Is It Just Me? What's So Bad About Measles?

[tex]

I read an editorial recently that claimed that antivaccinationists tend toward complete mistrust of government and manufacturers and conspiratorial thinking. I know that you are not antivaccinationist, but I do believe that your value system may cause you to become quite frustrated with mainstream public health policy. Thanks so much for clarifying how very strongly you feel about individual freedom.....it is obvious that this trumps everything for you. The issue as I see it......what are the limits of personal freedom when one's behavior negatively impacts another?

Isn't that type of judgmental behavior (profiling) officially discouraged by the government, because it's considered to be associated with discrimination? Are you saying that you do trust the government to do the right thing? In that case aren't you the one who is out of step? Because these days trust in government is at an all-time low. It's the "in" thing to do. Consider the results of this CNN poll from just 6 months ago:

Just 13% of Americans say the government can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time, with just over three-quarters saying only some of the time and one in 10 saying they never trust the government, according to the poll.

"The number who trust the government all or most of the time has sunk so low that it is hard to remember that there was ever a time when Americans routinely trusted the government," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

CNN Poll: Trust in government at all-time low

So if you're trying to paint me as a radical, you've got a tough job on your hands, because I fall right in line with the majority.

The issue as I see it......what are the limits of personal freedom when one's behavior negatively impacts another?

That's the issue as I see it, also. And I certainly don't have a problem with mandatory vaccinations for serious diseases, such as the ones you specifically named. But that has nothing to do with measles, and eradicating serious diseases has nothing to do with eradicating nuisance diseases.

Regarding personal freedoms associated with what you choose to refer to as "behavior (that) negatively impacts another", that also depends on the particular behavior under consideration. And the last time I looked, it appeared that there are already plenty of laws on the books to deal with such behavior.

I'll bet you are totally in opposition to the exiting laws now that protect individuals from second hand smoke - no smoking in public areas (restaurants, bars, hotels, office buildings, airplanes....... even beaches in my state).

Surprise, surprise! You would lose that bet. I don't care to breathe someone else's smoke any more than I care to breathe their farts. Yep, I smoke cigars, but I don't inhale them, and I don't smoke where others might inhale the smoke, either. Incidentally, why has Maryland been dragging their feet on the need to outlaw farting in public if they're so keen on clean air.

The bottom line is that everything has to have limits. Personal freedoms have to have limits, and likewise, so do restrictions on personal freedoms.

It sort of appears that our biggest difference of opinion may be that last item that I mentioned. You leave the impression that you feel that there should be no limits on the restriction of personal freedoms. I find that very worrisome.

Anyway, isn't it terrific that we can disagree and be friends who respect each other?

Once again, we will just have to agree to disagree on an issue.

Yep, that's what civilized life is all about. Life is way too short to waste any of it on unproductive and stressful stuff over which we have no control (such as the opinions of friends).

Love,
Tex

[Polly]

Hi again Tex,

I'm not one to make black and white decisions about the "government" as a whole, but prefer to look at individual programs. Some are wildly successful, some are not, IMHO. But in the case of public health in this country I have a lot of confidence. (in spite of the fact that it is usually underfunded). The folks I am acquainted with in the public health field are some of the best, brightest, and most humanitarian individuals I have known.

I would argue that our main difference is that you believe that measles is a nuisance disease, and not a serious disease as I do. As I have said before, I am in favor of anything that can prevent suffering and death. Before the vaccine, hundreds died from measles each year in the U.S. Statistically, 1 out of 20 who get measles will get pneumonia (which is the most common cause of death), and 1 out of 1000 will get encephalitis (brain swelling), which can lead to brain damage or death. The overall death rate from measles is 1-2 per 1000. Between 2001-2013 in the U.S., 28% of kids under age 5 years who got measles had to be treated in a hospital, which has implications for health care costs if nothing else.

Also, as Carol correctly noted, rubella (German measles), which is included in the MMR vaccine, is far more devastating. It is generally not a problem for kids, but if a pregnant women gets rubella in the first 3 mos. of pregnancy, there is an 85% chance that her baby will have a serious birth defect - most commonly blindness, deafness, mental retardation, and heart defects. Before the vaccine, thousands upon thousands of babies with birth defects from rubella were born - up to 20,000 in the epidemic of 1964-1965. Of course, this placed a huge burden on health care and educational systems.

BTW, I don't consider our discussions to be unproductive. If I did, I would not continue to participate in them.

Love,

Polly

P.S. I guess I'd be in big trouble if MD outlawed farting!

[Patricia]

Also, as Carol correctly noted, rubella (German measles), which is included in the MMR vaccine, is far more devastating. It is generally not a problem for kids, but if a pregnant women gets rubella in the first 3 mos. of pregnancy, there is an 85% chance that her baby will have a serious birth defect - most commonly blindness, deafness, mental retardation, and heart defects. Before the vaccine, thousands upon thousands of babies with birth defects from rubella were born - up to 20,000 in the epidemic of 1964-1965. Of course, this placed a huge burden on health care and educational systems.

Brings back memories, Polly! Growing up in Switzerland, my Dad's Kiwanis Club had an ongoing service project with a home for people whose mothers had had rubella during the pregnancy. These people were young adults, living in some sort of a home for disabled people. They would need a ride to their parents house on weekends for visits, and sometimes, whoever we were driving, would also eat at our house before we would drive them to their parents house. The ones I remember were both blind and deaf, and communication with them was incredibly difficult. They were grateful and very kind to us, their parents even more so. And it always reminded my sister and me of how lucky we were that we were not born blind and deaf!
I had my three daughters vaccinated against MMR, but I was also a bit afraid about autism and mentioned it to my pediatrician (at the time we were living in Connecticut). He told me that in his opinion there was no connection whatsoever between MMR and autism, but that the timing was the problem. He said that the recommended age for the MMR vaccine is also the typical age that a child with autism is diagnosed, whether they receive the MMR vaccine or not. If a child is diagnosed with autism and recently received the MMR vaccine, very often it will be blamed on the vaccine, even though the child would most likely have been diagnosed with autism at the same time had it not received the vaccine.

Love, Patricia

[tex]

Hi Polly,

I recognize your point, and there's no question that rubella is a high-risk issue during pregnancy. But let's get our ducks back in a row here. You've diverted this discussion to the risks of rubella during pregnancy, and rubella is not measles. Rubella is caused by a different virus, and as far as I am aware, rubella is considered to be completely eliminated in the US.

So all the uproar about measles in this country (and the topic of this thread) is not about pregnant women who have rubella, it's about kids who have ordinary measles. And remember, I was here, before the measles vaccine, and I assume that you were also. I had the measles when I was a kid, and pretty much everyone I knew in school had it. I don't remember anyone dying from it. You would think that if it were anywhere near as deadly as it's claimed to be today, I would have heard of that back when it was actually going on. When you were a kid, did anyone you personally knew die from it? Or any of their relatives?

Why didn't I hear about it back then? You would think that if so many kids were dying, I would have heard of it somewhere, and my parents would have been very concerned. But I didn't hear of it, and my parents weren't concerned, because all those deaths simply didn't happen.

The CDC has massaged the data (as if that's news). Back when I had it, my case was never reported, anywhere. So the CDC never heard of most cases. They only heard of the cases with bad outcomes, because those were reported. Here's a link to an article written by someone (a Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Michigan) who has reached the same conclusion — the odds of dying from measles was probably more like 1 in 10,000 back in the 1950s, not the inflated risks being tossed around now, in order to scare everyone into falling into line.

Now I will concede that even 1 in 10,000 is a significant concern — it's just not as significant as the inflated numbers in all the scare stories going around. But why can't the CDC simply tell the truth? Are they dedicated to trying to prove that they have no credibility? The point is, there's a heck of a lot of hype surrounding this issue, and it doesn't exactly jive with the experiences of most of us who actually lived through that era before the vaccine came along.

If you catch measles, what are your chances of dying?

You missed the point of my little joke. When I said:

Life is way too short to waste any of it on unproductive and stressful stuff over which we have no control (such as the opinions of friends).

The first part of that was a setup line that included a supposedly profound observation, namely, "Life is way too short to waste any of it on unproductive and stressful stuff over which we have no control" (and I firmly believe that). But the part in parentheses was there to inject a little wry humor, because I know dang well that I'm not going to change your mind. Sorry if I didn't go about that right, because I certainly don't consider our discussions to be unproductive, either, because you have convinced me to dig a little deeper into this topic. When I first posted, that was just my opinion. Now I have some information that supports my position.

Love,
Tex

[Polly]

Tex,

In the article you referenced above, public health official Andrew Maynard says the following:

"Accounting for non-reported cases that led to death, and some uncertainty in the numbers, the mortality rate is realistically likely to be around one in a few thousand. But based on the data, it’s not likely to be as high the one or two deaths per 1,000 that’s being widely cited.

That shouldn’t detract from how important it is to prevent measles, and especially to protect young children, the elderly and other susceptible groups from infection. This is not a disease to be dismissed or taken lightly. It still kills nearly 150,000 people a year around the world according to the World Health Organization. It is highly infectious. And for communities to be adequately protected, there need to be high levels of immunization."


Of course, numbers can always tell different stories depending on who is crunching them, which is true in any situation. Frankly, one death in a few thousand concerns me as much as 1-2 per thousand. Measles is PREVENTABLE......and can cause a lots of unnecessary illness and suffering. To me, the big picture that Maynard is painting is that measles is a serious disease, should not be taken lightly, and that immunization is the answer. Am I missing something here?..... I see no comment from him about measles being simply a nuisance.

I only mentioned rubella because it is part of the same vaccine (the MMR) that measles and mumps are. So that if parents are opting out of the MMR, they can miss the opportunity for rubella immunization.

Love,

Polly

[ldubois7]

Tex,

[Lilja]

We have these discussions regarding vaccines also in my country.

One of the scientists that were interviewed said that the different viruses have changed over the decades, and therefore the medical industry has to develop new vaccines.

I used to be against all kind of vaccination, but I'm not so sure anymore. My boyfriend back in the 60's had polio, and now I just read that people who got polio in the 50's and 60's, often get serious diseases as they grow old.

Lilia

[tex]

Hi Polly,

Yes, I believe that we are in agreement about what Maynard says in the article, but the problem is that you are only focused on the parts that you want to see, and I am only focused on the parts that I want to see.

We all know that there is no such thing as a disease that is totally risk free for everyone who might eventually be diagnosed with it. Somewhere, someone will die from virtually any issue that you can dream up. But that doesn't mean that all the rest of us should be scared to death of it. Yes, even a single death is unacceptable, and it would be great if we could prevent every possible death, but unfortunately that will never happen in the real world. We simply can't justify forcing everyone in the world to submit to vaccinations for every possible disease. We have to prioritize our focus, otherwise we will meet with too much resistance. There are too many people in the world who are unwilling to submit to, and pay for, vaccinations that they deem to be either worthless or risky.

This whole concept reminds me of the plan that was recently proposed in Great Briton, to add statins to the drinking water, so that everyone could "benefit" from those wondrous drugs. Fortunately saner heads prevailed, and the plan never came to fruition. I'm guessing that you probably wouldn't want satins in your drinking water. Right? You would probably base that position on the opinion that either you don't need to be taking a statin, or you consider them to be a risky or otherwise undesirable drug. Right? So why would you think that I would want your vaccine if I feel that I (or my kid) don't need it, or I'm concerned that it might carry some sort of risk because of a personal health issue.

My original point in this thread was that the threat claimed by the CDC and the medical community in general, along with the media's usual attempts at sensationalism, is undeniably and unacceptably exaggerated. It could have (should have) been handled much more professionally, and by that I mean that it should have been handled much more honestly. Here is what you are missing from Maynard's article. He says it much better than I did.

Sadly, using this mortality rate to hammer home the importance of getting kids vaccinated could well backfire. Like myself, many parents from my generation haven’t seen evidence for such a high chance of dying from the disease. And to use data that not only feel wrong, but are not backed up with evidence, only serves to undermines trust in public health experts.

Anti-vaccine proponents are smart enough to realize this. Each time the data on infectious diseases and risk are spun beyond their legitimate bounds, anti-vaccine proponents are given a helping hand in winning the hearts and minds of concerned parents.

Instead, public health experts and their advocates need to remain true to the data that support their message. Granted they won’t always be clear and compelling. But this should never be an excuse to spin the data to fit the story.

Ironically, for many people it’s not the numbers that count when it comes to making decisions over whether to vaccinate or not, so much as who to trust. But in deciding whom to place that trust in, numbers – and how they are used – can be very important indeed.

It's all about trust and credibility. Why on earth do the CDC and the medical community think that we should trust them on this issue (and the issue of vaccinations in general) when they make such flagrant attempts to undermine their own credibility by misrepresenting the facts virtually every time they have an opportunity such as this? They keep shooting themselves in the foot.

So that if parents are opting out of the MMR, they can miss the opportunity for rubella immunization.

Why can't they just choose to receive an individual rubella vaccination, if there is at least a single known case of rubella somewhere in the continental United States (to justify the vaccination) when they decide to become pregnant? Otherwise, they don't need it. Besides, as I mentioned, no cases of rubella exist in this country. Is that not correct? One doesn't need to be vaccinated for diseases that are no longer a possible threat.

Love,
Tex

[Polly]

Evening, Tex!

Whew, I think we have exhausted this topic. LOL!

Just a few final comments. I disagree that the rate of measles deaths is "unacceptably exaggerated", as you say - Sure, it is good to be as accurate as possible, but Maynard himself says the actual rate may be one in a few thousand instead of 1-2 per thousand. To me this is not a huge discrepancy. Plus, it is not just deaths that we are trying to prevent - it is also the serious complications like pneumonia and brain damage.

I think we had agreed that the major difference of opinion that you and I have about measles is whether it is a serious disease or just a nuisance. Your source (Maynard) makes it clear that he believes it to be a serious disease, requiring "high levels of immunization". That is why I focused on his comments related to that.

BTW, the only way to eradicate a communicable disease completely from the world is by finding and vaccinating everyone at risk. To date this has happened only with one disease...... smallpox.....the disease is now gone from the world; thus, it is the only disease no longer requiring vaccination. Polio may be the next one to be wiped out.

Also, there is always a medical exemption available for a child who needs it. The only reason we have had low rates of the childhood diseases in recent years is because we have been so successful with vaccinations. If immunization rates go down, these illnesses will again reappear. It doesn't matter if there are no cases in the U.S. - with our global society we can be sure that the diseases will reappear from outside....and will take hold again if immunization levels are down.

Love,

Polly

[Sheila]

Well said, Polly. IMHO the greater good trumps individual choice when it comes to protecting babies, immunosuppressed individuals, the elderly and children from preventable diseases.

Everyone has an opinion, everyone is an expert and compromise has become a dirty word. The Internet is rife with information, misinformation, lies and half-truths. What if one of those childhood diseases is responsible for triggering a genetic abnormality in a specific population? We know anyone who has had chicken pox is vulnerable to the shingles virus. Why allow a disease to flourish if it can be eliminated? Why is it a good thing to allow children to get sick with measles, rubella, mumps, whooping cough?

I had measles and almost all of the other childhood diseases. I remember being pretty sick and miserable. One child in my first grade class died after getting the measles. Melvin Rushmore was one of a pair of twins and his death is something I've never forgotten. Today, it would have been preventable.

Sheila W

[JLH]

My Dad was a pediatrician in his early practice and later on an allergist. He gave us our shots and I never really thought about them except for the jab. (My sister has a severe needle phobia until this day!)

We viewed this webinar online and it really opened my eyes http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/dr ... s-webinar/ I think I posted about it previously.

[tex]

Whew, I think we have exhausted this topic. LOL!

Ummmmm, maybe, but check out these thoughts:

Just a few final comments. I disagree that the rate of measles deaths is "unacceptably exaggerated", as you say - Sure, it is good to be as accurate as possible, but Maynard himself says the actual rate may be one in a few thousand instead of 1-2 per thousand. To me this is not a huge discrepancy.

Please check your math. He is actually talking about a rate of about 1 in 10,000, and this is confirmed by his article on the statistics of the French measles epidemic of 2008–2011 (see the chart near the end of this post). So we're actually talking about a difference between 1–3 per 1,000, and approximately 1 per 10,000. That's a discrepancy of more than an order of magnitude. It's a difference of a factor of 10–30, which amounts to an error between 1,000–3,000 %. I would call that a huge discrepancy, because mathematically it's a level that can make irrelevant data relevant, and conversely, it can make relevant data irrelevant, depending on the topic under consideration.

I think we had agreed that the major difference of opinion that you and I have about measles is whether it is a serious disease or just a nuisance.

Well, that's part of it, but my main point was how the statistics in this promotion were inflated and sensationalized to make the health threat sound much worse than it actually is.

OK, I have to apologize, because my claim that rubella has been eliminated in this country was apparently based on a source (which I don't recall at the moment) that claimed that the disease had been eliminated in the U. S., apparently based on a continued very low rate of annual reported cases. Dumb me, I assumed that "elimination" actually meant elimination. Doh! Apparently it means "statistically insignificant" in this instance, rather than actual elimination. According to the CDC:

Following vaccine licensure, the number of reported cases of rubella in the United States has declined dramatically to a median of 11 cases annually in 2005-2011 (CDC, unpublished data). During the 1990s, the incidence of rubella among children younger than 15 years decreased (from 0.63 per 100,000 population in 1990 to 0.06 1999), whereas the incidence among adults aged 15 to 44 years increased (from 0.13 per 100,000 in 1990 to 0.24 in 1999).[7] However, since 2001, the incidence both among persons younger than age 15 years and those aged 15 to 44 years has been less than 1/10,000,000 population.[8, 9]

Vaccines and Immunizations - Chapter 14: Rubella - Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases

But regarding your insistence that these vaccinations should be mandatory, here's why mandatory MMR vaccinations are not safe (also from the CDC):

MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella ) vaccine
Some people should not get MMR vaccine or should wait.

Anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to the antibiotic neomycin, or any other component of MMR vaccine, should not get the vaccine. Tell your doctor if you have any severe allergies.
Anyone who had a life-threatening allergic reaction to a previous dose of MMR or MMRV vaccine should not get another dose.
Some people who are sick at the time the shot is scheduled may be advised to wait until they recover before getting MMR vaccine.
Pregnant women should not get MMR vaccine. Pregnant women who need the vaccine should wait until after giving birth. Women should avoid getting pregnant for 4 weeks after vaccination with MMR vaccine.
Tell your doctor if the person getting the vaccine:
Has HIV/AIDS, or another disease that affects the immune system
Is being treated with drugs that affect the immune system, such as steroids
Has any kind of cancer
Is being treated for cancer with radiation or drugs
Has ever had a low platelet count (a blood disorder)
Has gotten another vaccine within the past 4 weeks
Has recently had a transfusion or received other
blood products

Any of these might be a reason to not get the vaccine, or delay vaccination until later.

Who should not be vaccinated with MMR vaccine?

So even the CDC admits that many people do indeed have allergic reactions to these vaccines. But the CDC list fails to include the many individuals who will experience a (possibly fatal) anaphylactic reaction for the first time, following a vaccination. I'm kind of surprised that you aren't willing to acknowledge that risk. But more than that, I'm very surprised that you are willing to sacrifice the few individuals who might have a fatal anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine, and those who have a non-fatal anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine that leaves them with corrupted immune systems for the rest of their lives (similar to Mary Beth's reaction to the flu vaccine).

Most individuals who experience this type of reaction have no forewarning, so mandatory vaccination programs are bound to increase the number of such adverse outcomes. To my way of thinking, the reality of these additional lost or permanently disrupted lives would serve to cancel out most of the benefits claimed by "greater good" advocates, who insist that mandatory vaccination is justified to protect a handful of lives (while destroying/compromising possibly twice as many innocent lives in the process)? Why would anyone condone/ignore the loss or disruption of these innocent lives in order to promote a mandatory vaccination program? With optional programs as least everyone has the option of not being forced to die or suffer simply because they had no choice.

Why is it a good thing to allow children to get sick with measles, rubella, mumps, whooping cough?

How did whooping cough get into this debate? But anyway, for your answer, look at the statistics (corrected for unreported cases) from the 2008–2011 measles epidemic in France. Below the age of 1 year, there was 0 mortality risk (that's "0" as in zero). From there to the age of 15, the risk was very low (1.1 per 10,000). After that age the risk of complications and higher mortality rates rises. The obvious message is to get it behind you when you are young, to establish your immunity. This is the way that the immune system was designed to operate. It was most definitely not designed to respond to vaccines. Look up that topic for some insight into why our immune systems sometimes seem to go haywire. If you prefer to take advantage of the vaccine, there's certainly nothing seriously wrong with that, just don't make it mandatory, based on the reasons described in my previous paragraph in this post. Here is a link to the table of mortality rates from the analysis of the measles epidemic in France (corrected for unreported cases).

http://www.riskscience.umich.edu/wp-con ... able-2.png

Polly, your last paragraph (and some of your previous posts in this thread) hints at the reason why mass vaccinations are promoted in the first place. I believe that most of us have a convoluted view of why individuals are vaccinated. As I'm sure you are well aware, it's not to protect the vaccinated individual (as so many of us believe). It's to protect everyone else, IOW, the general public.

If anyone doubts this, note that it also correlates with the Supreme Court ruling made a few years ago that dictated that law enforcement officials have no responsibility to protect individual citizens. Their responsibility lies only in protecting society, not individuals. That implies that when a citizen makes an urgent 911 call, the police are under no legal obligation to respond. Of course, they usually do respond, because if they don't it typically results in negative publicity. But legally, they only have to respond to most of them, in order to fulfill their obligation under the law. That ruling has surely prompted many citizens to review their own personal options for protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

But back to vaccinations, despite what we would like to think,their mass promotion is designed to protect the masses (the society). If the goal were to protect individuals, there would be no need to promote the vaccines, because it wouldn't matter to the government how many people received the vaccines. This goes back to the basic philosophy of government — in societies, individuals are expendable, but society must be preserved. That's the way it's been done in successful societies for millions of years.

But based on the Supreme Court ruling mentioned above, despite the Hippocratic oath, and the oaths that are actually taken by physicians (and exploited by lawyers) there is obviously good reason to suspect that if push came to shove, the Supreme Court would probably also agree that physicians have no obligation under the law to protect individual citizens. Their duty is to protect society, and this certainly falls right into the "greater good" concept. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that no physician facing a lawsuit (especially in cases where the physician had no intention to harm) has tried this strategy (invoking the precedent set by the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling), in order to get a Supreme Court ruling on this issue, and put a stop to all the parasitic lawsuits that plague the medical profession (and make so many lawyers rich).

Am I wrong?

Love,
Tex

[Polly]

Tex,

WHOA!!!!! It's not ME insisting that vaccines should be mandatory. LOL! In fact, they have been mandatory for decades. You might be surprised to know that there is absolutely no federal vaccine mandate; however all 50 states require proof of the MMR vaccine prior to entrance to public school. If you do not have the vaccine or a valid exemption approved by the state, you cannot go to public school - anywhere in this country.

Docs who immunize always follow those CDC guidelines for who should not get the MMR vaccine and who should wait wait (the ones you posted above). It is a routine part of the medical history. Parents are educated about the vaccine and the CDC exemptions and must provide informed written consent prior to immunization. The CDC guidelines for who should be excluded are considered to be legitimate exemptions to the MMR vaccine and have always been treated as such.
All docs and health care facilities are aware of the very rare possibility of anaphylaxis (estimated to be less than one in 1,000,000 doses) and are prepared to treat it immediately if it should occur. The docs/clinics I know usually have the patient remain in the waiting room for a short time (30 min. or so) after immunization in case they should need treatment for anaphylaxis (especially if it is the first vaccine in a series). All of this is just good medicine. Docs take immunizations very seriously, I can assure you of that.

Protecting the masses is what protects the individual, IMHO.

Love,

Polly

P.S. BTW, couldn't agree more with you about parasitic lawsuits - appropriate term!

[Joefnh]

You know this is a great discussion and its good to hear the various facts and figures being bantered about.

I would like to talk about my niece Karina for a moment. She should be 14 now but she never made it to her first birthday. The family gathered around as we wathched her slow and painful fight that she eventually lost. What happened?? an older child in the neighborhood was not vaccinated was playing over with Karinas older siblings. Karina was only 6 months at the time. To this day the pain of loosing her has not left the family, some wounds do not really heal.

I guess I dont really care about the facts, figures, court decisions and quotes....They just seem pretty empty and meaningless right now.

I happend to spot this write up and thought I would share this here.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/living/fe ... index.html

I wonder if those who choose not to vaccinate their children realize the gravity of the situation they might face.

....well said

[Sheila]

How painful for your family, Joe, to lose a baby unnecessarily. I'm so sorry.

The personal decision to not immunize oneself or ones children endangers the vulnerable and is, ultimately, a very selfish act. Most of us live in communities and owe it to our neighbors to act responsibly for the greater good.


Sheila W