Vaccine related autism study?

Indeed - where I work now (as the IT manager, not on the production floor thankfully), half the heating has gone out (it's a warehouse separated into two sections with a large garage door between them) - as a result, one side of the warehouse is about 20 to 30 degrees colder than the other side... especially when they have to open the dock doors to receive deliveries or take out trash/recycling. Almost half our staff is out sick at the moment with the same symptoms, because we have some "troopers" that come in even when they are all but dying, hacking and coughing and generally spreading the love (and this includes our general manager).

People don't really stop to think about what happens when they go to work sick... even worse, when I was in elementary school thru high school, my mother would make me go to school even if I was vomiting - she always said that "the nurse could send me home if she felt it necessary"... so of course, i'd spend from 30-45 minutes on a school bus that was packed full to the point we were sometimes sitting 3 in a bench, then go to class, wandering through the building, and then hope and pray that I'd have a fever because unless I threw up in front of a teacher or the nurse, or I had a fever over 101 degrees, they often wouldn't send you home.

It was a lovely place to be an infection disease... almost like a foreign exchange program for bacteria and viruses!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So if your child had a serious illness you would not take them to a doctor? And if one day they complained that they were tired you'd keep them home from school? Something tells me you've never had kids.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Note that this is not "immunity" per se; the infant does not develop the cell memory that allows the child's cell-mediated immune system to mount a response to an infection. Instead, the antibodies produced by the mother pass into the baby's blood through the placenta, and while they survive, will perform their tasks and attack any foreign infection that they are specific for.

That's the main reason to delay vaccination. The purpose behind vaccinations is to provoke the body to mount a cell-mediated response; once it does that (even for dead or attenuated pathogens) then the response is "remembered" for the next infection. Since the mother's residual antibodies will mount the attack instead of the infant's, often this "memory" is not formed if the vaccine is given too early. The downside is that maternal antibodies fade away pretty quickly and thus provide minimal protection compared to a vaccination.

Note that breastfeeding only protects against GI infections and (to a small degree) respiratory infections, since the GI tract and the pharynx are the only places where the antibodies in breast milk survive. The baby's digestive system destroys them before they can pass into the bloodstream.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

With the kind of critical thinking skills and the deep display of research capabilities we have seen in this and other threads... let us hope that it stays that way...

Oh? I was under the impression that the colostrum in early breast milk (first few feedings I believe) was able to pass antibodies along as well:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/939.aspx?CategoryID=62

Or are they referring to what you said, about the GI and respiratory infections? I thought an infants digestive tract could transfer IgA into the bloodstream?

 

It does, and it plays a critical role in early formation of gut flora in infants, and also plays a role in protecting them against respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. It just doesn't make it into the bloodstream. For example, breastfeeding does not confer immunity to measles at all; breastfed babies do no better or worse than non-breastfed babies when it comes to resistance to measles.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2013/07/02/breast-milk-is-not-a-substitute-for-vaccination/

 

*nods* I knew the immunity was temporary, but I didn't realize it was so selective as well - interesting!

 

I thought it was long enough to provide all of the protection ...

 

I thought it was long enough to provide all of the protection ...

 

Some information:

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/top-20-questions-about-vaccination#7

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm


So, could a vaccinated person contract the full blown illness or spread the disease?
Unlikely, but possible.
It is a trade off.
Say you have cancer. The surgeon wants to remove it.
Could you die on the operating table?
Yes. It's a trade off.

Sites that distort the facts in order to scare people very often have their own agenda.
They often wish to sell their own overpriced products as an alternative treatment or prophylactic.

 

Like I said, nobody in the U.S. has died of measles since 2004. So no, this is not a deadly outbreak threatening civilization. In a month or so all those people who got the measles will be naturally immunized from it. They will stay at home, drink plenty of fluids, and get well again. Nobody will die and the world will move on as it always has. Like when we had our "deadly" ebola outbreak of like 3 people a few months ago. lol! People nowadays think any appearance of a disease is a deadly epidemic. It isn't.

 

So according to other quoted sources, measles can be contagious up to 4 days before the rash appears. Well, that four days is when you are sick with other symptoms like a fever, runny nose, and sore throat. So ofcourse you would feel sick when it is becoming contagious. And most people stay at home then. Here's my source:

"Measles symptoms generally appear in two stages. In the first stage, which last two to four days, the individual may have a runny nose, cough and a slight fever. The eyes may become reddened and sensitive to light while the fever gradually rises each day, often peaking as high as 103° to 105°F. Koplik spots (small bluish white spots surrounded by a reddish area) may also appear on the gums and inside of the cheeks. The second stage begins on the third to seventh day and consists of a red blotchy rash lasting five to six days."===https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/measles/fact_sheet.htm

 

That's a red herring argument, for two reasons:

First, the reason nobody dies from measles in the US is because the number of cases is so low. And the reason the number of cases is so low is vaccination. So your argument is self-contradictory.

Second, whether it kills you or not, measles is a pretty bad disease on its own and also has other permanent effects besides death. So you are downplaying the seriousness of it.

But clearly not everyone -- not enough to prevent outbreaks.

 

Here's a case of a measles outbreak in 2011 that was started by a VACCINATED person. Apparently they aren't clear on how long a vaccine keeps you immune. Am I immune? Who knows?

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2...ak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time

 

Did vaccines save us from measles? Not really. The rate of measles deaths was already dropping down long before the vaccine came around. So what DID lower the measles death rate? Better nutrition, better sanitation, and better medical care.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's a red herring too (and worse). Clearly, this tells us the vaccine isn't perfect. But it was still good enough to eliminate measles in the US until the anti-vaxers intervened and brought it back. So that is an argument against your point, not for it: It highlights the need for 100% vaccination..

 

http://www.vaclib.org/intro/measles-intro.htm