"Unvaccinated Children At Higher Risk Of Whooping Cough"

[Claire and Boys]

Found this recent study today: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/151443.php I have some concerns with the results and how they are being interpreted by the article.

So the first paragraph is this:

New research from the US suggests that children whose parents won't let them be vaccinated are 23 times more likely to get whooping cough compared to children who are fully immunized.

I would interpret that to mean that unvaccinated children are more likely to show symptoms, and be diagnosed with whooping cough. I don't think that is the same as being more likely to contract it in the first place.

# 18 of the infected cases (12 per cent) were children whose parents had refused to let them be immunized.

# This compared with 3 cases (0.5 per cent) vaccine refusers among the controls.

which is presumably where they got their 23 times figure from. Yet:

11 per cent of all whooping cough cases in the whole pediatric population of Kaiser Permanente of Colorado were attributed to parents refusing to let their children be vaccinated.

So 89% of all whooping cough cases were... vaxed children? partially vaxed children? children too young to be vaxed? They don't say!

"It also shows that the decision to refuse immunizations could have important ramifications for the health of the entire community. Based on our analysis, we found that one in 10 additional whooping cough infections could have been prevented by immunization," he added.

so 9 out of 10 infections not preventable by immunisation?

Their figures don't make a lot of sense to me, anyone else?

[writteninkursive]

Yeah. They don't. (Read David Kirby's 'Evidence of Harm' for more on studies for and against vaccines - really informative, if you haven't gotten your hands on it yet).

The thing with ALL studies, is that any study can be skewed in any direction. It is so very very rare (and I would argue impossible) to have a truly independent study performed without any sort of bias, especially not a study on an insurance company (cough), which you know right off the bat is going to be skewed.

I'm a birth & fertility psychology major in school and let me tell you the insane amounts of skewed studies I've seen. As kind of rule in psych, you learn that ANY study can be skewed and very often are studies presented as something like "___ at higher risk of ____", when the causation has NOT been established at all, and on the contrary, causation was actually closer to rejected as a result.

I do NOT vaccinate my children. I did look over some studies during that process. But what ultimately made up my mind about it was my kids' reactions to the vaccines they DID receive (my first was fully vaccinated up until 3 years, second was fully vaccinated up until 9 months, third has never had a single vaccine). Reading lists of the ingredients and seeing their reactions were a huge push away from vaccines. If you want REAL information from studies, look at the individual ingredients and studies that have been done on those. I'll never forget the study of ethylmercury (thimerosal). It included a video of a neuron under a microscope and what occurred when the ethylmercury was introduced to the neuron. It was completely eaten away by the ethylmercury. So when people say "vaccines don't have mercury in them anymore", we know that isn't true because not only do some still contain the original amounts, but nearly every single one contains at least traces of thimerosal. And to just think of that thimerosal eating my kids' neurons away is a big shove away from vaccines. There are a million reasons not to vaccinate, and a million reasons why your kid will be healthier without them! Consider that EVERY SINGLE "vaccine-preventable" (I use that word loosely) disease is 100% treatable by modern medicine. Also consider the potential benefits of some of these childhood illnesses. Children who had Mumps, for example, have a considerably lower risk of developing asthma and allergies all throughout their lives. There are REASONS why kids get sick, and it's all part of a grand process to develop a healthy immune system. Without an immune system, what do you have? Nothing. You die. When we routinely attack immune systems like we do with vaccines, we should not be surprised to see overwhelming and skyrocketing cases of autoimmunity. It may sound extreme, but I am convinced that we are destroying the species by teaching our immune systems - one generation after another - not to be able to function naturally. Once the immune system is no longer, our species will die out. Those left standing will be those who'd never had those severe attacks on the immune system.

Sorry for the rant! Ha. Yes, that data in the study sounds skewed.

[zinemama]

I didn't vaccinate my son for pertussis and I fully expected him to be more likely to contract it than a vaccinated kid (he did get it.)

Maybe there's a problem with this particular study, but the concept makes total sense to me. I realize that this vaccine isn't always effective, but still, if it even protects any of the kids who get it, the unvaccinated are at greater risk. What's the problem with acknowledging that?

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by zinemama

I didn't vaccinate my son for pertussis and I fully expected him to be more likely to contract it than a vaccinated kid (he did get it.)

Maybe there's a problem with this particular study, but the concept makes total sense to me. I realize that this vaccine isn't always effective, but still, if it even protects any of the kids who get it, the unvaccinated are at greater risk. What's the problem with acknowledging that?

If that is your point of view, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that. Personally, I have several problems acknowledging that.

- I'm not so sure that the vaccine does protect the kids who get it.

- I think people are misdiagnosed with this disease all the time. Those who are vaccinated are under-diagnosed and the children who do not get the vax are likely over-diagnosed. That makes any reported numbers impossible to rely on.

- Even if the vaccine does protect the people who get it, it does not mean that the ones who don't are necessarily at a greater risk. For instance, if you believe that not vaccinating builds a stronger immune system, children who have not received this vax could be exposed to the disease and not contract the disease because their immune systems are functioning at such a strong level. The non-vaccinated child is not at a greater risk for contracting a disease, just the same or maybe even a lower level than the child who is vaccinated.

- Because I believe that vaccines actually lower the immune system's ability to fight disease, I think that kids who have received the vaccine are at a higher risk for contracting diseases.

It really depends on your individual point of view. I would never acknowledge that a non-vaccinated child is at a higher risk for contracting a disease. Maybe for being diagnosed with it, but not for contracting it.

[Deborah]

Well, the problem is that the vaccine doesn't prevent carriage or transmission of the bug in question. The most you can get from the vaccine is a reduction in the symptoms, i.e. not a visible case.

So, a proper analysis of the numbers would show:

That some children who were exposed to the bug and were vaccinated got sick anyway.

That some children who were exposed to the bug and were vaccinated got sick anyway but weren't diagnosed because they were vaccinated and were assumed to be immune.

That some children who were exposed to the bug and were vaccinated did not get visibly ill, but were able to pass on pertussis to other children.

Taking all that into account, we can also assume that the numbers they published are not accurate.

We can also assume that some unvaccinated children who were exposed got sick.

Some unvaccinated children who were exposed did not get sick.

Some unvaccinated children who were exposed and got sick were more likely to be diagnosed with pertussis than vaccinated children because doctors wouldn't assume that it was anything but pertussis.

[fruitfulmomma]

11 per cent of all whooping cough cases in the whole pediatric population of Kaiser Permanente of Colorado were attributed to parents refusing to let their children be vaccinated.

Every single time I see an article on an outbreak they state something like this. The percentage of unvaxxed kids with it is always a *very* small percentage or "almost half".

Okay, so you could just as easily state "over half of the diagnosed cases were in children who were vaccinated" or in the case of this quote perhaps "89% of children who were diagnosed were children who were vaccinated".

But yeah, we are the ones spreading diseases like wildfire to all the "protected" children. (NO VPDs EVER here with 5 TOTALLY unvaxxed children.)

[Deborah]

science by press release

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by ammiga

If that is your point of view, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that. Personally, I have several problems acknowledging that.

Even if the vaccine does protect the people who get it, it does not mean that the ones who don't are necessarily at a greater risk. For instance, if you believe that not vaccinating builds a stronger immune system, children who have not received this vax could be exposed to the disease and not contract the disease because their immune systems are functioning at such a strong level. The non-vaccinated child is not at a greater risk for contracting a disease, just the same or maybe even a lower level than the child who is vaccinated..

So...what does this say about the immune system of my unvaxed kid who got pertussis?

[Deborah]

Not much!

Pertussis infection is universal, supposedly. Diagnosis is not.

I find it rather amusing that this vaccine is pushed for purposes of herd immunity. It only works because there is widespread ignorance of the nature of the illness and the limitations of the vaccine.

But every time, now, that I see an article talking about an outbreak of pertussis due to dropping vaccine rates I think: "yeah, an outbreak of diagnosis due to dropping vaccine rates."

Since everyone gets pertussis multiple times during their lives, the quality of the immune system isn't decisive. So far, no one has figured out why some unvaccinated people are asymptomatic for pertussis. For that matter, although there are theories, they haven't figured out why some vaccinated people can have very symptomatic cases, either.

The best you can do is take good care of your kids, treat the illness appropriately if it does pop up and avoid doctors with needles making unrealistic promises of immunity.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by zinemama

I didn't vaccinate my son for pertussis and I fully expected him to be more likely to contract it than a vaccinated kid (he did get it.)

Maybe there's a problem with this particular study, but the concept makes total sense to me. I realize that this vaccine isn't always effective, but still, if it even protects any of the kids who get it, the unvaccinated are at greater risk. What's the problem with acknowledging that?

I think there are two points here.

Is an unvaccinated child more likely to become infected by Pertussis?

Is an unvaccinated child more likely to be diagnosed with whooping cough?

It is my understanding that the answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second question is yes.

There is a difference between vaccinating to prevent contracting the disease, or prevent the effects of the toxin released once the bacteria is in the lungs.

In the second case, when you vaccinate you are not vaccinating to prevent the likelihood of contracting pertussis. You are vaccinating so that when the child gets pertussis, they are less at risk for the whoop (the dangerous part of the disease). Two different things.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by zinemama

So...what does this say about the immune system of my unvaxed kid who got pertussis?

It can say any number of things or nothing at all. To me, it would either say that he was misdiagnosed or that he got it. It doesn't tell me he was more likely to get it because he was not vaxed, but that he got it because there was a chance he would get it regardless, and he did. I don't think those odds were higher because he was not vaxed, but I also don't think they were non-existent.