health

Getting measles 'resets' the body's immune system

19 Comments
By Daniel MIHAILESCU

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

Anything beats an injection of Big Pharma’s chemical cocktail.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

The modern precipitous decline in childhood death did not start with the introduction of vaccination programs in the 60's. It started in the early 20th century with improved sanitation, hygiene, clean water and nutrition. While vaccines can be helpful, they are not the first line of defense as big pharma touts. Here's a suggested list of priorities....

1: Clean water

2: Nutritious diet

3: High standards of sanitation and hygiene

4: Regular exercise

5: Emotional and mental well being

6: Medical care when necessary

7: Vaccines if people want them

If we do well on 1-6 we probably won't need 7.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The word 'reset' is an interesting choice when used out of context. By 'interesting' I mean it is a misdirect, suggesting a positive or neutral change, when in fact what happens is that the immune system is compromised and weakened.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Burning Bush = when i read you comments it gives me hope that not everyone is brain dead

0 ( +3 / -3 )

when i read you comments it gives me hope that not everyone is brain dead

There's more of us than you think.

Fight the power buddy. Ditch the vaccines and keep your body toxin free.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

No one in the medical or scientific world will accept as fact data produced by such a miniscule sample as 77 children. How can they possibly make such definite conclusions as stated in paragraph 1??? The results are inconclusive.

Also, while the affected children's immune systems may be temporarily set back, how long does this state last? And do thier immune systems redevelop even stronger than ever?

I suspect this is more propaganda 'research' perhaps funded or backed by big pharma.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The modern precipitous decline in childhood death did not start with the introduction of vaccination programs in the 60's.

You're as misinformed on when vaccination programmes were introduced as you are on what they have achieved.

Here's a suggested list of priorities....

Not one of the items in your list is remotely sufficient as protection against infection with measles. It's one of the most contagious diseases of all. Check the basic reproduction number (warning: at the risk of learning some science).

And then if you still believe your list covers the bases, you might attempt to explain the actual mechanism by which airborne pathogens are deactivated by "mental wellbeing", "emotional wellbeing", or "exercise". Waffling about the immune system isn't going to do it. Measles is more than capable of striking down healthy people with robust immune systems.

Even if your idea had some validity - that you can stave off measles for years with handwashing, good sanitation, good nutrition, and a mind in equipoise with the universe - there isn't any particular advantage in that. It provides no guarantee whatsoever of continuing to be spared from the virus. And measles in adolescence or adulthood tends to be severe, as do other diseases like chickenpox.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Those deciding to eschew the chicken pox vaccine can look forward to the potential perfectly delightful flirtation with Herpes Encephalitis.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

No one in the medical or scientific world will accept as fact data produced by such a miniscule sample as 77 children.

I don't think that's a miniscule sample for a study like this. Those were 77 non-immunized kids who acquired measles. A comparison was made with 115 uninfected people. There was further supporting evidence from studies that found the rate of certain diseases also dropped following vaccination programs.

Also, while the affected children's immune systems may be temporarily set back, how long does this state last?

For certain antibodies, it's set back to the state of a newborn child. So months if not years. Again, related studies show that other diseases tend to increase in the months following a measles outbreak.

And do thier immune systems redevelop even stronger than ever?

I don't think there's any reason to think so.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

But presumably, on a positive note, 'resetting' the immune system would likewise eradicate any auto immune illnesses that currently plague humanity...or am I being dumb here? (...it wouldn't be the first time!)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Anything beats an injection of Big Pharma’s chemical cocktail.

antivaxxers will never accept they are wrong, for them becoming invalid or even dying are perfectly acceptable options when compared with a safe and effective health intervention. The health of children is a sacrifice they will happily do just to defend their mistaken opinions.

While vaccines can be helpful, they are not the first line of defense as big pharma touts. Here's a suggested list of priorities....

There is no scientific evidence to support your persona opinion. Vaccination is not something you only can have by refusing all other things you can do so its perfectly fine to also vaccinate while taking care of your health in many other ways, and for diseases like measles is the only measure that has proven effective.

And yes if you want to keep your children at a much higher risk of serious disease and death unfortunately you can be free to do it, but at the same time you are not free to do the same with all other children so not accepting unvaccinated children in public spaces or schools is part of the consequences you assume by not vaccinating.

The word 'reset' is an interesting choice when used out of context.

It may be interesting to you but its actually the most correct term and is not out of context, at a final result it does means the immune system is weakened compared with the point before the infection, but not as a fuzzy decrease of general functions but as the word implies the problem is that some of the specific responses go back to a previous point. It is very important in immunology to clearly make this distinction because this would not affect the same the response to future exposure to infectious diseases.

No one in the medical or scientific world will accept as fact data produced by such a miniscule sample as 77 children.

Of course it does, and you would know it if you at least read the paper and knew exactly what work was actually done, the results are not inconclusive, specially not based only on your own opinion without giving any valid reasons. The theory behind the study is not new and is not controversial, all pediatricians and immunologists suspected as much from a long time ago, so this works searched to confirm this scientifically with enough numbers to have a strong statistical basis. It also allowed for predictions to be done in the closest animal model available that also resulted in the same phenomenon.

If you want to say this is inconclusive you "only" need a study of the same statistical fortitude that had different results, if you don't have it your only option is to accept this is the best available evidence about it.

I suspect this is more propaganda 'research' perhaps funded or backed by big pharma.

But obviously you have no proof about it, which would make that criticism invalid. If you cannot prove COI there is no point in bringing it, specially when the results are so overwhelmingly clear.

What if someone here would say your comments are backed only by economic interest in selling some "natural" cures for infectious diseases and that vaccines hurts your business? would that suspicion make what you say suddenly false? even without any proof this is true?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@virusrex

And yes if you want to keep your children at a much higher risk of serious disease and death unfortunately you can be free to do it, but at the same time you are not free to do the same with all other children so not accepting unvaccinated children in public spaces or schools is part of the consequences you assume by not vaccinating.

By your reasoning here society should be segregating gay men and drug users from the public because they may potentially infect others with HIV/AIDS? Is this what you're advocating?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@albaleo

And do thier immune systems redevelop even stronger than ever?

I don't think there's any reason to think so.

Why?

I think how well the immune system redevelops after the supposed 'reset' is the obvious follow up question. I suspect that childhood diseases, colds, flues, etc are events that kick the immune system into action, temporarily weakening it due to the fight against the disease, but strengthening it in the long run.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

In theory, the concept of vaccines reducing or even eventually eliminating disease sounds great and in my opinion would be if not for three things.

1: We'll never eliminate all disease. New ones or new strains will always develop.

2: Comparatively mild diseases like childhood ones are actually natures way of kicking the immune system into gear and strengthening it.

3: If we allow the present cocktail of vaccines to balloon further what will be the consequences of vulnerable children receiving the God knows what contents? How will this affect their nervous systems, brains, immune systems?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Concerned Citizen,

Why?

Your original question was, "And do thier immune systems redevelop even stronger than ever?". It was the "stronger than ever" part that I doubted. Why wouldn't the immunity rebuilding just be the same as normal?

But I take your point about the temporary weakening of immune systems following a disease, and perhaps we should question whether measles is any different from other diseases in that respect.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

By your reasoning here society should be segregating gay men and drug users from the public because they may potentially infect others with HIV/AIDS? Is this what you're advocating?

As I explained in the previous topic that is a false analogy, HIV AIDS patients do not put other at risk as unvaccinated children do, and specially they do not do it by actively rejecting scientific treatment.

You have already said this was the case, why is it that now you refute yourself and go back to your previous postion? Specially because this is not a theoretical situation, unvaccinated children without valid causes are actually been rejected from public schools because of this reason.

You want the benefits of having the rest of the population vaccinated but not assume your own responsibilities? that would be just egoism, and that would not even take in account the child that you are choosing to expose to much higher risks just because a personal opinion contrary to the scientific consensus.

I think how well the immune system redevelops after the supposed 'reset' is the obvious follow up question.

The problem is that this question has absolutely no basis on any current knowledge of immunology nor is expected from the epidemiological data from unvaccinated children, your question is therefore illogical. Is expecting something to work better than before, but failing to do its work better when compared with childred that never undergo the reset.

 colds, flues, etc are events that kick the immune system into action, temporarily weakening it due to the fight against the disease, but strengthening it in the long run

that is false, infections do no weaken the immune system and they do not "strenghten" it either, it keeps working the same as before. antigens are recognized but the system itself is still working as usual.

In my opinion would be if not for three things.

1: We'll never eliminate all disease. New ones or new strains will always develop.

That is a terrible reason, why then have any kind of medicine? if new diseases will always appear then why try to treat or cure them?

May it be because limited success is still success? who cares if new diseases come, if you can still cure and prevent those that are happening right now that still means you are curing and preventing causes of suffering and death. This is precisely what makes humans live extremely long and prosperous lives compared with previous centuries.

2: Comparatively mild diseases like childhood ones are actually natures way of kicking the immune system into gear and strengthening it.

Being natural do not bring any special advantage, and again the immune system is NOT strengthened, it works the same as before, or as demonstrated by this report at much is significantly weakened increasing the risk of other infections.

The main point is that vaccines bring exactly the same benefits with extremely lower disadvantages, there is no point in rejecting the better option and putting children in unnecessary risk just because you don't really understand what is happening as the professionals do.

If we allow the present cocktail of vaccines to balloon further what will be the consequences of vulnerable children receiving the God knows what contents? How will this affect their nervous systems, brains, immune systems?

It does not have to bee balloning, diseases do get erradicated (much more easily without antivaxxers but even with their irrational objections they can still be eliminated) stopping vaccination that is no longer necessary is perfectly possible, also consequences are studied very carefully by people with much more preparation that you and that actually know how this affect their brains, nervous and immune systems, with the conclusion that natural infections affect them much more strongly in a negative way.

And lastly, do you think children have to be kept in sterile bubbles all their lives? because if you took every single vaccine a human recieves during all their lives and put it in a single dose this would not be even a tenth of the antigens (both in number and in quantity) that a scrapped knee introduces to the blood stream?

How each scrap and tiny cut affect the children brain and immune system? I mean, the risk is hundreds of times bigger right? so why are you not worried about it?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@virusrex

As I explained in the previous topic that is a false analogy, HIV AIDS patients do not put other at risk as unvaccinated children do, and specially they do not do it by actively rejecting scientific treatment

Many such patients do place others at risk by unsafe sexual practices, failure to inform sexual partners, refusal to take HIV testing or neglecting to take prescribed medication. Are you advocating segregating them from society as well?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Many such patients do place others at risk by unsafe sexual practices, failure to inform sexual partners, refusal to take HIV testing or neglecting to take prescribed medication. Are you advocating segregating them from society as well?

That was another argument you yourself recognized as irrelevant, i can still give you the same response, if they are using their freedoms to willingly and irresponsibly endanger other people the law have mechanisms to restrict their freedoms accordingly, in cases they can be accused of a crime and be incarcerated.

Do you want to hear again the example of the father in favor or radioactive materials to prevent infection? I mean, that was another argument you recognized as valid to segregate children that endanger others. Did you forget about it?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Back on topic please.

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites