrogance for man to assume to know what is going to happen when its been proven over and over again we simply dont.

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

Live virus's kill people.

Why are you willing to accept dead people now, to prevent the possible- though completely unproven- and not even considered an actual theory- future deaths?

I just do not get what you seem to be advocating here.

I'm advocating looking at it from a point of view that is conducive to nature in its solution. People/kids die all the time. All it takes is one population killing disease/virus that mutates outside of the boundaries of what we think we know today to prove once again we dont know everything and may be actually aiding the problem for short term gain.

And what is 'conducive to nature in its solution'?

So far the solutions you find less than satisfactory now are saving lives. There is no evidence to support your concern that this will cause future deaths.

So again- what is it you think should be pursued instead of vaccinations- which are proven to save lives, and prevent pain, suffering and crippling.

A natural solution would be one that allows people to catch those diseases so the human biology keeps up with any minute changes in the virus/disease DNA.. We may be saving lives now but at what cost? I mentioned earlier that they are now observing the creation of super weeds that have developed an immunity to pesticides. This is another example of man thinking they are doing something right but actually disrupting the natural balance of things.

 

[WinterBorn]

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 145 700 people died from measles in 2013 – mostly children under the age of 5.

Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the mucous membranes, then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.

WHO Measles

"Not known" but they admit other primates can be infected with it. Obviously this is because they have done it. If humans can do it what makes you think nature cant do it?

So we should risk millions more deaths on the off chance that measles MIGHT mutate? Really?

This is the same as allowing someone to wander around carrying radioactive materials because most people won't be effected. There is no evidence that these diseases will mutate because of the vaccines. In fact, since millions fewer people get the diseases, there is a hugely smaller population of the viruses, and so the chances of mutation is reduced exponentially.

The larger the number of any organism the greater the chance for mutation. Reducing that number, as vaccines certainly do, reduces the chances of mutation.

Get vaccinated and get your kids vaccinated.

 

[Asclepias]

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 145 700 people died from measles in 2013 – mostly children under the age of 5.

Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the mucous membranes, then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.

WHO Measles

"Not known" but they admit other primates can be infected with it. Obviously this is because they have done it. If humans can do it what makes you think nature cant do it?

So we should risk millions more deaths on the off chance that measles MIGHT mutate? Really?

This is the same as allowing someone to wander around carrying radioactive materials because most people won't be effected. There is no evidence that these diseases will mutate because of the vaccines. In fact, since millions fewer people get the diseases, there is a hugely smaller population of the viruses, and so the chances of mutation is reduced exponentially.

The larger the number of any organism the greater the chance for mutation. Reducing that number, as vaccines certainly do, reduces the chances of mutation.

Get vaccinated and get your kids vaccinated.

You are not risking millions. You are only risking the people that dont get vaccinated. I didnt say that vaccines cause the viruses/disease to mutate. That can happen naturally and does with or without human intervention. What I am saying is that human biology progresses with diseases naturally. You only need look at what happened to the natives when columbus landed in the Bahamas to understand what I am talking about. The Andaman islanders are another group that were isolated from other humans and almost wiped out due to diseases that their bodies had not kept up with like other humans exposed to these diseases and viruses. .

 

[WinterBorn]

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

Live virus's kill people.

Why are you willing to accept dead people now, to prevent the possible- though completely unproven- and not even considered an actual theory- future deaths?

I just do not get what you seem to be advocating here.

I'm advocating looking at it from a point of view that is conducive to nature in its solution. People/kids die all the time. All it takes is one population killing disease/virus that mutates outside of the boundaries of what we think we know today to prove once again we dont know everything and may be actually aiding the problem for short term gain.

And what is 'conducive to nature in its solution'?

So far the solutions you find less than satisfactory now are saving lives. There is no evidence to support your concern that this will cause future deaths.

So again- what is it you think should be pursued instead of vaccinations- which are proven to save lives, and prevent pain, suffering and crippling.

A natural solution would be one that allows people to catch those diseases so the human biology keeps up with any minute changes in the virus/disease DNA.. We may be saving lives now but at what cost? I mentioned earlier that they are now observing the creation of super weeds that have developed an immunity to pesticides. This is another example of man thinking they are doing something right but actually disrupting the natural balance of things.

We don't naturally have any immunity from these diseases now. If they mutate to the point that the antibodies created by the vaccines don't work, then the antibodies from having the disease wouldn't work either.

If these diseases mutate they can possibly cause an epidemic. But having the disease in its current form will not change that. It will simply mean a higher body count until the mutation occurs.

 

[Syriusly]

If a virus will mutate, there is nothing preventing that now. You are confusing antibiotics with vaccines. A vaccine fools your body into thinking it has the disease, and the body fights back by producing specific antibodies. The difference between surviving the real disease with antibodies and dying from the disease is a matter of whether your body produces antibodies fast enough to stop the disease or whether the disease is faster at destroying the host. With a vaccine, the disease is dead, so the body is not actually in a race. When the body is exposed to the virus or disease next time, the antibodies are already present and kill it before it reproduces at all.

Vaccines do not promote mutation, nor do they give the virus a viable place to survive to mutate.

I'm not confusing anything at all. I know how it works. The process is inherently not the same as natural immunity. A dead virus is not the same as a live virus. What is missing in the dead virus that the live virus contains? If a new strain occurs there is a potential that it may be too much for us to overcome especially if its a big population killer. We may be missing the immunity imparted by evolving with the disease.

Live virus's kill people.

Why are you willing to accept dead people now, to prevent the possible- though completely unproven- and not even considered an actual theory- future deaths?

I just do not get what you seem to be advocating here.

I'm advocating looking at it from a point of view that is conducive to nature in its solution. People/kids die all the time. All it takes is one population killing disease/virus that mutates outside of the boundaries of what we think we know today to prove once again we dont know everything and may be actually aiding the problem for short term gain.

And what is 'conducive to nature in its solution'?

So far the solutions you find less than satisfactory now are saving lives. There is no evidence to support your concern that this will cause future deaths.

So again- what is it you think should be pursued instead of vaccinations- which are proven to save lives, and prevent pain, suffering and crippling.

A natural solution would be one that allows people to catch those diseases so the human biology keeps up with any minute changes in the virus/disease DNA.. We may be saving lives now but at what cost? I mentioned earlier that they are now observing the creation of super weeds that have developed an immunity to pesticides. This is another example of man thinking they are doing something right but actually disrupting the natural balance of things.

Here is an example of 'allowing people to catch those diseases'

Roald Dahl:

Measles: A Dangerous Illness

Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old. As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it.

Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn’t do anything.

“Are you feeling all right?” I asked her.

“I feel all sleepy,” she said.

In an hour, she was unconscious. In 12 hours she was dead.

The measles had turned into a terrible thing called measles encephalitis and there was nothing the doctors could do to save her.

That was 24 years ago in 1962, but even now, if a child with measles happens to develop the same deadly reaction from measles as Olivia did, there would still be nothing the doctors could do to help her.

On the other hand, there is today something that parents can do to make sure that this sort of tragedy does not happen to a child of theirs. They can insist that their child is immunised against measles.

I was unable to do that for Olivia in 1962 because in those days a reliable measles vaccine had not been discovered. Today a good and safe vaccine is available to every family and all you have to do is to ask your doctor to administer it.

It is not yet generally accepted that measles can be a dangerous illness. Believe me, it is. In my opinion parents who now refuse to have their children immunised are putting the lives of those children at risk.

In America, where measles immunisation is compulsory, measles like smallpox, has been virtually wiped out.

Here in Britain, because so many parents refuse, either out of obstinacy or ignorance or fear, to allow their children to be immunised, we still have a hundred thousand cases of measles every year.

Out of those, more than 10,000 will suffer side effects of one kind or another. At least 10,000 will develop ear or chest infections. About 20 will die.

 

[Syriusly]

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 145 700 people died from measles in 2013 – mostly children under the age of 5.

Measles is caused by a virus in the paramyxovirus family and it is normally passed through direct contact and through the air. The virus infects the mucous membranes, then spreads throughout the body. Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.

WHO Measles

"Not known" but they admit other primates can be infected with it. Obviously this is because they have done it. If humans can do it what makes you think nature cant do it?

So we should risk millions more deaths on the off chance that measles MIGHT mutate? Really?

This is the same as allowing someone to wander around carrying radioactive materials because most people won't be effected. There is no evidence that these diseases will mutate because of the vaccines. In fact, since millions fewer people get the diseases, there is a hugely smaller population of the viruses, and so the chances of mutation is reduced exponentially.

The larger the number of any organism the greater the chance for mutation. Reducing that number, as vaccines certainly do, reduces the chances of mutation.

Get vaccinated and get your kids vaccinated.

You are not risking millions. You are only risking the people that dont get vaccinated. I didnt say that vaccines cause the viruses/disease to mutate. That can happen naturally and does with or without human intervention. What I am saying is that human biology progresses with diseases naturally. You only need look at what happened to the natives when columbus landed in the Bahamas to understand what I am talking about. The Andaman islanders are another group that were isolated from other humans and almost wiped out due to diseases that their bodies had not kept up with like other humans exposed to these diseases and viruses. .

Vaccination would have saved them.

Your solution is that Andaman Islanders was 'natural' and that letting them die rather than vaccinating them is good for the human race.

Along with the children who die from whooping cough, polio, smallpox, etc.

 

[Mertex]

I'm a liberal and I say it should depend on if you believe the immunizations are safe. Plenty of people think they are unsafe.

I believe they are not safe - there is a lot of stories about vaccinations causing autism. It is a parents choice - to vaccinate or not - the government should have no say in it whatsoever.

The doctor who came up with that BS has been debunked, not allowed to practice medicine.......and it is the government's duty to keep society safe, so if parents are that uninformed they believe something that has been debunked, then they should be forced, in order to protect the rest of us.

Wiki:

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.[1][2][3][4][5]

After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism[6] or autism and gastrointestinal disease.[7] A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part,[8] and most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations.[9] The British General Medical Council (GMC) conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues.[10] The investigation centred on Deer's numerous findings, including that children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures,[11] such as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture, and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.[12]The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.[13][14][15] The Lancetimmediately and fully retracted his 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified.[16] The Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton said the paper was "utterly false" and that the journal had been "deceived".[17] Three months later, Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, with a statement identifying deliberate falsification in The Lancet research,[18] and is barred from practising medicine in the UK.[19]

 

[Mertex]

Do you eat fish or is your fear of mercury selective?

oh

I eat fish all the time

in fact
I am eating the most gorgeous swordfish tonight

it is going to go down my throat soon.....hehehehehe

potatoes ans salad on the side baby

then your complaints about mecury are immaterial.

Apparently you don't care about the mercury - it is an excuse.

True
I don't give a rat's ass about Mercury myself

what do I care

but then

go on children..other's people children

.go get Mercury infected ...

Yes, because getting measles and infecting others is so much better than what little mercury may be in the vaccine......brilliant.

A little Mercury... a little autism.....brilliant

who gives a shit right?

You need to get updated....the doctor who came up with that BS about the measles vaccine causine autism has since been discredited, his research called a fraud and he has been kicked out and not allowed to practice medicine again.

And I do care...all my children were vaccinated and were not a danger to others as those who came from homes where the parents didn't think it was necessary....I bet they wish they had vaccinated them, now....brilliant!

 

[Mertex]

Let me pose this question. If you get your kids vaccinated what is the problem if someone chooses not to vaccinate their children? Your kids should not be in danger after they are vaccinated correct?

We are seeing the problem now.....too many people didn't get their kids vaccinated and now they are a danger to those who for medical reasons cannot get vaccinated, or babies under the age of 18 months, who also can't get vaccinated. Why should unvaccinated kids be allowed near these innocents and pass on a very contagious disease that could kill them? Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are not only putting their own kids at risk, but others who for medical or other reasons cannot get vaccinated....seems rather selfish to me, and I can't understand why any parent would take a chance with their own children.

cdc.gov:
Measles disease can come into this country when unvaccinated U.S. residents travel internationally or foreign visitors to the United States are exposed to measles in another country and travel into the United States. The risk of getting measles may be very high for unvaccinated U.S. residents who travel abroad. The reason for this high risk is because measles is common in other parts of the world, including countries in Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa. Worldwide, about 20 million people get measles each year. When people with measles travel into the United States, they can spread the disease to unvaccinated people including children too young to be vaccinated.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Here is where the case for mandatory vaccinations falls apart. Those who opt for vaccinating their children should not be in danger of any risk if the vaccinations are supposedly infallible. Therein the child that wasn't vaccinated isn't putting at risk anyone but those who also chose not to be vaccinated. It's a matter of personal choice for the parent. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate. There is evidence that vaccinations are not safe and if a parent doesn't want to expose their child to "that risk" they should be free to opt out.

Anytime government is forcing their will on the will of the people - it's a bad sign. I think parents are able to decide for their own children what is best.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here is where the case for mandatory vaccinations falls apart. Those who opt for vaccinating their children should not be in danger of any risk if the vaccinations are supposedly infallible. Therein the child that wasn't vaccinated isn't putting at risk anyone but those who also chose not to be vaccinated. It's a matter of personal choice for the parent. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate. There is evidence that vaccinations are not safe and if a parent doesn't want to expose their child to "that risk" they should be free to opt out.

Anytime government is forcing their will on the will of the people - it's a bad sign. I think parents are able to decide for their own children what is best.

Gee! When you put it like that, it all seems so simple!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Here is where the case for mandatory vaccinations falls apart. Those who opt for vaccinating their children should not be in danger of any risk if the vaccinations are supposedly infallible. Therein the child that wasn't vaccinated isn't putting at risk anyone but those who also chose not to be vaccinated. It's a matter of personal choice for the parent. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate. There is evidence that vaccinations are not safe and if a parent doesn't want to expose their child to "that risk" they should be free to opt out.

Anytime government is forcing their will on the will of the people - it's a bad sign. I think parents are able to decide for their own children what is best.

Gee! When you put it like that, it all seems so simple!

Actually it is. Would you prefer your child have a small risk for a case of measles or this?



This risk is too great. Parents are coming out with stories of their children developing autism. The MMR vaccination caused this childs autism according to his mother. This isn't an isolated case. I have a second cousin who was born normal. She was a normal healthy baby girl. After having a vaccination - she developed autism. My grandmothers sister said, That child was born normal! How could this have happened? The autism didn't happen until AFTER the vaccination and she was convinced it was the vaccination that caused the autism. I believe she was right.

Vaccinations should not be mandatory - the govt. should STAY OUT OF IT and Hillary Clinton should mind her own business.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here is where the case for mandatory vaccinations falls apart. Those who opt for vaccinating their children should not be in danger of any risk if the vaccinations are supposedly infallible. Therein the child that wasn't vaccinated isn't putting at risk anyone but those who also chose not to be vaccinated. It's a matter of personal choice for the parent. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate. There is evidence that vaccinations are not safe and if a parent doesn't want to expose their child to "that risk" they should be free to opt out.

Anytime government is forcing their will on the will of the people - it's a bad sign. I think parents are able to decide for their own children what is best.

Gee! When you put it like that, it all seems so simple!

Actually it is. Would you prefer your child have a small risk for a case of measles or this?



This risk is too great. Parents are coming out with stories of their children developing autism. The MMR vaccination caused this childs autism according to his mother. This isn't an isolated case. I have a second cousin who was born normal. She was a normal healthy baby girl. After having a vaccination - she developed autism. My grandmothers sister said, That child was born normal! How could this have happened? The autism didn't happen until AFTER the vaccination and she was convinced it was the vaccination that caused the autism. I believe she was right.

Vaccinations should not be mandatory - the govt. should STAY OUT OF IT and Hillary Clinton should mind her own business.

Oh my god!!! Is that true!! We must stop all vaccinations immediately! This is outrageous!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

It is true and I would advise parents against vaccinations. I believe they are too dangerous. The risk of any child getting autism is too great a risk. You should visit a group that works with autistic children sometime and educate yourself in what these parents are going through, Lonelaugher. Then this would not be funny to you. (hopefully)

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is true and I would advise parents against vaccinations. I believe they are too dangerous. The risk of any child getting autism is too great a risk. You should visit a group that works with autistic children sometime and educate yourself in what these parents are going through, Lonelaugher. Then this would not be funny to you. (hopefully)

Oh....absolutely! The risk of getting autism far outweighs the risk of getting the measles. That has been made clear by you here. If I had a chance to do it all over again, I'd decline the vaccination for my kids and put my trust in god to keep them safe from the deadly measles. Absolutely!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

It is true and I would advise parents against vaccinations. I believe they are too dangerous. The risk of any child getting autism is too great a risk. You should visit a group that works with autistic children sometime and educate yourself in what these parents are going through, Lonelaugher. Then this would not be funny to you. (hopefully)

Oh....absolutely! The risk of getting autism far outweighs the risk of getting the measles. That has been made clear by you here. If I had a chance to do it all over again, I'd decline the vaccination for my kids and put my trust in god to keep them safe from the deadly measles. Absolutely!

Listen to this parent describe her child's case of measles, Lonelaugher, and get over the hysteria and note which one was voted "BEST ANSWER".........

Are measles and mumps treatable in young children babies if they get it
Are measles and mumps treatable in young children/babies if they get it?

If a child is not vaccinated, or a child IS vaccinated and still gets measles or mumps, is this treatable? I know that children die from measles and mumps and vaccinates can prevent this, but does that mean there is nothing you can do if your child does get it and they are most likely doomed to die? Best AnswerAsker's Choice

• Lisa answered 5 years ago

My kids have never been vaccinated.

My son had measles when he was 2 years old. It was not a big deal at all. The way I treated it was with rest and water. He had a reduced appetite, and I didn't force him to eat. I tried to give him cod liver oil, which is very high in vitamin A. Measles complications in Africa such as blindness are caused by a severe vitamin A deficiency. But he refused to take the cod liver oil, so I didn't stress about it, since he was a normally nourished child. The fever was high, around 103-104 for a few days (I don't remember exactly how many days). At first I thought it was roseola, but he was acting sick, which is not characteristic of roseola, and the fever remained after the rash appeared, which doesn't happen with roseola. I never treat fevers in myself or my children. Fevers are an important part of illness, and Tylenol is hard on the liver and decreases glutathione at a time when the body especially needs it--during illness.

I wonder why people don't freak out about roseola? The fever gets pretty high, and there's a rash similar to measles, but shorter lasting. Is it because there is no vaccine for it? People didn't use to freak out about measles, either, before there was a vaccine. In 1908, Dr. Kurt Elsner, M.D. wrote, [Measles] "is generally looked upon as one of the most harmless diseases" http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fre...In 2008, there was a measles outbreak in the U.S. affecting 131 people, and nobody died or had any lasting health problems from it. By the way, my daughter didn't get sick at all, even though measles is very contagious, and of course she was around my son a lot. At some point I'll probably get her tested for measles immunity. I think she must have gained immunity from the exposure without getting sick.

My kids haven't had mumps yet, but I expect them to get it at some point, hopefully before puberty, after which there can sometimes be complications for boys. I've never heard of anyone dying from mumps. There's currently a mumps outbreak in New York and New Jersey, with over 2000 people, and nobody has died. By the way, health authorities say the vast majority of people who got mumps in this outbreak were fully vaccinated with 2 doses of MMR. The way to treat mumps is also with water and rest, and with ice packs or heating pads to ease the pain of swollen glands.

By the way, the U.S. death rate for measles, which according to the CDC's PInk Book is actually 2 per 1,000 applies only to reported cases. The actual death rate is lower, of course, since not all cases are reported. I never took my son to the doctor when he had measles, so it was never reported to the health department. Even kids who are taken to the doctor will not all be tested. I had my son tested later for immunity, and he had full IgG immunity. So that's how I know for sure what he had was actually measles.