2019 Might Be the Worst Year for Measles in Nearly Three Decades

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 228 individual cases of measles in 12 states since Jan. 1, the highest year-to-date number in more than 25 years. As of March 7, the states that have reported cases to the CDC are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas and Washington, CDC data shows. The number of new measles cases in January and February already exceeds the annual totals of all but three years since 2000 when the disease was declared eliminated, the Washington Post reports. Yet the high number of cases so far this year does not necessarily mean 2019 will hit a record high. According to the Washington Post, there were 154 cases in the first two months of 2015 yet only 34 cases for the remainder of the year. The ongoing outbreaks in New York, Illinois, and Texas have been linked to travelers who brought measles back from other countries, the CDC says.


READ IT AT CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

Despite popular opinion, I’m not against vaccinations like the measles per se, my problem is giving children too many in one go.
That’s what I have a problem with.

eddie wrote:Despite popular opinion, I’m not against vaccinations like the measles per se, my problem is giving children too many in one go.
That’s what I have a problem with.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay and why?

Let me put it this way Eddie

How many children and babies have an adverse reaction from the MMR jab. That is life threatening?
Compared to the 150,000 people that die from measles each year?

We are actually seeing the outcomes of this naivety of this irrationl fear. With countless more outbreaks of measels. Based off those who are not vaccinated. Which contrary to what people believe. Even people vaccinated can get measels. The best way to combat this, is to have as many people vaccinated as possible.

I just think that vaccinations could be made singular. That’s all.

eddie wrote:I just think that vaccinations could be made singular. That’s all.

Okay, but why?

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:I just think that vaccinations could be made singular. That’s all.

Okay, but why?

Well, it stands to reason didge, that multiple live viruses going into a young body can’t be good, right? It would just be better for the child to space them out. More costly for the NHS maybe, but better for the child. That’s all.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Okay, but why?

Well, it stands to reason didge, that multiple live viruses going into a young body can’t be good, right? It would just be better for the child to space them out. More costly for the NHS maybe, but better for the child. That’s all.  

Sorry, but your claim is based on what exactly here?

Your claim is that babies. That receive this multiple jab cannot be good according to you. Even though millions already do without adverse effect.

So can you explain to me, how you think it cannot be good?

I just explained. Can’t explain it any better than that. Sorry.

eddie wrote:I just explained. Can’t explain it any better than that. Sorry.

Okay Eddie

Lets imagine I have no idea on this

Expplain to me, why you think multiple vaccines are bad for babies?

I seriously would like to know why you think this?

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:I just explained. Can’t explain it any better than that. Sorry.

Okay Eddie

Lets imagine I have no idea on this

Expplain to me, why you think multiple vaccines are bad for babies?

I seriously would like to know why you think this?

Okay, it’s better to put one live vaccine at a time into a tiny body because their bodies cope better. That’s my opinion. It just makes sense to me.
You may disagree and that’s fine. But if I had a choice, I’d choose one vaccination at a time to give their little bodies time to cope and deal with each virus.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Okay Eddie

Lets imagine I have no idea on this

Expplain to me, why you think multiple vaccines are bad for babies?

I seriously would like to know why you think this?

Okay, it’s better to put one live vaccine at a time into a tiny body because their bodies cope better. That’s my opinion. It just makes sense to me.
You may disagree and that’s fine. But if I had a choice, I’d choose one vaccination at a time to give their little bodies time to cope and deal with each virus.

Why does it make sense to you?

When you eat eddie, does it make sense to you what you intake with food?

So do you ever eat food by this same principle?

Yes I do actually. I rarely eat two lots of carbs together. I rarely eat the same carbs twice in one day. I always make sure I eat some kind of vegetation per day. I don’t eat fatty foods too often. I don’t eat the same food two days running...

I could go on.

Didge, to me, it makes sense that one live virus at a time is better for the body. That’s my opinion.

I’m off now, have a good evening mate.

eddie wrote:Yes I do actually. I rarely eat two lots of carbs together. I rarely eat the same carbs twice in one day. I always make sure I eat some kind of vegetation per day. I don’t eat fatty foods too often. I don’t eat the same food two days running...

I could go on.

Didge, to me, it makes sense that one live virus at a time is better for the body. That’s my opinion.

I’m off now, have a good evening mate.

So even though humans are uniquely different. Even though you will actually eat many differnet kinds of foods. That according to you. We should based science on your diet alone? Think that is scientically sound?

Thank fuck we never listen to that silliness Eddie

Do you really think, that someone as uneducated as you are on biology. Is best placed to advise people on the dangers of illness?

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:I just think that vaccinations could be made singular. That’s all.

Okay, but why?

Well, it stands to reason didge, that multiple live viruses going into a young body can’t be good, right? It would just be better for the child to space them out. More costly for the NHS maybe, but better for the child. That’s all.  

they are injecting disabled viruses not the real thing live thing

and the first time a new born gets licked by a dog or even kissed by anyone but the mother it gets introduced to 10's or even 100's more live viruses and bacteria than any vaccine.

it's really not an issue, first day of preschool they'll be introduced to a 1000+ in one hit
Which is why making sure they have resistance to the lethal viruses before then is advisable 

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes I do actually. I rarely eat two lots of carbs together. I rarely eat the same carbs twice in one day. I always make sure I eat some kind of vegetation per day. I don’t eat fatty foods too often. I don’t eat the same food two days running...

I could go on.

Didge, to me, it makes sense that one live virus at a time is better for the body. That’s my opinion.

I’m off now, have a good evening mate.

So even though humans are uniquely different. Even though you will actually eat many differnet kinds of foods. That according to you. We should based science on your diet alone? Think that is scientically sound?

Thank fuck we never listen to that silliness Eddie

Do you really think, that someone as uneducated as you are on biology. Is best placed to advise people on the dangers of illness?

Well... given that "humans are uniquely different"... isn't it best to have a much more careful approach when administering quite powerful medicines/vaccinations to the highly sensitive and quite delicate bodies of babies and young children...!?


Surely... a "one size fits all" approach of just giving the same "single jab multi vaccine" injection to all young babies/children, is as potentially dangerous as saying that all young children must eat muesli with milk for breakfast "because it's good for them"... regardless of whether any of these children may have a nut allergy or are lactose intolerant or have coeliac disease etc...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So even though humans are uniquely different. Even though you will actually eat many differnet kinds of foods. That according to you. We should based science on your diet alone? Think that is scientically sound?

Thank fuck we never listen to that silliness Eddie

Do you really think, that someone as uneducated as you are on biology. Is best placed to advise people on the dangers of illness?

Well... given that "humans are uniquely different"... isn't it best to have a much more careful approach when administering quite powerful medicines/vaccinations to the highly sensitive and quite delicate bodies of babies and young children...!?


Surely... a "one size fits all" approach of just giving the same "single jab multi vaccine" injection to all young babies/children, is as potentially dangerous as saying that all young children must eat muesli with milk for breakfast "because it's good for them"... regardless of whether any of these children may have a nut allergy or are lactose intolerant or have coeliac disease etc...!?

wow, the above has to go down as about the most dumbest view point made by Tommy

So where is the scientific evidence that a one jab fits all is potentially as dangerous as measels, small pox etc?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Idiots like you simple make the most dumbest claims based on never knowing the harm many illnesses and diseases have caused in the past and even today. You si9mple buy into crap you read off the web

Its about as idiotic as the claim that vaccines cause autism

So I have asked this question many times to simpletons like you tommmy, that have zero scientific understanding

Would you prefer your child to be austistic or be dead dying from one of the many diseases we now can prevent?

phildidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Well... given that "humans are uniquely different"... isn't it best to have a much more careful approach when administering quite powerful medicines/vaccinations to the highly sensitive and quite delicate bodies of babies and young children...!?


Surely... a "one size fits all" approach of just giving the same "single jab multi vaccine" injection to all young babies/children, is as potentially dangerous as saying that all young children must eat muesli with milk for breakfast "because it's good for them"... regardless of whether any of these children may have a nut allergy or are lactose intolerant or have coeliac disease etc...!?

wow, the above has to go down as about the most dumbest view point made by Tommy

So where is the scientific evidence that a one jab fits all is potentially as dangerous as measels, small pox etc?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Idiots like you simple make the most dumbest claims based on never knowing the harm many illnesses and diseases have caused in the past and even today. You si9mple buy into crap you read off the web

Its about as idiotic as the claim that vaccines cause autism

So I have asked this question many times to simpletons like you tommmy, that have zero scientific understanding

Would you prefer your child to be austistic or be dead dying from one of the many diseases we now can prevent?

Sorry, but just going to add to this one point

That Tommy now compares parents introducing thier children at the earliest ages to milk and nuts. Which are not diseases and makes a comparrison to claim we should introduce deadly diseases to children. Which measels kill 10,000 each year.

Does he know when less people were vaccinated, that in 1980 2.6 million died?

You want to compare diseases to allergies and tolerance to them?

Are you really that fucking dimwitted?

Seriously?

I seriously dispair at what a clown you are tommy

phildidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Well... given that "humans are uniquely different"... isn't it best to have a much more careful approach when administering quite powerful medicines/vaccinations to the highly sensitive and quite delicate bodies of babies and young children...!?


Surely... a "one size fits all" approach of just giving the same "single jab multi vaccine" injection to all young babies/children, is as potentially dangerous as saying that all young children must eat muesli with milk for breakfast "because it's good for them"... regardless of whether any of these children may have a nut allergy or are lactose intolerant or have coeliac disease etc...!?

wow, the above has to go down as about the most dumbest view point made by Tommy

So where is the scientific evidence that a one jab fits all is potentially as dangerous as measels, small pox etc?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Idiots like you simple make the most dumbest claims based on never knowing the harm many illnesses and diseases have caused in the past and even today. You si9mple buy into crap you read off the web

Its about as idiotic as the claim that vaccines cause autism

So I have asked this question many times to simpletons like you tommmy, that have zero scientific understanding

Would you prefer your child to be austistic or be dead dying from one of the many diseases we now can prevent?

I would prefer neither... and I am simply saying that a more careful approach to applying vaccines, other than this one jab multi vaccine for all approach, may well prove to be the best way...!


But... I'm interested in your question above... are you actually admitting that these multi vaccines are causing autism...!?


Not that I have mentioned autism at all in my earlier posts...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

phildidge wrote:


wow, the above has to go down as about the most dumbest view point made by Tommy

So where is the scientific evidence that a one jab fits all is potentially as dangerous as measels, small pox etc?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Idiots like you simple make the most dumbest claims based on never knowing the harm many illnesses and diseases have caused in the past and even today. You si9mple buy into crap you read off the web

Its about as idiotic as the claim that vaccines cause autism

So I have asked this question many times to simpletons like you tommmy, that have zero scientific understanding

Would you prefer your child to be austistic or be dead dying from one of the many diseases we now can prevent?

I would prefer neither... and I am simply saying that a more careful approach to applying vaccines, other than this one jab multi vaccine for all approach, may well prove to be the best way...!


But... I'm interested in your question above... are you actually admitting that these multi vaccines are causing autism...!?


Not that I have mentioned autism at all in my earlier posts...!

So you cannot answer a simple question

As the reality is your careful approach would actually see a rise in the cases of a deadly diseases. Which is what we are seeing happenning today with people avoding having their children be vaccinated

Again I asked you you to present a scientific view to back your claim on vaccines?

You simple have not even read the evidence and go off the few cases of side effects

Again, imagine a time when there was no vaccines

How many tens of millions died?

So at no point did I admit they cause austism, did I?

I simple showed how irrational a view is that people use Autism to try to argue against vaccines, bny using a hypothetical situation

What most people do not know. Is this whole claim made around autism from vaccines. Was made by someone trying to promote his own vaccine. Hence why he was discredited and stopped from practicing medicine

As he was caught out lying

Now are you actually going to address my points or do as you usually do and continually spout nonsense?

A Brooklyn judge on Thursday rejected the petition from five anonymous anti-vaccine mothers who attempted to block the city’s recent vaccination mandate amid the largest measles outbreak the city has seen in several decades.

And the city wasted no time enforcing its upheld order. As the judge made his decision Thursday, city health officials doled out the first penalties to violators, according to the New York Times. Officials sent summonses to the parents of three children for failing to vaccinate the children even after city officials determined that they had been exposed to the dangerous viral illness.

Measles is so contagious that up to 90 percent of unvaccinated or otherwise susceptible individuals who are exposed will become ill, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles’ extreme contagiousness is due in part to the fact that once it is launched into the air from a cough or sneeze it can remain airborne and infectious for up to two hours. Any vulnerable passersby who breathe in the virus or touch contaminated surfaces can pick it up.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.


CONTINUE READING AT: ARS TECHNICA


Not goes far enough. Such irresponisble parents should face jail time,. when they place other people at risk, based on their utter ignorance

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Okay, but why?

Well, it stands to reason didge, that multiple live viruses going into a young body can’t be good, right? It would just be better for the child to space them out. More costly for the NHS maybe, but better for the child. That’s all.  

The vaccines don't contain "live" viruses, as such...

That "alternative therapy" lie has been going around since even before the www. was available to help the 'antivax', homeopathic and naturopathic quacks peddle their nonsense..

Measles is easy to "spot" !