Does or does not pertussis vaccine prevent transmission? - Page 2

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Chris P 

Natural infection of B. Pertussis uses ACT to colonize the lungs. This colonization is important as the body will remember it if re-infected not to mention ACT allows the B. Pertussis Toxin to clear the lungs. Two vital components of disease control which is exactly why a healthy host is able to beat infection with out any serious longterm effects and also gains 20 years of immunity and less complications if any in the future. 

The vaccine lacks ACT. Pubmed studies have even shown that this component is lacking in the current vaccine and would be a great addition. Either cost, ignorance, biochemically unable to add or simply not considered are some of the possible reasons. Your looking at several hundred millions to make a vaccine, Phase I, II, III trials would take years, blah blah blah.

If ACT is not there the recently vaccinated will be unable to clear the infection from their lungs and become either sympomatic or asymptomatic carries of infection as the CDC acknowledges.

It gets even worse than that with the pertussis vax and the ACT issue.

Vaxing with the current vax makes the vaxed UNABLE to be immune to ACT compared to the unvaxed:

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/4/502.full

Of particular interest is the lack of a significant ACT antibody response in children for whom the DTP or DTaP vaccines failed. This induced tolerance is intriguing and may be due to the phenomenon called “original antigenic sin” [22]. In this phenomenon, a child responds at initial exposure to all presented epitopes of the infecting agent or vaccine. With repeated exposure when older, the child responds preferentially to those epitopes shared with the original infecting agent or vaccine and can be expected to have responses to new epitopes of the infecting agent that are less marked than normal.

Also (and this is a totally different issue):

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1690/2017.short

Here, we ask how aP vaccination affects competitive interactions between Bordetella species within co-infected rodent hosts and thus the aP-driven strength and direction of in-host selection. We show that aP vaccination helped clear B. pertussis but resulted in an approximately 40-fold increase in B. parapertussis lung colony-forming units (CFUs). Such vaccine-mediated facilitation of B. parapertussis did not arise as a result of competitive release; B. parapertussis CFUs were higher in aP-relative to sham-vaccinated hosts regardless of whether infections were single or mixed. Further, we show that aP vaccination impedes host immunity against B. parapertussis—measured as reduced lung inflammatory and neutrophil responses. Thus, we conclude that aP vaccination interferes with the optimal clearance of B. parapertussis and enhances the performance of this pathogen. Our data raise the possibility that widespread aP vaccination can create hosts more susceptible to B. parapertussis infection.