Pertussis - does the vax really work? - Page 2

[Spectrolite]

Maybe this has been posted before, but I found this site also to be useful. It's an Italian study titled: Diagnosis and management of pertussis.
It contains a ton of references.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/509#R20-33

[Spectrolite]

monocyte--
how is your family? did you get a pertussis diagnoses? i hope not.... but can you give us an update?

hope you're doing ok!!

[Spectrolite]

What would happen if nobody vaxed against Pertussis?

It seems like the vaxed can get sick anyway.
And the unvaxed can get sick too.
The disease is still so common.

So if the unvaxed and vaxed can still get sick (more severely and less severely, respectively), and both groups can still transmit the disease while sick,

what's the point of having the vax at all? (other than having less severe symptoms)

(btw, I am just starting my research... I would love answers from all sides, as well as any links to professional papers

[mamakay]

what's the point of having the vax at all? (other than having less severe symptoms)

Having less severe symptoms is what you're left with.

[Super Glue Mommy]

you forgot and both groups can still transmit the disease even when they arent sick.

[Spectrolite]

So it sounds like I got it right?
The whole Pertussis deal in a nutshell?

And now I have to decide:

Do I want
a)my child to have less severe symptoms if she contracts Pertussis while she still has immunity from the shot + the forever mystery of what the vaccination and it's additives (Dtap-IpV-Hib in my country) are doing in her body + the "need" to get boosters as an adolescent and adult if she wants less severe symptoms should she get it again.

OR

Do I want
b)my child to have more severe symptoms if she contracts Pertussis, and more severe symptoms should she get the disease again (and again...and again), without ever having any possible side effects of the vaccination.

Is that right? Is that basically the choice I have to make? From the different papers I've read re highly vaxed communities getting outbreaks, to how transmission is possible regardless of being vaxed, this is how I'm breaking it down.

[NamastePlatypus]

Originally Posted by Spectrolite

It seems like the vaxed can get sick anyway.
And the unvaxed can get sick too.
The disease is still so common.

So if the unvaxed and vaxed can still get sick (more severely and less severely, respectively), and both groups can still transmit the disease while sick,

what's the point of having the vax at all? (other than having less severe symptoms)

(btw, I am just starting my research... I would love answers from all sides, as well as any links to professional papers

This is why I will never vax again. These things don't scare me, the vax's do. Most things are most dangerous the first two years and the vaxes are often not as effective as they are going to be until after then anyway.

I would rather my childrens have pure immune systems that are build to handle fighting of bugs that altering them and making them weaker, and still susibtible to things. ( IMO will be more dangerous since they have been altered.)
Plus I am not cool with aborted fetus's in my vaxes and metals and other animals proteins, that is just me though.

[PlayaMama]

that was basically what it came down to for me. and then i was looking at an italian study, i have a hard copy of it if you want the reference and looking at the numbers it showed _statistically_ less severe symptoms, with some of the vaxed kiddos having a cough for quite a bit longer than the unvaxed kiddos.

of course, most of them had symptoms of less duration but what if my kid is one that gets the shot and still has a cough for 40 days? what exactly did i accomplish with that vaccine?

i'm still holding off on that one for dd and ds is not getting his booster yet either.

[crazy_eights]

It sounds to me like this is similar to what is happening with Chicken Pox - we still have a lot of people getting it, sometimes it is less severe if they have been vaccinated and it seems to push the disease into a higher age bracket. But in the case of pertusis, that is probably a good thing?

[Spectrolite]

Playamama, yes, ref please! (on the italian study)

[Spectrolite]

Originally Posted by Sileree

There are between 800,000 to 3 million cases of pertussis a year according to serological testing studies. A pubmed article has been posted here often, I think by mamakay. By Cherry et al. I can try to post it later.

Yet the graphs, like this one (Fig 39)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...m#00000461.gif

(this is from way back n 1993, but it's the link I already had, sorry it's not more recent, but you get the picture)

show that pertussis has dramatically gone down since the vax was introduced.

SO. Does that mean that pertussis still is around as it was pre-vax, but just it's not been labeled as pertussis (and the graphs are not staying on a horizontal line) because the symptoms are less severe post vax?

Sorry bad wording, baby crying!

[Super Glue Mommy]

there are a few issues to consider. people have started taking better care of themselves for one. and also, when a vaccinated child catches something its less likely to be diagnosed correctly as they will ASSume that it "can't" be that because the child is vaccinated against it. which effects the numbers in several ways (effeciacy as well as reported cases) and also results in these things not being properly treated.

[Super Glue Mommy]

here is another chart for you as well - (whooping cough is pertusis)... instead of showing from 1993 on, it shows from 1880-1970.

http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Spectrolite

So it sounds like I got it right?
The whole Pertussis deal in a nutshell?

And now I have to decide:

Do I want
a)my child to have less severe symptoms if she contracts Pertussis while she still has immunity from the shot + the forever mystery of what the vaccination and it's additives (Dtap-IpV-Hib in my country) are doing in her body + the "need" to get boosters as an adolescent and adult if she wants less severe symptoms should she get it again.

OR

Do I want
b)my child to have more severe symptoms if she contracts Pertussis, and more severe symptoms should she get the disease again (and again...and again), without ever having any possible side effects of the vaccination.

Is that right? Is that basically the choice I have to make? From the different papers I've read re highly vaxed communities getting outbreaks, to how transmission is possible regardless of being vaxed, this is how I'm breaking it down.

Yep. That's it.
In theory, when you're talking about small infants, "less severe symptoms" might be the difference between life and death, though (not likely, but still). Or between a hospitalization or not.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by crazy_eights

It sounds to me like this is similar to what is happening with Chicken Pox - we still have a lot of people getting it, sometimes it is less severe if they have been vaccinated and it seems to push the disease into a higher age bracket. But in the case of pertusis, that is probably a good thing?

No, the pertussis vax hasn't pushed pertussis into an older age group. It would have to be more effective to do that. (whereas, the chickenpox vaccine does work better, and really is doing that).

The whole "emergence of pertussis in teens and adults" is a diagnostic phenomenon. They used to think pertussis was only a disease of childhood, but once they figured out that a lot of those bad, lingering coughs adults get is actually pertussis, it started being diagnosed more in that age group.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Spectrolite

Yet the graphs, like this one (Fig 39)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...m#00000461.gif

(this is from way back n 1993, but it's the link I already had, sorry it's not more recent, but you get the picture)

show that pertussis has dramatically gone down since the vax was introduced.

SO. Does that mean that pertussis still is around as it was pre-vax, but just it's not been labeled as pertussis (and the graphs are not staying on a horizontal line) because the symptoms are less severe post vax?

Sorry bad wording, baby crying!

In 1993, they thought pertussis was on the way to eradication, and that the vax was really effective, and that vaxed kids don't get pertussis. They weren't even testing coughing vaxed kids for it. They were diagnosed as other things. So, yeah...there weren't a lot of cases being reported then.
But, the vax sometimes/often does "mute" the symptoms below the WHO's case definition of "clinical pertussis" which requires a minimum of 6 weeks of coughing, etc. So in that sense, the chart isn't completely fictional.

[mamakay]

Here's an example of how pertussis has always been misdiagnosed:

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/128/1/64

Similar studies [12-17] done in adults in the United States, Australia, and Germany have had generally similar findings. Twelve percent to 32% of persons with prolonged cough have been found to have pertussis. In our study, important clinical findings in persons with pertussis were that the median duration of cough illness before seeking care was 21 days, productive cough was rare, the most common clinical diagnosis was bronchitis, and in no case was the diagnosis of pertussis entertained [10].

It's probably the same (to some extent, to this day) with vaccinated children.

[tmaue]

Originally Posted by Spectrolite

Yet the graphs, like this one (Fig 39)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...m#00000461.gif

(this is from way back n 1993, but it's the link I already had, sorry it's not more recent, but you get the picture)

show that pertussis has dramatically gone down since the vax was introduced.

SO. Does that mean that pertussis still is around as it was pre-vax, but just it's not been labeled as pertussis (and the graphs are not staying on a horizontal line) because the symptoms are less severe post vax?

Sorry bad wording, baby crying!

You need to go back further than these graphs show. Only showing the diseases just before a vaccine is introduced is not going to give you the full history of the disease.

[crazy_eights]

Originally Posted by mamakay

No, the pertussis vax hasn't pushed pertussis into an older age group. It would have to be more effective to do that. (whereas, the chickenpox vaccine does work better, and really is doing that).

The whole "emergence of pertussis in teens and adults" is a diagnostic phenomenon. They used to think pertussis was only a disease of childhood, but once they figured out that a lot of those bad, lingering coughs adults get is actually pertussis, it started being diagnosed more in that age group.

But we really don't seem to have many babies getting pertusis.

[Spectrolite]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Yep. That's it.
In theory, when you're talking about small infants, "less severe symptoms" might be the difference between life and death, though (not likely, but still). Or between a hospitalization or not.

to add to this then...

quoted from the post by LilacMama titled "Help me decide about DTaP"

"My daughter is 7 weeks old and I'm considering the DTaP vaccine for her. I've read through Dr. Sears' book and the CDC's Pink Book.

Help me out here -- The Pink Book says that 85% of the deaths related to pertussis were in infants under 3 months of age. Well, they don't start vaccinating until 2 months of age! Furthermore, it says that the vaccine is 70%+ effective AFTER 3 doses. Ummmm? By the time she's 6 months old and has gotten a full 3 doses, the chances of her having a long-term complication from the disease are VERY low -- right? "

i.e. nobody can really "save" the infants from pertussis, regardless of whether or not they are in vaccinated communities?