Vaccinating during an outbreak helps spread the disease?

ra_mom

Mon, Nov 05 2018, 5:59 pm

Redbird wrote:

I thought this info was being spread by provaxxers. because it would imply you need to vaccinate on time and not wait till an outbreak...

Anyway I'm-a-mother that waited till the outbreak, so I really want to know if this info is coming from somewhere. (I was gona delay till he's older, but now I'm not waiting)

I can try to find you the article I read by a doctor who wrote that his baby relative needed to get emergency vaccinated before the scheduled age, to protect him, because he was exposed to the outbreak.

ra_mom

Mon, Nov 05 2018, 6:07 pm

"my vaccinated, 2-year-old granddaughter just had to get an urgent premature second dose of MMR vaccine after being exposed in “gan” in Israel; her 5-month old brother, too young to be vaccinated, had to get a painful gamma globulin shot, because of such incorrect and dangerous medical views."

"Rabbi Aaron Glatt, MD, FACP, FIDSA, FSHEA, is Chairman of Department of Medicine, Chief Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiologist at South Nassau Communities Hospital; Clinical Professor of Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Assistant Rabbi, Young Israel of Woodmere."

http://matzav.com/the-anti-vac.....ZYIxg

Last edited by ra_mom on Mon, Nov 05 2018, 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

Redbird

Mon, Nov 05 2018, 6:12 pm

ra_mom wrote:

I don't understand how this connects to my original post? Can you explain?

ra_mom

Mon, Nov 05 2018, 6:14 pm

Redbird wrote:

I don't understand how this connects to my original post? Can you explain?

It proves the opposite of what you wrote in your original post. Vaccinating as necessary during an outbreak helps contain the disease.

These children were exposed and to contain the disease and protect the children from the disease, they were vaccinated right away (and the baby who couldn't get vaccinated was also treated to contain the disease and protect him).

Mommy1:)

Mon, Nov 05 2018, 6:19 pm

Redbird wrote:

Iv'e seen this mentioned on imamother a few times. Can someone please explain this? Or give a source to read more?

This is a prime example of misinformation based on old vaccinations and old methods. When vaccinations first started, folks were actually given the live virus, and therefore did get sick and were contagious. Even more recently - in the late 1900's - the polio vaccine was given in a liquid form and was live, with a very small risk of actually getting the disease from the vaccination. Obviously ANY risk of getting the disease from the vaccine was too high, so when the government saw that a few folks got the disease from the vaccine, they pushed for an injectable form that had a not-live form of the infection. We have this vaccine today so the risk of contagion is zero.

Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation about risks of getting the illness or giving it to someone else from the vaccine, as well as other misinformation related to vaccines, is based on earlier vaccines, not the vaccines used today.

It's natural to have concerns about vaccines, but please ask someone who has actual facts backed by years of research with large studies (and not individual examples). The ideal person to ask is your friendly pediatrician or other friendly doctor.

ggdm

Mon, Nov 05 2018, 6:50 pm

Short answer: No.

Longer answer:
There are different types of vaccines. Those that do not have live virus - no way that a vaccinated person can spread the disease (spread = virus multiplies, dead virus cannot do that). Those that contain live virus - the answer is more complicated, but they don't just put a bit of the original virus in there, they do stuff so that the virus cannot go on multiplying as usual (otherwise you would get sick, just like if you get infected by a sich person).

So what type of vaccine is the measles vaccine? It is an attenuated vaccine. From Wikipedia:
"An attenuated vaccine is a vaccine created by reducing the virulence of a pathogen, but still keeping it viable (or "live").[1] Attenuation takes an infectious agent and alters it so that it becomes harmless or less virulent."

So in theory there is a remote possibility. Now you can go and study scientific literature to find recorded cases of someone who got measles or spread them just from the vaccination. Or let other people (who are better qualified than you and I) do that research. And it seems that research comes back with "no case known".

As a source: Ask you doctor. Ask your health insurance. Ask official health places like maybe the health ministry or CDC or WHO. Do not ask random people on the internet.
But just for fun:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/v......html
http://www.who.int/immunizatio.....s/en/
https://nrvs.info/faqs/can-vac.....ases/ (random-people-on-the-internet warning, but very informative)

nchr

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 12:06 pm

amother wrote:

Yes, a letter from the health Dept from our school said that whoever isn't vaxxed and catches up on it during the outbreak needs to be out of school for a number of days because the vaccines sheds and can be contagious.

The measles vaccine does not shed. Also, if that would be the case, that would apply any time someone received a vaccine, but measles does not shed, so it is irrelevant. The reason the children may not return is because the vaccine is not effective immediately so if it is their first shot (not the 2nd) then they still may come down with measles prior to their bodies developing immunity.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 12:16 pm

nchr wrote:

Dear OncoLink "Ask The Experts,"

How long should a neutropenic person stay away from someone who has received a vaccine, flu shot, or infants who received their regular vaccinations? I see that it says to "avoid" recently vaccinated persons, but no indication for [how] long. Thanks.

Answer:
The issue with vaccines is actually with those that are "live attenuated vaccines". These types of vaccines are created using the actual germ or bacteria, and therefore could possibly infect someone. However, it is rare for this to occur, because the germ gets weaker as the vaccine is produced in the laboratory. Because of this, it causes mild or no illness in the person receiving the vaccine. However, if the person receiving the vaccine is exposed to someone who is immunocompromised, the immunocompromised individual could get the illness.

The article does go on to say that the healthy people in the family can have the MMR without endangering the sick person.

From:https://www.oncolink.org/frequently-asked-questions/coping-with-cancer/side-effects/exposure-to-people-after-they-had-a-vaccine

My grandchildren in Pittsburgh cannot go to school for 2 weeks after being given the MMR because of a girl who has had a liver transplant. These newly vaccinated children are dangerous for her. I am not sure if this is being overly cautious or if her doctor actually feels that they are a risk for her.