Talk to me about DTaP - Page 3

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by GAjenn

Find someone you know who is old and have them tell you about babies and pertussis. We are selectively vax, but this is one we did.

Why someone old? My baby had pertussis last summer, when he was around 6 months old.

When my older son was an infant, i really wavered on the pertussis vaccine...the doctor practically guaranteed me that he would die from the disease if i didnt get the shots...it took nearly *twelve years* for him to get it! So, he got it, then the baby got it (baby had had the two month vaxes due to being a foster child and me feeling bullied into it, but he DID have what is apparently considered "normal" reactions: crying, personality changes, etc)...my completely unvaxed almost-12 yr old was pretty sick for a week or two, coughed to the point of throwing up maybe once or twice and then was fine. The baby did have a pretty severe cough, for maybe a week it would wake him up or cause some distress, but---while he did cough on and off for a couple of months--was fine and came through it well. My older sister, completely vaxed as a child, was *miserable* and very sick throughout the duration of her illness. My children and sister were in daily contact with me, my mother, and other family members and none of us "caught" pertussis.

A couple of months after that, i was at an unschooling conference and talked to an MDC mom with a VERY young baby, she said all her kids got pertussis recently too---i suspect it was going around last summer---and again, her kids were FINE. Even her small infant.

Given my experience with two of my kids, i would FAR FAR prefer the KNOWN reactions to the disease itself than take the risk of vaxing for it, considering that my two month old baby had just started to smile and babble when we walked into the doctors office, and after receiving the shot, stopped all of that for well over a week, total personality change (thank goodness he recovered but who is to say that some of his personality quirks/oversensitivities can't be traced to that vax? ) I had to vax my next foster child, and she didnt have any reactions, but she was also much older (one yr old) and i believe able to tolerate the vax better than a tiny two month old.

I think there is alot of hysteria surrounding pertussis in particular. When i posted for advice at MDC, one poster basically said i was risking my child by not immediately taking him to the doctor or hospital. But in talking to moms whose children actually have had pertussis their conclusions seem to match mine, that for MOST children MOST of the time, the disease just isnt *that* big of a deal.

[carriebft]

Different people see different risks. You didn't feel it was a big deal, yet your son coughed to the point of throwing up a few times. Others might see that as a big deal. Some might see it like you did and feel it has no future affect on the child while others may want to avoid such a situation and possible effects they feel it has on the child.

Some may feel a prolonged illness has too many negative affects while others may feel it is normal and has no consequences (physically or mentally).

Everyone is going to see it differently.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Different people see different risks. You didn't feel it was a big deal, yet your son coughed to the point of throwing up a few times. Others might see that as a big deal. Some might see it like you did and feel it has no future affect on the child while others may want to avoid such a situation and possible effects they feel it has on the child.

Some may feel a prolonged illness has too many negative affects while others may feel it is normal and has no consequences (physically or mentally).

Everyone is going to see it differently.

Of course different people see different risks. I, personally, chose the risk of a known disease (that tends to progress in a predictable way, usually has minimal risks, and for which there is treatment for any complications that may occur) over the risk of complications/side effects of a vaccination that may or may not occur.

I have no problem with a parent choosing differently than me. What i DO have a problem with, is doctors who bully parents into vaxing by WAY overstating the severity of pertussis, while either downplaying or not acknowledging AT ALL the risk of the vaccine. Even in what you wrote above, the risk you've stated is either getting/not getting pertussis or the degree of severity in the symptoms, you did not at all mention the other risk factor which is the risk to the child from the vaccine itself. It really bothers me when i thought my child had a severe and unusual reaction to the DTaP shot (loss of personality), and then months or a year later and i come here to find that LOTS of mothers have had the same thing happen to their children...it is apparently a COMMON side effect that as far as i can recall was not mentioned or acknowledged at all by medical personell. My baby also developed a huge hard "knot" (bump) at one injection site, i was told to expect some swelling there, but his didnt go away for months. I thought that was unusual as well...until getting my foster daughter's shots and the nurse mentioning that she might get a bump there and "it should go away in a few months"...months?! Sheesh. Thats normal? How is that normal?!

So my point is, its not risking the disease or not risking the disease....its risking the disease and no effects from the vax (because you didnt get it), or risking the disease (possibly to a much lesser degree) AND risking side effects from the vax (which may or may not occur and may range from minimal/hardly noticeable to life-threatening)....and yet when people are pushing vaxes (esp doctors) they never mention THAT risk.

Its just that i spent YEARS hearing how horrible and life threatening and terrible pertussis is, and yet when my kids actually GOT it...it wasnt that bad (and no, i would not consider throwing up a little, once, as some horrible thing, and my son agrees)...and when i posted about that experience here at MDC i was told "well i doubt your kids REALLY have pertussis because i think they would be alot sicker if they did have it." (no matter my baby was *clearly* "whooping" and absolutely had the classic symptoms of the disease)...if you arent that sick, then you must not have it. Cuz pertussis is life threatening dontcha know. That is the kind of misinformation i would like to see dispelled. I wish doctors would give ALL the real info and THEN let the parents decide. But usually they dont.

[carriebft]

Well, I hope you see that much of the things you posted were not addressed in my post and no where did I say anything about the vaccine having no risks. I just pulled one example from the post you made and it's opposite (ie: feeling the disease is not risky-- the opposite would be that someone might see your experience and feel that, for them, that is risky)

As for the other comments, I would say in the interest of brevity that I did not address them in my post and I did not ignore them for any other reason besides the fact that I was commenting on one idea (stated in paragraph above)

But if you would like to apply my logic to anther piece of your post, it might go like this:

"My child had a lump at the injection site for 2 months" [probably due to aluminum, by the way]
"I see that as a small risk in comparison to a prolonged illness"

So, person A and person B see the risks differently.

The last thing I would add is that I do not agree with your argument here:

So my point is, its not risking the disease or not risking the disease....its risking the disease and no effects from the vax (because you didnt get it), or risking the disease (possibly to a much lesser degree) AND risking side effects from the vax (which may or may not occur and may range from minimal/hardly noticeable to life-threatening)....and yet when people are pushing vaxes (esp doctors) they never mention THAT risk.

I feel this vaccine is quite effective- definitely not as effective as measles or hib-- but effective in both preventing and lessening symptoms of pertussis. So I would not characterize the scenarios as so black and white.

I also find that more doctors are talking about the CDC sheets when they hand them out before vaccination in the USA, at least if you look around message boards it seems to be the case. Hopefully that will continue, as many vaccine risks are listed there.

[claddaghmom]

Well this one is personal for me as I had a life-threatening reaction to this vaccine. So DD will not get it b/c of the teeniest possibility of genetic predisposition/allergies in the family.

That being said, to answer the OP's question I think the reason people are very emotional about this vaccine is because of the emotions surrounding this particular disease (whooping cough).

I think it is fair to say that Pertussis has a cultural image in America, similar to that of Polio and Iron Lungs. So you are not simply talking about black and white statistics; you are touching upon childhood memories, learned responses and behavior shaped by growing up in a culture that is very scared of the idea of a baby with Pertussis.

As to the semi-tangent of newborns receiving this vaccine, I think that is a horrific idea as DTaP does not prevent transmission. In a statistical vacuum, this is basically guaranteeing a certain percentage of cases from being near a newly vaccinated infant in the hospital. This falls under the same hysterics as the recent scaremongering to have all pregnant women vaccinated with the MMR, DTaP and Varivax. Cocooning has not been proven with these vaccines.

[carriebft]

I don't quite understand- are you saying that people get whooping cough from the vaccine? (ie, babies will get it from the vaccine?)

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I don't quite understand- are you saying that people get whooping cough from the vaccine? (ie, babies will get it from the vaccine?)

No, I am just thinking of those studies concluding that young adults and adults are silent carriers, and that young, newly vaccinated infants and children can be vectors of the disease.

So you are talking about vaccinating all newly born infants....that is a widespread vaccination program. What are we talking about here...who is being exposed and for how long? If the average hospital stay is 1-2 days, not counting c-sections and complications, are we going to require boosters for all medical personnel? Will doctors support this? Since this comes on the heels of pregnant women being vaccinated, that is one less worry, true. But what about other children in the household or extended family?

It just sounds like they want everyone to get a vaccine every year.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I feel this vaccine is quite effective- definitely not as effective as measles or hib-- but effective in both preventing and lessening symptoms of pertussis. So I would not characterize the scenarios as so black and white.

But even doctors will admit that getting the vaccine is no guarantee of not getting the disease (just as NOT getting the vaccine is no guarantee that you WILL get the disease, it took my nonvaccinated child nearly 12 years)....my point is still valid, by vaccinating your child you have risked possibe side effects of the vaccine (there is NO way to tell beforehand if your child will have zero effects, or serious effects right?) but you have NOT reduced your child's chances of getting pertussis to ZERO. Correct? For *you* (apparently), the idea that your child has (in your view) a greatly reduced chance of getting a disease that you are not comfortable w/ your child getting (the disease, that is) is worth it for you. Thats fine. However, i think if other parents knew that pertussis, in the vast majority of times is not the life-threatening disease its made out to be, they might weigh their options very differently.

I also find that more doctors are talking about the CDC sheets when they hand them out before vaccination in the USA, at least if you look around message boards it seems to be the case. Hopefully that will continue, as many vaccine risks are listed there.

I'm not sure i'm familiar with the CDC sheets....do they list a personality change as a possible side effect of the DTaP vaccine?

As far as preventing pertussis in very young babies (under six months) who are at most risk for complications of the disease...rather than starting to vax at birth (!!! omg!! seriously?!)...wouldnt a better response be to require boosters for adults?! it is *adults* who are spreading pertussis.....and rarely are they even diagnosed with it. After my kids got WC, my sister who was very sick with it went to the doctor, and he diagnosed her with something, i forget what, but some kind of bronchitis or something. She didnt tell him she had been exposed to WC and even if she had he probably would have thought it was a million other things before thinking it was that. She was fully vaxed as a child, as far as i know, and yet of the nonvaxed 11 yr old, partially vaxed 6 month old, and her, she was BY FAR the sickest one. I've been told that is because the vax "wears off" (though personally i think there is alot more to it than that) but if thats the case.....why dont they push for all adults to get boosters?

[carriebft]

However, i think if other parents knew that pertussis, in the vast majority of times is not the life-threatening disease its made out to be, they might weigh their options very differently.

and we have come full circle.

my main point was that your idea of little risk to the disease (ie, not life threatening, a little throwing up, a few weeks of illness, etc) is not the same as others. Not everyone is just "tricked" by the media and doctors. Many really do want to avoid these aspects of disease and many do find them more troubling despite them not being "death."

So, to summarize:

You feel these side effects of the illness or parts of the illness are no big deal. Others (who are not all ignorant or just buying into the hype) may see differently.


Three points for your last paragraph:

1) the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission (or at least not completely even if you believe the best case scenario) so vaccinating adults to protect infants won't do the trick

2) The vaccine does wear off and so does natural acquired immunity.

3) this is probably one of the most pushed vaccines to adults, so I am not sure where everyone is getting the idea that they don't try to get adults to do this one.

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by carriebft

and we have come full circle.

my main point was that your idea of little risk to the disease (ie, not life threatening, a little throwing up, a few weeks of illness, etc) is not the same as others. Not everyone is just "tricked" by the media and doctors. Many really do want to avoid these aspects of disease and many do find them more troubling despite them not being "death."

So, to summarize:

You feel these side effects of the illness or parts of the illness are no big deal. Others (who are not all ignorant or just buying into the hype) may see differently.


Three points for your last paragraph:

1) the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission (or at least not completely even if you believe the best case scenario) so vaccinating adults to protect infants won't do the trick

2) The vaccine does wear off and so does natural acquired immunity.

3) this is probably one of the most pushed vaccines to adults, so I am not sure where everyone is getting the idea that they don't try to get adults to do this one.

I agree with this post. The perception of risk and benefits from a course of action is going to be based on several factors, any of which may differ from person to person.

I know people who researched like me, but still needed to vaccinate for other issues. Personally, I think taking into account cultural and psychological needs is just as important as science and biology. People are not automatons driven by pure mathematics and current raw data.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by carriebft

You feel these side effects of the illness or parts of the illness are no big deal. Others (who are not all ignorant or just buying into the hype) may see differently.

My point is not that "pertussis is no big deal" my point is that when our first (and second and third) doctor was trying to bully me into getting the pertussis vax for my oldest son (as a baby), he did not give me accurate information about the disease itself. He used "worst case scenario" (basically "but your baby could DIE!") vs a shot he claimed had minimal side effects. and when i was trying to look up info on WC when my kids had it, i found alot of very extreme info out there (of the "but your baby could DIE!" variety), and very little non-emotional information. When the choice is framed like that, its pretty difficult for the average parent in the doctor's office to truly make an informed choice. I know i was pretty committed to not vaxing and yet even i was very scared of this disease, because all i had heard from anyone was basically "but your baby could DIE!".

1) the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission (or at least not completely even if you believe the best case scenario) so vaccinating adults to protect infants won't do the trick

Ok, i'm confused. I admit i dont spend alot of time researching vaxes or on this board. I thought that if fewer people (adults) were getting pertussis, they would then not pass that on to small children, because they would not be getting sick to begin with. Are you saying that an adult would be exposed to pertussis, not GET it due to being vaxed (so therefore, not get sick), but still pass that pertussis onto another person?

That makes it even more significant to me that my older son (the one my doctor tried to bully me into vaxing because "small babies can DIE from pertussis") went more than 11 YEARS before ever getting sick with WC.

It also doesnt explain why when i posted about our experience with WC here at mdc a poster told me i had an obligation to all those people around me to keep my kids locked up at home for weeks, so as not to put other babies at risk. I guess i'm a little confused as to how pertussis is spread, then.

2) The vaccine does wear off and so does natural acquired immunity.

So there is naturally acquired immunity? Is that from getting sick with the disease, or what? because i know when i was looking into WC when my kids were sick, the "pro vaxing" pages i read said that unlike some other diseases (like chicken pox) getting the disease does not confer immunity. Do you know how long the vax or natural immunity might last?

3) this is probably one of the most pushed vaccines to adults, so I am not sure where everyone is getting the idea that they don't try to get adults to do this one.

I have never been told by any doctor as an adult to get any vaccination.


Katherine

[carriebft]

Immunization against pertussis has evidence for and against it protecting against transmission; however, I would say that most of the evidence is against. This means that most evidence shows that, even when you get the DTaP vaccine, you can still transmit pertussis.I would recommend going into the archives into the DTaP archive and reading the thread on this that is in there. It has a lot of information in it.

On immunity waning:

A review of the published data on duration of immunity reveals estimates that infection-acquired immunity against pertussis disease wanes after 4-20 years and protective immunity after vaccination wanes after 4-12 years. Further research into the rate of waning of vaccine-acquired immunity will help determine the optimal timing and frequency of booster immunizations and their role in pertussis control.

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstrac..._After.11.aspx


While you may not have been offered the vaccine, if you look at the CDC page and the numerous health alerts concerning adult vaccination, you will see that this is a very popular one to push. Also, it is the one often pushed at hospitals, with or without puncture wounds. It is also the subject of many state health alerts; for example my state:

http://www.dsf.health.state.pa.us/he...A=178&Q=242084

and also my county:

http://health.montcopa.org/health/cw...,3,Q,29170.asp


It is definitely a very pushed vaccine.


This subject is often in the media as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/famil...nes/index.html
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...706631,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/pagi...or-adults.html

And you always get the blurb on the adult booster whenever there is a pertussis story as well. For example, i went to google news and typed in pertussis and this was the first story on the list:

http://www.tauntongazette.com/health...is-on-the-rise

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I, on the other hand, think it is a common and costly mistake (in many ways, for both sides of this debate and those in the middle) to lump all vaccine and arguments concerning them together. It is the same mistake seen when people worry about mercury and have it evolve into MMR and mercury when those two don't work together for the argument, as MMR doesn't have mercury. It is the same mistake we see when news broadcasters talk about herd immunity as applying to all vaccines.

yeah, the whole mmr does not have mercury sort of turned into a Telephone game. But having said that I believe in the past MMR was given at the same time as a DPT, or Hep B or whichever, and those vaccines DID have thiomersal in them. Regardless of the fact they are given in different limbs, they can react with one another in the body.

And also I wonder if the MMR is ever given with the flu shot which does have mercury.