Infant Dies From Pertussis Close To My Area - Page 3

[Deborah]

unfair to non-vaxing parents is exactly what they are aiming for.

Pointing away from the ineffectiveness of this vaccine, pointing away from the fact that people who have been vaxed can still transmit, can still catch, can still pass it to newborns. I think the pertussis vaccine may win the prize for the vaccine lied about most often.

[japonica]

Originally Posted by Deborah

unfair to non-vaxing parents is exactly what they are aiming for.

Pointing away from the ineffectiveness of this vaccine, pointing away from the fact that people who have been vaxed can still transmit, can still catch, can still pass it to newborns. I think the pertussis vaccine may win the prize for the vaccine lied about most often.

It reminds me of the saying, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story," in this case the moral being, "get your boosters."

What gets me is that with the propaganda machine whipped up and all the anger at parents/adults who refuse to vaccinate with such a crappy vaccine, WHY oh WHY on earth aren't people putting their energy into demanding from their doctors and pharma a vaccine that will prevent transmission/work to counteract adenylate cyclase toxin? Seriously. People should be demanding a better vaccine (if that's their thing) than going on a witch hunt for people to get vaccinated with something that still allows the fully vaxed to pass along pertussis bacteria to infants.

Edited to add: I have a friend in Australia with a newborn who is getting a pertussis booster, as is her husband, and all grandparents and any adults who spend time with the baby. I wonder how pertussis sales will do in Australia this year.

[mammy bear]

Originally Posted by japonica

Edited to add: I have a friend in Australia with a newborn who is getting a pertussis booster, as is her husband, and all grandparents and any adults who spend time with the baby. I wonder how pertussis sales will do in Australia this year.

Yep, this is exactly what is being heavily promoted in Australia at the moment. I have so many friends who've had the vax themselves and then guilted the grandparents, aunties, uncles etc into also having the vax to "protect" their baby.

There has been no mention whatsoever by the propoganda machine that the vax doesn't prevent transmission. It is just so sickening the amount of false information that is being spread by the mainstream media.

There is going to be a TV show on tonight featuring a special about the Dana McAffery baby and what we can all do to help "prevent" another tragedy like this happening again. If we thought that pertussis vax sales were going good in Australia before, just think how much better they'll be after this TV show.

[graceomalley]

The vax rate in her area is about 60%.

Also, the NSW Department of Health provides free vaccines to parents, grandparents and people who care for new babies so people won't be out of pocket for the expense (though it ultimately comes from taxes). But yes, sales will skyrocket. People will be demanding it in droves.

It will be interesting to watch the show tonight.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by kidspiration

The short answer is, people who are vaxed can still be infected and not show symptoms or show atypical symptoms, and still pass it on to others.

DTaP vax is a bit different from the others, in that it is a TOXOID vaccine. That means that it is designed for our bodies to create an immune response to the toxins that these 3 bacteria, corynebacterium diphtheriae, clostridium tetani and bordatella pertussis, emit. So a person can still catch these diseases, but their clinical courses may be different.

There is, of course, question of the efficacy of this vaccine as well. But that is not the main reason why the DTaP doesn't prevent transmission.

Clear as mud?

OK, that answers my question, as well. But...wasn't that only the issue with the old DTP vax? I thought that the transmission rate was low to nil with the new DTaP. Are there any links on the efficacy of the latter re: it's ability (or non-ability) to prevent transmission? Thanks! Still learning!

[japonica]

In my post on page 1, there's a link to a paper looking at the whole cell and acellular vaxes...

Analyses of surveillance data in Senegal have shown higher rates of vaccine failure, and subsequently a higher incidence of pertussis, among children given a 2-component acellular vaccine than among those given a whole-cell vaccine (for 3 doses).6,7 Research in Germany has also shown higher incidence rates among children given a 4-component acellular vaccine than among those given a whole-cell vaccine (0.27 v. 0.19 cases per 100 person-years).9

Now they mention that aP has higher rates of vaccine failure (and higher incidence of pertussis) in some studies, but this must mean as well higher levels of tolerance to the bacteria, and more colonization and carriage (or else how is this possible). Now the Israeli day care study showed what levels of colonization and carriage were occurring with fully vaxed (whole-cell) children in day care, so if pertussis rates are higher with the aP vaccine, then it must follow that the colonization and carriage rates are similar or higher than the rates from the whole cell study...

[Turquesa]

Thanks for reposting, Japonica. I'm sorry that I missed your first post on this. Pregnancy brain in effect...

[japonica]

Thanks for reposting, Japonica. I'm sorry that I missed your first post on this. Pregnancy brain in effect.

No problem! Happens to me all the time and I can't even say it's pg brain...in my case just getting old I guess...LOL.

[stacey05]

ok, I am confused. if the vax doesn't prevent transmission, then why aren't there alot more babies dying like this poor, sweet, baby girl. this just breaks my heart and actually makes me think of getting the vaccine to protect babies that I may come in contact with, but if it doesn't prevent transmission, then I don't want to do it. I just can't understand why more babies aren't dying if that is really true? I know it does have a higher than average rate of vaccine failure, but where can I read the studies about preventing/not preventing transmission? thanks.

[AGierald]

Originally Posted by stacey05

ok, I am confused. if the vax doesn't prevent transmission, then why aren't there alot more babies dying like this poor, sweet, baby girl. this just breaks my heart and actually makes me think of getting the vaccine to protect babies that I may come in contact with, but if it doesn't prevent transmission, then I don't want to do it. I just can't understand why more babies aren't dying if that is really true? I know it does have a higher than average rate of vaccine failure, but where can I read the studies about preventing/not preventing transmission? thanks.

more babies arent dying of it because its generally NOT a deadly disease. The thing is, most deaths from pertussis have an underlying defect that we're not being told, like an immune deficiency, lack of proper care, malnourishment, etc. We don't know exactly what led to this baby's death, and Im not saying that pertussis isnt a serious disease, but several people/babies die from lots of things that arent generally deadly, such as the flu or dehydration from diarrhea.

Again: Im not saying pertussis isnt serious, Im just saying its not one of those diseases where if you get it, you're probably going to die, ya know?

[Jugs]

Also, pertussis is endemic, so we're all exposed to it every so often; newborns have the transplacental antibodies to reduce their susceptability.

[Deborah]

the fact that the vaccine is ineffective may be saving babies from dying...

how that would work:

if a mother has had pertussis in the last two or three years before getting pregnant she may have some lingering immunity which could pass on to the baby to get it through those first, most dangerous months.

apparently, with constantly circulating pertussis, despite the vax, we all get exposed and may even get mild cases, on a continuous basis

the vaccine doesn't work, I suspect, to provide immunity that can be passed from mother to child

the high rate of deaths from this disease prior to the vaccine (which came into use in the 1940s) was probably due to bad living conditions and malnutrition and inadequate medical care.

I'm a bit doubtful as to the number of cases the vaccine has actually prevented as opposed to the number of cases the vaccine has caused to be misdiagnosed