Measles Outbreak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

The diet thing is irrelevant to measles, but 1960s diets were definitely not healthier than today or even remotely considered “organic”. Americans ate stuff like meatloaf, macaroni salad, Salisbury steak, scalloped potatoes, liver & onions, canned soup and canned fruits/veggies. People today eat less canned fruits and veggies. I can’t even remember the last time I ate canned vegetables or fruit. The only canned item I buy occasionally is pasta sauce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

The diet thing is irrelevant to measles, but 1960s diets were definitely not healthier than today or even remotely considered “organic”. Americans ate stuff like meatloaf, macaroni salad, Salisbury steak, scalloped potatoes, liver & onions, canned soup and canned fruits/veggies. People today eat less canned fruits and veggies. I can’t even remember the last time I ate canned vegetables or fruit. The only canned item I buy occasionally is pasta sauce.

Everything you listed there is pretty healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

The diet thing is irrelevant to measles, but 1960s diets were definitely not healthier than today or even remotely considered “organic”. Americans ate stuff like meatloaf, macaroni salad, Salisbury steak, scalloped potatoes, liver & onions, canned soup and canned fruits/veggies. People today eat less canned fruits and veggies. I can’t even remember the last time I ate canned vegetables or fruit. The only canned item I buy occasionally is pasta sauce.

So you don't know that fruits and vegetables canned or frozen on site often retain more nutrients than fresh ones shipped to their destination unprocessed.

Great. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Anonymous]

^^ Don't tell me -- it "feels" like fresh fruits and vegetables should be better, so "no doubt" it is true.

No, that is wrong.

What’s Best, Fresh Frozen or Canned Vegetables?
https://www.chhs.colostate.edu/krnc/monthly-blog/whats-best-fresh-frozen-or-canned-vegetables/

In contrast, frozen veggies are frozen at their peak of ripeness, meaning they lock in most of their vitamins and minerals. There’s a common misconception that frozen veggies are less healthy because they’re “processed.” However, freezing vegetables actually helps maintain their nutritional value.

...

Similar to frozen veggies, canned vegetables undergo a simple process to preserve them. They are picked at their peak of freshness, cleaned and cut, quickly heated in boiling water, packed in a can with a liquid such as water or juice, sealed, and then boiled and cooled to prevent spoilage. This allows them to remain shelf-stable for up to five years! Unfortunately, canned options are often the most stigmatized form of veggies due to circulating myths that they are somehow void of nutrients. In reality, the canning process has a negligible effect on the minerals, fiber, and vitamin A, E, and K vitamin content of veggies. While some vitamins such as B and C may be reduced, many canned veggies are still rich in these nutrients. Beyond just maintaining nutritional value, canned veggies even boast a unique benefit! Because canned veggies are exposed to heat during processing, certain antioxidants in the veggies actually become more available for our bodies to use. A fantastic example of this is canned tomatoes that become rich in lycopene, an antioxidant linked to protection against heart disease and some cancers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

The diet thing is irrelevant to measles, but 1960s diets were definitely not healthier than today or even remotely considered “organic”. Americans ate stuff like meatloaf, macaroni salad, Salisbury steak, scalloped potatoes, liver & onions, canned soup and canned fruits/veggies. People today eat less canned fruits and veggies. I can’t even remember the last time I ate canned vegetables or fruit. The only canned item I buy occasionally is pasta sauce.

Everything you listed there is pretty healthy.

Potatoes with butter and cheese is not a “healthy dish” people should be eating regularly. That is a heart attack and diabetes all in one, macaroni salad and casseroles are mostly processed junk. Salisbury steak is also junk. You are clearly following the delusional Mr. brainworm diet advice. How is that working out for measles cases???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

The diet thing is irrelevant to measles, but 1960s diets were definitely not healthier than today or even remotely considered “organic”. Americans ate stuff like meatloaf, macaroni salad, Salisbury steak, scalloped potatoes, liver & onions, canned soup and canned fruits/veggies. People today eat less canned fruits and veggies. I can’t even remember the last time I ate canned vegetables or fruit. The only canned item I buy occasionally is pasta sauce.

Canned fruits and vegetables are not inherently unhealthy, especially if the salt is limited (and the liquid well drained) and the fruits canned in juice or very light syrup (and also well drained). Meatloaf?--ground beef (maybe veal back then but our was always ground beef), bread crumbs, egg, chopped onion. Salisbury steak is pretty much meatloaf in another form and with a gravy. Scalloped potatoes are just sliced potatoes with a white sauce. Liver and onions are liver and onions. Plus the processed food industry did not have as many industrialized components to work with as now. Plenty of people still canned their own homegrown fruits and vegetables. Lots of people in suburbs back then came from farms and rural towns before moving into populated areas and still knew how to plant tomatoes. They weren't eating restaurant meals, fast food, takeout.

[Anonymous]

Well, one thing is sure -- we have the ongoing experiment right now. Measles looks to be spreading just as fast as before, and with the same morbidity and mortality.

This isn't theoretical anymore. If you were relying on your theories of what would happen, we're about to see what's wrong and what's right. Thanks, guys.

[Anonymous]

There is currently a measles outbreak in an El Paso ICE holding facility

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is currently a measles outbreak in an El Paso ICE holding facility

My despair is noting that cuts in funding for research trials into these things has come with in vivo experiments on people, so, there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is currently a measles outbreak in an El Paso ICE holding facility

And this is after a prior tuberculosis and covid outbreak in the facility.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/14-measles-cases-reported-el-005728778.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
^^ Don't tell me -- it "feels" like fresh fruits and vegetables should be better, so "no doubt" it is true.

No, that is wrong.

What’s Best, Fresh Frozen or Canned Vegetables?
https://www.chhs.colostate.edu/krnc/monthly-blog/whats-best-fresh-frozen-or-canned-vegetables/

In contrast, frozen veggies are frozen at their peak of ripeness, meaning they lock in most of their vitamins and minerals. There’s a common misconception that frozen veggies are less healthy because they’re “processed.” However, freezing vegetables actually helps maintain their nutritional value.

...

Similar to frozen veggies, canned vegetables undergo a simple process to preserve them. They are picked at their peak of freshness, cleaned and cut, quickly heated in boiling water, packed in a can with a liquid such as water or juice, sealed, and then boiled and cooled to prevent spoilage. This allows them to remain shelf-stable for up to five years! Unfortunately, canned options are often the most stigmatized form of veggies due to circulating myths that they are somehow void of nutrients. In reality, the canning process has a negligible effect on the minerals, fiber, and vitamin A, E, and K vitamin content of veggies. While some vitamins such as B and C may be reduced, many canned veggies are still rich in these nutrients. Beyond just maintaining nutritional value, canned veggies even boast a unique benefit! Because canned veggies are exposed to heat during processing, certain antioxidants in the veggies actually become more available for our bodies to use. A fantastic example of this is canned tomatoes that become rich in lycopene, an antioxidant linked to protection against heart disease and some cancers.

New poster. Does anyone say frozen veggies are less healthy? I never ate a frozen veggie in the 70s, it was all canned. And 1) canned vegetables tend to have a lot more sodium because salt is added as a preservative and 2) often have additional sauces or flavor enhancers that are high in sodium. Sodium is a huge problem in most Americans' diets.

Fresh are plain frozen vegetables are clearly better. And as for the rest of that list? There may be plenty of protein and vitamins but also loads of unhealthy preservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
^^ Don't tell me -- it "feels" like fresh fruits and vegetables should be better, so "no doubt" it is true.

No, that is wrong.

What’s Best, Fresh Frozen or Canned Vegetables?
https://www.chhs.colostate.edu/krnc/monthly-blog/whats-best-fresh-frozen-or-canned-vegetables/

In contrast, frozen veggies are frozen at their peak of ripeness, meaning they lock in most of their vitamins and minerals. There’s a common misconception that frozen veggies are less healthy because they’re “processed.” However, freezing vegetables actually helps maintain their nutritional value.

...

Similar to frozen veggies, canned vegetables undergo a simple process to preserve them. They are picked at their peak of freshness, cleaned and cut, quickly heated in boiling water, packed in a can with a liquid such as water or juice, sealed, and then boiled and cooled to prevent spoilage. This allows them to remain shelf-stable for up to five years! Unfortunately, canned options are often the most stigmatized form of veggies due to circulating myths that they are somehow void of nutrients. In reality, the canning process has a negligible effect on the minerals, fiber, and vitamin A, E, and K vitamin content of veggies. While some vitamins such as B and C may be reduced, many canned veggies are still rich in these nutrients. Beyond just maintaining nutritional value, canned veggies even boast a unique benefit! Because canned veggies are exposed to heat during processing, certain antioxidants in the veggies actually become more available for our bodies to use. A fantastic example of this is canned tomatoes that become rich in lycopene, an antioxidant linked to protection against heart disease and some cancers.

New poster. Does anyone say frozen veggies are less healthy? I never ate a frozen veggie in the 70s, it was all canned. And 1) canned vegetables tend to have a lot more sodium because salt is added as a preservative and 2) often have additional sauces or flavor enhancers that are high in sodium. Sodium is a huge problem in most Americans' diets.

Fresh are plain frozen vegetables are clearly better. And as for the rest of that list? There may be plenty of protein and vitamins but also loads of unhealthy preservatives.

Reread the original post before the response.

[Anonymous]

Birdseye frozen peas have been around forever, and they were certainly available in 1970s. Safeway put out its own line of frozen veggies in the late 1940s.

Canning vegetables doesn't make them unhealthy. Is high sodium unhealthy? Sure, for many people, but that doesn't mean anyone is morally superior for eating "fresh" vegetables transported from farms counties, states, or even countries removed further away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

Roundup isn't the only thing used. DDT insecticide was widely used before, and terrible herbicides like atrazine and paraquat. Your first statement is more of an opinion. We had lead pipes and lead paint, medications prescribed to pregnant women that caused birth defects, etc. No doubt a lot of this contributed to the health problems in young children beyond infections with common diseases.

[Anonymous]

Yes, "no doubt."

What a shame there isn't a more accurate way of determining these things than just what appears common sense to one of us.