DTP verus DTaP and pertussis

[kathymuggle]

There are numerous theories about why there has been recent pertussis outbreaks. 

One theory on why there are more outbreaks now than in the past is because the acellular component of the vaccine is less effective than whole cell.

Here is an article:

http://www.iapcoi.com/hp/pdf/Whole-cell%20pertussis%20vaccine%20provided%20best%20protection.pdf

Whole cell pertussis vaccine causes more reactions than acellular.

Here is quote from an op ed after the article:

What are the solutions to this problem? Can we give repeated doses of acellular pertussis vaccine to bolster immunity throughout adolescence and adulthood? How often do the boosters need to be repeated? Or do we need to reconsider going back to the old whole-cell vaccine? For those of us who are old enough to remember the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, we recall that it was associated with a high rate of local and systemic reactions….

I am most interested in hearing from vaxxers, as they are the ones who will be getting the vax.

Until such time as a better vax come along - do you prefer the more effective, but more reactive whole cell?  Or do you  prefer the less effective, but less reactive DTaP?

Edited by kathymuggle - 8/17/12 at 4:19pm

[Mirzam]

Hilary Butler very clearly explains the problem in the chapter on pertussis in her book, "One Prick to Another". 

Quote:

The whooping cough vaccine is ineffective.  It doesn't do the job it was made to do. And the REASON adults and kids spread pertussis is precisely BECAUSE  - - - they were vaccinated in the first place. The reasons for that are in my chapter on whooping cough from "From One Prick to Another". The medical literature is all there to prove it, but on that topic, there is resounding silence from the medical profession.  After all, who wants to admit that the very vaccine they tout is PART of the problem? 

http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_blog/Hilary's_Desk/post/Whooping_cough_What_is_it_that_they_don't_get_about_fail/

The pertussis vaccine lacks one vital ingredient, ACT (adenylate cyclase toxin):

Quote:

The current vaccine can only prevent serious infection in some vaccinated people, but it can never prevent infection, carriage and spread in those already vaccinated. The reason for this is that the vaccine, unlike natural infection, does not create immunity in the bronchial associated lymphatic tissue to a key toxin called ACT (adenylate cyclase toxin), which is the primary toxin that allows the bacteria to get a hold in the body. 

Hilary explains that the problem was vaccine researchers missed out some key principles of natural pertussis infection. The first is that pre-vaccine, children were the primary spreaders of whooping cough. When a child got whooping cough, their body made key cellular immunity to ACT. Every three years, that child might come into contact with whooping cough again. As soon as pertussis entered their bronchials, the antibody ACT moved into action and cleared the bacteria very fast, boosted their immunity, and they didn't know they had come into contact with whooping cough. She goes on to explain,

Quote:

That’s all changed now. The vaccine doesn’t create cellular immunity to clear ACT, and what’s worse, the current vaccines induces tolerance14, which prevents the vaccinated from ever having that immunity which natural infection created. So when the whooping cough bacteria enters the brochials of someone who is vaccinated, it establishes an active infection, which usually has an typical presentation. This poses diagnostic problems, because doctors don’t recognize 

Hilary explains that doctors have known since 1990 that ACT is the colonizing factor required for whooping cough to to 

start the infection, they now also know that the current vaccines protect against severe disease but offers little protection against the colonization by the organism. Revaccination does not improve bactericidal activity in any vaccinated person, she says that it is even known that in some cases it causes a statistically significant decrease in the ability of the body to rid itself of the pertussis bacteria. She explains why, siting the work of the "supposed all-time expert on whooping cough, Dr James Cherry, who stated in an article, "Primary infections with either B.pertissis or Bordetella parapertussis stimulated a vigorous antibody response to ACT. In contrast, patients in whom DTP DTaP vaccines failed had minimal ACT antibody responses." She goes on to quote him:

Quote:

“Of particular interest is the lack of a significant ACT antibody response in children for whom the DTP or DTaP vaccines failed. This induced tol- erance 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 epitopes23 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. Because both vaccines contained multiple antigens (i.e., PT, FHA, PRN, and fimbriae), the patients who had been vaccinated responded to the antigens that they had been primed with and did not respond to the new antigen (i.e., ACT) associated with infection.”  

 

What this means is that the vaccine teaches the immune system the wrong way of dealing with whooping cough. It misses out the crucial first step of ACT recognition. She explains that the result is vaccinated people who still get infections because they lacked immunity against ACT. Also, vaccinated people won't clear pertussis bacteria quickly during subsequent infections because their body will work the same way as the first time and will ignore the ACT.

[MamaMunchkin]

Mirzam

What a timely post - I was wondering how an unvaxed individual would respond to natural pertussis infection.  And I ran into this article today, which I believe is exactly what you're referring to.

Determination of Serum Antibody to Bordetella pertussis Adenylate Cyclase Toxin in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children and in Children and Adults with Pertussis
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/4/502.long

These numbers below seem important - though I do wonder if there are multiple interpretations of the results.  I don't know enough to judge whether Hilary Butler's interpretation is the only possible one … I truly would love to learn more ...

The figures:
 

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 8/17/12 at 6:52pm

[Mirzam]

Yes, that is the study by James Cherry et al, that Hilary Butler sites in her book. 

[Mirzam]

Here is more from Hilary Butler on whooping cough immunity. Her articles are generally well referenced, often with links to pdfs of the studies, so you can draw your own conclusions.

[MamaMunchkin]

Thanks for the link - Mirzam.

Also found something else - I'd like to know what the figures in the last column in the tables above mean, ie what is GMT?

Analysis of Studies to Evaluate Immune Response to Combination Vaccines
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/Supplement_4/S306.full#sec-5

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin 

Thanks for the link - Mirzam.

Also found something else - I'd like to know what the figures in the last column in the tables above mean, ie what is GMT?

It might mean:

Geometric Mean Titer

Geometric:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

It might mean:

Geometric Mean Titer

Geometric:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean

Sorry, wasn't clear - I meant to say what does GMT mean in terms of immunity?  Based on the link below, not that simple ... and does the study in the link below translate to all vaxes?  Not so sure ...

On the relationship between mean antibody level, seroprotection and clinical protection from influenza

download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/H1N1.../vaccination-54.pdf

[Mirzam]

MamaMunchkin, I couldn't get your link to work. But you are asking the $64,000 question!

Edited by Mirzam - 8/19/12 at 10:09am

[Mirzam]

Here is the latest article from Hilary Butler and she goes into more explanation on ACT and original antigenic sin.

Whooping cough and chameleons

I can tell you now and so can whole generations who had whooping cough naturally..., that natural immunity to whooping cough lasts a WHOLE lot longer than immunity from EITHER the whole cell or acellular vaccine does. There are many medical articles which confirm that.  I can also tell you now, that the majority of carriers are VACCINATED people whose immunity to whooping cough is dysfunctional, because of “original antigenic sin” – a situation where the doctor-induced immunity doesn’t prevent either carriage or reinfection. 

[Vacunas Autismo]

Allow me to contribute my two cents. My contention: Pertussis symptoms due to allergic reactions can be wrongly lab confirmed as caused by B. pertussis.

Explanation:

1. Some allergic reactions can mimic pertussis (more on this below),

2. The bug Bordetella pertussis can be carried asymptomatically (subclinical infection), often in a large percentage of the potential host population.

Therefore, lab-confirmed pertussis does not necessarily mean the bug is the cause. if (1) and (2) concur in the same individual, then a lab-confirmed presence of B. pertussis leads to a wrong diagnosis.

What kind of allergies could possibly cause pertussis-like symptoms in a subclinical infected person? For example, vaccines:

Colorado immunization Manual

Treatment Of Vaccine Reactions

on page 3:

MILD ALLERGIC REACTION SYMPTOMS

• Agitation
• Coughing, sneezing
• Mild wheezing
• Pruritus (Itching),
• Erythema (Redness),
• Urticaria (Hives),
• Angioedema (Swelling of face, neck, lips, hands, and feet)

Coughing, sneezing and wheezing... this vaccine-induced clinical pertussis has no link to any bug at all. Yet if the bug is there subclinically, "confirmation" in the lab will pass this vaccine reaction as infectious pertussis.

Confusion is thus served, and it matches what's happening now. Mass vaccinations leading to a massive case of vaccine reactions and being mislabeled as a vaccine preventable disease.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

MamaMunchkin, I couldn't get your link to work. But you are asking the $64,000 question!

Sorry about that, in case the link isn't working - for a preview, this is the abstract:

For many vaccines the amount of antibodies induced has a positive correlation with the likelihood of clinical protection from disease. Mean antibody level is therefore frequently used as a serological surrogate endpoint for vaccine efficacy. In addition, a dichotomous surrogate endpoint is often defined: seroprotection. We explore the relationship between mean antibody level, seroprotection and clinical protection from influenza, using a simple statistical model. The model reveals that the relationship depends not only on the mean but also on the dispersion of the antibody levels, the threshold for clinical protection and the clinical protection curve. The consequences for the interpretation of mean antibody levels and seroprotection rates in terms of clinical protection from influenza are discussed.

download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/H1N1-flu/vaccination/vaccination-54.pdf

Sigh ... not sure this study helps with vax decision but it's useful to know they're still learning more as we speak, which can be both good and bad news ... perhaps only time will tell ...

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 8/20/12 at 5:29pm

[Minerva23]

Originally Posted by Vacunas Autismo 

Allow me to contribute my two cents. My contention: Pertussis symptoms due to allergic reactions can be wrongly lab confirmed as caused by B. pertussis.

Explanation:

1. Some allergic reactions can mimic pertussis (more on this below),

2. The bug Bordetella pertussis can be carried asymptomatically (subclinical infection), often in a large percentage of the potential host population.

Therefore, lab-confirmed pertussis does not necessarily mean the bug is the cause. if (1) and (2) concur in the same individual, then a lab-confirmed presence of B. pertussis leads to a wrong diagnosis.

What kind of allergies could possibly cause pertussis-like symptoms in a subclinical infected person? For example, vaccines:

Colorado immunization Manual

Coughing, sneezing and wheezing... this vaccine-induced clinical pertussis has no link to any bug at all. Yet if the bug is there subclinically, "confirmation" in the lab will pass this vaccine reaction as infectious pertussis.

Confusion is thus served, and it matches what's happening now. Mass vaccinations leading to a massive case of vaccine reactions and being mislabeled as a vaccine preventable disease.

Do you really think it could be that simple? If these pertussis cases were only the reaction to a given vaccine, then why are the authorities so hot on labelling it as an epidemic. What would be there gain? Selling more unnecessary vaccines? I find it all quite strange.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Minerva23 

Do you really think it could be that simple? If these pertussis cases were only the reaction to a given vaccine, then why are the authorities so hot on labelling it as an epidemic. What would be there gain? Selling more unnecessary vaccines? I find it all quite strange.

Selling more vaccines is ALWAYS a Big Pharma bonus to a VPD epidemic.  I see billboards and advertisements for the Tdap booster for adults everywhere, and it is also being heavily marketed and even "required" for adolescents, with at least California adding a dose before 7th grade.

[Vacunas Autismo]

Originally Posted by Minerva23 

Do you really think it could be that simple? If these pertussis cases were only the reaction to a given vaccine, then why are the authorities so hot on labelling it as an epidemic. What would be there gain? Selling more unnecessary vaccines? I find it all quite strange.

The more they can spread disease, the more they can scream for more vaccinations.. to spread more disease….so they can scream for more vaccinations….and on and on it goes. Insidious.

[Vacunas Autismo]

Here’s list of the most egregious scientific concerns about vaccines:

• Disease definitions conveniently rewritten to accommodate the ‘vaccines save us’ narrative,
• Placebos that are not real placebos but mimic the disease,
• Surrogate efficacy measures disconnected from clinical reality,
• Immunoactive adjuvants to induce hypergammaglobulinemia as “evidence” of neutralizing antibodies,
• The “epitope suppression” effect that precludes vaccines for working even we accept vaccine theory as sound,
• Unrealistically simple model of germs as the sole cause of disease and lymphocites as the sole cause of healing,
• Lab “confirmations” that overlook subclinical infections, falsely diagnosing clinicaly similar diseases as “infectious” when they’re not,

 and lot more, enough to write a book.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Vacunas Autismo 

Here’s list of the most egregious scientific concerns about vaccines:

• Disease definitions conveniently rewritten to accommodate the ‘vaccines save us’ narrative,
• Placebos that are not real placebos but mimic the disease,
• Surrogate efficacy measures disconnected from clinical reality,
• Immunoactive adjuvants to induce hypergammaglobulinemia as “evidence” of neutralizing antibodies,
• The “epitope suppression” effect that precludes vaccines for working even we accept vaccine theory as sound,
• Unrealistically simple model of germs as the sole cause of disease and lymphocites as the sole cause of healing,
• Lab “confirmations” that overlook subclinical infections, falsely diagnosing clinicaly similar diseases as “infectious” when they’re not,

 and lot more, enough to write a book.

This is another way of describing Original Antigenic Sin:

Original Antigenic Sin. When a person gets an infectious disease for the first time, the body responds to WHAT it sees, WHERE it sees it. The body forms immunity on the basis of THAT experience. The immune system assumes that the next time that same thing comes around, it will come again, in the same form and place. HOWEVER, if a person’s immunity to a vaccine creates different pathways from natural immunity, that causes a problem. The body still sees “the thing” but the different immunity doesn’t work against the thing in the same way as it should.