>but the forth mother and baby *had*
>to be vaccinated as they were high risk, with no immunity.

Emphasis mine... HAD? to be vaccinated... As with many of the illnesses for
which there are vaccinations the question of *had* to or not remains in hot
debate. I hope the mothers involved were fully debriefed on the risks and
benefits involved...

> Most of the infected had been immunized. (against measles, Anne Keaser's post)

I've had the damn measles vaccination thrust into me literally against my
will on 3 occasions (ages 5, 14 and 17.5) having tested with a titer test to
not be immune to measles upon entering various schools (shot records
destroyed, blood tests were required) in the "land of the free" (HA!) Well
jeepers, guess what, routine screening my midwife does and I'm still NOT
immune... gee wonder if that would be true if they just let me have the damn
measles??? I have to imagine that health care for a kid sick with measles
has improved since the late 1880's...no? Especially if that kid had been
breastfed for a "natural" time frame...

Shaking her head, as there are no answers (easy or otherwise) to this issue...




Anne E. Robb, MAT, LLLL
Off on a Tangent, Oregon, USA
mailto:[log in to unmask]