Pertussis vaccine - the knocks keep on coming!

[Mirzam]

Now it has been shown that immunity declines by 42% after the fifth dose. But they are still blaming the unvaccinated.

http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/pertussis-vaccine-is-defective-dont-blame-the-refusers-for-pertussis-outbreaks-new-england-journal-of-medicine/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850?query=featured_home&

[Mosaic]

Where were they blaming the unvaccinated?

Still 42%/year? That's a lot!

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Mosaic 

Where were they blaming the unvaccinated?

Still 42%/year? That's a lot!

From the article:

Medscape quotes a doctor who works for vaccine manufacturers (Michael Pichichero, MD, professor in pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, New York)  ‘Due to the vaccine practices of too many parents in California and the well-intentioned but misguided cooperation by healthcare providers, it may also be that the California pertussis outbreaks are due in part also to the lack of sufficient herd immunity to provide population protection’ 

 

[Minerva23]

If the protection of the vaccine declines by 42% each year and assuming that the protection after receiving the vaccine is only between 59% - 89%, than the protection declines to 25% - 38% in the second year and to 11% - 16% in the third year and so on. Where is the sense in having that vaccine at all considering the serious side effects.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/pertussis-whooping-cough  This is were I got the 59%  - 89% from.

[ma2two]

"While some parents around the country have taken a stand against childhood vaccines, the outbreak is not being driven by unvaccinated children, according to the CDC. Most of the illnesses are in vaccinated youngsters, officials said."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57511663-10391704/whooping-cough-vaccine-found-to-wane-in-effectiveness-after-age-6/

[kathymuggle]

According to the second link (njem.org)

We compared 277 children, 4 to 12 years of age, who were PCR-positive for pertussis with 3318 PCR-negative controls and 6086 matched controls. PCR-positive children were more likely to have received the fifth DTaP dose earlier than PCR-negative controls (P<0.001) or matched controls (P=0.005). Comparison with PCR-negative controls yielded an odds ratio of 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 1.66), indicating that after the fifth dose of DTaP, the odds of acquiring pertussis increased by an average of 42% per year.

I remember reading somewhere (I can find the link if anyone likes)  that there is some speculation that DTaP is only effective for about 3 years, after which everyone should receive boosters.  It will be interesting to see whether society goes along with this or not.  Isn't it contra-indicated to give the tetanus vaccine repeatedly?

Edited by kathymuggle - 9/13/12 at 7:36pm

[hondo17]

Better and longer lasting protection would be ideal, but we have to remember this is a vulnerable time of life that gets less hazardous as they get stronger. The kids are at their weakest at the start of the vaccination cycle, and least able to withstand and recover from illness. The threat of severe consequences from getting sick diminishes over time. They need whatever additional protection they can get when they're least able to handle the illness (at the beginning of and throughout the cycle). A few percentage points doesn't look like much on paper, but I'm glad to have whatever additional protection my son can get.
 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by hondo17 

Better and longer lasting protection would be ideal, but we have to remember this is a vulnerable time of life that gets less hazardous as they get stronger. The kids are at their weakest at the start of the vaccination cycle, and least able to withstand and recover from illness. The threat of severe consequences from getting sick diminishes over time. They need whatever additional protection they can get when they're least able to handle the illness (at the beginning of and throughout the cycle). A few percentage points doesn't look like much on paper, but I'm glad to have whatever additional protection my son can get.
 

 A lovely sentiment - if the vaccine was not implecated in so many adverse reactions. I would like my son to get all the protection he can get as well, but at what cost??

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

 A lovely sentiment - if the vaccine was not implecated in so many adverse reactions. I would like my son to get all the protection he can get as well, but at what cost??

Most people experience no or little vaccine reaction. There are examples (including among the children of people posting here) of more serious reactions, but the statistics demonstrate they are rare. So in general you get some protection at no (or very little) cost. 

[AmandaT]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Most people experience no or little vaccine reaction. There are examples (including among the children of people posting here) of more serious reactions, but the statistics demonstrate they are rare. So in general you get some protection at no (or very little) cost. 

The CDC admits that the statistics are woefully inaccurate, saying only 1-10% of reactions are reported. There are also possible long-term side effects that we are just beginning to understand the implications of. Over half of the children in this country have *now* fairly common auto-immune disorders or are obese. While I don't believe vaccinations are the cause of all of these, I do believe they are a piece of it (compounded by diet, lifestyle, genetics, and other environmental toxins) and even if they are only a major factor 10% of these problems, that is too high for me. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Most people experience no or little vaccine reaction. There are examples (including among the children of people posting here) of more serious reactions, but the statistics demonstrate they are rare. So in general you get some protection at no (or very little) cost. 

 I don't believe this for 1 second. Just because it is the regurgitated party line doesn't mean it's true. The statistics reflect a broken system where the vast majority of reactions do not officially get reported. (lets not even get into the potential for long term issues) There are hundreds of thousands of parents whose children have been adversely affected to some degree or another by vaccines. All one has to do is look at the advocay groups and on the internet worldwide to see that something is wrong. It is very convenient to routinely deny the exsitence of adverse reactions (as per the medical community) and then state that the "statistics" state reactions are rare. well duh  The "statistics" do not support what parents are saying - so do you think that all those parents are liars - or perhaps just a bit misguided?

[crayfishgirl]

Originally Posted by AmandaT 

The CDC admits that the statistics are woefully inaccurate, saying only 1-10% of reactions are reported. There are also possible long-term side effects that we are just beginning to understand the implications of. Over half of the children in this country have *now* fairly common auto-immune disorders or are obese. While I don't believe vaccinations are the cause of all of these, I do believe they are a piece of it (compounded by diet, lifestyle, genetics, and other environmental toxins) and even if they are only a major factor 10% of these problems, that is too high for me. 

Can you direct me to that?  Not snark, but I couldn't find it in the few searches I ran.

[crayfishgirl]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

 I don't believe this for 1 second. Just because it is the regurgitated party line doesn't mean it's true. The statistics reflect a broken system where the vast majority of reactions do not officially get reported. (lets not even get into the potential for long term issues) There are hundreds of thousands of parents whose children have been adversely affected to some degree or another by vaccines. All one has to do is look at the advocay groups and on the internet worldwide to see that something is wrong. It is very convenient to routinely deny the exsitence of adverse reactions (as per the medical community) and then state that the "statistics" state reactions are rare. well duh  The "statistics" do not support what parents are saying - so do you think that all those parents are liars - or perhaps just a bit misguided?

I agree that statistics are only as good as the data on which they are based.  It is my understanding that anyone can report a vaccine reaction to VAERS....why are parents of children harmed by vaccines not doing that?

[AmandaT]

Originally Posted by crayfishgirl 

Can you direct me to that?  Not snark, but I couldn't find it in the few searches I ran.

yes, but not until DD goes to sleep- I've read it a few places but don't remember off the top of my head

[AmandaT]

Okay, the original quote "The FDA estimates that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported (Reported by KM Severyn, R.Ph.D. in the Dayton Daily News, May 28, 1993. Ohio Parents for Vaccine Safety, 251 Ridgeway Dr., Dayton, OH 45459)".  I know I have read it from a more recent source, but cannot find it atm- maybe someone else has it bookmarked? 

This figure is still used by NVIC and is backed up by two studies they did themselves (one of which found that only 1 in 40 NY doctors [2.5%] even reported to VAERS). Those can be found on the NVIC website 

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by crayfishgirl 

I agree that statistics are only as good as the data on which they are based.  It is my understanding that anyone can report a vaccine reaction to VAERS....why are parents of children harmed by vaccines not doing that?

Because many don't understand that they can.  VAERS is not promoted by doctors, since doctors don't like to admit to the existence of vaccine adverse events.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

Because many don't understand that they can.  VAERS is not promoted by doctors, since doctors don't like to admit to the existence of vaccine adverse events.

I agree with this.  Many parents don't realize that they should report the reactions instead of their pediatricians, and so many doctors even deny that the reaction was due to the vaccines that parents don't know what to do.  We trust that The Powers That Be have our best interests at heart, until our children are hurt, and then the same powers say that our maternal instincts could not be more wrong, and that the adverse reaction to vaccines/circ/CIO/fill-in-the-blank are all in our heads and/or totally unrelated.

[hondo17]

If I'm not mistaken, the oft-quoted 10% adverse event reporting figure refers to all adverse reactions, not specifically those related to vaccines. That would include mild reactions that don't cause any harm or don't require altering treatment (sleepiness, headache, thirstiness, etc.). Thus, most clinicians probably don't bother reporting. It's the minority of more severe events with long-term effects that tend to get reported most (for obvious reasons).

[AmandaT]

Originally Posted by hondo17 

If I'm not mistaken, the oft-quoted 10% adverse event reporting figure refers to all adverse reactions, not specifically those related to vaccines. That would include mild reactions that don't cause any harm or don't require altering treatment (sleepiness, headache, thirstiness, etc.). Thus, most clinicians probably don't bother reporting. It's the minority of more severe events with long-term effects that tend to get reported most (for obvious reasons).

Yes, I did also see this number in reference to AERS, but did not quote it because I was looking specifically for VAERS info.