Meningitis was a known side effect of the original MMR vaccine. That is why it was taken off the market. But then they used the same vaccine in other countries before it caused the same issues there. I think it was used in the US, then the UK, then finally it was exported to developing countries where it probably caused meningitis and death all over the world.

How come that didn't get on MSM like the one baby"possibly" get meningitis from a unvaccinated person?

The MSM won't touch big pharma due to advertising dollars. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

"the Urabe mumps strain contained in two of the three available vaccines was temporally associated with aseptic meningitis in approximately 1 in 100,000 vaccinees (1). However, it was unclear at the time whether the association was causal and, if so, what the true attributable risk was and whether the adverse effect was exclusively related to vaccines containing the Urabe strain."

I'd say 1/100,000 people getting aseptic meningitis is a pretty good cost for preventing the majority of cases of MMR which on their own are more likely to cause permanent brain damage than aseptic meningitis. However we can all agree that meningitis is not fun so they rolled out the Priorix MMR vaccine and in 1998 (20 years ago) there were zero confirmed cases out of 1.6 million vaccines administered.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/6/704/63700

Meningitis wasn't the only adverse reaction to that particular vaccine.

It's the only one you deemed important enough to mention in your original comment...

Because it's listed in the above studies. And meningitis is generally an extremely serious often fatal condition, even if it was a rare side effect.

False. The most dangerous form of swelling in the brain is encephalitis with a 30% mortality rate. Bacterial meningitis is a serious threat but still only rarely causes death. Aseptic meningitis usually resolves itself without the need for treatment. Please do your research or at least read mine before making these claims.

Aseptic meningitis literally causes swelling in the brain membrane. Wikipedia says

In fact, in newborns, the mortality rate is 70%.

Great. I am not a medical expert, nor do I claim to be, but that doesn't sound fun.

Ok so you do seem to have a grasp on what meningitis is. That's good. Yes infant mortality rates for a disease are almost always higher than that of adults because of how fragile they are. That's why it is important to vaccinate them you know what else kills infants? Mumps.... And measles... And rubella. All of which are prevented by the vaccine. It's all about risk managemnent. We can't protect our kids from everything but we protect them from what we can.

The vaccine was causing a disease it wad supposed to prevent.

I saw just then on the front page that a baby caught meningitis "possibly" from an unvaccinated person. So now reddit is taking possibilities as facts. Check out the ignorant comments on there.

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8yb0n1/baby_dies_from_meningitis_possibly_caught_it_from/

/r/vaccinetruths

Most of the adult population are 'unvaccinated' according to the current CDC schedule, which is absolutely enormous.

Most of the adult population are 'unvaccinated'

That's for sure. That's why the booster shots are now being promoted.

For example, for DTaP [Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis] vaccinations, ‘immunity’ is supposed to last only for two to five years.

Can we do a meme on this 7 serious reactions to vaccinations no one bats an eye one infant fatality of menengits possibly from an unvaccinated person and everyone losses their mind.

>Bottiger, M., et al. "Swedish experience of two dose vaccination programme aiming at eliminating measles, mumps and rubella." British Medical Journal 1987; 295:264-67. https://www.bmj.com/content/295/6608/1264

Did anyone who upvoted actually read the links? I clicked the first one and the study has zero to do with neurological damage (at least the abstract never mentions it).

What the first study's abstract does say, ironically, is that the vaccine is extremely successful.

So I have to ask the OP, did you read the actual link? Is there maybe something hidden in the full study that is not in the abstract? If so could you post it? Because this doesn't say what you claim it does.

So out of 400+ children there were neurological side effects in 25 only 7 of which were serious. Besides that nothing. Do you not read or are you stretching this that badly

Perhaps you would feel differently about the size of that number if it was your child who had a 6% chance of developing neurological side effects.

Perhaps you would feel differently if it was your child with polio. Who then passed that polio on to immuno suppressed people. All because of a POSSIBLE 6% chance. Also to note none of it was autism and only one actually had lasting effects. And the underlying genetic conditions she had caused a perfect storm for that more than likely. So no I would not feel differently because if my kid was the 1 in 600 who ended up like that then clearly something was up in the first place that would more than likely cause an issue at some point in life. The fact that my child will be vaccinated is well worth it

Perhaps you would feel differently if it was your child with polio.

I would certainly feel some kind of way if any child got polio because they missed out on the mumps vaccine.

Actually it's mumps measles and rubella since this is the only kind of discussion you can put together. Unlike an informational response based off the information the study gave

Says the person inexplicably bringing up polio in an MMR vaccine discussion.

In the spirit of actually informational responses, the PDF didn't in fact say that only 7 had serious side effects. It said that 25 had potentially serious neurological symptoms, of which 7 were admitted to the hospital. Furthermore, 3 continued to exhibit symptoms a year later, of which 2 were considered likely to have been caused by the vaccine.

I slipped up and said polio in a hypothetical anecdote. Not that big of a deal. Just like 2 out of 600 is negligible

I'm still not sure where you're getting these numbers from. First it was 400, now it's 600.

140+247+496 so 883. You should've just let me keep saying 400

Why? Even at 883, that means 3% of the children developed potentially serious neurological side effects, and that's not counting the further 3% who had other potentially serious side effects.

Should we not at the very least try to figure out if there is a common thread among children who experience serious side effects? If such a commonality exists, it would mean that the vaccines aren't necessarily bad for all, just for some.

See now you're thinking. That's exactly what should be done. Look at chemotherapy (extreme example) but there are plenty of treatments out there that do not work the same for everyone. The vaccines will be here. Finding that common link that sets off those reactions in that small population would be very beneficial. Doing possible gene testing before a child receives a vaccine to see if they are likely to get a reaction if it follows that mechanism would help. But people cannot just stop vaccinating over a suspicion that they may be apart of the 3%. If everyone did that then these diseases will be back and way more than 3% will be suffering and a large chunk will still be children due to general susceptibility

See now you're thinking.

This is what we've wanted all along. The mainstream does not accurately portray our interests.

But people cannot just stop vaccinating

If the government refuses to allow proper safety testing, then that is exactly what we can and should do. Children are not lab rats, they don't deserve to have improperly tested and potentially dangerous injections forced on them. That is literally oppression, and sometimes difficult choices must be made to fight oppression.

If everyone did that then these diseases will be back and way more than 3% will be suffering and a large chunk will still be children due to general susceptibility.

Not in developed nations. There is a case to be made for the developing world where nutrition and medical care are scant, but in the modern developed world it would appear that the risk of complications from the diseases may very well be lower than the risk of complications from the vaccines. We won't know for sure unless most rigorous testing is done, which brings us back full circle.

What about the thousands of cases of kids getting hurt if we didn't have the vaccine. You don't have any reason. It's all or nothing to you which does not work in this world whatsoever

Thank you, I don't know why the OP didn't just link that to begin with?

Anyhow the serious side effects are .0073% of the total. I would accept that risk when compared to the risk from the diseases covered. (BTW I see someone else said .0008%? I don't think that is correct).

I think there are two serious and constantly repeated myths at work here. One is that "They" are saying vaccines are 100% safe and effective. Nothing is and I have never heard anyone claim that.

The other is that these childhood illnesses were benign, they were not. I grew up in the generation where we all got chicken pox, measles etc. Both my wife and I have relatives that were left deaf. I recall a neighbor that had a mis-carriage and I could go on. Severe injuries were from these illnesses were, while not something that happened to most kids, not un-common. Pretty much everyone was touched by this in some way.

If you compare the rate of injury/death from the illness and compare to the rate injury/death from the illness, that is the real question.

I clicked the first one and the study has zero to do with neurological damage

This study has often been cited under the rubric of "The Measles (and MMR) Vaccine and Serious Blood Disorders".

Like here,

http://vaxtruth.org/tag/reactions/

That's even worse than the original post. DOES the study show neurological damage or not? Sure looks like "not" to me.

I'm sorry I quit playing that game a long time ago. The page has dozens of links, I find one that's full of crap then we play "well look at this one". That's why I usually pick one specific thing and stick to it.

But if you want to discuss one link here's one I picked at random: http://vaxtruth.org/2011/09/proof-that-vaccines-did-not-save-us/

Why do you think they are using a logarithmic scale?

Why do you think they are using a logarithmic scale?

There are many charts in this article. Some use logarithmic scale, some use linear scale. Like these, for example, both using linear scale,

https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/0707276measles_analg.jpg

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-uk-measles-1901-1965.gif?

So what’s your point? Is this all you’ve learned from this article?

My point was that they were deliberately using a linear scale to change the shape of the graph.

BTW: Did you notice the second graph of US cases and deaths? Am I missing something or do both number crash around 1969, why do you think that was?

Also I don't think you are going to find a huge drop in overall child mortality from all causes from any one vaccine. Death is probably the least common side effect. As I recall the most common serious side effect from measles was ear infections which could lead to deafness. I wouldn't say most children suffered this, but it was a significant amount.

I personally wouldn't say death is the main thing that worries me about the illnesses covered by the MMR vaccine. Is there someone seriously saying the main concern with measles is death?

My point was that they were deliberately using a logarithmic scale to change the shape of the graph.

How do you know this?

At least VaxTruth agrees the vaccine works.

That's their problem. I say it doesn't work.

As I recall the most common serious side effect from measles was ear infections which could lead to deafness.

And the most serious side effect from the vaccine is death. Being crippled for life is another serious side effect.

Which is worse?

How do you know this?

Sorry, it's one of the most common ways to change the shape of the graph. I'm sure they had pure motives though.

That's their problem.

So your quoted source is not to be believed?

And the most serious side effect from the vaccine is death. Being crippled for life is another serious side effect. Which is worse?

Is that how you judge relative risk? I think you are missing a step.

So tldr out of the 588,330 children vaccinated only 43 had anything more than minor side effects and out of those 43 only 5 still had symptoms a year later. That's not a 6% chance. That's a .0008% chance.

Autism epidemic = vaccine damage. Millions are crippled.

The big kids are talking you can go away now

The pharma kids are here! Are your brains vaccine damaged?

Lol Captain Autismo is here to save the thread from rational thought. That's my queue to leave. Bye!

Blue Pill Junkies Should Avoid This Show - Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Brian Hooker, JB Handley & Mark Blaxill close the curtains on vaccine mythology. You will never be the same again

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20430559_Aseptic_meningitis_after_vaccination_against_measles_and_mumps

Link is broken

Whoops I pasted the wrong one

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(89

Maybe because when I try it's not copying the full link. Seems to cut off halfway through

I often have the privilege of showing visitors around my family’s cherry orchards atop Stemilt Hill. We visit the orchard to see how cherries are harvested (hand-picked!), and the tasks we do after they are harvested to ensure this perishable fruit maintains that fresh-off-the-tree quality we all love. I always enjoy these tours, and any time I get to spend in the orchard, but they do come with a price tag  – a 4:45 AM start time!

Actually it's mumps measles and rubella since this is the only kind of discussion you can put together. Unlike an informational response based off the information the study gave

Says the person inexplicably bringing up polio in an MMR vaccine discussion.

In the spirit of actually informational responses, the PDF didn't in fact say that only 7 had serious side effects. It said that 25 had potentially serious neurological symptoms, of which 7 were admitted to the hospital. Furthermore, 3 continued to exhibit symptoms a year later, of which 2 were considered likely to have been caused by the vaccine.