Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › "1 in 100 who get pertussis will die"
New Posts  All Forums:
 

"1 in 100 who get pertussis will die"

post #1 of 105
6/5/12 at 8:42pm
Thread Starter 

Will someone explain where they are getting this information from!?! (it's from the cdc website: http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Pertussis/ )

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
post #2 of 105
6/5/12 at 8:57pm

Well, first it does say:

 

 

Quote:

Pertussis is most severe for babies; more than half of infants younger than 1 year of age who get the disease must be hospitalized. About 1 in 5 infants with pertussis get pneumonia (lung infection), and about 1 in 100 will have convulsions. In rare cases (1 in 100), pertussis can be deadly, especially in infants.

 

So, 1% of cases have the possibility of being deadly. 

 

Two paragraphs later it said:

 

 

Quote:

 In 2010, 27,550 cases of pertussis were reported in the U.S.—and many more cases go unreported. Twenty-seven deaths were reported – 25 of these deaths were in children younger than 1 year old.

 

That is a death rate of 1: 1,000 reported cases and they say that many go unreported.  In fact:

 

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/803186-overview#a0199

 

Quote:

 The CDC estimates that 5-10% of all cases of pertussis are recognized and reported.

 

Since only 5-10% of cases are recognized and reported that would give a 1: 10K-20K death rate.

 

Of course, the chance of death in very young children (under 3 months) is MUCH higher than those of older children (over 5) or adults.

post #3 of 105
6/5/12 at 9:03pm

Umm, I'd guess from the manufacturers of the pertu$$i$ vaccines?  It's certainly a great example of fear-mongering.

post #4 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:08am

the 1 in 100 number is specific to infants, the numbers given later are not.  I would think that fewer cases go unreported in infants than older people.

post #5 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:18am

It really would help there if the CDC linked the source for the statistics. I went to the WHO site on Pertusiss, which is this: 

 

http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/pertussis/en/index.html

 

But it doesn't separate the statistics by age either, which I think is the problem. 

 

A quick Google though and I find this study (free to read) in the Journal of the American Medical Association. 

 

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=290&issue=22&page=2968

 

which looks at incidence of Pertusis in the 1980s and 1990s. Their table shows that 1% of cases of Pertusis in infants 0-1 yr between 1990-1999 resulted in death. 

 

I don't think any of the authors are from manufacturers of the pertusiss vaccine. Please correct me if that's wrong. I think JAMA is a reputable publication, so I assume even if they are this is a valid study. 

 

Actually it is interesting that one of their conclusions is that vaccination alone doesn't seem to be helping babies under 4 months old who were increasingly likely over the period 1980-1990 to catch pertususs, although they cite increased vaccine in the 1990s over the 1980s (they say it started in 1996) for a lack of increase among 5mth-12mth olds - who I assume were more likely to have been vaccinated (I forget when the babies are recommended to first get this one!). 

 

Interesting study. :) And it is clearly a scary disease for infants. Let's hope the rates don't increase too much more. 

post #6 of 105
6/6/12 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


 

Actually it is interesting that one of their conclusions is that vaccination alone doesn't seem to be helping babies under 4 months old who were increasingly likely over the period 1980-1990 to catch pertususs, although they cite increased vaccine in the 1990s over the 1980s (they say it started in 1996) for a lack of increase among 5mth-12mth olds - who I assume were more likely to have been vaccinated (I forget when the babies are recommended to first get this one!). 

 

 

nuku ( a fellow poster - and IMHO a fairly credible one) said last week that the first DaPT shot was a primer of sorts for Pertussis, and that you needed two shots for any effectiveness level to kick in.  The second shot is not until 4 months. I cannot hunt for it at this moment to see if she cited it, but will look later if you like.  Let me know.


Edited by purslaine - 6/6/12 at 4:13pm
post #7 of 105
6/6/12 at 3:25pm
Nuku seems especially well researched when it comes to pertussis.
post #8 of 105
6/6/12 at 3:54pm

I don't know if this stat is helpful but presumed number of cases per adults and adolescents is 800,000-3.3 million in the US per year. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15867059

This study is interesting, no EBF infants were admitted per bacterial infection:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/65/6/1121.short


Edited by Asiago - 6/6/12 at 4:10pm
post #9 of 105
6/6/12 at 4:58pm

Despite the fact that the whooping cough vaccines actually cause an increase in the risk of being infected with whooping cough, every time a whooping cough outbreak occurs, there's a mad rush of everybody screaming, "Vaccinate! Vaccinate! Vaccinate!"


...
 
Whooping cough vaccines, it turns out, do nothing to reduce the rate of whooping cough infections. But they do accomplish something else that's even more important for Big Pharma. Care to guess what that is?

You guessed it: Whooping cough vaccines keep whooping cough in circulation! The vaccines cause the very disease they claim to treat, so the more kids get vaccinated, the more outbreaks occur! This then results in more people calling for more vaccines, which causes even more whooping cough outbreaks to occur, and this sick profiteering cycle of vaccine quackery repeats itself over and over until children are pumped full of useless vaccines while the drug companies bank on record profits and all the parents are living in fear.

The drug companies figured it out a long time ago, see? The best way to SELL a vaccine that claims to treat a disease is to make sure the vaccine contains the disease! Thus, the vaccination itself becomes the pathway to re-infection and repeat business!
 
IMO what is  happening with pertussis is clear
 
The "vaccination" of the parents prevents the transfer of immunization from mother to fetus thus the baby is born with less immunity to pertussis and then the baby's brother comes home from being "vaccinated" for pertussis and coughs on the baby.
 
EASY to test this hypothesis.
post #10 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:09pm

"Actually it is interesting that one of their conclusions is that vaccination alone doesn't seem to be helping babies under 4 months old who were increasingly likely over the period 1980-1990 to catch pertususs ..."

 

Before we started "vaccinating" for pertussis babies under six months were 3% of those who caught pertussis. Now it is about 25% of the cases. So this wonderful "pertussis vaccine" has transferred it from those to whom it is little threat to those to whom it is the BIGGEST threat.

 

A little more "progress" like this and we are finished.
 

post #11 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:10pm

So Kathy what do you think?

post #12 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:14pm
So wait, the vaccine keeps the mother from getting it do she can't pass on immunity, but causes the brother to get it?

This explains why the pertussis rate went up so much when we started vaccinating. Oh wait.
post #13 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

 
IMO what is  happening with pertussis is clear
 
The "vaccination" of the parents prevents the transfer of immunization from mother to fetus thus the baby is born with less immunity to pertussis and then the baby's brother comes home from being "vaccinated" for pertussis and coughs on the baby.
 
EASY to test this hypothesis.

 

The CDC KNOWS this or I'll eat my hat. Everybody else has figured it out.

post #14 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

So wait, the vaccine keeps the mother from getting it do she can't pass on immunity, but causes the brother to get it?
This explains why the pertussis rate went up so much when we started vaccinating. Oh wait.

 

Rachel you are forgetting the "pertussis vaccine" the mother got did not confer long term immunity from pertussis on her it kept her from contracting the wild pertussis and thus developing immunity to pertussis. What ever "immunity" the mother got was GONE in less than five years. She had NOTHING to pass on.

 

The brother had the pertussis vaccine which he delivered to his baby sister. Most "vaccines" give you a weak form of the disease. Baby sis could not fight it.

post #15 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:40pm

Healthy kids are not vaccinated kids

Want to find the healthiest children in America? Find families who follow these rules:


#1) They live on small farms and their children play in the dirt (they have contact with nature).
#2) Their children are all home schooled.
#3) None of their children are vaccinated.
#4) They drink raw milk and eat farm fresh foods.

As you will readily find, these are the healthiest, smartest kids in America! They don't have problems with autism, allergies, cancer or ADHD. They are bright, healthy, and easily capable of surviving an infection of chicken pox.

The least healthy children in America are vaccinated children who eat public school food (GMOs) and never spend time in nature. These are the asthmatics, the diabetics, the ADHD cases, the suicidal psych drug takers. They're vaccine damaged and nutritionally depleted, and they catch every cold every winter, it seems, you know what I mean?

post #16 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:43pm

Thanks for thinking I'm well researched when it comes to DTaP.  I admit I get a bit OCD about things.  When I really want to know about something I get pretty single minded, especially when pregnant.  (Last pregnancy it was oral Vitamin K, you can ask me any question you like about that too, LOL.)

 

So how DTaP works (and this comes straight from the 17 page package insert from Sanofi Pasteur's Daptacel which I read many times and highlighted, as well as the CDC MMWR from 2008)  Is that how the DTaP works is that the first dose is a priming dose.  This is not just for pertussis, this is also for tetanus and diptheria.  The baby gets no immunity from any of those 3 disease with that first dose.  The second dose starts to build immunity (and so forth).  For tetanus and diptheria after 2 doses (priming and second) studies showed children had 98% immunity (if you believe in titers as a marker for immunity, which I personally do.)  However the manufacturer thought that the data might be skewed because a 4mo old infant (which most are at the time they get the second dose on the traditional schedule) still is getting some T and D antibodies from the mother because they are (hopefully) breastfeeding and most mothers have been vaccinated and still have these antibodies.  T and D antibodies do pass easily through breastmilk, while pertussis do not (whether it is natural immunity from a mother's past infection or passive from a mother's past vaccine---MMWR 2008.)  So the manufacturers of DTaP to either CYA (cover their ass) or "just to make sure" decided to add another dose to make a full series of DT 3 doses, just "in case" there is interference from maternal antibodies.  That is why kids who cannot have the pertussis part of the DTaP and get pediatric DT only need 3 doses to make a full series.

 

So that's the D and T parts of DTaP.  You didn't ask but I wanted to give a background.

 

For pertussis, it's not cut and dry.  The old vaccine (DTP) was much more efficient.  Not only did it cover both pertussis and parapertussis (the acellular version does not cover parapertussis), it was more effective, and it only needed 3 doses to make a primary series, just like the T and D parts.  If you read old literature they call 3 doses a primary series for DTP, and some (many) nurses and doctors still quote that "3 doses is all you need for pertussis protection" stat because they learned it before the DTP was abandoned for the DTaP.  It's not true for DTaP and I hate when medical providers give parents false reassurance that their 6 mo old is protected from pertussis after 3 doses of DTaP.  Not many question why it was abandoned, as it was the most reactive of all vaccines at the time, but with the reformulation to the acellular pertussis version it lost both its good efficacy as well as its ability to get adequate immunity from 3 doses.  With DTaP you need FOUR doses of the vaccine to create the 56-80% immunity statistic (Sanofi Pasteur Daptacel package info).  There have been NO studies as to what percentage immunity one gets from dose 2 and 3.  I don't know why, it seems like such a good idea.  

 

So to summarize (if you are scanning this) dose 1 of DTaP is purely a "priming dose".  Dose 2, 3, and 4 are the rest of the "series".  The series is complete after dose 4, which on the traditional schedule is 12-18 months.  However a booster dose 5 around age 4-5 is recommended because children tend to lose their immunity from the series very quickly.  The next booster is at age 11-12 but there is talk that there will be another booster added around age 8 eventually, as in most kids they gradually lose their immunity to pertussis between the booster at 4-5 and again at 11-12.

 

I personally think this is a good case for making a single "pertussis only" vaccine and taking it out of the DTaP.  Because we are giving kids way, way too much D and T to try to make up for the inadequacy of the aP part, while still trying to make it a 3 in one vax which was only sensible when it was a whole cell version.  Then kids can get a 3 dose DT series, and get one single pertussis vaccine to make up the rest of the initial series and then periodic pertussis boosters, since the D and T only need boosters every 10 years, and it looks like pertussis needs them every 3-4.

 

Anyway, this is related to the 1 in 100 stat because they were talking about babies under age 6 months, since they are not protected from pertussis anyway even if they are vaxxed on schedule, until they get that final dose at 12-18 months.  That's not to say the second and third doses do nothing, as they offer some immunity building the initial dose, it's just no-one knows how much.  Anecdotally, it should not prevent them from getting pertussis, but it should make them have a weak antibody response when they do get infected, and thus have a milder case.  This is not scientifically proven, though it is mentioned anecdotally again and again.

 

However, the 1 in 100 stat is a very, very old stat.  I don't know the exact year it is from, but I bet it's from decades ago.  With modern medical care, the percentage of babies who get hospitalized for pertussis is high (esp. under 3 months of age) but the death rate is no longer 1 in 100 in the USA.  I can't remember off the top of my head the numbers, but I know it is discussed with statistics to back it up in the MMWR for Diptheria, Tetanus, and  Pertussis for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies from 2008.  I read (and highlighted) relevant parts in that massive 70+ page document, but that was when I was trying to make my own vaccine decision, and I admit I was happy when I finally threw it in the recycling after carting it around and pouring over it for weeks.  I just couldn't look at it anymore :)  If you are interested in seeing the actual stats (from 2008, not super recent but it's the best we have) you can look it up online on the CDC website.

 

Hope this is helpful to someone, somewhere out there!

post #17 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:45pm

Big Surprise - Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly through Vaccinated Populations

 

In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years reportedly occurred in California. Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in the California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials and national media targeting people opting out of using pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the then-current whooping cough outbreak.

 

But new research released last month paints a very different picture than the one being spread by the media.In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine.

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/17/pertussis-vaccine-for-whooping-cough-effects.aspx?e_cid=20120422_SNL_MS_1

post #18 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:49pm

Whooping Cough Vaccine Protection Fades in Three Years

 

The featured study also suggests that the acellular pertussis vaccine loses much of its effectiveness after just three years. This is much faster than previously believed, and could also help explain the recent whooping cough outbreaks in the U.S.

 

Unfortunately, stacking on additional booster shots is likely to make matters worse rather than better, especially in light of the fact that the mass use of existing pertussis vaccines has already led to vaccine-resistant strains that are still evolving and could become much more virulent.

 

The new mutation, which some researchers are calling "P3," is a strain that produces more pertussis toxin. Pertussis toxin is the part of B. pertussis bacteria that is most responsible for the neurological complications of both pertussis disease and DPT and DtaP pertussis vaccines, and is also most responsible for stimulating an immune response. The acellular pertussis vaccines, which were developed and tested in the late 1980's and early 1990's, do not include the mutated strain. Another reason why whooping cough cannot be entirely eradicated is the fact that there's another Bordetella organism – parapertussis – that can also cause whooping cough. The symptoms of B. parapertussis, while often milder, can look exactly like B. pertussis, but doctors rarely recognize or test for parapertussis. And, there is NO vaccine for it.

 

One difference between recovering from B. pertussis whooping cough and getting the vaccine is that recovery from whooping cough confers a naturally-acquired immunity that is stronger and longer lasting than the artificial immunity induced by the vaccine. Vaccination requires more and more booster doses to try to extend the artificial vaccine immunity.

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/17/pertussis-vaccine-for-whooping-cough-effects.aspx?e_cid=20120422_SNL_MS_1

post #19 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

So Kathy what do you think?

About what?

 

Pertussis is not fun for anyone, and dangerous to infants.  The vaccine is not highly effective, and the babe will be 4 months old before effectiveness even starts, and we do not know the effectiveness rate after the 2nd and 3rd shot.

 

I actually think stats on pertussis are particularly troublesome.  Anecdotally, I have met two people who insist they had pertussis but the doctor said they just had bad coughs (despite their whooping - and no tests were run).   Vaccines existed so therefore no one could get pertussis (mild snark).

 

Weren't some of the infants that died of pertussis in California initially misdiagnosed?

 

I also think the flip side is true - sometimes pertussis is overdiagnosed.  Here is an article on over-diagnosisng, and the difficulties of laboratory diagnosis.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC120629/

 

I did not vaccinate 2 of my 3 children.  If there was a severe outbreak of pertussis that co-incided with a newborn period, I would cocoon (check my titres, and vax myself if necessary)  and the babe would stay close to home.  I am blessed that I can do this.  

 

If the baby had to go to daycare or ride public transport, etc, I would try to get real clear on how dangerous the period from 4-12 months is for pertussis, and if it is more dangerous than I can bear, I would vaccinate.  

 

I would also breastfeed and look into ascorbic acid.  


Edited by purslaine - 6/6/12 at 6:07pm
post #20 of 105
6/6/12 at 5:53pm

I am also not being inflammatory on purpose, but I want to say that just like I personally dislike when vehement pro-vaxxers come on here with their fingers in their ears and just post things like "wake up people, your kids are in danger because you are all stupid and only get your facts from Jenny McCarthy" or something like that, I am getting a bit exasperated by LouisW's posts.  They seem very reactionary and full of rage and "I know what's right" sentiment.  I say this as a Non-vaxxer myself, that I don't think these posts are really helping on the boards.

 

PS...I live on land in the country.  My kid plays in the dirt and helps me garden.  I don't vaccinate (at this time), My kid eats almost all organic and fresh whole foods, we spend tons of time in nature.  (I do not let her drink commerical raw milk (though I would if I had my own cow) , and I don't homeschool, my DD is too young yet, and she is going to a Waldorf preschool next year, but that's beside the point.)  Anyway, my point is that I do NOT think my kid is the healthiest and smartest kid in America.  She is healthy and smart,  but so are her friends, many of them are not living in this "idealistic way" you randomly mention.  I make decisions for my family based on what I feel is right for us, but I would never ever try to put my child on a high pedestal over other children and make that claim.

 

So please, anyone who reads this now, or in the future, please do not think that all non-vaxxers are on some high and mighty head trip and we think our kids are somehow superior because we made this choice. 

New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › "1 in 100 who get pertussis will die"