2 part question re: titer testing

[emma1325]

1. Do you know of any published research which examines the titers (or titres, whichever you'd prefer ) of vaccinated babies or children to determine a snapshot of vaccine efficacy?


2. Have you ever had your own child's titers tested, and if so, can you offer some details about that?

[emma1325]

Nada?

[Mirzam]

I don't think it is really established exactly what antibodies mean in the body which questions the value of titres. Dr Tenpenny explains this really well (IMO) in this video on vaccine "efficacy".

She asks the question, "What do the antibodies really mean? Do they mean you are chronically sick? (I tend to favor this explanation). Do they mean you have had an exposure? Can you have a certain level of antibodies and still get sick. She talks about how in the scientific literature the phrase "effective" vaccines means that you have created an antibody, but that doesn't necessarily translate into protection from getting sick. This has been demonstrated many times when fully vaccinated people contract a VPD.

I can't help with part 2, as I have never done titres for my children. I can't see the point personally.

[prosciencemum]

I'm sure a CDC publication I read recently about varicella efficacy talking about measuring the immune response of vaccinated people in order to test how long it lasted. Was in the thread about the 80% reduction in childhood chicken pox since 2000 I think.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I'm sure a CDC publication I read recently about varicella efficacy talking about measuring the immune response of vaccinated people in order to test how long it lasted. Was in the thread about the 80% reduction in childhood chicken pox since 2000 I think.

Do you not see a value in titer testing to check immunity in your own child?

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by emma1325 


2. Have you ever had your own child's titers tested, and if so, can you offer some details about that?

Yes!  Our oldest child was given the MMR at 12 months.  We were told he needed a booster for kindergarten, but we delayed all further shots after he was diagnosed with autism.

When he hit puberty, we were told we would need to re-vaccinate him for mumps in particular, because (we were told) if he contracted the mumps during puberty, he could end up with sterility.

We looked into getting a mumps-only vaccine--they were still available then--and found that they were available ONLY in thimerosal-preserved multi-use vials. (BOO.)

So our ped said, well, don't get your hopes up, the vaccine only lasts 5 years or so, that's why they need the booster, but let's do a titer.

He had over 4 times the number of antibodies necessary to be considered immune.

And the reason for the booster is actually because 5% of those who get the MMR don't mount an immune response.  The booster for everyone is supposed to catch those 5%. You'd think they'd do titers on everyone, and then only booster those who need it, but they don't sell as many vaccines that way...

[The4OfUs]

2.  We had both our kids titer tested just so we could avoid hassle for getting boosters to send them to public school.  I'm not necessarily against all vaccination, but I for damn sure am against injecting my kids with crap if they are already sufficiently immune.  NYS doesn't have a philosophical exemption, but does accept titer proof of seroimmunity in place of getting boosters.  They were both well over the levels of equivocal seroimmunity for all of the ones they wanted, so we presented those lab results and did not get the boosters.  The school nurse said she had been working for the district for 20 years and I was the first person she remembers EVER giving her titers instead of booster records.  Our ped said that she "didn't know why more people didn't do that", and I thought, BECAUSE NOBODY OFFERS IT AS AN OPTION.  The only reason I even investigated doing it was because of MDC. 

What it means or doesn't mean, I dunno - we just did it because it was the easiest way to not have to do the boosters. 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

Do you not see a value in titer testing to check immunity in your own child?

Seems like an uneccessary blood test to me which would add stress to my kids. They have both been vaccinated on schedule (well the schedule where we lived at the time - and with a move between US and UK that has been different for the two of them), and I have no reason to suspect their immune systems aren't working totally normally, so their reactions to those vaccines were to develop antibodies to the relevant diseases. 

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Seems like an uneccessary blood test to me which would add stress to my kids. They have both been vaccinated on schedule (well the schedule where we lived at the time - and with a move between US and UK that has been different for the two of them), and I have no reason to suspect their immune systems aren't working totally normally, so their reactions to those vaccines were to develop antibodies to the relevant diseases. 

 But before giving a booster that is "required", wouldn't you rather see if they already have immunity levels built up before giving it?  It's a needle jab/stress either way (injection or blood draw).     And taking a small amount of blood out would seem less invasive/stress to the body itself than putting a vaccine booster in and having them have that immune response again. 

For the record, I would have given boosters if the kids titers showed negative seroimmunity, so it's not like I'm being argumentative from an anti-vaccination POV.  I just don't understand the viewpoint of automatically giving the booster, which is a needle, but declining a blood draw...which is also a needle.  I guess if the draw showed negative seroimmunity then they'd get a 2nd needle for the booster, but it's not like it happens the same day.  

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Seems like an uneccessary blood test to me which would add stress to my kids. They have both been vaccinated on schedule (well the schedule where we lived at the time - and with a move between US and UK that has been different for the two of them), and I have no reason to suspect their immune systems aren't working totally normally, so their reactions to those vaccines were to develop antibodies to the relevant diseases. 

Seems like an awful lot of faith to have in vaccines, when there's a way to verify efficacy. 

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

Seems like an awful lot of faith to have in vaccines, when there's a way to verify efficacy. 

No problem, just keep getting the boosters. At least vets are willing to do titres rather than vax dogs over and over. But as I said, I am not sure we really know what the result of a titre test means in terms of immunity.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

No problem, just keep getting the boosters. At least vets are willing to do titres rather than vax dogs over and over. But as I said, I am not sure we really know what the result of a titre test means in terms of immunity.

That's why I was asking if anyone had information on the scientific validity of titer testing.  It sure seems like, for the most part anyway, the scientific community accepts titer results as a valid test of immunity.

If the test is sound, then why not test titers?  If the science is truly there supporting vaccine efficacy, then why not put them to the test?

Without verifying immunity, then any perceived protection gained from vaccines is only a faithful assumption.