Measles Vaccination Check in Future?

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

It is a Scientology Sea Org ship (not sure why the media keeps calling it a "Cruise" ship).

Gee, fake news. What a surprise.

 

[jenf22]

It is a Scientology Sea Org ship (not sure why the media keeps calling it a "Cruise" ship).

Maybe because no one knows what a "Scientology Sea Org ship" is. I didn't. Honestly even after reading the wiki post about it, it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

My other issue is with the purposeful decision to encourage a complete lack of informed consent in order to promote the idea of vaccine safety and greater population compliance. As a result, parents are unaware of the real risks and, consequently, the early symptoms of these complications. This lack of awareness does result in children not being rushed to the hospital at the first sign of these symptoms, leading to more catastrophic outcomes.

I have a 12 year old son who has had every vaccination recommended by our pediatrician. Prior to every single one I was given the sheet stating what the risks and side effects are and I was given time to read it. I was told what to look for as far as side effects go and what to do if I saw any. There was most definitely NOT a "purposeful decision to encourage a complete lack of informed consent". I was informed. I consented. I trust our pediatrician with our son's health. You know why? Because she has devoted her life to ensuring kids are healthy. She's not in some conspiracy with "big pharma" to hurt children. Makes absolutely no sense. I told myself I wouldn't comment on this thread....

 

[kiford]

That’s really interesting about Europe. I don’t recall ever showing my vaccine records there, and Europe has a MUCH bigger measles problem. Just for comparison our outbreak in the US is around 700 cases right now, in 2018 Europe had 83,000 cases (54k coming from Ukraine).

I think it was in 2014-5 and only lasted a short period of time. There was an outbreak in Disneyland early in 2015 or late 2014 supposedly caused by a visitor from Europe (or someone who had visited Europe). It was that outbreak that made me look and see if there were any restrictions on travel in Europe without immunizations or records because we were heading there in summer 2015. I cannot recall which countries had these restrictions or for how long. We were certainly not asked for any when we travelled that summer and I didn't see the requirement when were at the point of travel. Maybe they simply found that it was nearly impossible to manage. You would expect something that like that would be in place now given that it's much worse than in 2015 if they were able to actually put it in place. Unless you know in advance that you need to have it with you (and it's actually up-to-date), it's unlikely that many people would have their records with them.

 

[anjuan]

What about those people who don't need a vaccination, due to actually having the disease? How do they prove they're immune?

I doubt that it will be required. But, maybe a question included on the heath questionnaire regarding it? Of course, those cruise lines that no longer use a health questionnaire - that's not going to work. And, of course, people will lie about it anyway.

I don't know what it is called, but I know there is a blood test that can show if you've already had measles or not. The reason I know is that I adopted my daughter from China. When we went to adopt her there was a measles outbreak in the orphanage that she and other babies in our adoption group were from. When we got to the US consulate they had heard of the measles outbreak in that orphanage and they required that all of the babies receive a blood test to see if the babies had already had measles. They also quarantined the babies to our hotel rooms. When the blood tests came back the family of those babies who had tested positive were allowed to complete the adoption and return home to the US. For those babies that didn't, including my daughter, we had to remain in China until the incubation period for measles was up and the children showed no signs of measles at which time we returned to the US.

I'm not saying that Disney would require the blood test, rather just responding to your question.

 

[Lisacast71]

Ok I am looking at the other side of this...being quarantined on my favorite thing on earth (dcl!!) seems like heaven to me Bring on the unvaccinated! I have had mine MMRs when I was little, when my first daughter was born and then again when my granddaughter was born.

 

[serenitynow]

I don't know what it is called, but I know there is a blood test that can show if you've already had measles or not. The reason I know is that I adopted my daughter from China. When we went to adopt her there was a measles outbreak in the orphanage that she and other babies in our adoption group were from. When we got to the US consulate they had heard of the measles outbreak in that orphanage and they required that all of the babies receive a blood test to see if the babies had already had measles. They also quarantined the babies to our hotel rooms. When the blood tests came back the family of those babies who had tested positive were allowed to complete the adoption and return home to the US. For those babies that didn't, including my daughter, we had to remain in China until the incubation period for measles was up and the children showed no signs of measles at which time we returned to the US.

I'm not saying that Disney would require the blood test, rather just responding to your question.

A titer test can show immunity/exposure to Measles (Rubella)

 

[FigmentSpark]

So very specific question, if anyone knows any vaccination history. My mom said that while we (briefly) lived in Miami back in 1968, there was a new vaccine released that hadn't been available yet in Canada. She said I had that. She doesn't know what that was for (because she's now 80 and has long forgotten those things) and didn't write it down, but she did remember that it was new. I also remember her telling me, probably around middle school age that I had been vaccinated against measles. Could that one shot in 1968 have been the measles and if so, was it the "good one" or the other one?

Yeah, I know, ask my doctor for the test. I just wondered if anyone knew anything about what was available around that time.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

I have a 12 year old son who has had every vaccination recommended by our pediatrician. Prior to every single one I was given the sheet stating what the risks and side effects are and I was given time to read it. I was told what to look for as far as side effects go and what to do if I saw any. There was most definitely NOT a "purposeful decision to encourage a complete lack of informed consent". I was informed. I consented. I trust our pediatrician with our son's health. You know why? Because she has devoted her life to ensuring kids are healthy. She's not in some conspiracy with "big pharma" to hurt children. Makes absolutely no sense. I told myself I wouldn't comment on this thread....

It is required by law to give that sheet out, actually, so full props for your Dr. to do so. That sheet should also have information on the national vaccine injury compensation program (again, required by law). But, sadly, a minority of Drs. do this.

Also, note not once did I say anything about NOT getting recommended vaccinations. I said I was against getting EXTRA vaccinations above the recommended.

Nor did I say anything about a "conspiracy" to "hurt children." This is apparently your issue, not mine.

What I actually talked about were the decisions to down play the known risks to promote greater coverage, i.e. not scare parents off vaccinations, which is (misguidedly, IMO) done in the interest of HELPING children, not hurting children.

 

[lanejudy]

I just wondered if anyone knew anything about what was available around that time.

AttenuVax was approved in the U.S. in 1968. I believe it is still essentially the same vaccine used in the combo MMR today.

 

[smmco]

Hopefully they find a way to make vaccines safer. Then we won’t have this issue.

 

[NJlauren]

Hopefully they find a way to make vaccines safer. Then we won’t have this issue.

How safe do you want them? It’s safer to get a vaccine then get in a car, or fly in a plane. Everything in life has risks. Evaluate the risks and make an educated choice, but don’t say vaccines aren’t safe.

 

[smmco]

How safe do you want them? It’s safer to get a vaccine then get in a car, or fly in a plane. Everything in life has risks. Evaluate the risks and make an educated choice, but don’t say vaccines aren’t safe.

I’m pretty neutral on the whole topic. I believe the people that don’t get vaccines are concerned about the ingredients? I could be wrong on that. No one is forced to get in a car or airplane. I think we’re going down a slippery slope if we start forcing people to take a medication. I’m not sure what the solution is but I hope it doesn’t come to that.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

How safe do you want them? It’s safer to get a vaccine then get in a car, or fly in a plane. Everything in life has risks. Evaluate the risks and make an educated choice, but don’t say vaccines aren’t safe.

You might find this interesting.

https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-april-2019.pdf

Yes, it would be great if they were safer. Keep in mind, only those with severe adverse effects are included in the program, so this is not the total adverse effects.

Average compensation is almost $600k, but with a huge range. And the recent increase in the number of those given compensation has had a marked increase the last few years, which I find very disturbing.

In terms of vaccine safety: this is one of the biggest criticisms of the NVICP; it removes the financial incentive of manufacturers to insure safety of vaccines.

It's probably safe to say that all of those who filed claims in the program have severe health issues that appeared subsequent to vaccine administration (a documented severe health issue is a requirement to even file). Those whose claims were denied could not prove causation (a temporal relationship alone is insufficient) by preponderance of the evidence, in the opinion of the special master (which, by definition, is going to be highly subjective in the first place in their weighing of the battle of the experts).

Whether a significant number of denied claims should have been awarded, but weren't, because the science was just not there yet, can not even be speculated.

Keep in mind, these health concerns are essentially all going to be immune system related with unknown causes. Losing in the NVICP does not mean vaccines weren't the cause; it means causation couldn't be proven, and the cause of the health issues remains unknown.

Personally, I believe vaccine safety would be increased by moving away from injections and back to oral doses, which would allow the proper "first responders" of the immune system to "see" the vaccine first. (Nasal inhalers would be a 2nd choice before injection).

 

[NJlauren]

I’m pretty neutral on the whole topic. I believe the people that don’t get vaccines are concerned about the ingredients? I could be wrong on that. No one is forced to get in a car or airplane. I think we’re going down a slippery slope if we start forcing people to take a medication. I’m not sure what the solution is but I hope it doesn’t come to that.

I don’t disagree with it’s a slippery slope forcing people to take medications. However I also do not believe the people refusing vaccinations will change their mind if they are safer, as already noted they are pretty safe already!

 

[NJlauren]

You might find this interesting.

https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-april-2019.pdf

Yes, it would be great if they were safer. Keep in mind, only those with severe adverse effects are included in the program, so this is not the total adverse effects.

Average compensation is almost $600k, but with a huge range. And the recent increase in the number of those given compensation has had a marked increase the last few years, which I find very disturbing.

In terms of vaccine safety: this is one of the biggest criticisms of the NVICP; it removes the financial incentive of manufacturers to insure safety of vaccines.

It's probably safe to say that all of those who filed claims in the program have severe health issues that appeared subsequent to vaccine administration (a documented severe health issue is a requirement to even file). Those whose claims were denied could not prove causation (a temporal relationship alone is insufficient) by preponderance of the evidence, in the opinion of the special master (which, by definition, is going to be highly subjective in the first place in their weighing of the battle of the experts).

Whether a significant number of denied claims should have been awarded, but weren't, because the science was just not there yet, can not even be speculated.

Keep in mind, these health concerns are essentially all going to be immune system related with unknown causes. Losing in the NVICP does not mean vaccines weren't the cause; it means causation couldn't be proven, and the cause of the health issues remains unknown.

Personally, I believe vaccine safety would be increased by moving away from injections and back to oral doses, which would allow the proper "first responders" of the immune system to "see" the vaccine first. (Nasal inhalers would be a 2nd choice before injection).

Actually I am well aware of this and they are still safe. There is a wide range of reasons people are paid out. Some are for wrongly administered vaccines, and there are millions of people who never filed a claim and aren’t injured.

However, I am not going to engage in a debate, it’s is a proven fact vaccines are safe. I also do not think anyone on the internet should take my word for anything, that’s why I said do your research and evaluate your risk and make your educated choice. You don’t know me, I could be a garbage man or a brain surgeon. Bottom line don’t take medical advice from people you don’t know on the internet!

 

[jenf22]

You might find this interesting.

https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-april-2019.pdf

...

And the recent increase in the number of those given compensation has had a marked increase the last few years, which I find very disturbing.

I checked out that link and decided to look up why the number of vaccine compensations claims has gone up. I believe this is an opinion piece, and it's a couple of years old, but I found it pretty enlightening.

http://time.com/3995062/vaccine-injury-court-truth/

The article states "In 80% of all cases brought since 2006, the parties settle, meaning that the petitioner recovers an award with no determination being made about whether the vaccine even caused the claimed harm."... "For the literal one in a million who are harmed, the VICP stands by to help. For the rest, it’s the vaccines themselves that do the helping."

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

There is a wide range of reasons people are paid out. Some are for wrongly administered vaccines

Actually, no. Severe injury is an absolute prerequisite to filing a claim, and causation must be proven as well to get compensation. Unless you mean the Dr./nurse messed up in the injection, such as a dirty needle? That would be very rare for something like that to cause an injury severe enough to qualify for the program.

I guess I don't understand what you define is safe. Less than 1% severely injured/killed? (yes, there are documented deaths from vaccines). Less than 0.1%?

Personally, if someone says something is completely safe, that means 0% chance of injury. Until that is reached, they can be safer.

Now, if you rephrased to say the chance of a severe complication is very small, then I could agree.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

I checked out that link and decided to look up why the number of vaccine compensations claims has gone up. I believe this is an opinion piece, and it's a couple of years old, but I found it pretty enlightening.

http://time.com/3995062/vaccine-injury-court-truth/

The article states "In 80% of all cases brought since 2006, the parties settle, meaning that the petitioner recovers an award with no determination being made about whether the vaccine even caused the claimed harm."... "For the literal one in a million who are harmed, the VICP stands by to help. For the rest, it’s the vaccines themselves that do the helping."

That article is very misleading. The parties in these cases is the petitioner and HSS, not the vaccine manufacturers.

They are referring to the table of injuries, mostly. For most of the cases where compensation is given, the injury falls on the table in terms of diagnosis and temporal relationship. HSS made the scientific determination that if an injury falls on the table, then it is more likely than not that the vaccine caused the injury. These are considered settlements, technically, even though HSS already made a causation determination.

If HSS believes that the vaccine caused the injury based on the presentation of the claim, but it is not on the table, then they will also "settle." They only do this if the HSS experts believe the vaccine is the cause (again, more likely than not). Otherwise, they will ALWAYS allow the special master to make the determination.

Either way, awarding of compensation is NEVER considered medical proof of causation. This is a legal proceeding, not a scientific or medical determination one way or the other.

 

[jenf22]

That article is very misleading. The parties in these cases is the petitioner and HSS, not the vaccine manufacturers.

They are referring to the table of injuries, mostly. For most of the cases where compensation is given, the injury falls on the table in terms of diagnosis and temporal relationship. HSS made the scientific determination that if an injury falls on the table, then it is more likely than not that the vaccine caused the injury. These are considered settlements, technically, even though HSS already made a causation determination.

If HSS believes that the vaccine caused the injury based on the presentation of the claim, but it is not on the table, then they will also "settle." They only do this if the HSS experts believe the vaccine is the cause (again, more likely than not). Otherwise, they will ALWAYS allow the special master to make the determination.

Either way, awarding of compensation is NEVER considered medical proof of causation. This is a legal proceeding, not a scientific or medical determination one way or the other.

Try this one then:
https://shotofprevention.com/2014/1...-program-what-does-the-ap-report-really-show/

The part I find interesting:
"The Northwestern article states that “In 2005, a higher court ruled it had become too hard to show that a vaccine “more likely than not” caused the injury. Winning compensation became easier.” The article is most likely referring to the Althen case: Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2005). But that is not a good depiction of what Althen did. Althen interpreted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to apply a more lax standard of causation to vaccine injury cases than to regular cases – in a way that would allow more claims with no scientific evidence behind them to win. In regular cases where the question is whether a product or drug (or other substance – for example, in a toxic tort case, where the claim is that some kind of pollution caused, for example, cancer), proving causation has two parts. The plaintiff has to prove that the substance or product in question can cause the injury in question, using scientific evidence, usually studies of some sort – that is known as “general causation”. The plaintiff also needs to prove that the substance or product caused their own injury – what is known as “scientific causation.” In Althen, the court interpreted the statute to allow a finding of causation if three things are provided: (1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury (p. 1278).” Basically, the court removed the requirement of general causation: petitioners no longer have to show that there is scientific evidence supporting a causal connection. If there is a theory that sounds probable to the Special Masters – lawyers, not scientists – and a temporal connection, a case may win even absent scientific support."

So basically, it sounds like it's pretty easy to file a claim and get a pay out. The numbers went up post Jenny McCarthy AND it became easier to get a settlement. Your previous post says "Severe injury is an absolute prerequisite to filing a claim" and that's not what I'm finding with my research. I'm pretty satisfied with my research at this point, so I'm done with the disboards for the night. Have a nice weekend.

 

[NJlauren]

Try this one then:
https://shotofprevention.com/2014/1...-program-what-does-the-ap-report-really-show/

The part I find interesting:
"The Northwestern article states that “In 2005, a higher court ruled it had become too hard to show that a vaccine “more likely than not” caused the injury. Winning compensation became easier.” The article is most likely referring to the Althen case: Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2005). But that is not a good depiction of what Althen did. Althen interpreted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to apply a more lax standard of causation to vaccine injury cases than to regular cases – in a way that would allow more claims with no scientific evidence behind them to win. In regular cases where the question is whether a product or drug (or other substance – for example, in a toxic tort case, where the claim is that some kind of pollution caused, for example, cancer), proving causation has two parts. The plaintiff has to prove that the substance or product in question can cause the injury in question, using scientific evidence, usually studies of some sort – that is known as “general causation”. The plaintiff also needs to prove that the substance or product caused their own injury – what is known as “scientific causation.” In Althen, the court interpreted the statute to allow a finding of causation if three things are provided: (1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury (p. 1278).” Basically, the court removed the requirement of general causation: petitioners no longer have to show that there is scientific evidence supporting a causal connection. If there is a theory that sounds probable to the Special Masters – lawyers, not scientists – and a temporal connection, a case may win even absent scientific support."

So basically, it sounds like it's pretty easy to file a claim and get a pay out. The numbers went up post Jenny McCarthy AND it became easier to get a settlement. Your previous post says "Severe injury is an absolute prerequisite to filing a claim" and that's not what I'm finding with my research. I'm pretty satisfied with my research at this point, so I'm done with the disboards for the night. Have a nice weekend.

You are 100% right it is extremely easy to file a claim.