Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Discussion and Debate › Utter madness: UK to give pregnant women whooping cough vaccine
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Utter madness: UK to give pregnant women whooping cough vaccine - Page 2

post #21 of 55
11/12/12 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


Pertussis is a bacterium, not a virus.

 

Sorry, my bad.  Temporarily forgot.

Sponsored Links
post #22 of 55
11/12/12 at 7:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer78 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It does both. It lowers your odds of contracting it and if you get it you typically get a milder case. I say it prevents transmission because milder case = less coughing and less coughing = less transmission.

 

I'm quite certain I had read some articles/studies stating that the vaccine seems to shorten the period of sickness and its severity rather than preventing it.  I don't have them on hand right now though, so can't post any. Sorry. Another way to interpret 'less caughing' = 'I'm not that sick, must be a cold' while around newborn babies and other susceptible individuals.


That would be a new one on me, but I'm certainly interested in whatever info you have to that end!
post #23 of 55
11/13/12 at 6:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

People who have been vaccinated against pertussis are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis. That hardly seems worthless to me. 

 

Where is this stat from?  Link to source, pls - thanks.

post #24 of 55
11/13/12 at 6:51am
Thread Starter 

Bringing over a link I put up in a separate thread on research that shows vaccine immunity and natural immunity from pertussis is not the same, the vaccine immunity being inferior. With that in mind what kind cut rate immunity will be passed on to a fetus, along with the potential for antibodies to the excipients and of course vaccine neurological damage?

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12013023 (sorry only a summary is available for free)

 


 

Quote:
"Although immunity after infection seems to persist longer than that after vaccination, the exact mechanism(s) is not known....Our results suggest that there may be difference in quality and quantity of antibodies to after vaccination and after infection."
post #25 of 55
11/13/12 at 7:10am
It's true that immunity from vaccines is often inferior to natural immunity (and in some cases it's superior to natural immunity), but it comes with the major advantage of not actually having to have the disease.
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

Where is this stat from?  Link to source, pls - thanks.

 

 

That stat comes from several different studies, hence the range.  I linked to several of them in the article "a case for vaccination" you can find in the articles section on mothering.

post #26 of 55
11/13/12 at 8:07am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's true that immunity from vaccines is often inferior to natural immunity (and in some cases it's superior to natural immunity), but it comes with the major advantage of not actually having to have the disease.
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

Where is this stat from?  Link to source, pls - thanks.

 

 

That stat comes from several different studies, hence the range.  I linked to several of them in the article "a case for vaccination" you can find in the articles section on mothering.

 

I am sure it would be helpful to MamaMunchkin if you would be kind enough to take the time to repost them here given the board changes. I am sure you have them easily to hand, as you have already posted them before.

post #27 of 55
11/13/12 at 12:06pm

Thanks, Mirzam smile.gif

post #28 of 55
11/13/12 at 12:21pm
I'll help you out then Mamamunchin and Mirzam. In a post just over a week ago Rrachel cited this link as showing unvaccinated children are 23 more times likely to catch pertussis than vaccinated children.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination&page=2

Interestingly if I google "pertussis 9-23 times less likely" you find many posts on mothering boards where Rrachel cites that with references. Easy. smile.gif
post #29 of 55
11/13/12 at 12:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I'll help you out then Mamamunchin and Mirzam. In a post just over a week ago Rrachel cited this link as showing unvaccinated children are 23 more times likely to catch pertussis than vaccinated children.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination&page=2

Interestingly if I google "pertussis 9-23 times less likely" you find many posts on mothering boards where Rrachel cites that with references. Easy. smile.gif

If it was so easy, then it would have been nice for her to do it herself, rather than refusing.

post #30 of 55
11/13/12 at 12:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I'll help you out then Mamamunchin and Mirzam. In a post just over a week ago Rrachel cited this link as showing unvaccinated children are 23 more times likely to catch pertussis than vaccinated children.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination&page=2

Interestingly if I google "pertussis 9-23 times less likely" you find many posts on mothering boards where Rrachel cites that with references. Easy. smile.gif

Oh, its a blog, there were no actual citations.

 

From the first comment:

 

 

 

Quote:
Thank you Scientific American for yet another block headed article about vaccines. This is the one subject the SA continually reports in an unbalanced manner. Vaccines are one of the greatest tools man has ever invented to combat suffering on this planet but the current US vaccine schedule includes unnecessary vaccines (exactly how will a 6 month old baby contract hep B?) at too early an age of immune system development. Instead of addressing these more subtle issues, SA continues the block head parade of "follow the complete schedule or put your child and everybody else at risk!"

 

The same commentator also blasted the section refering to the research Rrrrrachel alluded to but I can't post because it would make me over the 100 word limit. So, anyone who wants to read this piece be sure to read the comments section.

post #31 of 55
11/13/12 at 1:12pm
It's not a blog. It's a magazine article. The authors work for a major research institute and they're describing their own original research.
post #32 of 55
11/13/12 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It does both. It lowers your odds of contracting it and if you get it you typically get a milder case. I say it prevents transmission because milder case = less coughing and less coughing = less transmission.


milder case means someone may not  know they have it (may think it's a common cold) and thus spreads it more because they arent staying away from work and public in general

post #33 of 55
11/13/12 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharlla View Post


milder case means someone may not  know they have it (may think it's a common cold) and thus spreads it more because they arent staying away from work and public in general

Also reduces the likelihood you'll spread it in an pay individual encounter as well as the length of time you're contagious.
post #34 of 55
11/13/12 at 2:18pm

I just came across this today.

 

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/6/772.full

 

 

 

Quote:
Unvaccinated children were twice as likely as vaccinated children to have severe disease
 
. . . 
 
Duration of illness was higher among children with severe disease than among those with mild disease
 
. . . 
 
These results indicate that pertussis vaccination substantially decreases the severity of breakthrough disease in children who receive 3 doses of vaccine, compared with that in unvaccinated children. The majority of the vaccinated children who developed pertussis experienced mild disease, regardless of whether they had previously received a WC or an AC vaccine.

 

Further, someone who has a less severe case to begin with has a less severe case to spread.

post #35 of 55
11/13/12 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I just came across this today.

 

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/6/772.full

 

 

 

 

This is from a 1993 study in Senegal, with many of the recipients getting the whole-cell DTP.  Hardly relevant to 2012 in the US or UK, don't you think?

 

And in just skimming the study, I found this:

"Laboratory samples were not obtained from asymptomatic children, and therefore we could not estimate the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing infection. We found that duration of illness was associated with severity, regardless of vaccination status."

post #36 of 55
11/13/12 at 2:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

Further, someone who has a less severe case to begin with has a less severe case to spread.

I am sorry this is rubbish. How a disease presents on one individual person has no bearing on how it will present in another. 

post #37 of 55
11/13/12 at 2:29pm
Did you see the part where it said vaccinated children were way less likely to have a severe case than unvaccinated? And that it was true for both wc and ac vaccines? I don't think being done in Senegal makes it irrelevant to the us. Sick kids are sick kids.

It's true that this particular study doesn't speak to the vaccines ability to prevent the disease, though many others do. This one is just about severity.
post #38 of 55
11/13/12 at 2:29pm
Maybe you should read the study I posted, Mirzam.
post #39 of 55
11/13/12 at 2:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I just came across this today.

 

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/6/772.full

 

 

 

 

This is from a 1993 study in Senegal, with many of the recipients getting the whole-cell DTP.  Hardly relevant to 2012 in the US or UK, don't you think?

 

And in just skimming the study, I found this:

"Laboratory samples were not obtained from asymptomatic children, and therefore we could not estimate the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing infection. We found that duration of illness was associated with severity, regardless of vaccination status."

 

 

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

 

 

 

As the graphic turned out so small here is what it says:

 

 

 

Quote:
All of these early studies suggest that a very high proprotion of children in large unvaccinated populations had been infected with Bordella pertussis by age 10. There are several reasons to supporse that this proportion approached 100% and that the shortfall in reported disease was due largely to atypical, asymtopmatic or forgotten infections. First recent authors have estimated that an appreciable proportion (e.g. 25%) of infections are asymptomatic. (Linneman 1979)
post #40 of 55
11/13/12 at 2:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Maybe you should read the study I posted, Mirzam.

From you quote, you said that someone with a mild case of pertissis will pass a mild case onto another person. That is rubbish. So you believe, an adult with a largely asymptomatic case of WC will pass the same mild case to a three week old baby?

New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Discussion and Debate › Utter madness: UK to give pregnant women whooping cough vaccine