My little boy



On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:06:01 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have never heard of a child allergic to their mother's milk. I wouldn't
>think it possible.


http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/bfeedandaller.htm

Allergic reactions in infants who are exclusively breastfed might be
mistaken by some mothers (and some physicians) as an allergic reaction
to the breastmilk itself. Rest assured, this is most often not the
case. According to lactation consultant Kathy Koch, "It is not
possible for a child to be allergic to his or her mother's milk. It is
possible for a child to be allergic to something in the mother's milk
-- that is, something the mother has consumed." (A rare metablolic
condition exists that interferes with a baby's ability to
appropriately digest a mother's milk, but even this does not
necessarily preclude breastfeeding.)
 
Gymmy Bob wrote:

> Did you drink your beer a day while nursing?


No, I didn't drink while pregnant, nor while nursing. I made up for it
since then, though, LOL
 
Ilena Rose wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:06:01 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I have never heard of a child allergic to their mother's milk. I wouldn't
> >think it possible.

>
> http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/bfeedandaller.htm
>
> Allergic reactions in infants who are exclusively breastfed might be
> mistaken by some mothers (and some physicians) as an allergic reaction
> to the breastmilk itself. Rest assured, this is most often not the
> case. According to lactation consultant Kathy Koch, "It is not
> possible for a child to be allergic to his or her mother's milk. It is
> possible for a child to be allergic to something in the mother's milk
> -- that is, something the mother has consumed."


That's true. Also, if you drink alcohol, it goes directly into your
milk. If you smoke, the toxins go into your milk.

Things you eat, drink and smoke directly effect your milk, so watch it.
Let's be careful out there.
 
"ToolPackinMama" <laura@

> Well, I'm a big believer in the value of breastfeeding. I did the whole
> natural childbirth, La Leche thing. My eldest son and my daughter never
> had any health problems at all, but my middle boy had/has multiple
> allergies.


So what went wrong?

le moo
 
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, mdd <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> ToolPackinMama <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >hotmoon wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> My little boy had a bad reaction to polio vaccination. He will never
> >> >> get another vaccination for as long as I am alive.
> >> >
> >> >I never vaccinated any of my three kids, and today they are all adults,
> >> >and healthier than their contemporaries.
> >> >
> >> >FWIW.
> >>
> >> It's not worth much. The main reason you can get away with this sort
> >> of thing is that you're basically leeching off others, who *do*
> >> vaccinate their kids, thus keeping herd immunity going and allowing
> >> you a free ride.
> >>
> >> -- >

> > If this is true, what is your problem? Are you concerned with her child's
> >health? Or are you upset that the child gets a "free ride"?

>
> No, tools, I'm concerend that if everyone tries to use this strategy,
> it stops working. I don't approve of even implicitly suggesting that
> not vaccinating is a good idea.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)


And just a little heads up from those of us with somehing to fear
because of the refusal of parents to vaccinate their kids:

I'm immunosuppressed. I have one working kidney that isn't mine, and
I'm pretty healthy now, partly because I don't run across scads of
people with whooping cough, rubella, measles et al. Yes, you're
putting your kids at risk with vaccinations, just as you are when you
take aspirin, St. Johns Wart, or when you cross the street. But they
are calculated risks, as is everything else in life.
So, if you wish to provide your children with an immunization free
existence, be my guest. Just move to an island somewhere, where your
kids will not be a real, definable danger to me.
I will not try to convince you to immunize. But know that your
children will never be invited into my house, and if one of them comes
to work one day an a new employee, and I find out, I will get them
transferred, fired, or demoted to another location. Because your lack
of concern for MY well being makes them a real risk to me.
 
Good luck selfish. The labour laws do not permit your Nazi behaviour in my
country.

"m nesbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, mdd <[email protected]>

wrote:
> > >
> > >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> ToolPackinMama <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >hotmoon wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> My little boy had a bad reaction to polio vaccination. He will

never
> > >> >> get another vaccination for as long as I am alive.
> > >> >
> > >> >I never vaccinated any of my three kids, and today they are all

adults,
> > >> >and healthier than their contemporaries.
> > >> >
> > >> >FWIW.
> > >>
> > >> It's not worth much. The main reason you can get away with this sort
> > >> of thing is that you're basically leeching off others, who *do*
> > >> vaccinate their kids, thus keeping herd immunity going and allowing
> > >> you a free ride.
> > >>
> > >> -- >
> > > If this is true, what is your problem? Are you concerned with her

child's
> > >health? Or are you upset that the child gets a "free ride"?

> >
> > No, tools, I'm concerend that if everyone tries to use this strategy,
> > it stops working. I don't approve of even implicitly suggesting that
> > not vaccinating is a good idea.
> >
> > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> > "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> > were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

>
> And just a little heads up from those of us with somehing to fear
> because of the refusal of parents to vaccinate their kids:
>
> I'm immunosuppressed. I have one working kidney that isn't mine, and
> I'm pretty healthy now, partly because I don't run across scads of
> people with whooping cough, rubella, measles et al. Yes, you're
> putting your kids at risk with vaccinations, just as you are when you
> take aspirin, St. Johns Wart, or when you cross the street. But they
> are calculated risks, as is everything else in life.
> So, if you wish to provide your children with an immunization free
> existence, be my guest. Just move to an island somewhere, where your
> kids will not be a real, definable danger to me.
> I will not try to convince you to immunize. But know that your
> children will never be invited into my house, and if one of them comes
> to work one day an a new employee, and I find out, I will get them
> transferred, fired, or demoted to another location. Because your lack
> of concern for MY well being makes them a real risk to me.
 
Many doctors recommend a beer per day while nursing. The vit B compounds are
supposed to be good for "things"

"ToolPackinMama" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ilena Rose wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:06:01 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I have never heard of a child allergic to their mother's milk. I

wouldn't
> > >think it possible.

> >
> > http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/bfeedandaller.htm
> >
> > Allergic reactions in infants who are exclusively breastfed might be
> > mistaken by some mothers (and some physicians) as an allergic reaction
> > to the breastmilk itself. Rest assured, this is most often not the
> > case. According to lactation consultant Kathy Koch, "It is not
> > possible for a child to be allergic to his or her mother's milk. It is
> > possible for a child to be allergic to something in the mother's milk
> > -- that is, something the mother has consumed."

>
> That's true. Also, if you drink alcohol, it goes directly into your
> milk. If you smoke, the toxins go into your milk.
>
> Things you eat, drink and smoke directly effect your milk, so watch it.
> Let's be careful out there.
 
Gymmy Bob wrote:
>
> Many doctors recommend a beer per day while nursing. The vit B compounds are
> supposed to be good for "things"


Gee, I don't really think of beer as a vitamin supplement. LOL
 
***A*** beer....LOL

"ToolPackinMama" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gymmy Bob wrote:
> >
> > Many doctors recommend a beer per day while nursing. The vit B compounds

are
> > supposed to be good for "things"

>
> Gee, I don't really think of beer as a vitamin supplement. LOL
 
"Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Good luck selfish. The labour laws do not permit your Nazi behaviour in my
> country.
>

....

From the Sunday Times of 4 April 2004:

TWO boys have been left permanently disabled as a result of the MMR vaccine
scare, write Nina Goswami and Jon Ungoed-Thomas.

Doctors have revealed that the boys, who have been left mentally and
physically impaired after contracting measles, are the first known victims
of the MMR scare in Britain.
The boys' doctors blame the now discredited research of Dr Andrew Wakefield
for the boys' condition. They say his claim that MMR could cause autism led
to the outbreak because fewer children are being vaccinated.

Matthew Costen, 13, was blinded and paralysed after contracting measles last
year.

He is believed to have caught the disease from his friend Joe Quick, 9, who
suffered partial paralysis to his left side and damage to his speech. Their
condition originated from an area of south London where the take-up rate of
MMR, which offers protection against measles, mumps and rubella, had fallen
to 52%.

For medical reasons unrelated to MMR, neither boy could receive the vaccine.
This meant they were dependent on other children being vaccinated to
minimise their exposure to the infection.

.............................................................................
...
 
Never mind that the best way to get the disease is from the vaccine...
 
Never mind that measles, mumps, and chicken pox used to be harmless
childhood diseases that never killed anybody.

Never mind that the best way to be "immunized" against them is STILL to
catch them in childhood.

Heck, when I was a girl, all three were treated like juvenile
rites-of-passage. My parents and their friends staged "chicken pox
parties" where they would deliberately get a bunch of kids together with
a neighborhood playmate who was infected. The thinking was that, we
were going to all catch it eventually anyway, so why not do it in an
organized fashion?

I suppose that would pass as "child abuse" nowadays, although, oddly,
deliberately injecting your kids with immunization concoctions is not.

My, how times change. :)

FWIW, all of my non-immunized kids were exposed to measles, mumps, and
chicken-pox the old-fashioned way, and they caught them all, and they
all had very mild cases (good immune systems), and they are all totally,
naturally immunized against them, now. :)

FWIW, all of their schoolmates who got the shots were sick all the time,
not just when they had measles, mumps, or chicken-pox. IMHO, the kids
that got the shots were sick all of the time. That's how it looked to
me.

FWIW, my kids were in more danger from their constantly sick, immunized
schoolmates, than they ever were from wild measles, mumps, and
chicken-pox. BTW, it's generally true that it's the sick kids who make
healthy kids sick, not the reverse, so actually, my kids were more at
risk... although, oddly, they rarely got sick. Hmm....

Hmmmm.... ;)
 
"ToolPackinMama" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Never mind that measles, mumps, and chicken pox used to be harmless
> childhood diseases that never killed anybody.
>


Actually, even today measles kills more in Africa than AIDS. Ask Patricia
Neal if she would have rather had her daughter get the vaccine or the
disease (her husband was Roald Dahl... his autobiography _Boy_ is a good
read )
http://www.measlesinitiative.org/index3.asp

Before vaccines the leading cause of post-lingual deafness was mumps, even
though it was a very rare outcome. Still about one out of 10 cases of mumps
does involve meningitis, http://www.ecbt.org/mumps.htm

Chicken pox is never nice when the poxes are in the child's throat.

These diseases were NEVER harmless.... it is just that in the "good ol'
days" the kids who were disabled were shuttled off to institutions where
they were never in contact with "normal" kids.

Even a recent as 14 years ago I met a parent whose first child died of the
disease HiB protects... and I know of another child who almost died from
Haemophilus Influenzae, but he has been left with neurological damage which
affects his speech and langauge.



> Never mind that the best way to be "immunized" against them is STILL to
> catch them in childhood.


If you survived... 1 to 2 out of 1000 will die from measles (even in the
21st century, and even in the western world)

>
> Heck, when I was a girl, all three were treated like juvenile
> rites-of-passage. My parents and their friends staged "chicken pox
> parties" where they would deliberately get a bunch of kids together with
> a neighborhood playmate who was infected. The thinking was that, we
> were going to all catch it eventually anyway, so why not do it in an
> organized fashion?
>


Even then, many kids did not do so well. It was not uncommon for those
parties to go bad... when I was a child at least one kid in our neighborhood
had to leave our school to go to the special school, it was whispered about.

> I suppose that would pass as "child abuse" nowadays, although, oddly,
> deliberately injecting your kids with immunization concoctions is not.
>


Infecting immunosuppressed children with a PREVENTABLE disease is idiocy,
and possibly criminal. They sorely depend on the herd immunity that many of
you actually depend on.


> My, how times change. :)
>
> FWIW, all of my non-immunized kids were exposed to measles, mumps, and
> chicken-pox the old-fashioned way, and they caught them all, and they
> all had very mild cases (good immune systems), and they are all totally,
> naturally immunized against them, now. :)
>


This seems to fly against earlier posts you made where you said they did NOT
get sick. I sincerely doubt that your kids actually got what you thought
was measles (there are several rash diseases that may seem like a mild case
of measles). Your kids may not actually be fully immune... and are only a
plane ride away from getting real measles. (know anyone who has adopted a
child from China lately?)


> FWIW, all of their schoolmates who got the shots were sick all the time,
> not just when they had measles, mumps, or chicken-pox. IMHO, the kids
> that got the shots were sick all of the time. That's how it looked to
> me.
>


This is only believable if you have documentation... and did you really know
the vaccine status and what illnesses the school kids were getting at the
time? Were you actually paying attention to what was really going on?

I was not vaccinated against mumps... and I got it in 1968, the last year of
a MAJOR mumps epidemic. Why do you think the numbers dropped dramatically
after that. And a full blown case of mumps is not something an 11 year old
kid forgets. Do your kids remember the mumps?

> FWIW, my kids were in more danger from their constantly sick, immunized
> schoolmates, than they ever were from wild measles, mumps, and
> chicken-pox. BTW, it's generally true that it's the sick kids who make
> healthy kids sick, not the reverse, so actually, my kids were more at
> risk... although, oddly, they rarely got sick. Hmm....
>
> Hmmmm.... ;)


I find this hard to believe... and perhaps it may be true in your mind. But
sometimes our memories play tricks on us. The published statistics on the
diseases and the impact of vaccines in are all in opposition to what you say
you experiened. Perhaps you should try reading about the vaccines and the
diseases in something other than magazines or websites. If you go to
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ you will get more accurate information. You may
need to go to an actual library to read some of the full medical journal
articles (since often only the abstract is online).

Also, instead of statements like "I remember...", try "it is documented
here.... that...", etc. Here is a good place to get real information about
the diseases, their risks, the vaccines (including history and real risks):
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/def_pink_full.htm
 
HCN wrote:

> Actually, even today measles kills more in Africa than AIDS.


Cite?

> These diseases were NEVER harmless...


It's just that it's better to catch them in childhood, than as an adult.

> > Never mind that the best way to be "immunized" against them is STILL to
> > catch them in childhood.

>
> If you survived... 1 to 2 out of 1000 will die from measles (even in the
> 21st century, and even in the western world)


Cite?

> This seems to fly against earlier posts you made where you said they did NOT
> get sick. I sincerely doubt that your kids actually got what you thought
> was measles (there are several rash diseases that may seem like a mild case
> of measles). Your kids may not actually be fully immune... and are only a
> plane ride away from getting real measles. (know anyone who has adopted a
> child from China lately?)


What are you smoking?

> > FWIW, my kids were in more danger from their constantly sick, immunized
> > schoolmates, than they ever were from wild measles, mumps, and
> > chicken-pox. BTW, it's generally true that it's the sick kids who make
> > healthy kids sick, not the reverse, so actually, my kids were more at
> > risk... although, oddly, they rarely got sick. Hmm....
> >
> > Hmmmm.... ;)

>
> I find this hard to believe...


That's your problem. :)
 
>Subject: Re: My little boy
>From: "HCN" [email protected]
>Date: 4/19/2004 8:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <gY1hc.30814$ru4.32046@attbi_s52


<snip>

>Infecting immunosuppressed children with a PREVENTABLE disease is idiocy,


NO it is NOT. Chicken pox as an adult can be very serious. Even today people
want their kids to get it when they are young to protect them from getting it
as an adult.

>and possibly criminal.


Absurd.

<snip>

> Here is a good place to get real information about
>the diseases, their risks, the vaccines (including history and real risks):
>http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/def_pink_full.htm


Then read this:

http://tinyurl.com/29wa4

Jan
 
>Never mind that the best way to get the disease is from the vaccine...
>



What disease are you talking about?
 
"Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Good luck selfish. The labour laws do not permit your Nazi behaviour in my
> country


Actually, Nazi behaviour would have meant I'd have been killed at age
5 when the diagnosis of Diabetes was made. When you use that
particular description carelessly, you lessen its power.

If you wish to be accurate, call me brutish or self-interested.
Selfish, however, is also inaccurate. Do you know what a disease
vector is? With a surpressed immune system, I'm the first to pick up
what's going around, and I spread it like a lawn sprinkler. So, if
someone with no immunizations comes too close, they're going down as
well.
See, I actually give a damn about other people's health. Doing so has
the bonus effect of keeping me healthy.

Oh, and, if I can prove a reasonable threat to my health exists from a
easily remedied situation, I have every right to insist my employer
takes appropriate steps to remedy it. Which might mean said person
gets to work in the basement, next to the old adding machines.


> "m nesbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message

> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, mdd <[email protected]>

> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[email protected]...
> > > >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > > >> ToolPackinMama <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> >hotmoon wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> My little boy had a bad reaction to polio vaccination. He will

> never
> > > >> >> get another vaccination for as long as I am alive.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I never vaccinated any of my three kids, and today they are all

> adults,
> > > >> >and healthier than their contemporaries.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >FWIW.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's not worth much. The main reason you can get away with this sort
> > > >> of thing is that you're basically leeching off others, who *do*
> > > >> vaccinate their kids, thus keeping herd immunity going and allowing
> > > >> you a free ride.
> > > >>
> > > >> -- >
> > > > If this is true, what is your problem? Are you concerned with her

> child's
> > > >health? Or are you upset that the child gets a "free ride"?
> > >
> > > No, tools, I'm concerend that if everyone tries to use this strategy,
> > > it stops working. I don't approve of even implicitly suggesting that
> > > not vaccinating is a good idea.
> > >
> > > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> > > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> > > "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> > > were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

> >
> > And just a little heads up from those of us with somehing to fear
> > because of the refusal of parents to vaccinate their kids:
> >
> > I'm immunosuppressed. I have one working kidney that isn't mine, and
> > I'm pretty healthy now, partly because I don't run across scads of
> > people with whooping cough, rubella, measles et al. Yes, you're
> > putting your kids at risk with vaccinations, just as you are when you
> > take aspirin, St. Johns Wart, or when you cross the street. But they
> > are calculated risks, as is everything else in life.
> > So, if you wish to provide your children with an immunization free
> > existence, be my guest. Just move to an island somewhere, where your
> > kids will not be a real, definable danger to me.
> > I will not try to convince you to immunize. But know that your
> > children will never be invited into my house, and if one of them comes
> > to work one day an a new employee, and I find out, I will get them
> > transferred, fired, or demoted to another location. Because your lack
> > of concern for MY well being makes them a real risk to me.
 
m nesbitt wrote:

> Do you know what a disease
> vector is? With a surpressed immune system, I'm the first to pick up
> what's going around, and I spread it like a lawn sprinkler. So, if
> someone with no immunizations comes too close, they're going down as
> well.


Really? Convince me.
 
>
>"ToolPackinMama" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Never mind that measles, mumps, and chicken pox used to be harmless
>> childhood diseases that never killed anybody.
>>

>
>Actually, even today measles kills more in Africa than AIDS. Ask Patricia
>Neal if she would have rather had her daughter get the vaccine or the
>disease (her husband was Roald Dahl... his autobiography _Boy_ is a good
>read )
>http://www.measlesinitiative.org/index3.asp


Measles in Africa, particularly about how children adopted from underdeveloped
nations have brought measles outbreaks with them.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/measles/news-archive.htm

And, from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5302a2.htm

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, during 2000, measles
accounted for approximately 777,000 deaths worldwide, of which 452,000 (58%)
occurred in Africa (1). In response, in 2000, WHO's African Regional Office
(AFRO) adopted a plan to reduce measles mortality >50% by 2005 (2). The plan
recommended 1) increasing measles vaccination by strengthening routine health
services; 2) providing a second opportunity for measles vaccination for all
children, primarily through wide--age-range supplemental immunization
activities (SIAs); 3) enhancing measles surveillance; and 4) improving
management of measles cases. The initial wide--age-range SIA targets all
children aged 9 months--14 years, regardless of history of measles disease or
vaccination. Follow-up SIAs are needed 3--5 years after the initial SIA to
provide a second opportunity for vaccination to children born since the
previous SIA (i.e., those aged 9 months--4 years). During the 1990s, the
countries of the Americas and seven countries in southern Africa used this
strategy to reduce the number of measles deaths to near zero (3--5). This
report describes the recent implementation of this strategy in three West
African countries, where reported measles cases declined 83%--97% during the
first year after SIAs. Successful implementation of this strategy by other
African countries should result in achieving the goal of >50% reduction in
measles mortality by 2005.

Routine and Supplemental Immunizations

In 2001, before use of wide--age-range SIAs, routine measles vaccination
coverage was estimated to be 69% by the administrative method* in Burkina Faso,
37% by survey† in Mali, and 33% by survey in Togo (WHO/United Nations
Children's Fund [UNICEF], unpublished data, 2002). During December
2001--January 2002, nationwide SIAs among children aged 9 months--14 years were
conducted to give a second opportunity for measles vaccination in these three
countries.

Impact

A total of 12.7 million children were targeted in the three countries. National
SIA coverage was estimated to be 95%--99% by survey method and 99%--104% by
administrative method (Table 1). The number of reported measles cases and
deaths has decreased 91% and 84%, respectively, compared with the annual
averages for 1996--2001 (Table 1). The number of deaths averted was estimated
by applying the observed percentage reduction in reported measles deaths in
2002, compared with the average annual number of deaths reported during
1996--2001, to the estimated number of measles deaths in 1998 (6) (Tables 1 and
2). WHO estimated the number of measles deaths in 1998 (before SIAs) by using
the size of the surviving birth cohort, the reported vaccine coverage, vaccine
efficacy, and a measles case-fatality ratio (CFR) of 6.0 (6).§ The estimated
number of deaths averted in the three countries during 2002 was 26,365 (Table
2).

Surveillance

In 2002, surveillance for measles was enhanced by starting measles case-based
surveillance with laboratory confirmation and intensifying supervision of all
districts by provincial surveillance supervisors. According to regional
guidelines, any clinician diagnosis of measles or illnesses consistent with the
case definition of rash, fever, and cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis should be
reported as suspected measles. In addition, all patients in whom measles is
suspected should have blood collected for serologic confirmation.

In 2002, in Burkina Faso, blood specimens were taken for 1,060 (62%) of the
1,712 suspected cases. Of the 1,029 cases with laboratory results, 709 (69%)
were measles-IgM positive. Of these, 255 (36%) cases were in persons aged >15
years. A total of 319 (45%) laboratory-confirmed cases occurred in the target
age group for the SIAs (i.e., ages 9 months--14 years). In Mali, specimens were
collected for 63 (12%) of 533 suspected measles cases; 22 (35%) tested
measles-IgM positive. Laboratory-confirmed measles outbreaks were detected in
one northern district among a nomadic population (n = 39) and in one district
along the Guinea border (n = 36). During January 2001--December 2002, in Togo,
specimens were collected from 250 (75%) of 333 suspected measles cases; 23 (9%)
tested measles-IgM positive. Of these, 14 (61%) were in the northeastern
province of Savane, and 11 (78%) were in the Tone district bordering Burkina
Faso.

Reported by: Ministries of Health, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Togo; Country
Offices for Burkina Faso, Mali, and Togo, World Health Organization. Measles
Programme, Regional Office for Africa, World Health Organization, Harare,
Zimbabwe. Global Immunization Div, National Immunization Program, CDC.

Editorial Note:

The measles mortality reduction strategies implemented in Burkina Faso, Mali,
and Togo reduced the annual numbers of measles cases and deaths by 91% and 84%,
respectively, during the first year after implementation of SIAs, compared with
6 years preceding SIAs. In 2002, an estimated 26,365 measles deaths were
prevented. The Ministries of Health in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Togo were
responsible for planning and conducting SIAs. Financial and technical support
for implementing this strategy is being provided by a coalition of partners
(The Measles Initiative) led by the American Red Cross; other partners include
the United Nations Foundation, UNICEF, WHO, and CDC.

Although the reductions in cases and deaths in Burkina Faso were substantial
compared with levels during 1996--2001, widespread measles transmission
continued after the campaign. Widespread transmission after successful
wide--age-range SIAs has not been reported in 13 other African countries (5;
WHO, unpublished data, 2003). An outbreak investigation is under way to
determine why the decline in cases in Burkina Faso was not as marked as in the
other countries.

Remaining subjects of concern for the measles mortality reduction program
include 1) the duration of effect of the wide--age-range SIAs, 2) the
appropriate interval between the initial wide--age-range and subsequent SIAs,
and 3) the best methods for increasing routine vaccination. On the basis of
experience in the Americas and southern Africa, a 4-year interval between SIAs
will maintain measles mortality at near zero if the routine measles coverage
remains at >80% and the SIAs achieve coverage of >90% (3--6). However,
attaining routine coverage of >80% will be challenging for these countries.
From 1998--2000 to 2002, the reported routine coverage with the third dose of
combined diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine (DPT3) increased in Mali, from
32%--53% to 74%; in Burkina Faso, from 34%--57% to 75%; and in Togo, from
36%--50% to 59% (WHO, unpublished data, 2003). The low routine measles
vaccination coverage in these countries will result in accumulation of
susceptible children born since the 2001 SIAs. This might result in small- to
moderate-sized measles outbreaks before the scheduled follow-up SIAs planned
for the fall of 2004.

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, the
decline in reported measles cases and deaths might be underestimated; <50% of
serologic specimens, compared with >70% in countries with widespread measles
transmission, drawn from patients with measles-compatible illnesses after SIAs
in Mali and Togo were confirmed as measles on the basis of positive-IgM
results. These findings are consistent with those observed in southern Africa
after nationwide wide--age-range SIAs (5). Second, the estimated number of
measles deaths before implementation of SIAs assumed no herd immunity and
relied on available CFRs for measles (6). In the absence of recent
population-based studies, these CFR estimates might have changed as a result of
improvements in case management and a shift in the age distribution of
patients. During 1989--1991, a population-based study in rural Ghana found a
measles CFR of 15%, even in an area with vitamin A supplementation (7); this
figure is substantially higher than the 6% CFR used to estimate the number of
measles deaths averted.

During the next few years, improved surveillance for measles will be important
to determine the effectiveness of the measles mortality reduction strategy. An
increase in population immunity to measles decreases the positive predictive
value of the clinical case definition (3,5), thereby necessitating laboratory
confirmation of suspected cases. The implementation of case-based surveillance
with serologic confirmation of suspected cases will require capacity for
specimen collection, transportation, testing, and reporting of results.
Previous experience with case-based surveillance, specimen collection, and
testing for acute flaccid paralysis cases will guide this process.

References

Stein C, Birmingham M, Kurian M, Duclos P, Strebel P. The global burden of
measles in the year 2000---a model using country-specific indicators. J Infect
Dis 2000;187(suppl 1):S8--S14.
African Regional Office of the World Health Organization. Plan of Action for
Measles Mortality Reduction in the African Region, 2001--2005. Harare,
Zimbabwe: African Regional Office of the World Health Organization, 2000.
de Quadros CA, Olive J-M, Hersh BS, et al. Measles elimination in the
Americas---evolving strategies. JAMA 1996;275:224--9.
Hersh BS, Tambini G, Nogueira AC, Carrasco P, de Quadros C. Review of regional
measles surveillance data in the Americas, 1996--99. Lancet 2000;355:1943--8.
Biellik R, Madema S, Taole A, et al. First five years of measles elimination in
Southern Africa: 1996--2000. Lancet 2002;359:1564--8.
Otten M, Okwo-Bele JM, Kezaala R, Biellik R, Eggers R, Nshimirimana D. Impact
of alternative approaches to accelerated measles control: report on the
experience in the African Region, 1996--2002. J Infect Dis 2003;187(suppl
1):S36--S43.
Dollimore N, Cutts F, Binka FN, Ross DA, Morris SS, Smith PG. Measles
incidence, case fatality, and delayed mortality in children with or without
vitamin A supplementation in rural Ghana. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:646--54.

* Calculated by dividing the number of doses of vaccine administered through
routine health services by the birth cohort of the previous year.
† Using either the Expanded Programme on Immunization method with 30 clusters
of seven children per cluster or population-based probability surveys conducted
by international organizations (e.g., MACRO International, Inc. and UNICEF).
§ Measles cases (i.e., number of susceptible children) = (1 -- [coverage X
vaccine efficacy]) X number of surviving infants.
 
In the "old days" 50% of the children dies with childhood diseases before
they aged ten years. I have seen the graves stones of many of them.

These deaths were typically caused, not by the diseases, but by the
disgusting lack of knowledge and handling held by our medical professionals.
I remember having red (or was it German) measles and being delirious and
what did the doctor say? "keep him warm. Wrap him up and make him sweat" I
remember screaming with horrible delusions and overheated body. Nope...had
to keep warm!

The chem/cut doctors knew next to nothing and most of these deaths IMHO
could have been prevented with the Naturopathic knowledge of the time.


"ToolPackinMama" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> HCN wrote:
>
> > Actually, even today measles kills more in Africa than AIDS.

>
> Cite?
>
> > These diseases were NEVER harmless...

>
> It's just that it's better to catch them in childhood, than as an adult.
>
> > > Never mind that the best way to be "immunized" against them is STILL

to
> > > catch them in childhood.

> >
> > If you survived... 1 to 2 out of 1000 will die from measles (even in the
> > 21st century, and even in the western world)

>
> Cite?
>
> > This seems to fly against earlier posts you made where you said they did

NOT
> > get sick. I sincerely doubt that your kids actually got what you

thought
> > was measles (there are several rash diseases that may seem like a mild

case
> > of measles). Your kids may not actually be fully immune... and are only

a
> > plane ride away from getting real measles. (know anyone who has adopted

a
> > child from China lately?)

>
> What are you smoking?
>
> > > FWIW, my kids were in more danger from their constantly sick,

immunized
> > > schoolmates, than they ever were from wild measles, mumps, and
> > > chicken-pox. BTW, it's generally true that it's the sick kids who

make
> > > healthy kids sick, not the reverse, so actually, my kids were more at
> > > risk... although, oddly, they rarely got sick. Hmm....
> > >
> > > Hmmmm.... ;)

> >
> > I find this hard to believe...

>
> That's your problem. :)