or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Whooping Cough Paranoia...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Whooping Cough Paranoia... - Page 3

post #41 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by morning glory View Post

 

 

If you vaccinate your kids and vaccines really do work then isn't whether or not anyone else vaccinates irrelevant? 

 

No-one will claim that a vaccine is a magic shot which protects you 100% from a disease. Anyone who has done the research understands that they have a rate of efficacy - ie. an amount by which they make you less likely to get the VPD than an unvaccinated person (these rates very for the different shots). What will make sure you don't get a VPD is not being exposed to it in the first place. An increase in unvaccinated people in the population does lead to an increase in that disease circulating. This has been demonstrated over and over again.

 

That's how having a large fraction of unvaccinated people around can harm even those who were vaccinated. 

 

 And then of course you or your child might, for some reason unknown to you, have an immune system which didn't react right to the vaccine (like the child in this story: http://www.parade.com/health/2012/10/07-why-so-many-parents-are-delaying-vaccines.html) and so have no protection following the vaccination. These children rely on herd immunity for protection from these diseases. 

 

Or you might be too young to have got the vaccination yet.

post #42 of 64

 

 

Quote:

In 1973 infants under one year got about 1% of pertussis.

 

Then we started "vaccinating" anything that moved with the wonderful "pertussis vaccine".

 

Today infants under one year get about 23% of pertussis.

 

You mean in 1973 1% of pertussis cases were in infants under 1, while today 23% are in infants under 1.

 

I would assume this is because the older infants are vaccinated so aren't getting it. If they weren't vaccinated I guess that means we'd have a much higher incidence today (which is already around 6 times higher than the historic lows which were seen in the 1970s). 

post #43 of 64
This is just math.

In a certain population, 1000 people used toget pertussis. 10 of them were under 1. The vaccine comes out and people get it. The rate of pertussis in the over one group is drastically reduced, say by 60%. Now only 396 people over 1 and 406 people in general get pertussis. Omg the percentage of people with pertussis who were under 1 just doubled!!!

Same idea with the inevitable "most people who've pertussis are vaccinated" red herring not course most people who get pertussis are vaccinated! The overwhelming majority of people are vaccinated!!

Take another hypothetical population of 1000 people, all older this time. 90% of them are vaccinated. They all get exposed to pertussis. Even if ALL 100 unvaccinated people get pertussis, the vaccine is imperfect. Say 20% of the vaccinated group still gets it, that's 20 people and 66% of the outbreak was in vaccinated people!! Omg!!!!

In both of these fallacies you're looking at the wrong rate. In the second case the meaningful rate is comparing the rate within the two populations. Obviously the rate within the vaccinated group is much lower than the rate within the unvaccinated group, evidence that the vaccine works. We can also look at if the rate in the vaccinated group is higher than we expected, which would indicate it doesn't work as well as we thought. That's what has recently happened. It works, but maybe not as well as expected, so studies are being done and changes are being made to improve it.

In the first case, the appropriate rate would be the percentage of under one year olds who get pertussis, not the percentage of people with pertussis who are under one.
post #44 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by morning glory View Post

I don't doubt that vaccinating could play a role in the increase of cases of WC in infants but do you think it's possible behaviour has a link to the increase?  In the early 70s (and previous to that) most infants were more limited in their exposure to people outside of the family than they are now.  The gymnastics club here offers classes for mom and baby starting at 3 months...same for mom and tot swimming...and there are tons of playgroups too.  In the 70s that sort of stuff just wasn't going on.  I wonder if babies are being exposed to illnesses they used to be sheltered from?

 

Up until around 1996 DTP was used as a vaccine.  Post 1996, DTaP has been in use.  Some scientists are starting to believe that DTP was more effective.  There is also some talk of pertusiss mutating (hence the vaccine is less effective) and the need for another booster ( as they think it wear off faster than they thought).  In short, though, the pertussis portion of DTaP is not overly effective.

 

On the above - I agree with you.  The number of work outside the home mothers has gone up sharply since the 70's.  The USA has a dismal maternity leave policy.  As such very young babies are being put in daycare from a very early age.  This increases by quite a bit the number of people a newborn is exposed to.  There is little question in my mind - if I were to become pregnant today, I would stay close to home with a newborn (or at least limiting trips to malls and the like) until the baby was older.  YMMV.

 

Kathy

post #45 of 64
This is an awesome thread!' I love reading all the replys and opinions. It has done 2 things for me: made me very glad I didn't give my babies the DTaP.....and made me extremely interested in Vit D. Off to go research! smile.gif
post #46 of 64
I don't think there's very been a question that DTP was more effective than dtap. It was always a trade off between safety profile and efficacy.

There's some question whether pertussis is mutating or if strains are drifting from other parts of the world. Either way I'm glad they're aware of the issue and taking steps to improve efficacy.
post #47 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamalexy View Post

My youngest DD is 11mo, and we have done no vaccinations as of yet.  DH is concerned about the whooping cough cases (as am I) and I'm wondering if anyone can point me to good resources on prevention and treatment if DD were to contract the disease. 

Also, do you know, is it possible to separate the Diptheria and Tetanus from the shot? 

Thanks.

Sooo.....this thread has gone off topic a bit.....sorry!!

So what I am, and have been doing, is focusing on building up their immune systems naturally. Tons of Vit C, probiotics are often overlooked but very important, as are Omega 3s.
post #48 of 64

I read in a health newsletter today that this is just a "normal" up-swing of whooping cough.  That the increase occurs every few years and this is an UP year.  

My take is the vax maker is making this a marketing promotion.

post #49 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeemama View Post

I read in a health newsletter today that this is just a "normal" up-swing of whooping cough.  That the increase occurs every few years and this is an UP year.  

My take is the vax maker is making this a marketing promotion.

 

I agree.

 

My unvaccinated dd has never gotten it despite being exposed multiple times. But I had a bad case of it back in the early 90s when I was still eating the SAD. 

 

However when she was a toddler, she went through a period during a cold winter where she had a small cough that wouldn't go away despite my usual dietary and supplemental protocols (I was hesitant to give her the amounts that she probably needed).

 

I took her to a homeopath who gave her a remedy for it as well as a constitutional remedy. The cough disappeared within days. Now she hardly ever gets a cough or just very mild occasional colds. Not bad for a cheap sugar pill that contains nothing!  winky.gif

post #50 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeemama View Post

I read in a health newsletter today that this is just a "normal" up-swing of whooping cough.  That the increase occurs every few years and this is an UP year.  

My take is the vax maker is making this a marketing promotion.

Yes and no.

 

If you take a look at this chart from the CDC, you will see that pertussis has been on a steady incline since around 2002.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

 

There are definitely peak and valley years however.  That has always been the case.

 

I also read somewhere that the risks of infants catching pertussis seems to be increasing.  That the burden seems to be shifting towards it being a disease carried by young infants (who are less likely to be able to deal with it) than children?  I did search a bit on the internet for a study, but did not get far.  If anyone finds a reputable link, please share.

 

I did find this from vran (which is quite non-vax) but it still might be worth a read in trying to figure out if the way we vaccinate people is actually shifting the burden of the disease onto babies:

 

http://vran.org/about-vaccines/specific-vaccines/diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-hib-vaccine/whooping-cough-the-disease-and-the-vaccine/

 

 

"Our vaccination program seems to have produced generations of mothers whose poor quality vaccine antibodies are unable to protect their babies from whooping cough…. Placental antibodies from natural infection should protect children for that vulnerable first year, particularly if combined with breast feeding….. The high prevalence of vaccination seems to be causing a drift towards a higher incidence of disease caused by the 1, 2 serotype which is more likely to be associated with complications and admission to hospital(21)."

 

 

Here is another link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/whooping-cough-vaccine-controversy-intensifies

 

In any event - yes to the paranoia!  The highest count of pertussis incidence is 2010 - with about 27 000 cases.

 

27 000/310 000 000 means your chances of having a confirmed case of pertussis is 1/11 400  (app).

 

Of course the vaccine manufacturers are cashing in on this!   There is talk of adding in another booster, vaxxing pregnant women, lots of teens now have to get a booster to go to school.  Ka$hing! 


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/18/12 at 3:52pm
post #51 of 64
Natural immunity from whooping cough can be very fleeting. There's no guarantee mothers would have immunity to pass on. Immunization can lead to protective levels of antibodies in infants.
post #52 of 64
dbl post - I hit reply instead of edit 
post #53 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Natural immunity from whooping cough can be very fleeting. There's no guarantee mothers would have immunity to pass on. Immunization can lead to protective levels of antibodies in infants.

It look like natural immunity wanes after 4-20 years, while vaxxed wanes after 4-12 years (according to this link :http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Fulltext/2005/05001/Duration_of_Immunity_Against_Pertussis_After.11.aspx)

 

Both the articles I posted upthread talked about people getting a natural booster to their immunity when they come in contact with pertussis (kind of like chicken pox). I have no idea if this is incorporated into the 4-20 years or adds to it.

 

Please note I am not advocating against pertussis vaccination for infants, I am just speculating on whether or not the way the pertussis vaccine has been delivered might have led to the increase in infant burden wrt to pertussis.  

 

ETA:  "We hypothesize that during the prevaccine era teenagers’ and adults’ primed immunity was frequently boosted by reexposure, so maintaining herd immu- nity in the face of potentially eroding individual immunity. In con- trast, low pathogen circulation in the current era, except during epidemic outbreaks, allows immunity to be lost before reexposure occurs."  

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/03/14/1014394108.full.pdf


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/18/12 at 9:57am
post #54 of 64
Like with chicken pox, I guess how you feel about the booster depends on how you feel about vaccination. You can get it from beig exposed to a sick person, which of course means someone has to get sick, or you can get a booster shot. Seems like the first requires others to be at risk to further your own protection.
post #55 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Like with chicken pox, I guess how you feel about the booster depends on how you feel about vaccination. You can get it from beig exposed to a sick person, which of course means someone has to get sick, or you can get a booster shot. Seems like the first requires others to be at risk to further your own protection.

 

If I or one of my children had CP, I will be thrilled that other people were getting a natural booster from it wink1.gif

 

As per pertussis - no one wants an infant to get pertussis - no one!  I was speculating on whether or not the current way vaccines are given ultimately protects infants.  I think the jury is out.  I have no issues with parents (or even society/public health) going:  the current way the pertussis vaccines is given is the best we have got at the moment.  I also expect them to look at how to change the program to best protect infants.  It is pretty clear to everyone, I think, that the pertussis vaccine is not as effective as we would like.

post #56 of 64
I think that's exactly what they're doing, reassessing and adjusting as necessary.
post #57 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think that's exactly what they're doing, reassessing and adjusting as necessary.

No.

 

They are doing nothing of the kind.

 

If they were reassessing and adjusting as necessary, they would be screening people for predisposition for adverse reactions to vaccines, such as mitochondrial disorders, autoimmune disorders, asthma (which has been shown to be caused and/or exacerbated by vaccines).


They would also eliminate vaccines that have been shown to be ineffective, like the flu shot, which the Cochrane Collaboration reported to be as effective as...a placebo (but with far more side effects, and potentially devastating ones at that), and they would only give the hepatitis B vaccine to children who are actually at risk. They would not routinely give hep B to babies the day of birth, since we now know that infant boys given hep B in the first month of life have a three-fold higher risk of developing autism.

 

And they would have done a proper vaccinated vs unvaccinated safety study long ago, rather than squirm their way out of it in favor of elevated profits.

 

And there's the major issue: they value profits over safety/health.  Their record speaks for itself.

post #58 of 64
I'm also not sure who "they" is for you. For me it's the scientific community that develops a consensus on vaccine safety and effectiveness which results in vaccine policy. That's a much larger group than just the pharmaceutical industry, which is maybe who you mean by they?
post #59 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think that's exactly what they're doing, reassessing and adjusting as necessary.

I think they  (and I think of "they" as Government, Big Pharm and the scientists employed by them)  are somewhat willing to adjust vaccines as needed  (although I think they take longer than necessary, and I think the burden of proof that a change is necessary has to be quite high). They are also willing to add boosters to address issues.  I can think of numerous vaccines that they have adjusted (pertusiss, rota) and others where boosters were added (MMR).

 

I expect we will see a booster or an adjusted pertussis formula within the next few years (unless pertussis declines in numbers soon).

 

Where I think l they do a poorer job is determining whether a vaccine is a good idea in the first place and should be a routine infant vaccine, or if a selective/delayed approach might be better. Chicken pox comes to mind.

 

 

Tinkering with vaccines and adding to the schedule - yes

Subtracting vaccine from the schedule - no  (small pox excepted)

 

So…I sort of trust them to tinker with vaccines, but I do not trust them to look at things from an alternate POV.  I think a strong case can be made for a sel/delayed postion….but "they" do not want to go there.  The one size fits all approach to vaccination  makes them come across as rigid and dogmatic - at least to me.

post #60 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

If they were reassessing and adjusting as necessary, they would be screening people for predisposition for adverse reactions to vaccines, such as mitochondrial disorders, autoimmune disorders, asthma (which has been shown to be caused and/or exacerbated by vaccines).

 

Well that sure would be really expensive! 

 

It's easier to just snow the public with PR and infotainment about how great vaccines are and how one size fits all and how awful people are who question them.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Whooping Cough Paranoia...