Measles vaccination coverage levels reach record high according to most recent

[mzmolly]

CDC calculations.

In 1998 when Andrew Wakefield Published his controversial findings about the MMR vaccine, the US had 100 reported cases of Measles and 0 deaths. Vaccine coverage levels were @ 92% compliance for MMR jabs nationwide. In the most recent year the CDC has completed verifying information on Measles related statistics (2006) vaccine coverage levels were at 92.4%, we had 55 cases and 0 reported deaths. In other words MMR vaccine compliance has either increased or been steady since Dr. Wakefield reported his findings.

FYI - In 1990 the US had nearly 28,000 reported cases of measles (up 10,000 from the previous year) and nearly 64 deaths. This in spite of a mass vaccination campaign that had taken place over decades.

If you've been vaccinated, you are supposed to be "protected," that's what you're paying for. Some children are too young to vaccinate, some have had reactions etc. Also, unlike natural immunity, vaccines can lose their effectiveness after a time. We simply don't know how long any given person is actually "protected" from a particular vaccine.

We've had numerous measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations yet no scary news stories about vaccine failure? http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/1/173

Of course, I think we need to know about Measles outbreaks, but I don't appreciate the misinformation being perpetuated that vaccination rates are falling, because some dare to question. It's simply not true.

Edited to add references:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf

[beam me up scottie]

1. Your article is from 1989. Try this instead: Measles Cases At Highest Level In Years

(CBS/AP) Measles cases in the U.S. are at the highest level in more than a decade, with nearly half of those involving children whose parents rejected vaccination, health officials reported Thursday.

Worried doctors are troubled by the trend fueled by unfounded fears that vaccines may cause autism. The number of cases is still small, just 131, but that's only for the first seven months of the year. There were only 42 cases for all of last year.

"We're seeing a lot more spread. That is concerning to us," said Dr. Jane Seward, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

***

Dr. David Namerow, a pediatrician, said it "doesn't surprise me at all, doesn't surprise me, because as you get people who don't fully immunize their children, we're going to see more and more cases like this, and that's a very scary thing."

Pediatricians are frustrated, saying they are having to spend more time convincing parents the shot is safe.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/21/health/main4372081.shtml

[mzmolly]

2. You missed the point. However, has the vaccine become more "effective"

since 1989? I saw the CBS propaganda, thus my response.

There are other such examples if you'd like me to post them?

Here's a more recent article:

http://redpillreich.blogspot.com/2008/06/measles-vaccine-responsible-for.html

And, here's an outbreak documented in 2005

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/6/1287

More: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/5/447

Here's an example of a Chicken pox outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. It's actually quite common. It's just not promoted in a mass fear based sales campaign.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/3/455

[beam me up scottie]

3. No, you missed the point.

Ignorant parents are responding to scare tactics and not vaccinating their children.

Are you proposing that we stop vaccinating people?

[mzmolly]

4. You didn't read my original post or you would see that your assertion is incorrect.

I have demonstrated with my links to CDC documentation that we have stable/record high vaccination coverage levels in the US. It is a MYTH that so called "ignorant parents" are not vaccinating. If you have some actual evidence that this is so beyond the typical "blame the unvaccinated kid" mentality, which leads to reporting bias, please share it.

Are you proposing that vaccination policy is perfect? That vaccine "protection" lasts forever? That every case of Measles in a vaccinated child is reported? Have you had your adult recommended booster shots?

[emilyg]

7. ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_he_me/med_measles_outbreaks

[mzmolly]

10. My response is the the lack of evidence for this "news."

There is no evidence of a decline in vaccination rates. The article is full of holes and misinformation. They say in a "typical year" we have about 10 - 20 cases of measles. I'd like to know where they get that number? I see nothing that backs up their assertion. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf A "typical" average over the last ten years is closer to 100 REPORTED cases, not 20? They do a great disservice to their stated cause when they give the public a valid reason not to question what they say.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Thank you!

I was hoping one of our nurses would show up. :)

[mzmolly]

12. So far no one has bothered to digest the information I posted.

Nurse or not.

[Hannah Bell]

25. here's the data from centers for disease control:

According to them, MMR coverage% v. (cases) =

1990: 82% (27,786)

1995: 90.7 (309)

2000: 90.5 (338)

2006: 92.4 (56)

2007: NG (30)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

[beam me up scottie]

30. Is the CDC ready to report their findings?

Your citation of raw data doesn't really mean anything.

[Hannah Bell]

33. Scuse me? It's not "raw data," it's historical data from CDC.

You say "cites," but seems you prefer news articles.

[beam me up scottie]

37. It was a press release FROM the CDC "the CDC can't yet tell whether vaccination rates are dropping."

Did you even read it?

[Hannah Bell]

46. you didn't read it. the links from the OP & my post are to cdc's "pink book".

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/

Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
The Pink Book: Course Textbook
UPDATED 10th Edition, 2nd Printing (March 2008)

The appendices.


Ultimate source of the data is: the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/


which is the source of any information you get from news reports, because CDC collects the data. Here's the source of this series of news reports, the July report:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm


If you actually read the report, instead of some reporter's summary, you find there were 131 cases of measles Jan-July 2008:

"Among those measles cases reported during the first 7 months of 2008, 76% were in persons aged <20 years"

"Of the 131 cases, 89% were imported from or associated with importations from other countries, particularly countries in Europe, where several outbreaks are ongoing"


If you compare the numbers with data for earlier years, you see trend for coverage is ever upward, & there's no trend for increasing cases.


This year's cases are outside trend, but since most are imported, it could be there were more visitors to the US because of the cheap dollar. There's no evidence that % unvaccinated is increasing, per CDC coverage %, or that this year's increase in cases is anything but statistical noise.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Then why did they lie today?

[Hannah Bell]

51. The numbers linked are historical numbers to 2007. They document

the trend. They are hard numbers from CDC, collected & reported before this year. They show the trend, which is unmistakably: higher % coverage, fewer cases.

The press release is about 2008, specifically, some outbreaks in the first 6 mo 2008.

Six month data doesn't - & mostly can't - say anything about trend.

What's certain is that coverage has NEVER been as high as 95%, that it only reached >90% in the 90's, & that trend has been increasing coverage, declining cases, for years.

[beam me up scottie]

54. I'll still wait for their conclusion.

Thanks anyway.

[Hannah Bell]

63. go ahead & wait. 2003-04 was the highest ever rate of coverage, 93%.

it dropped 1.5% in 2005 to 91.5%. It rose .9% in 2006 to 92.4%.

Do you understand that this kind of fluctuation is statistically insignificant? Coverage rates have risen & dropped by 2, 3, 4% in the past, but those year-to-year fluctuations haven't changed the trend, which is steadily rising coverage.

But it has never reached 95%, per CDC's figures.

Per CDC's figures, there's no evidence for significant numbers of people not vaccinating their kids. Rather the opposite.

[mhatrw]

69. Yes, because numbers lie and people never do.

LOL!

[Hannah Bell]

50. Correction:

"During January--July 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC, compared with an average of 63 cases per year during 2000--2007.*

This report updates an earlier report on measles in the United States during 2008 (2) and summarizes two recent U.S outbreaks among unvaccinated school-aged children. Among those measles cases reported during the first 7 months of 2008, 76% were in persons aged <20 years,

and 91% were in persons who were unvaccinated or of unknown vaccination status.

Of the 131 cases, 89% were imported from or associated with importations from other countries, particularly countries in Europe, where several outbreaks are ongoing (3,4)."

At the end of the report, there's this note:

"The number of measles cases reported during January 1--July 31, 2008, is the highest year-to-date since 1996. This increase was not the result of a greater number of imported cases, but was the result of greater viral transmission after importation into the United States, leading to a greater number of importation-associated cases. These importation-associated cases have occurred largely among school-aged children who were eligible for vaccination but whose parents chose not to have them vaccinated."

So I'm wrong: I read 89% imported at the beginning, & didn't go further.

However, coverage figures are not wrong: MMR coverage in 1991 was 82%, in 2000 90.5%, & in 2006 92.9%.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf

Those figures are not "waiting to be reported," they're THE numbers for those time periods.

These are hard numbers too.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

They show that, e.g., in 1993 there were 312 cases, in 1994 963 cases, & in 1995 309 cases & return to trend.

There's no evidence of some upswing in unvaccinated children by the coverage numbers.

[mzmolly]

34. What findings. The "finding" that parents not vaccinating is the reason for a

return of XYZ? They've been saying that for years, without any evidence ie. findings to support the claim. Do you expect a retraction in a year when they find that we are again stable in vaccine coverage levels?

[beam me up scottie]

38. CDC: the CDC can't yet tell whether vaccination rates are dropping."

I give you points for trying to interpret their data, but I'll still wait for the medical experts, no offense.

[mzmolly]

40. I like you BMUS, but I've not interpreted any data,

they did. I simply provided the links above.

Peace

[beam me up scottie]

42. Thank you, I like you too.

There's no one I'd rather have by my side when it comes to womens' issues. :)

I do get that you're just providing the data and I will keep an open mind, if the CDC made errors, you can say you told me so.

[mzmolly]

43. Thank you.

Backatcha. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

16. "It is a MYTH that so called "ignorant parents" Right. Except the CDC doesn't agree with you.

Vaccine refusals fuel measles outbreak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Parents refusing to have their children vaccinated against measles have helped drive cases of the illness to their worst levels in a dozen years in the United States, health officials reported on Thursday.

In 2008 alone, 131 cases of measles have been reported, with 15 serious enough to be hospitalized, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

Most of those infected were not vaccinated and there is no reason for any cases to occur when vaccines can prevent them, the CDC said in a weekly report on death and diseases.

***

Outbreaks of measles are being reported now in Israel, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Britain among people who are declining the vaccine.

British health officials said in June that measles had again become endemic for the first time since the mid-1990s due to parents declining to get their children vaccinated.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2146685120080821?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

[mzmolly]

18. And their own records contradict THEM, which again I've DOCUMENTED above.

Read the links and scroll down to the info on the MMR vaccine and or measles ok?

My post is in response to this BS propaganda being put out by the CDC without a shred of evidence to support it.

[beam me up scottie]

19. It's not just the CDC and why should I believe you? What are your credentials?

Outbreaks of measles are being reported now in Israel, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Britain among people who are declining the vaccine.

British health officials said in June that measles had again become endemic for the first time since the mid-1990s due to parents declining to get their children vaccinated.

The last serious U.S. outbreak was in 1989-1991, when 55,000 people got measles and 123 died. The CDC said 55 cases of measles were reported in 2006.

Measles kills about 250,000 people a year globally, mostly children in poor nations. The disease causes fever, coughing, irritation of the eyes and a rash. Serious complications include encephalitis and pneumonia that can be fatal.

"Measles knows no borders, but can be prevented for less than one dollar per child in a developing country. We must be steadfast in our efforts to reduce measles cases globally," the Measles Initiative, which includes the American Red Cross, CDC and United Nations agencies, said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2146685120080821?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

[mzmolly]

20. The CDC is charged with keeping records on vaccination. I have posted THEIR information.

It's not a matter of credentials, it's a matter of truth vs. BS. There is no evidence of decline in vaccination coverage levels.

[beam me up scottie]

21. The CDC, as well as other organizations, disagree with your opinion, sorry.

If you can explain to me why I should believe your statements over theirs, do so.

[mzmolly]

22. You're not reading

what I post. I have posted THEIR documentation. The documentation from which their statements should be taken. There is no evidence that parents are increasingly declining to vaccinate. We have had record high vaccine coverage levels in recent years (ACCORDING TO THE CDC PINK BOOK) see my link above.

[beam me up scottie]

23. How many more articles do I have to cite?

Who's spreading the disease? It's largely children who don't get vaccinated because their parents hold "philosophical or religious beliefs" against vaccination, the CDC says.

"Even with our current extremely high vaccination rates, we could have significant pockets of people in outbreaks. And if vaccine coverage levels fall, we risk many more outbreaks. We are concerned," Jane Seward, MB, MPH, deputy director of the CDC's viral disease division, said at a news conference.

***

Seward says that as of 2006, an estimated 93% of U.S. kids had been vaccinated against measles. New numbers are expected soon. But because these estimates rely on data from previous years, the CDC can't yet tell whether vaccination rates are dropping.

That would be worrisome, because it will take 95% vaccine coverage to keep measles from re-establishing itself in the U.S. In the U.K.. fears that the measles vaccine might be linked to autism dropped vaccination coverage there to 80% to 85% of the population.

Very high coverage rates are necessary because measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to man. If a person with measles coughs in a room of 100 unvaccinated people, Seward says, 90 to 95 of those people will get the measles.

http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20080821/measles-outbreaks-worry-cdc

edited after visit from html fairy

[mzmolly]

31. It's a crock.

No matter how many articles you post. We've NEVER had a 95% vaccine coverage level for any vaccine. It's an artificial number besides.

You don't get it, but that's ok. I don't care how many superficial articles you post, I've dug deeper than the propaganda to form my opinions.

[beam me up scottie]

35. The CDC's statement is a crock? And you know better, really?

What are your credentials? Are you qualified to examine and catalog the raw data?

[mzmolly]

41. I am providing their numbers BMUS.

I was an accountant in a former life, but reading the charts they put out don't require extensive qualification. Most third graders could make sense of what I posted above.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Then why couldn't they tell us what the rates are?

It's possible their scientists spoke in error. I'll keep an open mind.

[mzmolly]

45. Because their stats are always behind as it takes time to validate numbers etc.

At least that's what I was told by them when I inquired.

[Hannah Bell]

52. Because they're only talking about the first half of 2008.

The rates for 2007 & prior years are known, & published.

[beam me up scottie]

55. I'll wait for their conclusion.

If I've learned anything in this forum, it's to not put much faith in conclusions drawn from raw data posted by lay people.

[Hannah Bell]

57. I'm a clinical dietician (MS,RD). I've done research, & I can read it. MMWR is

a surveillance system, just like the Nutrition reporting surveillance systems.

The historical data is there. The trend is obvious. If it goes up or down a tick this year, it's of very little significance - that's statistical noise unless the change in trend continues into later years.

[Hannah Bell]

32. As recently as the 90's, coverage was < 90%. It's never been as high as 95%.

There's something weird about that article.


MMR coverage % v. (cases) =

1990: 82% (27,786)

1995: 90.7 (309)

2000: 90.5 (338)

2006: 92.4 (56)

2007: NG (30)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

[beam me up scottie]

39. Maybe you should take that up with the CDC.

I'm sure they'd be willing to correct their errors.

[Hannah Bell]

53. you seem to be missing the point. by a mile. the "press release"

is only about jan-july 2008.

[beam me up scottie]

56. The POINT I'm making is that it's NOT a MYTH that ignorant parents aren't vaccinating their kids

Anti-vaccine scare tactics have obviously worked on the willfully underinformed masses.

[Hannah Bell]

58. The point the OP is making is that the CDC data doesn't support your conclusion.

According to them, MMR coverage % v. (cases) =

1990: 82% (27,786)

1995: 90.7 (309)

2000: 90.5 (338)

2006: 92.4 (56)

2007: NG (30)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/app...

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/app...


There are certainly people not vaccinating their kids. But the trend is that MMR vaccination is increasing, NOT DECREASING.

Even if this year's cases are higher & this year's coverage % is lower, it doesn't tell us much about TREND, because it's only one data point.

[beam me up scottie]

59. The boobs they interviewed confirmed it, they're not vaccinating because of the disinfo campaign.

The doctors also confirmed it.

See the articles and quotes I posted earlier.

Or, google autism / mercury / vaccine and see for yourself.

[Hannah Bell]

60. So some people aren't vaccinating. One swallow doesn't make a summer,

do you understand the concept? I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you. I don't misrepresent the data. Here are CDC's OWN HISTORICAl NUMBERS FOR % of cohort vaccinated each year with MMR vaccine (Measles, Mumps, Rubella), 1962-2006:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf

Let's look:

1967 (first year available): 60%

1970: 58.4%

1975: 65.5%

1980: 66.6%

1985: 61.2%

1991: 82%

1992: 82.5%

1993: 84.1%

1994: 89%

1995: 87.6%

1996: 90.7%

1997: 90.5%

1998: 92%

1999: 91.5%

2000: 90.5%

2001: 91.4%

2002: 91.6%

2003: 93%

2004: 93%

2005: 91.5%

2006: 92.4%


Coverage didn't reach 90% until 1996.

It's never been as high as 95%. Its highest point was 2003-04, & the 1.5% drop, then .9% rise in the next 2 years is statistical noise. You can verify for yourself by looking at similar drops & rises in previous years.

The trend is unmistakable. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see it.

[beam me up scottie]

61. One more time, Point: It's NOT a MYTH that ignorant parents aren't vaccinating their kids.

Sorry, but we've been fighting this battle for years. People do believe their kids are being injected with poison.

This level of paranoia is unwarranted, these people are willfully ignorant and, if the disinfo campaign continues, it will get much much worse.

[Hannah Bell]

64. One more time: MMR vaccination rates have increased since 1980, since

1990, since 1995.

2003-2004 was the highest-ever recorded % coverage, 93% of vaccination-age children.

2005 = 91.5

2006 92.4 Statistically meaningless variation.

The first year coverage was higher than 89% was 1997.

There's no evidence for any significant rejection of MMR vaccination.


Your evidence is anecdotal.

[beam me up scottie]

65. I cited scientists and researchers who proved my point.

Several times.

It is NOT a myth, people are not vaccinating their kids because of ignorance.

Your dozens of stats, while most impressive, don't refute my statement.

[Hannah Bell]

66. Look, I didn't say it was a myth that there weren't people refusing

vaccination. I explicity said there are. There always have been.

However, the % of children vaccinated has NOT BEEN FALLING. It's BEEN INCREASING, trend-wise. BY CDC'S OWN NUMBERS.

Get the difference?

AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN AS HIGH AS 95%. The first time since 1967 it was even as high as 90% WAS 1997.

[beam me up scottie]

67. So why do you keep posting stats that have nothing to do with my point?

[Hannah Bell]

68. Your point:

beam me up scottie (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-21-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. No, you missed the point.
Ignorant parents are responding to scare tactics and not vaccinating their children.


My point: vaccination rates are at historic highs.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Not just MY point: NYT: Measles Cases Grow in Number, and Officials Blame Parents' Fear of Autism

More people had measles infections in the first seven months of this year than during any comparable period since 1996, and public health officials blamed growing numbers of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

Many of these parents say they believe vaccines cause autism, even though multiple studies have found no reputable evidence to support such a claim. In Britain, Switzerland, Israel and Italy, measles outbreaks have soared, sickening thousands and causing at least two deaths.

***

Public health advocates have become alarmed in recent years over a growing number of people who contend that vaccines cause illnesses, particularly autism. The number of parents who claim a philosophical exemption to mandatory vaccine laws has grown.

Nonetheless, vaccination rates have remained relatively high in the United States. In 2006, 95 percent of school-age children received at least one shot of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, according to the C.D.C. But such surveys are often years behind vaccination trends, and government officials say the growing number of measles outbreaks suggests that overall vaccination rates may be on the decline.

***

Autism and antivaccines advocates are unapologetic about the return of measles.

"Most parents I know will take measles over autism," said J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a parent-led organization that contends that autism is a treatable condition caused by vaccines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/health/research/22measles.html?ref=us

[mhatrw]

71. People lie. Numbers don't. Show us your hard data.

It's a myth.

[mhatrw]

70. Prove your claim with hard data.

It is a myth.

[mhatrw]

72. Prove your claims. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

27. CDC data & link:

According to them, MMR coverage% v. (cases) =

1990: 82% (27,786)

1995: 90.7 (309)

2000: 90.5 (338)

2006: 92.4 (56)

2007: NG (30)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

[beam me up scottie]

28. Contact them and tell them you've saved them a bunch of work.

But I'll still wait for them to announce their findings.

[Hannah Bell]

47. you don't seem to get how the reporting system works.

The numbers in the links are up to 2007.

They're from CDC's "pink book," which i linked in another post. They've were reported a long time ago. They're the hard numbers.

CDC continuously reports cases through its surveillance system, in its Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. This is the most recent report:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm

[beam me up scottie]

48. So the CDC lied today?

[mhatrw]

73. They already announced their findings.

Vaccination rates have not gone down and measles cases have.

Funny that you can't understand hard data when it bites you in the nose.

[mzmolly]

36. Indeed, the trend is an INCREASE in vaccine coverage

not a decline. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

26. CDC info:

According to them, MMR coverage% v. (cases) =

1990: 82% (27,786)

1995: 90.7 (309)

2000: 90.5 (338)

2006: 92.4 (56)

2007: NG (30)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

[beam me up scottie]

29. Do you work for the CDC?

How can you presume to know what their findings are before they do?

[Hannah Bell]

62. The "findings" on MMR vaccination coverage for each cohort

1962-2006 is available on CDC's website:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf


The figures on cases & deaths are available to 2007:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

[mhatrw]

74. You are priceless. They published their findings.

What don't you understand about hard data?

[emilyg]

6. I'm a nurse

my advice to my daughter re grandkids vaccines - get them.

[mzmolly]

9. I know two nurses in my community

who's advice is to consider the risks v. benefits to each child.

My sister is an RN, she respects my position.

[emilyg]

13. Every parent needs to make their own decision.

[mzmolly]

14. We agree

on this. I respect a well thought out decision, either way.

[Hannah Bell]

5. but the cdc links Are to '06. % coverage v. cases

According to them, MMR coverage v. cases =

1990: 82 (27,786)

1995: 90.7 (309)

2000: 90.5 (338)

2006: 92.4 (56)

2007: NG (30)


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf

[mzmolly]

8. Yes, I noted that the most recent calculations are from 2006.

There is no evidence that coverage is declining as we've been led to believe.

[Hannah Bell]

24. yes, i was linking it for the skeptic.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Measels vaccine is very hard to get

the place we get ours from has it on back order--won't get it for several months. Mumps vaccine is on indefinite hold--they have no idea when they will get it.

I'm glad I HAD both rubella and the mumps. Lifetime immunity is a nice thing to have.

[mzmolly]

17. I was vaccinated with MMR but did not retain immunity to measles. I was told to have an MMR jab

while pregnant, you know, to protect the fetus and all. :crazy:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

75. I believe there is a simple blood test

that can tell if you still retain immunity. I hope at this time of vaccination shortage that doctors are using this test to determine if their patients really need to get a booster shot. Wouldn't it be sad if thousands who didn't need to got a booster while others who truly needed it were denied?

[mzmolly]

79. I had the test while pregnant, just before I was told to get an MMR jab.

Turns out they do not recommend this shot for pregnant women, with good reason.

[beam me up scottie]

76. NYT: Measles Cases Grow in Number, and Officials Blame Parents' Fear of Autism

Measles Cases Grow in Number, and Officials Blame Parents' Fear of Autism
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: August 21, 2008

More people had measles infections in the first seven months of this year than during any comparable period since 1996, and public health officials blamed growing numbers of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

Many of these parents say they believe vaccines cause autism, even though multiple studies have found no reputable evidence to support such a claim. In Britain, Switzerland, Israel and Italy, measles outbreaks have soared, sickening thousands and causing at least two deaths.

***

Public health advocates have become alarmed in recent years over a growing number of people who contend that vaccines cause illnesses, particularly autism. The number of parents who claim a philosophical exemption to mandatory vaccine laws has grown.

Nonetheless, vaccination rates have remained relatively high in the United States. In 2006, 95 percent of school-age children received at least one shot of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, according to the C.D.C. But such surveys are often years behind vaccination trends, and government officials say the growing number of measles outbreaks suggests that overall vaccination rates may be on the decline.

***

Autism and antivaccines advocates are unapologetic about the return of measles.

"Most parents I know will take measles over autism," said J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a parent-led organization that contends that autism is a treatable condition caused by vaccines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/health/research/22measles.html?ref=us

[mzmolly]

78. They always place blame on the same group when they want to sell a story and thus, keep us vaxing.

But their data contradicts their claims year after year.

My husband was vaccinated for Measles, had a nasty case in spite of it. I was vaccinated and did not retain immunity.