Eindeker,

"There are 2 straight forward types of evidence that clearly demonstrate that MMR vaccine has not exacerbated SSPE, but in fact it has dramatically reduced the incidence of SSPE"

And yet the rate has climbed from 1 in 117,647 (1960-1974 CDC - MMWR 1982) to about 1 in 11 000 (_1 in 2000 for infants_), and according to JusttheVax site: "The current cluster of SSPE cases indicates that the risk of SSPE for infants who contract measles lies closer to 1 in 200". If this happened at all in the pre-vaccine era, it happened rarely because infants were protected by maternal antibodies and natural herd immunity. Vaccination has made measles a dangerous disease for infants.

What struck me in the paper, for two reasons, is the high percentage of SSPE cases who were vaccinated and did not have a history of natural measles. It is said that these cases "should not be attributed to the vaccine; all available evidence points to such cases being due to undiagnosed or unrecorded natural infection, which can be very mild".

Firstly, parents never get to hear from their doctors and the CDC that "natural measles infection can be very mild and is often undiagnosed", do they? What they do hear is fearmongering: "Measles can be a serious disease, about 1 in 4 people will be hospitalized, 1 in 1000 will develop brain swelling, which could lead to brain damage, and 1-2 in 1000 will die, even with the best care" - CDC website. (Some public health sites claim that up to 3 per 1000 will die). This was not happening at those rates in the pre-vaccine era when measles usually only affected children between the ages of 5 and 9 - the safest age to be infected - and catching measles was considered nothing more than a milestone. When a child developed a rash in those days, no one pushed the panic-button, or even considered the possibility that their child might die. In the general population, death from measles was unheard of.

Secondly, despite being vaccinated for measles these children weren't protected from SSPE, and who is to say without real evidence (not epidemiological data) that the vaccine itself could not have been the cause or trigger for SSPE? I am not convinced by "all available evidence points to such cases being due to undiagnosed natural infection" because this strikes me as being similar to there being no evidence that vaccines cause autism. Without evidence from biopsies, it can only be assumed that early undiagnosed natural measles infection was responsible, and even then, other factors such as genetic susceptibility and measles vaccination might be involved. There must be some sort of genetic susceptibility for those of us whose children react negatively to vaccines and develop neurological problems similar to the first symptoms of SSPE which sound very familiar: Abnormal behavior, Irritability, Loss of intellectual abilities, Memory loss, Involuntary movements, Seizures, Speech impairment with poor understanding, Muteness - but because our children's regression followed vaccination, and vaccines are considered to be safe for all children, doctors don't take vaccine reactions seriously, and turn a blind eye and deaf ear when a child regresses. Strangely, or perhaps not, they're not even curious as to why normally-developing children regress, they just accept it happens.

After reading about Simpsonwood; the CDC's destruction of data showing an increased risk of autism following MMR vaccination; and falsifying test results on the efficacy of the mumps component of the MMR by using rabbits' blood, do you seriously expect people to believe that if measles vaccine virus could cause or trigger SSPE that it would be revealed to the general public?

Eindeker;
I notice you ignored Twylas very succinct and well written point.
So
Baby misses Hep B at birth, ( no risk factors) = baby is unvaccinated = baby deserves to be exposed to the measles and sit next to infectious people. There is no "but babies are exempt" clause on the sign

In answer to your question, most offices believe in limiting exposure of all illnesses to all patients.
It is simple
Many

1 offer masks to ALL sick patients

2.Ask people with possibly contagious symptoms to call the office first so they can be taken straight to an exam room.

or use the separate waiting room as a temporary isolation room.

It is ridiculous to specifically single out unvaccinated children to sit with contagious children.

Are these the "bad children" who should be forced to get sick and don't deserve the most basic protection from any contagious illness?

And to repeat, as Linda1 and Twyla both pointed out, per the sign that does include unvaccinated babies, who are also "bad" and should be forced to get sick too..

So no one really believes vaccines work, or the vaccinated kids would be protected from the sick ones, and would be the obvious choice to sit with kids with measles..

(Personally, since I have had measles, mumps and rubella, (the illnesses ,not the vaccines), I have no issue sitting with any of these kids.)

Out of interest, if the plague or ebola was going round, would you be ok with unvaccinated children being sent to sit with them, while everyone else huddles in the other waiting room?

If I wanted to spread an illness, I can't think of a better plan than to deliberately send the potentially most vulnerable to sit in with the infected.

"In cases reported since 1990, there were four vaccinated without a history of measles. Brain biopsies were obtained from two of these four cases and in both wild measles virus was identified."

So vaccine + wild measles in some individuals - in your example, 4 cases reported since 1990, = SSPE & death.

The research you quote does not ask the right questions. It is known that the live flu vaccine alters the microbiome of the respiratory tract in mice, leading to greater susceptibility to respiratory infection post immunization and conditions identical to what is seen after a bout of wild flu. We know that pigs given the flu vaccine have more severe flu and severe pulmonary disease than pigs left alone. We know that injected vaccine strain of measles has been isolated in the throat of humans post vaccination, proving that the supposedly attenuated measles virus is able to get around the body quite well after injection. We know that the DTP alters genetic expression, but differently in each individual.

We don't know everything that occurs in and outside of the body after vaccination, but the puzzle pieces do not point toward safety and efficacy, as you would have us believe.

"Getting back to the original question how would those who criticise the segregation deal with the very real risk of measles transmitting to babies too young to be immunised?"

As several here have already pointed out, what makes you think a baby too young to be immunized couldn't be sitting in the sick area?

And back to the truly original point, if the vaccine lunatics hadn't eradicated naturally derived maternal immunity by vaccinating the mothers, their babies "too young to be immunised" would be protected.

Eindeker

From an unimpeachable source, eh?

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/the-british-dimension-the-who-mercury-cover-up-and-the-cdc.html

Jenny,

I haven't come across any research on reactions, even basic research on why some children react badly and others don't react at all. Why would they bother when the belief is that vaccine reactions don't have long-term effects?

Eindeker claims that the risk of SSPE post MMR is 0, and blames wild measles virus for these children's deaths, and yet almost certainly the children would have been subsequently vaccinated with the MMR, and therefore it is highly likely that these deaths occurred _post_ MMR - as it did in the two cases I know about. Vaccine believers won't even consider the possibility that a vaccine may have been responsible for these children's deaths. Even when vaccine-injury compensation has been awarded, such as in the case of Benjamin Zeller, vaccine believers deny that it is proof that vaccines cause injury.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUnHdn1ZhM

To ATSC:

I don't know about whether it's worse to vaccinate against measles after one has already been exposed to measles naturally, but one might draw a correlation to the HPV vaccine research. I think in HPV that it has been shown to increase the risk of problems when given to females who've already been exposed to HPV, which is what I think is what led to it's being recommended to girls 9 years old and up - they are trying to beat the odds of natural exposure. And they are both viruses.

Which begs a question I haven't looked into. What, specifically, are the differences, between how a body reacts to a bacteria vaccine vs a virus vaccine? Are we seeing any pattern differences of adverse reactions between the two? Has anyone compared them?

@Cia Parker,

You may want to (again) review this article:

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-the-untold-story-of-measles

"...Vaccines for measles have had spotty safety records. Soon after their introduction, the Vital Statistics of the United States began recording deaths from the measles vaccine, along with deaths from other vaccines. By 1970, one of the two original measles vaccines was withdrawn in Canada and the U.S. after causing atypical measles syndrome, a harsh disease triggering high rates of pneumonia. In 1975, the second original vaccine was withdrawn due to 103-degrees-plus fevers, among other severe side effects. Two variants of this vaccine also proved unsatisfactory. A measles vaccine then became part of the combination MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine in the 1980s, only to be withdrawn in 1990 by Canada and in 1992 by the manufacturer after reports from Canada, the U.S., Sweden and Japan blamed MMR for febrile convulsions, meningitis, deafness and deaths. A second version of MMR, now in widespread use, is believed safe by government officials.

Safety aside, vaccines repeatedly failed worldwide in the 1980s and 1990s. As described in “Measles Elimination in Canada”, a 2004 report authored by Canadian government officials and academics, “despite virtually 100% documented one-dose coverage in some regions, large outbreaks of measles involving thousands of cases persisted … Clearly, because of primary vaccine failure, Canada’s one-dose program was insufficient.”

The solution finally arrived at — adding a second dose for children — initially seemed to tame measles outbreaks. But in recent years, the new vaccination regime, too, has been failing, with widespread outbreaks again occurring, including among those who have received the recommended dose and especially among infants too young to be vaccinated, and thus unprotected because their mothers had been vaccinated. Now health experts, scrambling to find solutions, are suggesting numerous reforms, including earlier child vaccinations and second doses for adults..."

Eindeker, how does your logic justify putting the sick kids with the unvaccinated kids?

"In the year 2000, an unvaccinated preteen came down with a fever and parents took him to a pediatrician's practise. He infected six children in the waiting room with measles, three of these children were under 12 months old. Two are now dying.
ETA: Two of them developed SSPE as a consequence of their infection on that day and have since died after years of battling SSPE, Micha passed in 2013 and Natalie in 2011."

********

What an unbelievable crock of shit.

"In a measles outbreak situation it's quite reasonable to segregate unvaccinated kids with fever from vulnerable babies"

That's not what the sign says - it talks about sick people (and after all sick people may or may not have been vaccinated) - but there is no mention of measles. Of course, with measles in the era before vaccination the infants would have had maternal antibodies, so it is something of an own goal.

Of course, it is never great to have infectious people in an enclosed area: like giving nasal flu vaccine in school. You might think that was completely insane.

Eindeker
Do yo have the actual paper of study this German report is from. Just the Vax is a paid for shrill site of the pharma industry. I'd like to read the entire study or report.

("In the year 2000, an unvaccinated preteen came down with a fever and parents took him to a pediatrician's practise.)

Does the paper actually state the teen had lab confirmed Measles and if so, was a PCR test done to determine if it was a lab strain or a wild strain? If a lab strain infection than the teen cannot be pointed at as the cause of infecting the other children because a lab strain means he/she was infected by someone else who had been vaccinated.

(He infected six children in the waiting room with measles, three of these children were under 12 months old.)
Was a PCR test done to determine again if the infection was a lab strain or a wild infection. It's very easy and convenient to not do the necessary testing to follow the evidence to the source. Especially if there is an agenda.

(Two are now dying.) Documentation please.

(ETA: Two of them developed SSPE as a consequence of their infection on that day and have since died after years of battling SSPE, Micha passed in 2013 and Natalie in 2011.")

Many questions here. Not questioning the death of any child. That is terrible so don't go off on a tangent down that path with the accusation of my being insensitive. There are nuances that have been left out of this.
-you stated two of the children died as a consequence of SSPE BUT not as a direct cause from SSPE. There is a difference. It's like saying the young woman in Washington state who was revealed as having measles at the time of her death FROM PNEUMONIA but MEASLES was not the cause of her death-death was from pneumonia. Yet headlines read she died from Measles which was not the truth. Plus she was fully vaccinated and rendered immuno-compromised by medication she was taking at the time which actually means she developed pneumonia from medical treatment and died. So the children had SSPE when they died but SSPE was not directly the cause of their death. It's a play with words.
-were the children immunocomproised prior to being infected?
-did the children have any vaccines prior to being infected and not just the MMR because any vaccine such as HEP B which they have been pushing for decades on newborns and infants can cause mylein degeneration which can lead to SSPE.
-what other treatments and vaccines did the children have AFTER they were infected with measles?
-how soon after being infected with measles were the children diagnosed with SSPE?
-were the children diagnosed with SSPE because they had been infected with measles and the doctors never looked for any other cause or was it a definitive diagnosis? Misdiagnosis is very common in medicine which is one reason 400,000 people in the US die from medical mistakes each year.
-had a list of vaccines that the children had before their diagnosis been provided in the report or study?
-had the children been given flu shots before their diagnosis?

Mercury & aluminum are corrosives to the mylein sheath of the nervous system which contributes to SSPE.
-Effects of Mercury on Brain Neuron Degeneration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipi3OneIw0A
-Mercury - University of Calgary Study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XyJq9Z3-k
-DR. CHRIS SHAW: ALUMINUM IN THE BODY - ONE MORE GIRL EXCERPTS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfTo35UrFPA

At Last! Government Documents Locked Up for 30 Years Proving This Vaccine Unsafe Finally Revealed: http://www.whale(dot)to/v/at_last.html.

Please provide link to the report/study so these question can be answered.

Eindecker,
IF the only infectious diseases potentially treated by pediatricians were those that are vaccinated against, and if those vaccines were 100% safe and 100% effective, you might have a point.

Of course, we know that one has about a one in a million chance of contracting measles in the US, and a much higher chance of contracting any number of other pathogens for which there are no vaccines, and for which one will be at risk if sitting in the pediatrician's sick area, vaccinated or not.

Your example of the under 12 month old babies contracting a fatal case of measles once again shows shortsightedness and does not consider the whole picture. IF Pharma did not attempt to replace natural immunity with vaccine immunity and IF Pharma did not aggressively attempt to replace mother's milk with formula, those babies would have had the immunological protection of both. They were likely weakened by being robbed of what nature meant to provide in the way of protection as their older siblings would have breezed through the measles. Once older and stronger having had the benefit themselves of a matured immune system, built by their mother's milk over their first several YEARS of life, they would have breezed through the measles themselves and lived to contribute TRUE HERD IMMUNITY to their communities and eventually their own young, as was the case in my generation before the ill advised tampering began.

Of course, there are always exceptions but your measles complication rate is way overblown. The truth is that the misuse of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals such as infant formula have wrought havoc on man's ability to live in nature and have done much more harm than good.

I think the segregation is for the saviour of the vaxed ,simply because of the un-healthy, immune compromised state they are in. The vaxed kids , most if not all, will have developed a type 2 immune response, rather than a type 1 natural immune response.The un-vaxed are more healthier by far, and I have no fear of mingling my un-vaxed kids with vaxed kids....whether visa-versa applies is another tale...I guess the boards are being diplomatic.

MMR RIP

MMR RIP

Eindeker!
Have you thought what you said completely through?

It is understandable to protect those vaccinated kids from any of those diseases they were vaccinated against?

Absolutely, Benedetta the whole point was the sub-12 month babies hadn't been vaccinated......they were too young
http://www.euvac.net/graphics/euvac/vaccination/germany.html
that's why the measles infected unvaccinated teenager passed the disease to them, of which 2 have subsequently died
In a measles outbreak situation it's quite reasonable to segregate unvaccinated kids with fever from vulnerable babies

Eindeker!
Have you thought what you said completely through?

It is understandable to protect those vaccinated kids from any of those diseases they were vaccinated against?

Wait...20 months ago? "20 months ago a 2 year old toddler was brought in as a walkin by parents worried that their child was exposed to Measles in Disneyland and was sick with symptoms."

Wasn't the Disneyland Measles epidemic LESS THAN 12 MONTHS AGO?

Why did they think their child was exposed at Disneyland?

As usual, it doesn't add up.

I think the sign is OK. I mean, within the vax context -- the one I grew up with -- that a ‘contagious kid’ could give other kids a disease, it seems OK to sequester him in a doctor’s waiting room. I also thought it was nice to be told that this practice (or its PR team) does nor refuse to take ‘naughty’ families.
That said, I no longer believe in the aforementioned context. Any law mandating vax is, IMHO, criminal. To hear my reasoning on that, please read the vax chapter in my book, “Consider the Lilies: a Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status,” which sheds light on the death of Jeff Bradstreet, MD. My book is free at maryWmaxwell.com.

Posted by: Linda1 | October 16, 2015 at 11:14 AM

You should ask Dorit before she defends anything having to do with vaccines she should first disclose the fact that her family owns stock in GSK and she profits from the sale of vaccines.

Their response doesn't even make sense...Was the 2 year old unvaccinated and that's why they began segregating afterwards? Or did they just make an illogical leap, separating the two groups so that those too young to vaxxed or immunocompromised won't be threatened with potential illness by those who are unvaccinated (and therefore assumed to be carriers)? Parents were up in arms and upset? Why? Because diseases can be transmitted in the world, including in a pediatrics office? Or because this new 'non logic' is that people are inherently born carrying a dozen or so CDC marketed diseases, unless they are vaccinated? Additionally, it shows they don't believe in their own vaccines. Perhaps I am misunderstanding their explanation. But it has so many logical fallacies that I've lost count. By their way of thinking, they should have separated kids who have been in contact with anyone carrying a disease recently, who may now be transmitting. Which would mean recently vaccinated exposure, travels to locations where anyone may have a disease for which a vaccine exists, etc. This period of insanity in our society will go down in history for what it is. Certainly not advanced science or modern. LOL

My son had a temp of 104F , a rash, and I couldn't wake him, the doc said, imagine if this was the "real" measles , don't worry it's just a reaction. He now has Crohn's,his health and behavior deteriorated from that day. Disney land, from what I understand, was replacing employees with foreigners , no one wants to blame disney for importing a foreign strain to several workers while they were forced to train their replacements. This wouldn't have happened if Disney would have cleared the health of these new workers, and perhaps they've made a settlement , I don't know, but they put their employees and our country at risk. The six employees should sue, but in a strange twist http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/in-turnabout-disney-cancels-tech-worker-layoffs.html

The measles vaccine usually works. That's why the rate of children getting measles suddenly plunged as soon as the vaccine(s) were introduced (the killed virus one soon retired as it sometimes caused dangerous atypical measles). Before the vaccine 99% of American children got measles by the age of 18, as evidenced by that percentage of young Army recruits showing on blood test to have acquired measles antibodies before the vaccine.

So in 1960, 450 people a year were dying of measles. After the vaccine was introduced, essentially no one who had been vaccinated died of measles anymore. But instead many of those vaccinated developed severe and permanent disability, autism being one of the possible outcomes. And children lost the opportunity to reap the benefits for the vast majority of having, and recovering from, natural measles: permanent immunity, a better-trained and more effective cellular immune system, the ability to protect future infants in their most vulnerable year, and protection from a number of diseases and even cancers in later life, especially skin and bone diseases. It was the devil's bargain, but I accept that it really did prevent the deaths of a certain number of children. Parents should know the facts as far as they are known, and make their choice. I had measles when I was six. I was well-nourished and healthy, but that did not prevent 99% of children then from catching measles. The doctor said it was the worst case he had ever seen: I don't know what that meant, I was not hospitalized and only remember having a high fever, which was always the case with measles. I'm glad I had it. I am one of the parents who would always choose the disease over the vaccine, but that would be my choice.

Does this guy have a med-chain McPractice? One doctor for umpteen nurse pa's in 5 locations ??? I am sure they are very good at billing insurance companies.

We probably need to bring back the measles and chicken pox parties from the 1950's.

I suppose, if they truly do support parent choice with vaccination (and I am reluctant to make things more difficult for those trying to stay in private "healthcare" practice), the sign may be catering to families in their practice they would rather not attempt to un-propagandize and thereby risk "eliciting an emotional response."

Though, I would also think if the above is the case, that perhaps those most unhappy with this sign might among the "vaccinated" coming in for "sick" visits.

As their response seems to just side-step the "unvaccinated wells" part of the sign (or treats it like it's a given equation with sickness?)...it doesn't seem like an honest response, or it might be a response from a group not adequately educated about the actual effects of vaccination (which unfortunately too many "health" providers may honestly be).

Its obvious that the less they work the more you have to have. Whooping cough injections every year!

Regarding the 20 months ago, did some transmission occur at Disneyland in early 2014? There were hundreds of cases in the U.S. in 2014.

Some unvaccinated may actually welcome an opportunity to get exposed to the measles, etc., but for those who vaccinated until they crashed the immune systems and general well-being of their child and then stopped vaccinating...and for those who feel their child should avoid both certain infections and vaccinations for whatever personal reasons...this practice does not seem to demonstrate the respect for parental decisions they claim to possess.

It seems like either an admission that the vaccinated pay a price for their "protection" and it's "justifiable" to subject those who don't want to pay that price to as much "consequences" as they can arrange, and/or they don't trust the ability of a vaccine to perform as well as stated and are attempting to skew apparent vaccine/disease outcomes by applying the "safe and sensible" practice of quarantine to one group of children only.

Actually the news that they take Medicaid and don't boot out unvaccinated/not fully vaccinated patients could prompt an increase in patients. The sad thing is that this has become rare enough that parents will be less prone to complain about the segregation since beggars cant be choosers. What it shows is the practice's owners likely have far more fear of the complaints of vaccinated patients' families than the complaints of unvaccinated because the state is behind the vaccinated. That's the only way the sign makes any sense.

I see this practice as being in a bind. It's what bad laws do-- create a system of informants and spread fear of each other. Very East German-esque. I think former Eastern Bloc refugees are about to get a chilling little dose of nostalgia.

Dr. Khaira should not have a license to practice medicine.

I do not believe the one measles case and 6 children exposed with parents upset story. But just in case it's true, the parents would only be upset because of government/medical/pharma/media/research university (partners in this crime) fear-mongering.

I wonder what Dr. Khaira and other provaccine idiot pediatricians are doing about the 700,000 kids and family members each year who come down with flu-like illnesses within 2 weeks of well child/vaccine visits?

Let's see - which one should Dr. Khaira be concerned about? One measles case with 6 supposedly frightened parents OR 700,000 post pediatrician visit illnesses each year costing a estimated $490 million/year? No doubt some of those 700,000 end up in the hospital. Maybe someone should look into how many fatalities are associated with those post pediatrician well/vaccine visit flu-like illnesses that occur in hundreds of thousands each and every year. Let's see. Over a decade that's 7 million unnecessary, preventable, serious illnesses. If folks stopped taking their kids in for well visits, our country would be much healthier. Talk about protecting Granny. What a concept. As a bonus, we'd need far fewer pediatricians and think of all the money saved from not having to pay for all those health destroying visits.

If you look on this practice's Facebook page, you'll see none other than our good friend Dorit Reiss defending the practice. How did Dorit find out about this? Does Dr. Khaira have Dorit on speed dial too?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212144611.htm

Wow! The statements from the Carmichael Pediatrics practice that "Until mandated otherwise we will not enter into any charged conversation. This inherently deviates from our stated mission," is chilling. I guess when SB 277 takes effect in July 2016, they will put up an even more incendiary sign in their entryway-- something like:
"Don't even think about visiting our office if your child is unvaccinated, you tin-foil hat wearing, homeschooling scum!"

Deliberately exposing any healthy children (regardless of their vaccination status) to sick children represents very bad, even unacceptable and unadvisable, medical practice, and Carmichael Pediatrics should be lambasted in social media until they remove their ridiculous sign which quite possibly proves their office is guilty of routine and callous "medical negligence". Carmichael Pediatrics should be reported to the CA State Health Department as well as the CA Medical Board, and they should be investigated and written up for this potentially unlawful practice. Not taking a vaccine doesn't make a child sick and contagious with any particular "vaccine preventable" disease. What about the parents who enter the practice without a flu shot for the season, or are missing a varicella vaccine dose (as the vaccine wasn't even available to them in their childhood years)? Where should all of the unvaccinated parents sit? On the sick side as well? What nonsense from medical professionals who should know better.

Such a worrisome precedent of shaming folks who choose to not vaccinate or selectively vaccinate. Glad you called them out and gave them pause.
Just as an aside -- I'm a NP and practice autonomously, without the need for a physician on-site, as allowed by law. Perhaps you are confusing NPs with PAs, who in many states require an on-site physician to be present? Laws vary by state, and I'm not familiar with CA regulations, but I'm fairly sure they are not violating any regulations by seeing patients without a physician present. Just FYI

And - Oh please the HIPPA for was for one thing only; a quick excuse for the pharma, medical types to pull out that card to stop all uncomfortable questions for them - not the patients.

Oh what a tangled web we weave .. when we practice to ....

Darn I mean protect the un----- vaccinated from the recently vaccinated.

Disney scare was 9 months ago (January 2015), not 20. This story certainly demonstrates the danger to the public of highlighting one form of sickness - I was recently revisiting how the swine flu scare unnecessarily turned medical practice upside down in 2009 - although oddly enough measles is not mentioned on the notice here.