Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Texas Lawmaker not Worried about Measles because of ‘Antibiotics'

posted by mrpg on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the Brawndo-Has-What-Plants-Crave dept.

DannyB writes:

Texas lawmaker says he's not worried about measles outbreak because of ‘antibiotics'

Texas state representative Bill Zedler says a resurgence of measles across the U.S. isn't worrying him.

Zedler, R-Arlington, is promoting legislation that would allow Texans to opt out of childhood vaccinations.

“They want to say people are dying of measles. Yeah, in Third World countries they’re dying of measles,” Zedler said, the Texas Observer reports. “Today, with antibiotics and that kind of stuff, they’re not dying in America.”

There is no treatment for measles, a highly contagious virus that can be fatal. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections and can't kill viruses.

It could be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Texas Lawmaker not Worried about Measles because of ‘Antibiotics' | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 114 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:20AM (38 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:20AM (#807982)

    I am sure the moron parrots will be out in force but measles stopped being a feared disease due to antibiotics and sanitation. By the 1950s people in the US and and UK had serious consequences from measles about as common as vaccine harm happens today since pneumonia was easily treated.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=2, Insightful=1, Informative=2, Overrated=2, Disagree=1, Total=8
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   -1  

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:24AM (28 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:24AM (#807984)

    What a great reason to not vaccinate your kids. "Don't worry, we have good medicine so you probably won't die. Oh what's that? Your insurance lapsed? Best of luck!"

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:49AM (23 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:49AM (#807991)

      The original reason to vaccinate your kids was to work together to eradicate measles by 1967, not mess with the epidemiology of measles so every generation needed to pay a corporation to prevent an epidemic. When will they start talking about using vaccinations for their correct purpose instead of acting like pushers that rile up rabid idiots with propoganda?

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 28 2019, @11:50AM (22 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 28 2019, @11:50AM (#808061) Homepage Journal

        It's kind of obvious it hasn't been eradicated yet though, no?

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:02PM (21 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:02PM (#808083)

          Is that because the vaccine does not actually work like promised, or they figured out it is a money making scheme so purposefully keep the immunization rate just low enough to avoid eradication while maximizing profits? We know it isnt antivaxxers preventing eradication, there aren't enough of them.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:38PM (11 children)

            by khallow (3766) on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:38PM (#808096) Journal
            It's because huge parts of the rest of the world don't have widespread measles vaccination. For example [unicef.org]:

            Measles, a viral respiratory infection, killed over 500,000 children in 2003, more than any other vaccine-preventable disease. The measles death toll in Africa is so high – every minute one child dies – that many mothers don't give children real names until they have survived the disease. Measles weakens the immune system and renders children very susceptible to fatal complications from diarrhoea, pneumonia and malnutrition. Those that survive may suffer blindness, deafness or brain damage.

            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:49PM (10 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:49PM (#808101)

              No, that cannot be the reason. Measles eradication in the US was promised by 1967, it isn't like they were unaware of Africa back then. It was not originally thought to require and endless series of vaccinations:

              With the isolation of the measles virus and the development and extensive field testing of several potent and effective vaccines, the tools are at hand to eradicate the infection. With the general application of these tools during the coming months, eradication can be achieved in this country in the year 1967.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/ [nih.gov]

              After getting people on the vaccines though, the story changed:

              Campaigns such as the one described have altered the epidemiology of measles. No longer will the disease contribute as much to maintaining herd immunity. The prevention of measles epidemics will now require constant maintenance immunization programs.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228954/ [nih.gov]

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:06PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:06PM (#808189)

                Pointing out an achievable goal is not "promised". "Mexico will pay for my great wall" is a promise. "We can eradicate measles by 1967" is a goal, so your "they promised us this and they didn't do it so now they are liars" line is hogwash.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:15PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:15PM (#808194)

                  No, they believed and told people measles would be eradicated. They called it the "End Measles" campaign:

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919948/ [nih.gov]
                  http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/object_id/10232 [nysed.gov]

                  This is from 1980 from one of the authors:

                  The Center for Disease Control (CDC) led in mounting the program with a formal paper at the American Public Health Association annual meeting in Miami in the fall of 1966. Two colleagues and I wrote the “official statement” which outlined in detail unqualified statements about the epidemiology of measles and made an unqualified prediction. My third position in the authorship of this paper did not adequately reflect my contribution to the work.14 I will make but two quotes:

                                  1. “The infection spreads by direct contact from person to person, and by the airborne route among susceptibles congregated in enclosed spaces.” (Obviously the ideas of Perkins and Wells had penetrated my consciousness but not sufficiently to influence my judgment).

                                  2. “Effective use of (measles) vaccines during the coming winter and spring should insure the eradication of measles from the United States in 1967.” Such was my faith in the broad acceptance of the vaccine by the public and the health professions and in the infallibility of herd immunity.

                          [...]

                  There are many reasons and explanations for this rather egregious blunder in prediction. The simple truth is that the prediction was based on confidence in the Reed-Frost epidemic theory, in the applicability of herd immunity on a general basis, and that measles cases were uniformly infectious. I am sure I extended the teachings of my preceptors beyond the limits that they had intended during my student days.

                  In the relentless light of the well-focussed retrospectiscope, the real failure was our neglect of conducting continuous and sufficiently sophisticated epidemiological field studies of measles. We accepted the doctrines imbued into us as students wikout maintaining the eternal skepticism of the true scientist.

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6939399 [nih.gov]

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:58PM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:58PM (#808324) Journal

                  "Mexico will pay for my great wall" is a promise.

                  However, Mexico CAN pay for a wall.... They're jut not gonna.

              • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:55PM (1 child)

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:55PM (#808320) Journal

                Unaware that antibiotics don't fix viruses and you clearly have difficulty reading. Did you forget to login as the Trump sockpuppet?

                Here's a hint: what does the word "can" mean?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @08:33PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @08:33PM (#808345)

                  Yep, I must be pretty dumb.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 01 2019, @03:25AM (4 children)

                by khallow (3766) on Friday March 01 2019, @03:25AM (#808542) Journal

                No, that cannot be the reason. Measles eradication in the US was promised by 1967

                That is indeed the reason despite you not getting that pony in 1967. Measles comes from the endemic infections routine to the poorer, non-vaccinated parts of the world. That's why it's three orders of magnitude lower now in the US than in the years prior to the mass introduction of the vaccine. If we had global vaccination at the same level of efficacy, eradication would be a likely outcome. There apparently is no animal reservoir of measles.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @03:31AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @03:31AM (#808546)

                  Measles comes from the endemic infections routine to the poorer, non-vaccinated parts of the world.

                  Are you saying pre-1967 CDC missed this? Did they know about it but not tell anyone when starting a "End Measles" campaign?

                  (I know you don't mean to imply one of those but that is what you are doing)

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 01 2019, @09:50AM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) on Friday March 01 2019, @09:50AM (#808616) Journal

                    Are you saying pre-1967 CDC missed this?

                    Point out where in the report you cited, they mention this at all. Yes, they missed it in that report.

                    Did they know about it but not tell anyone when starting a "End Measles" campaign?

                    Wouldn't be surprised that it was an inconvenient fact dropped from the narrative.

                    The problem here is that your argument is an insane ad hominem. It doesn't matter if the "End Measles" campaign bent the truth or worse. What matters is the relative difference in harm now, today, between our choices, not that someone promised too many ponies in 1967.

                    And here's what we have today. Measles is more dangerous, harmful, and costly than its vaccine, despite assertions to the contrary. Let's consider those for once.

                    First, you have the harm of the disease itself. Basically, an infected person, usually a child, has to be quarantined for a week or more, suffering all the while. That often means a parent gets to miss that much work as well. You have the various complications [cdc.gov] possible, which contrary to opinion are worse and more frequent than the complications [quebec.ca] from the vaccine. Note that a common complication from measles is ear infection (1 in 10). A common complication from the vaccine of similar frequency is: "Pain and redness at the injection site", "non contagious skin rash and moderate or high fever between the 5th and 12th day after vaccination", "irritability, drowsiness (sleepiness), conjunctivitis (red eyes)", and "joint pain in children".

                    That leads to the next big problem of measles - high use of antibiotics to fight secondary bacterial infections. One doesn't need antibiotics to fight off the common side effects of the vaccine! Antibiotics cost money and as has already been mentioned, the greater the use of antibiotics the more likely that antibiotic resistant bacterial diseases will evolve. The decade of prophylactic antibiotics is not sustainable in the long term.

                    So ultimately, that's where we're at. A dose of MMR vaccine (which covers more than just measles) for $75 (according [cdc.gov] to the CDC) plus a slight chance of complications that would actually require treatment. Or missing a week plus of the patient's life plus possibly that of caregivers, plus complications, plus medical treatment to avoid secondary infections, plus increased risk to society of antibiotic-resistant strains from antibiotic overuse.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:48PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:48PM (#808691)

                      You have the various complications [cdc.gov] possible, which contrary to opinion are worse and more frequent than the complications [quebec.ca] from the vaccine. Note that a common complication from measles is ear infection (1 in 10). A common complication from the vaccine of similar frequency is: "Pain and redness at the injection site", "non contagious skin rash and moderate or high fever between the 5th and 12th day after vaccination", "irritability, drowsiness (sleepiness), conjunctivitis (red eyes)", and "joint pain in children".

                      Not sure where those numbers are coming from. I'd think this is a better source that reports much higher rates of various symptoms after vaccination:

                      The incidence of fever reported as solicited general symptom during the 43-day post-vaccination period was also similar between groups, with 31.1% of MMR-RIT and 32.3% of MMR II-vaccinated children reporting fever ≥ 38.0°C, and 4.0% and 2.7% reporting grade 3 fever (> 39.5°C) (Figure 2 and Supplemental table S1). Medical advice for fever was sought for 13.1% and 10.1% of children in the MMR-RIT and MMR II groups, respectively.
                      [...]
                      Rashes were reported for 24.4% of MMR-RIT and 27.4% of MMR II-vaccinated children. Approximately two thirds of the rashes were localized and occurred without fever. Measles/rubella-like rashes were reported for 5.8% and 4.7% of children; varicella-like rashes (as a possible consequence of the co-administered varicella vaccine) for 3.6% and 4.0% (Table 3). Medical advice for rashes was sought for 11.2% and 12.4% of children in the MMR-RIT and MMR II groups, respectively.
                      [...]
                      A total of 51.4% (95% CI: 48.5%, 54.3%) and 48.4% (44.3%, 52.6%) of children in the MMR-RIT and MMR II groups, respectively, reported unsolicited adverse events (AEs) during the 43-day post-vaccination period; upper respiratory tract infection (9.5% and 12.8%) and diarrhea (8.2% and 8.0%) occurred most frequently.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343620/ [nih.gov]

                      So we see about 10% reporting respiratory infections after the vaccine, no mention of ear infections in that paper though.

                      Before vaccinations in the UK the complication rate of measles was ~7%, with 6% being respiratory infections:

                      Death from measles in Britain is now unusual. In 1961 the rate was as low as 2 per 10,000 notifications-a figure which was repeated in Miller's experience in 1963. Further- more, in one-half of the deaths there was an accompanying chronic disease or disability which in the majority was described as a serious handicap. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that in the past 30 years mortality from measles has been reduced to virtually the lowest figure possible.
                      [...]
                      Respiratory complications, therefore, bulk largest in the present series, producing, with otitis media, a rate of 63 per 1,000 cases.
                      [...]
                      Neurological complications were observed in 4 per 1,000 cases of measles, with encephalitis comprising about one- quarter. Though the rate was very low up to the age of 9 years it was between 4 and 5 per 1,000 over this age.
                      [...]
                      On the other hand, the development of respiratory complications, for example, does not depend only on age-nutrition and social environment are also important. Overcrowded housing conditions and large families increase the incidence ; town dwellers have a higher incidence than rural inhabitants ; winter epidemics produce a higher rate of respiratory-tract infections than when the epidemic occurs in summer.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1815980/ [nih.gov]

                      The data the above paper references:

                      One of the major sources of doubt about the need for immunization stems from the belief among many parents and doctors that measles is a mild disease in which serious complications are rare and almost never fatal in normal children.
                      [...]
                      Neary 67 per 1,000, or about 1 in every 15 persons with measles in this survey, suffered from at least one complication. The most numerous were severe affections of the respiratory tract (38 per 1,000) and otitis media (25 per 1,000), followed by neurological disturbances (4 per 1,000) and a small number of others (2 per 1,000). Twelve of the children studied (0.2 per 1,000) are known to have died after measles, and 610 (11.5 per 1,000) were admitted to hospitals as a direct result of the disease.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1815949/ [nih.gov]

                      So the rate of ear infections after measles was about 2.5%, much less than the unsourced 10% value from the layperson site.

                      There is an issue of what can be attributed to the vaccine/measles or not. For the vaccine study it was just total numbers of events for 43 days after vaccination. In the measles study they asked the doctors up about 6 weeks later who decided for themselves. Overall I don't see a big difference in the complications, the more common ones are rather minor and important ones very rare in either case. But it is hard to make a 1-1 comparison.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @03:45PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @03:45PM (#808734)

                        Before vaccinations in the UK the complication rate of measles was ~7%, with 6% being respiratory infections

                        Actually, that 6% value turned out to be 2.5% ear infections and 3.8% respiratory infections.

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:47PM (3 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:47PM (#808100) Homepage Journal

            It's primarily because not all nations immunize everyone and some morons in this nation refuse to be. One decade with everyone in the world immunized and nobody would ever have to take the vaccine to avoid measles again.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:53PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:53PM (#808103)

              See my response here: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=30329&commentsort=0&mode=threadtos&threshold=-1&highlightthresh=-1&page=1&cid=808100#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

              Your explanation is ahistorical.

              One decade with everyone in the world immunized and nobody would ever have to take the vaccine to avoid measles again.

              Yes, this would be a better plan and was closer to the original, non-scammy plan. It shouldn't require an entire decade with everyone in the world though. A single year should be enough.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 01 2019, @09:52AM

                by khallow (3766) on Friday March 01 2019, @09:52AM (#808617) Journal

                Your explanation is ahistorical.

                It would be unprecedented to eradicate measles. Unprecedented things are by definition ahistorical.

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:15PM

              by HiThere (866) on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:15PM (#808195) Journal

              That's probably correct...but are you sure there's no animal that is a carrier? There doesn't appear to be any common animal, but how to you know that, say, tapirs don't carry it.

              So it MIGHT be enough. The only way to find out (that I can think of) is to try. But even if it didn't work, it should eliminate most countries, and probably most continents.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.

          • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday March 01 2019, @01:40AM (4 children)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday March 01 2019, @01:40AM (#808508) Journal

            Good Christ, no, it's not some massive conspiracy of pharma companies to vaccinate everyone forever.

            I'm willing to believe a lot of bad stuff about the pharma industry, but if you took even a few moments among your apparent deep dives into random medical journal articles from decades ago, you'd know very well why measles hasn't been eradicated worldwide yet. (Officially, it has been eradicated in the U.S. for quite a few years, despite anti-vaxxers trying their damndest to get it to spread again.)

            Anyhow, basically the difference between measles and smallpox or polio (the other disease aimed for in vaccinations) is the measles is a lot more contagious. It requires something more like 95% vaccination to get herd immunity and stop spreading, compared to 80-85% for smallpox and polio. And the characteristics of the vaccine make it harder to inoculate throughout random parts of the third world compared to polio (which takes a few drops orally, compared to measles which requires a reconsituted injection that goes bad quickly).

            No, it's not a massive conspiracy to keep measles alive. Rather, there are massive ongoing campaigns to try to eradicate measles globally, since it still causes over 100,000 deaths per year globally, mostly in young children in developing nations.

            I assume you're the AC bitching up and down this thread and posting links to ancient medical journal articles. Try reading some modern ones. You might learn something -- that is if you open your mind and stop assuming conspiracy theories and spouting anti-vaxxers rhetoric about the supposed (unproven) high incidence of serious vaccine complications. Despite the BS here, measles is a serious disease that causes serious side effects and deaths. There's no credible science that the vaccines against it have side effects that exceed that magnitude.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:12AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:12AM (#808519)

              Anyhow, basically the difference between measles and smallpox or polio (the other disease aimed for in vaccinations) is the measles is a lot more contagious. It requires something more like 95% vaccination to get herd immunity and stop spreading, compared to 80-85% for smallpox and polio. And the characteristics of the vaccine make it harder to inoculate throughout random parts of the third world compared to polio (which takes a few drops orally, compared to measles which requires a reconsituted injection that goes bad quickly).

              Well, it isn't just measles. It is every single thing on this list: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-age.html [cdc.gov]

              You are saying all of those vaccines/viruses have special properties that make them more difficult than polio and smallpox to eradicate?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 01 2019, @10:05AM

                by khallow (3766) on Friday March 01 2019, @10:05AM (#808620) Journal

                You are saying all of those vaccines/viruses have special properties that make them more difficult than polio and smallpox to eradicate?

                Apparently, not diphtheria, which is on your list - that had only 4500 reported cases in 2015. And given how hard it is to eradicate polio, I'm not surprised that we're taking a while with the other diseases that can be eradicated.

              • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday March 01 2019, @01:03PM (1 child)

                by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday March 01 2019, @01:03PM (#808651) Journal

                Do you have any freakin' clue how hard global eradication is? Read up on the history of smallpox eradication -- how much effort it took, how many rights were violated and people forcibly vaccinated against their will, how workers had to travel on foot to remote places and convince (sometimes coerce) people to allow them to be vaccinated while field methods had to be invented to make sure vaccination could still be effective in varying remote conditions...

                It's astounding that it managed to succeed. For a disease as easily transmitted as measles, it's amazing we've gotten as far as we have. Read up on some history rather than just assuming someone waves a.magic wand and all of humanity around the global is vaccinated.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:54PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:54PM (#808694)

                  Do you have any freakin' clue how hard global eradication is?

                  Yes, if you are going to do something do it right. The original justification for eradication of measles was indeed because it would be a great achievement:

                  To those who ask me, "Why do you wish to eradicate measles?," I reply with the same answer that Hillary used when asked why he wished to climb Mt. Everest. He said, "Because it is there." To this may be added, ". . and it can be done."

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/ [nih.gov]

                  That is a reason to do something, not a reason to stop trying. The 1960s were a better time I guess though.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:40PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:40PM (#808420)

      What a great reason to not vaccinate your kids. "Don't worry, we have good medicine so you probably won't die. Oh what's that? Your insurance lapsed? Best of luck!"

      Actually, the insurance issue is the least of your worries. Antibiotics--indeed, any medication--has side effects, some of them quite nasty. (No, I'm not going to bother posting a link. Do your own google search!)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:56PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:56PM (#808430)

        Not vaccines, they don't have side effects.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @03:23AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @03:23AM (#808541)

          some vaccine, like the triple flu shot, have a 1 in 10 million risk of Guillain–Barré syndrome.
          other make you feel like you have a cold for a few days.

          but it's nothing compared to the disease they protect from

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @03:48AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @03:48AM (#808552)

            Actually the measles vaccine gives ~18% of children a 100 F fever, and 5% a measles-like rash. About 1.5% get "measles-like illness" which is a combination of those symptoms plus some other minor ones:

            We vaccinated 1736 children with MMR-RIT (N = 1164) or MMR II (N = 572), both administered as first doses with varicella, hepatitis A, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines at 12–15 months of age. The incidence of fever 5–12 days post-vaccination was comparable following MMR-RIT and MMR II vaccination: 4.2% vs 3.1% (difference: 1.1%) for fever > 39.0°C and 18.2% vs 17.1% (difference: 1.1%) for fever ≥ 38.0°C, which met the primary objective. Two cases of febrile convulsions (one considered vaccination-related) were reported within 43 days post-MMR-RIT. During Days 0–42, rashes were reported for 24.4% (MMR-RIT) and 27.4% (MMR II) of children; measles/rubella-like rashes for 5.8% and 4.7%, respectively. Measles-like illnesses were reported for 1.5% (MMR-RIT) and 0.9% (MMR II) of children 5–12 days post-vaccination. One serious adverse event, immune thrombocytopenic purpura following MMR II vaccination, was considered vaccination-related.

            [...]

            Measles-like illness was defined as the occurrence of the following signs or symptoms in the absence of another confirmed diagnosis: temperature ≥ 38.0°C and maculopapular rash (including measles/rubella-like rash) during Days 5–12 post-vaccination, and at least one of the following signs or symptoms: cough, runny nose, conjunctivitis, or diarrhea.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343620/ [nih.gov]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:28AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:28AM (#807985)

    The secondary infections, and deaths from measles have steadily declined-from 307 in 1949 to 98 in 1959.1 Nevertheless up to the end of September this year 749,251 cases of measles had been notified in England and Wales.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20789272 [nih.gov]

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:35AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:35AM (#807987)

      Figure 1 shows mortality rates of ~.25 per 100k cases in the US by 1960 (.00025%):

      Figure 1 presents annual morbidity and mortality for the expanding reporting areas from 1912 to 1959. Note the stability of the morbidity rate and the steady downward trend in the mortality rate. Also, there is the somewhat ominous suggestion of a cessation of this downward trend since 1955 similar to the leveling off of the infant death rates during the past six years. The morbidity figures testify to the stability of the biological balance of measles during the period. The decline in mortality demonstrates the degree to which we have adapted to this balance and have learned to live with this parasite.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/ [nih.gov]

      People didn't get very sick and die from measles, it was secondary infections that could be treated with antibiotics.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @12:40PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @12:40PM (#808076)

        You may notice that the worse affected are the kids under 2. Since they can't be vaccinated until that age, that's the population that really can die. It's like whooping cough. You get vaccinated so that the little kids don't die.

        I know it's really hard for people to understand, but these diseases are deadly to the kids. Just like getting rubella is kind of really bad, for the unborn.

        But yeah, the prolifer crowd kind of ignoring the real life problems like that.

        it was secondary infections that could be treated with antibiotics.

        That's like saying, it's not the high cholesterol or blood pressure or sugar that kills you, it's the heart death due to insufficient blood supply that gets you!

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @01:24PM (#808088)

          You may notice that the worse affected are the kids under 2. Since they can't be vaccinated until that age, that's the population that really can die.

          False. They can be vaccinated just fine, there is no evidence of any danger. The reason vaccinations are delayed is that they don't work because the infant is already protected by maternal antibodies. A problem is that vaccinated mothers pass on weaker antibodies than those who had measles, so the infants need to be vaccinated at a younger age.

          The recommended age for vaccination in the US changed from 9 months in 1963 to 12 months in 1965 and 15 months in 1976 in response to data showing higher seroconversion rates at older ages in absence of maternal antibodies [7].
          [...]
          The first two studies comparing both groups of infants were conducted in the US [29] and the UK [30]. Women vaccinated with live attenuated measles vaccine had lower amounts of antibodies and passed on shorter term protection against measles to their children (up to the age of 8 months) than naturally infected mothers (up to the age of 11 months). Lennon and Black [29] calculated the proportion of children expected to be susceptible to measles infection and responsive to vaccine by infant's age and mothers birth year cohort in the US. The children of younger mothers appeared to be sooner susceptible to measles infection: measles GMT declined sharply among women with birth-years between 1955 and 1961. This was the cohort vaccinated at the start of vaccination programmes in the US.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21133659 [nih.gov]

          It is because people spread this myth that vaccines are dangerous to infants that we can't move up the vaccination age to protect the children.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by stormreaver on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:08PM (3 children)

        by stormreaver (5101) on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:08PM (#808134)

        People didn't get very sick and die from measles, it was secondary infections that could be treated with antibiotics.

        What the vaccination promoters also like to ignore:

        1) In the generations before the Measles vaccine was introduced, just about everyone got Measles as kids, and no one died from it. It's a benign disease, in and of itself, in developed countries. Everyone whose only infection was Measles recovered in a reasonably short time period, and then gained a lifetime immunity to it. As you said, it was the secondary infections that caused the problems, and we have treatments for those (many of which involve the use of antibiotics). The death rate from Measles in developed countries has been unchanged from the period before the vaccine up to now. The entirety of reduction in Measles mortality rate was achieved long before the Measles vaccine was introduced.

        2) The Measles vaccine is not designed to protect again Measles transmission. Those who have been vaccinated are equally likely to spread Measles as those who are not vaccinated. The Measles vaccine only affects the person who receives it.

        3) The relatively weak immunity gained from vaccination wanes over time (that period varies from months to about 20 years at most). After that time, the vaccinated individual has no immunity to Measles. There is also increasing evidence that vaccinations increase the lifetime risk of secondary illnesses not related to the vaccine, and reduces the effectiveness of subsequent boosters.

        4) Measles is a cyclical disease. Its spread has peaks and valleys. Vaccines have never changed that. The only thing that has ramped up is the pharmaceutical propaganda machine.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:35PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:35PM (#808151)

          The relatively weak immunity gained from vaccination wanes over time (that period varies from months to about 20 years at most).

          Source? I have seen that the antibody response wanes, but not that extreme:

          To examine the persistence of vaccine-induced antibody, participants of a vaccine study in 1971, with documentation of antibody 1–7 years after vaccination, were followed up in 1997–1999 to determine the presence and titer of measles antibody. Of the 56 participants (77% were 2-dose recipients), all had antibodies detected by the plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) antibody assay an average of 26–33 years after the first or second dose of measles vaccine; 92% had a PRN titer considered protective (>1:120).

          https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S123/821041 [oup.com]

          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:21PM (1 child)

            by HiThere (866) on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:21PM (#808200) Journal

            Also, the immunity wanes in everybody. Not just in those that were vaccinated. If you develop a stronger immunity to start with, of course, it takes longer to wane into ineffectiveness...but it still wanes.

            FWIW, I've recently had a shingles vaccine, because the immunity to chicken pox wanes as you get older, but the secondary form is a lot worse than the original.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:45PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:45PM (#808215)

              The waning may also "speed up" (actually not be "boosted") if the person is never exposed to circulating measles:

              Somewhat concerning are the results of the most recently vaccinated group 3. Those in the group have lived their lives in an environment that can be considered completely free of natural boosters. As soon as 5 years after the second dose of MMR vaccination, 4% of the individuals were seronegative and 14% low positive for measles.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22966129 [nih.gov]

  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 01 2019, @07:53PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday March 01 2019, @07:53PM (#808888) Journal

    Wrong. And that's all that needs to be said.

    --
    This sig for rent.