PP, did you want to follow up on measles vaccines not causing child death through SSPE, after all?
My posts keep getting deleted, so I'm not sure who/what I've responded to already. If you're referring to: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4637438/ then that paper does not actually prove anything about SSPE itself, it just asserts that claim. If you linked a study that actually has data to support this claim, I've lost it in the mix.
Anonymous wrote:
"If your children are vaccinated, why do you care?"
Because you have no idea how all of this works.
"You can only control yourself."
Actually, when it comes to public health, we do have more avenues. We also have the court of public opinion. We will continue to use it.
Yep. I've heard you get an additional one early at 6 months, but that doesn't help my baby due in a few weeks (or anyone else with a newborn right now).
Herd immunity protects those who cannot be vaccinated. I care about those people. When we no longer have herd immunity, the people I care about are at risk.
Anonymous wrote:How do you explain the measles outbreak in London?
Pockets of the inner city have vaccination rates in the 60s.
How do you explain it? Do you think Londoners suddenly lost their access to modern plumbing? Do tell.
Experts sound alarm on further measles outbreaks due to low vaccination rates The Independent US
A measles outbreak in parts of London, which has left some children needing hospital treatment, is at risk of spreading further due to low vaccination rates, scientists have warned.
Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to affect humans, but as vaccine rates, particularly in UK cities, have dramatically fallen, the risk of outbreaks has increased. ....
In areas such as Hackney, just 65.3 per cent of two-year-olds have received their MMR jab and just 64.3 per cent of five-year-olds in Enfield had received both doses of the vaccine in 2024/25 – one of the lowest rates in the country. ....
Since 1 January 2026, there have been 96 laboratory confirmed measles cases reported in England, according to UKHSA; 64 per cent of these cases have been in London and 26 per cent in the West Midlands.
....
UKHSA also warned there is a risk of further outbreaks due to lower levels of vaccination coverage in London.
Dr Vanessa Saliba, consultant epidemiologist at UKHSA: “Our latest data shows we are now seeing a big measles outbreak in north east London, mostly affecting unvaccinated children under 10 in schools and nurseries, with some being hospitalised. Measles is a nasty illness for any child, but for some it can lead to long term complications and tragically death but is so easily preventable with two doses of the MMRV vaccine.
Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.
Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.
Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.
The second place to go would be an overview such as this:
Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].
2.2. Secondary vaccine failure
In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).
[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371
[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049
[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001
That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.
I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.
You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)
"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.
You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.
Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.
That is why herd immunity is so important.
There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.
Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"
Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?
This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.
But it gets more and more hilarious.
The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.
The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...
The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.
You don’t randomly assign people to not get a vaccine that prevents life threatening health issues. That is unethical. Also there doesn’t need to be a control group to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you can take blood samples for immune titers before and after people get the vaccine. Taking an immune titer for the MMR vaccine before the first dose, immediately before the second dose and a few months after the second dose is more than sufficient to determine the percentage of people after 1 and 2 doses that don’t get a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.
This response about randomization is ridiculous. Under your logic we should not approve any vaccines unless challenge trials are conducted where people are intentionally exposed to dangerous pathogens, with a double blind placebo vaccine group as a control arm.
You could benefit from learning how they test new vaccines. My daughter was part of a dengue study. She was infected as part of a non-vaccine control group. The flu control group had to be hospitalized for 2 weeks. They infect healthy people.
Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.
Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.
Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.
The second place to go would be an overview such as this:
Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].
2.2. Secondary vaccine failure
In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).
[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371
[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049
[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001
That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.
I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.
You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)
"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.
You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.
Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.
That is why herd immunity is so important.
There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.
Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"
Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?
This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.
But it gets more and more hilarious.
The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.
The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...
The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.
You don’t randomly assign people to not get a vaccine that prevents life threatening health issues. That is unethical. Also there doesn’t need to be a control group to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you can take blood samples for immune titers before and after people get the vaccine. Taking an immune titer for the MMR vaccine before the first dose, immediately before the second dose and a few months after the second dose is more than sufficient to determine the percentage of people after 1 and 2 doses that don’t get a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.
This response about randomization is ridiculous. Under your logic we should not approve any vaccines unless challenge trials are conducted where people are intentionally exposed to dangerous pathogens, with a double blind placebo vaccine group as a control arm.
You could benefit from learning how they test new vaccines. My daughter was part of a dengue study. She was infected as part of a non-vaccine control group. The flu control group had to be hospitalized for 2 weeks. They infect healthy people.
They don’t do that with measles because it kills 1/500 people that get it and it hospitalizes 20% of the people that get it. You are either being disingenuous or have no idea about the nuances of vaccine studies.
Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.
Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.
Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.
The second place to go would be an overview such as this:
Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].
2.2. Secondary vaccine failure
In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).
[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371
[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049
[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001
That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.
I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.
You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)
"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.
You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.
Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.
That is why herd immunity is so important.
There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.
Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"
Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?
This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.
But it gets more and more hilarious.
The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.
The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...
The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.
You don’t randomly assign people to not get a vaccine that prevents life threatening health issues. That is unethical. Also there doesn’t need to be a control group to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you can take blood samples for immune titers before and after people get the vaccine. Taking an immune titer for the MMR vaccine before the first dose, immediately before the second dose and a few months after the second dose is more than sufficient to determine the percentage of people after 1 and 2 doses that don’t get a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.
This response about randomization is ridiculous. Under your logic we should not approve any vaccines unless challenge trials are conducted where people are intentionally exposed to dangerous pathogens, with a double blind placebo vaccine group as a control arm.
You could benefit from learning how they test new vaccines. My daughter was part of a dengue study. She was infected as part of a non-vaccine control group. The flu control group had to be hospitalized for 2 weeks. They infect healthy people.
You did not consent to her being part of the study (in the US)?
Any idea how insurance companies are responding to this? They are big on immunizations and any preventive measures that decrease healthcare utilization. I have not seen any public statements.
I did see that Dr Oz is encouraging everyone eligible to get the measles vaccine. Happy to see that at least
Anonymous wrote:Any idea how insurance companies are responding to this? They are big on immunizations and any preventive measures that decrease healthcare utilization. I have not seen any public statements.
I did see that Dr Oz is encouraging everyone eligible to get the measles vaccine. Happy to see that at least
Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.
Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.
Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.
The second place to go would be an overview such as this:
Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].
2.2. Secondary vaccine failure
In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).
[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371
[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049
[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001
That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.
I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.
You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)
"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.
You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.
Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.
That is why herd immunity is so important.
There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.
Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"
Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?
This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.
But it gets more and more hilarious.
The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.
The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...
The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.
You don’t randomly assign people to not get a vaccine that prevents life threatening health issues. That is unethical. Also there doesn’t need to be a control group to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you can take blood samples for immune titers before and after people get the vaccine. Taking an immune titer for the MMR vaccine before the first dose, immediately before the second dose and a few months after the second dose is more than sufficient to determine the percentage of people after 1 and 2 doses that don’t get a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.
This response about randomization is ridiculous. Under your logic we should not approve any vaccines unless challenge trials are conducted where people are intentionally exposed to dangerous pathogens, with a double blind placebo vaccine group as a control arm.
You could benefit from learning how they test new vaccines. My daughter was part of a dengue study. She was infected as part of a non-vaccine control group. The flu control group had to be hospitalized for 2 weeks. They infect healthy people.
They don’t do that with measles because it kills 1/500 people that get it and it hospitalizes 20% of the people that get it. You are either being disingenuous or have no idea about the nuances of vaccine studies.
We have decades of data on measles vaccines.
This is still how NEW vaccines are studied. They can infect with a weakened version of the virus if it’s particularly dangerous, and/or require hospitalization for the infected period.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}