Have you seen theis, anewmama?
They go over the case against replacement, and explain what's wrong with only looking at serotypes e and f.
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...e-vaccines-ii/
(no copyright, plus author permission to distribute in full)
Quote:
The general thinking on what has happened with Hib is summarized here:
“Serotype replacement has not been detected since the introduction of Hib conjugate vaccines. Studies of H. influenzae carriage in 700 children in Finland (21) and 364 families in the United Kingdom (15,22) found no evidence of increased carriage of non-b H. influenzae as a result of vaccination. Although increases in invasive disease from other nasopharyngeal bacteria have been reported since Hib vaccination began (23,24), no evidence of a causal link to Hib vaccination has been observed.”
Two claims here: let’s break this down.
__________________________________________________ ___
1) “Serotype replacement” didn’t happen with the Hib vaccine.
__________________________________________________ ___
Well actually, it says “has not been detected”, and that’s probably correct. “Replacement disease” has happened, although the bulk of it was not with an actual serotype of h. influenzae, but rather a type of h. influenzae without a “cap” to give it a a corresponding letter. It wasn’t Hia, or Hif (for example) that primarily filled the ecological niche the Hib conjugate vaccine left behind (although those serotypes have, in fact, taken off to some extent in recent years) but rather it was a ‘type’ that’s not a serotype; it’s a species known as “non-typeable haemophilus influenzae” (NTHi) or “nonencapsulated haemophilus influenzae” that filled in most of the gap.
The degree of the replacement is explained here:
“In addition to the proportional increase in cases of non-type b Haemophilus influenzae disease in the post-H. influenzae type b vaccine era, the incidence of invasive H. influenzae disease was found to be approaching the rates of H. influenzae type b disease that were documented in the prevaccine period. Fifty-six percent of invasive disease now occurs in individuals aged >10 years.”
This is mirrored in the CDC’s Pink Book, Appendix G, where you can clearly see how the cases of invasive h. influenzae dip down until 1996, when they begin climbing again, until they start approaching pre-Hib vaccine levels in recent years.
On to the second claim about the Hib conjugate vaccine:
__________________________________________________ _____
2) “Although increases in invasive disease from other nasopharyngeal bacteria have been reported since Hib vaccination began, no evidence of a causal link to Hib vaccination has been observed .“
__________________________________________________ _____
This is completely meaningless. When you see terms like “has been observed” you need to realize that not looking is a good way to avoid observing. Besides that, it is biologically implausible. The claim is that the increase in s. pneumo (which is a member of our bacterial flora much of the time) had nothing to do with the removal of Hib (which was another member of our bacterial flora) is very unlikely in light of recent research showing that:
“More recent studies have shown increases in the proportion of Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis in the middle-ear fluid of PCV7-immunized children.”
Remove pneumo and you get an increase in h-flu. I doubt anyone will disagree with that. But we’re supposed to assume that removing h-flu conversely does not increase pneumo?
That’s very unlikely, as there is an interspecies competition between pneumo and h-flu, the details of which remain to be elucidated. |
You can get to the original research they're discussion by clicking the link.
).
