Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Measles Cases Triple in U.S., Vaccine Refusal Here and Elsewhere to Blame

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   


“It is not a failure of the vaccine,” Frieden said. “It’s a failure to vaccinate. Around 90 percent of the people who have had measles in this country were not vaccinated either because they refused, or were not vaccinated on time.”

If 175 cases doesn’t sound like much, consider measles’ impact. It isn’t just an itchy rash; it can cause deafness and encephalitis, and miscarriage in pregnant women. Before the measles vaccine was achieved 50 years ago, the disease killed 2.6 million people around the world every year. Its cost to society is huge. A single importation of measles into Arizona in 2008, via an unvaccinated, infected Swiss tourist, caused a 14-person outbreak; compelled the Arizona Department of Health to track down and interview

Measles Cases Triple in U.S., Vaccine Refusal Here and Elsewhere to Blame

The whole "Vaccinations are killing us" conspiracy meme is so out of control and dangerous that is has become a major public health concern -


An editorial in JAMA Pediatrics underlined the vulnerability:

The greatest threat to the US vaccination program may now come from parents’ hesitancy to vaccinate their children. Although this so-called vaccine hesitancy has not become as widespread in the United States as it appears to have become in Europe, it is increasing. Many measles outbreaks can be traced to people refusing to be vaccinated … Even greater risk may come from parents who delay vaccinations rather than refusing them outright because a delayed vaccination may add more person-years of susceptibility than that due to refusing vaccination.


Measles still kill hundreds of thousands of people a year - it used to kill 4-500 people in the USA every year - and it seems that people have forgotten just how dangerous it is - possibly, ironically, because of the success of the vaccine programmes in removing it from every day consideration by the mass of het public!!




posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Happened here in the UK..until a couple of children died then all the parents were queuing up to get them vaccinated.
Scary that because of fear mongering people are not getting their kids vaccinated like we were when we was kids.
Whats next polio returning?
edit on 8-12-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I honestly revel in news like this because it goes to show that natural selection is still at work despite humanity's advances in science and medicine. I support people who are anti-vaccination for this very reason.


+9 more 
posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Pharma is Prolly intentionally spreading the disease..



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 


Yup that must be the truth...or the disease can spread because people are not vaccinated against it....
Not hard really.


+17 more 
posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



What happened before Vaccinations



FACT : In 1900 there were 13.3 measles deaths per 100,000 population. By 1955, the death rate was 0.03 deaths per 100,000, a decline of 97.7%, eight years before the first measles shot. 5 The death rate from measles in the mid-1970’s (post-vaccine) remained exactly the same as in the early 1960’s (pre-vaccine). 6



FACT : In the United States and England, between 1915 and 1958, there was a 95% decline in the measles death rate. 7




FACT : Before the vaccine was introduced, it was extremely rare for an infant to contract measles. However, by 1993 more than 25% of all measles cases were occurring in babies under one year old. CDC (Centre for Disease Control) officials attribute it to the growing number of mothers who were vaccinated during the 1960’s, ‘70’s, and ‘80’s. (When natural immunity is denied, measles protection cannot be passed onto their babies.) 8


www.vaclib.org...

So it seems that because we have vaccinated ourselves we have stopped the growing immunity that was being passed onto the next generation and therefor we now have the high incidence of these outbreaks and perhaps that will also apply to other forms of disease that the DNA over time has created an immunity to.

Don't forget also its rather unprofitable for the Big Farm if each new generation already has an immunity to their drugs.


+8 more 
posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Vaccinations are killing us and saving us at the same time. Along with all our other medical advancements.

Many millions of lives are saved each year from vaccines, medications, transplants, prostheses and many other technologies that I'm sure I've never heard of.

But at what cost?

There is the strain put on society, the economy and the collective well being of our species as a whole.

With all these people surviving ailments that in the past would have killed. But these arguments have been made countless times. Ultimately it becomes a perspective issue.

Nature is good at maintaining balance, we have usurped that power from nature. And we may not survive ourselves as a result.

But that's just my opinion, and like butt holes, we all have one.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
The primary issue with vaccinations is the frequency and age they are given.

Age should be bumped up to right after child finishes breast feeding. They should also be spaced further apart.

Not all anti-vax info is an all or none. There are some legitimate concerns that should be addressed. Like why are you giving an infant a Hep B vaccine if the mother doesn't have the STD?

Kind of like the required meningitis shots in Texas colleges now. Just an excuse to make money off of an illness that kills less people than suicides and twice as much as lightning strikes.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Do you think, just for a second...wait for it...that some of these conspiracies are out there to harm you and your families. If not to harm then produced by neo-luddites whose best interest is the destruction of modern society and the medical-technological wonders it produces.

When they say look outside of the box and take the red pill, it means to question everything and not get stuck in another box. Damned fools. Sometimes the conspiracy parade is just as dull and slumber bound as the rest of society.

Sleep deeply and let your children die of diseases that shouldn't be worried about in 2013.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Maybe the anti-vaccine movement is really being perpetuated by the biblical "end of the world" crowd. You can't really have judgement day without pestilence right?


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I know a lot of parents would gladly vaccinate their children if they would take the mercury, formaldehyde and other toxic chemicals out of the vaccines.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

OrphanApology
The primary issue with vaccinations is the frequency and age they are given.

Age should be bumped up to right after child finishes breast feeding. They should also be spaced further apart.

Not all anti-vax info is an all or none. There are some legitimate concerns that should be addressed. Like why are you giving an infant a Hep B vaccine if the mother doesn't have the STD?

Kind of like the required meningitis shots in Texas colleges now. Just an excuse to make money off of an illness that kills less people than suicides and twice as much as lightning strikes.


When my youngest son (now 4) was 4 months old, they wanted to give him eight vaccinations in one sitting. EIGHT. We ended up doing a delayed schedule because that is too many for one sitting in my opinion.

I agree completely on the Hep B vaccine, unless the babies of uninfected mothers are going to walk right out of the hospital to immediately shoot drugs and have unprotected sex, it isn't necessary. It should be on a case by case basis.
edit on 12/8/2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by nugget1
 


You get more mercury eating a can of tuna.
In fact you breath in more toxic chemicals than in vaccines from cars, pollution etc.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Of course vaccinations hurt you. As previous have stated they need to be spaced out. A parent needs to read everything in the vaccine before they shoot their kid up with it and look for an alternative vaccination if its got junk in it like mercury. Yes they still use mercury. Measles sounds better then Autism to me. Less vaccines, more breast feeding, space the vaccines out. That's the key. No one breast feeds anymore what do you expect? The kids getting no immunity from the mother.

These cases are just from peoples own ignorance. They usually do no research. You can also be anti vaccine and not get this junk. Its all about being informed. Don't believe the MSM fear mongering about vaccines either. This article looks like a bunch of propaganda. They are pushing their usual fear mongering to get people to do what they want to do. They know people are waking up and they want to stop it. Fear bypasses your consciousness and turns you into a sheeple.

You act more then contemplate. The CDC's own website states this is more about kids traveling internationally not kids here in the USA. If you are going to go over seas OF COURSE you should consider vaccinations. This is simply stupidity it has NOTHING at all to do with the anti vaccination movement.


People infected abroad continue to spark outbreaks among pockets of unvaccinated people, including infants and young children. It is still a serious illness: 1 in 5 children with measles is hospitalized. Usually there are about 60 cases per year, but 2013 saw a spike in American communities – some 175 cases and counting – virtually all linked to people who brought the infection home after foreign travel.


Do your research don't believe the hype.

www.cdc.gov...


The CDC also advises that adults at greater risk of exposure to measles or mumps get a second dose of MMR vaccine, given four weeks after the first dose. The second dose is recommended for adults who:

Have been exposed to measles or mumps or live in an area where an outbreak has occurred

Are students in colleges or trade schools

Travel internationally

Work in health care facilities


www.webmd.com...

TADA! Look what I just did. I thought for myself. Omgosh I'm an evil thought criminal!

So the REAL problem here is adults traveling internationally without getting their booster shot. I thought it was common knowledge that if you go over seas you had to get immunizations for that trip if yours was not up to date. I guess people have more important things to think about like football or genitalia.


edit on 8-12-2013 by Pimpintology because: of his early childhood vaccinations!



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Pinkorchid
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


What happened before Vaccinations

FACT : In 1900 there were 13.3 measles deaths per 100,000 population. By 1955, the death rate was 0.03 deaths per 100,000, a decline of 97.7%, eight years before the first measles shot. 5 The death rate from measles in the mid-1970’s (post-vaccine) remained exactly the same as in the early 1960’s (pre-vaccine). 6

FACT : In the United States and England, between 1915 and 1958, there was a 95% decline in the measles death rate. 7


I had to take her EX tags of sorry, otherwise this wouldn't show.

Yes AFAIK this is all true - these rates had fallen massively due to better care.

HOWEVER this is, of course, only part of the story - these rates are deaths PER 100,000 CASES OF MEASLES - not per 100,000 population!!

And they do not mention the rates of encephalitis - BRAIN DAMAGE.

Vaccines do not change the rate of death or injury per 100,000 cases of measles - THEY STOP PEOPLE GETTING MEASLES ALTOGETHER!

so yes all those figures are true - and they are a classic case of "lies, damned lies, and statistics"!


FACT : Before the vaccine was introduced, it was extremely rare for an infant to contract measles. However, by 1993 more than 25% of all measles cases were occurring in babies under one year old. CDC (Centre for Disease Control) officials attribute it to the growing number of mothers who were vaccinated during the 1960’s, ‘70’s, and ‘80’s. (When natural immunity is denied, measles protection cannot be passed onto their babies.) 8


This "fact" is true and yet still downright dishonest - it is STILL "extremely rare" for infants to catch measles - much more so than it was pre-vaccine!!

There were only 180-ish cases in the USA in the year the article references - how many of them were infants??


So it seems that because we have vaccinated ourselves we have stopped the growing immunity that was being passed onto the next generation and therefor we now have the high incidence of these outbreaks and perhaps that will also apply to other forms of disease that the DNA over time has created an immunity to.


Rubbish - there is no evidence of any DNA immunity to measles - immunity is due ot antibodies!


Don't forget also its rather unprofitable for the Big Farm if each new generation already has an immunity to their drugs.


This is so stupid as to be sad! Measles is not a drug made by "Big pharma" - you are deluded!!
edit on 8-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

nugget1
I know a lot of parents would gladly vaccinate their children if they would take the mercury, formaldehyde and other toxic chemicals out of the vaccines.


Ther has been little or no thimerosol in vaccines for years now.

Formaldehyde is used in the manufacture, but almost always removed from the vaccine itself - see vaccine additives, and the amount present, if any, is miniscule compared to the 0.2mg/kg/day that is a very conservative safe exposure.

From there:



Looking at the recommended schedule of vaccines from the CDC, let's pick the vaccines from that list that a child might receive in their first 6 years of life (picking the highest amounts, just for illustration). Note, not all of these are actually required for school entry and lower formaldehyde content vaccines are available for most of these:
•HepB - Recombivax - 3 doses (birth, 1-2 mos. and 6-18 mos.) - 7.5μg/dose
•DTaP - Infanrix - 5 doses (2 mos., 4 mos., 6 mos., 15-18 mos. and 4-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
•Hib - ActHIB - 3 doses (2 mos., 4 mos. and 12-15 mos.) - 0.5μg/dose
•IPV - IPOL - 4 doses (2 mos., 4 mos., 6-18 mos. and 4-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
•Influenza - Fluzone - 7 doses (6 mos., 12 mos. and yearly 2-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
•HepA - Havrix - 2 doses (12 mos. and 6-18 mos. after first dose) - 100μg/dose
That's all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule for 0-6 years that contain formaldehyde. If a child got all of those doses all at once (which they never would), they would get a total of 1,824μg, or 1.824mg, of formaldehyde. A 3.2kg (~7lb) newborn with an average blood volume of 83.3mL/kg would naturally have, at any given time, about 575-862μg of formaldehyde circulating in their blood. By the time they are 6 years old (~46lb or 21kg), they'll naturally have 3,562-5,342μg of formaldehyde in their blood. Bear in mind that the formaldehyde from each shot will not build up in their bodies from shot to shot, as it is very rapidly (within hours) metabolized and eliminated as formate in the urine or breathed out as CO2.

So what's the most a child might get in a single office visit? That would probably be at their 6 month visit (when they are, on average, 16.5lbs or 7.5kg) with HepB, DTaP, IPV and flu, for a total of 307.5μg. That is about 160 times less than the total amount their body naturally produces every single day*. Compare that to the 428.4-1,516.4μg of formaldehyde in a single apple.


formaldehyde is another scaremongering non-issue that does nothing except cause people to be able to get sick for no good reason!



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

nugget1
I know a lot of parents would gladly vaccinate their children if they would take the mercury, formaldehyde and other toxic chemicals out of the vaccines.


There are adjuvant free vaccines available for children. If you check with your pediatrician's office, they may offer them. They are pricier that those with the adjuvants, because without, they are preservative free and do not have a long shelf life. So there might be a greater out of pocket expense.

Without the adjuvants, I still think vaccines should wait until a child is weaned. In other words, our babies should be breast fed so that the mother's natural immunities are passed to the children thru the milk. Without those immunities, the newborn is susceptible to disease.

Our society has pushed mothers away from nursing their children, and has pushed families into having their babies vaccinated with up to 24 doses the first year of life. Both actions are adversely affecting our populations.

BT



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


Not to mention this study:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So the advice is to not breastfeed so their rotovirus vaccine will work?

So stupid.

This is what I'm going to do when I have a kid: Breastfeed baby, skip the rotovirus and hep vaccines altogether(get STD check prior to giving birth). Then when child is no longer breastfeeding get measles and polio vaccines. Not at the same time.

When they start walking and getting into trouble, get tetanus shot.

That's it.

Unless they are born with some immune disorder or you're a hooker, those three are the only ones I see as making any rational sense.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Rubbish - there is no evidence of any DNA immunity to measles - immunity is due ot antibodies!


I beg to differ.


The Role of Genetics in the Evolution of an Infectious AgentThe forefront of the war against infectious disease is waged on a microscopic level, one where genetics plays a vital part for the invader as well as the host. Genetics can be the determining factor on whether a pathogenic bacteria or a virus evades the body’s immune system. Genetics can play a role in a infectious agent's evolution, whether a bacteria will become antibiotic resistant (as is the case with MRSA) or whether a virus will learn a new mode of transmission/ invasion of a new host (as is it is speculated with Ebola).

Genes are like a library, they house all the traits and developmental functions that a living organism will express. When genes are mutated via the genomic sequencing for that particular gene, this can alter traits and developmental functions for that particular organism.



Bacterial Gene Transfer and Mutation

Bacteria share genetic material with each other via conjugation, transduction, or transformation. The unique feature about bacteria is that along with their bacterial chromosomal DNA, they also carry extra, circular genes known as plasmids. Plasmids naturally occur within bacteria. These plasmids can be transferred to other bacterial cells, thus giving other bacteria the same type of trait/function that the donor cell has. This type of sharing/transferring of genetic material is performed either through conjugation (direct cell to cell transfer) or transformation (plasmid released into environment and bacterial cell alters self so as to be able to uptake it).



Let's take an example of what this entails in regards to an infectious agent. Antibiotics are supposed to either kill or inhibit pathogenic bacteria. What if some bacterial cells are resistant to the antibiotic and survive? These survivor cells can pass that antibiotic resistant gene on to other bacterial cells that are naturally susceptible to that particular antibiotic. Through means such as conjugation or transformation, it can go from four or five antibiotic resistant cells to thousands in a matter of minutes. Science then has to face particularly virulent bacteria that is difficult to treat, like MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus).





www.brighthub.com...



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I would like to see the occurences in the cases of measles and other illnesses, like TB and Whooping Cough, broken down into ethnicity. I am in no way being racist here, so before I get flamed for that, let me tell you the reason I ask.

Some years ago there was a man in Texas, who was from Mexico, illegally, that was on a plane, and the big scare was the was contagious on that plane. Come to find out, he had been deported several times before, several of his family members also had it.

I wonder, because these days with so many illegal immigrants coming from Mexico, other South American countries and the Ukraine (the top places for people to be coming from off the top of my head). Mostly all third world countries or poor countries with poor health care and no access to vaccines. When they enter this country illegally they don't get required health checks and/or vaccinations. The bring children who get put in schools. People are in stores and out in the general public. And who knows what they have or came here with. Again, I am not being racist, but when you have people with poor health care, poor sanitation, poor hygene due to the fact they never learned better, etc., and they come here, it makes you wonder what they are bringing with them.

Combine that with the amount of people who refuse to vaccinate their children, who are then exposed to the children that are placed in schools, and others in the general public (grocery stores, malls, etc.) It makes much sense that many of these illnesses that were almost eradicated are making a comeback.






top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join