or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Slate article on congressional hearings
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Slate article on congressional hearings - Page 2

post #21 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


There's no use in persisting with the narrative that the unvaccinated are to blame for these pertussis outbreaks when a CDC official has made it unequivocally clear that the notion is false.

Exactly. 

post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Might I suggest another scapegoat for the pertussis resurgence? Do as Dutch researcher Dr. Fritz Mooi suggests--Point your finger at the drug companies, which Mooi contends have been lagging on developing a new vaccine because it adversely affects their bottom line. (I can't cut & paste, but you can find the 2010 article on kpbs.org)
 

I found a link:

 

 

"Mooi, the scientist who has been studying the bacterial mutations, said his research has been ignored by those who influence public policy on pertussis in the U.S. and beyond, in part because they rely on vaccine makers to fund their meetings and research.

There is little incentive for pharmaceutical companies to pursue a new vaccine because it would cost billions, he said. The circulation of a more virulent strain of pertussis could mean a new vaccine should be created."

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/dec/14/immunized-people-getting-whooping-cough-experts-sp/

post #23 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

I found a link:

 

 

"Mooi, the scientist who has been studying the bacterial mutations, said his research has been ignored by those who influence public policy on pertussis in the U.S. and beyond, in part because they rely on vaccine makers to fund their meetings and research.

 

Why is this even legal?

post #24 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

I found a link:

 

 

"Mooi, the scientist who has been studying the bacterial mutations, said his research has been ignored by those who influence public policy on pertussis in the U.S. and beyond, in part because they rely on vaccine makers to fund their meetings and research.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

 

Why is this even legal?

 

It certainly puts it into the proper perspective, doesn't it?  Hello, corruption.

post #25 of 65
Slate is rabidly proVax. Every article they publish on the topic has that perspective. Respect for your opponent is crucial to educated debate. So when someone derides or dehumanizes their opponent as a debate strategy I don't consider their POV to be an educated one.
post #26 of 65
Oh & when a publication has an agenda like Slate, I no longer consider them to be practicing 'journalism'. If you want a publication with an openly ProVax agenda that still occasionally practices journalism, try the NYT. They are not quite as blatantly one note as Slate.
post #27 of 65
Okay, I read it & it was way worse than I could have imagined. The phrase 'crackpot conspiracy theorist' belongs no where in a serious piece of journalism. Just straight up ranting & namecalling. Plus shaky on the science tip with ample corrections? Ummm Pertussis outbreaks aren't thought to be caused by a dearth of 'herd immunity' today . . . The CDC has gone on record saying non-vax are not driving current outbreaks & all the epidimieolgy supports that.
post #28 of 65
Thread Starter 
Uh, it's not a serious piece of journalism. It's a blog. Probably my fault for misleading with the thread title.
post #29 of 65
CDC says that lowering of herd immunity is not solely to blame for pertussis outbreaks. That's different from saying they don't contribute to it at all. But I agree that there is clear evidence it is not the only factor in rising rates of pertussis.
post #30 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

CDC says that lowering of herd immunity is not solely to blame for pertussis outbreaks. That's different from saying they don't contribute to it at all. But I agree that there is clear evidence it is not the only factor in rising rates of pertussis.


http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/t0719_pertussis_epidemic.html

"We think it is a bad thing that people aren't getting vaccinated and exempting, but we cannot blame this wave on that phenomenon."

Please commit this to memory, as I believe I've posted this for you before.

I'm banking on the vaccination keeping the disease milder for my kids, so I get the DTaP for our kids. But the demonization of parents who opt against this vaccine has got to stop.
post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

CDC says that lowering of herd immunity is not solely to blame for pertussis outbreaks. That's different from saying they don't contribute to it at all. But I agree that there is clear evidence it is not the only factor in rising rates of pertussis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/t0719_pertussis_epidemic.html
"We think it is a bad thing that people aren't getting vaccinated and exempting, but we cannot blame this wave on that phenomenon."
Please commit this to memory, as I believe I've posted this for you before.
I'm banking on the vaccination keeping the disease milder for my kids, so I get the DTaP for our kids. But the demonization of parents who opt against this vaccine has got to stop.

CDC does not even say here that the unvaccinated have ANYTHING to do with the rise in pertussis cases.
post #32 of 65

Actually the CDC on their main page about tracking pertussis outbreaks (http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks.html) don't really say anything about blame. 

 

They do have this line about fading protection for vaccinations.

 

 

 

Quote:
Outbreaks at middle and high schools can occur as protection from childhood vaccines fades.
post #33 of 65

They also have this review (from July 2012) of the Washington State outbreak. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm

 

The main conclusion seems to be:

 

 

Quote:
Consistent with national trends, high rates of pertussis were observed among infants aged <1 year and children aged 10 years. However, the incidence in adolescents aged 13–14 years also was increased, despite high rates of vaccination with tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine, suggesting early waning of immunity.

 

This paragraph compares the vaccination status of people in the outbreak and the general population. 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Overall, 758 of 1,000 (75.8%) patients aged 3 months–10 years were up-to-date with the childhood diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) doses. Receipt of Tdap was documented in 97 of 225 (43.1%) patients aged 11–12 years and in 466 of 604 (77.2%) patients aged 13–19 years. Estimated DTaP coverage in Washington among children aged 19–35 months was 93.2% for ≥3 doses and 81.9% for ≥4 doses in 2010; Tdap coverage in adolescents aged 13–17 years was estimated at 70.6% (3).

 

 

But not in a very clear way - so I tried to extract comparisons below.  Not easy at all I have to say..... 

 

Percent vaccinated     Pertussis cases  General population

3months -10 yrs       75.8%               -

19-35 months           -                        81.9-93.2%

11-12 years              43.1%

13-19 years              77.2%               70.6% (13-17 yrs)

 

Looks like in young children (<10) quite significantly more unvaccinated (or not fully vaccinated) children got pertussis than those vaccinated (but the age ranges are not that same so I cannot say that with any certainty). The vaccination rate among 10-12 yr olds having pertussis is really low (43%!), but no comparison set is given. In older teenagers it seems vaccination status is irrelevent to if they get whooping cough (even might be slightly higher vax rates in those having the disease than in general - but the age group is slightly different and it may be within the statistical uncertainty). 

 

This hints to me that vaccination exemptions might be having an effect on the outbreak among the younger children - and of course having more pertussis in circulation means the older children are more likely to encounter it. 

 

 And frankly that above is why I will continue to state that exemptions do play a role in these outbreaks. Unvaccinated children are more likely to catch pertussis if exposed to it (8 times according to this CDC article, but I've seen numbers of 9-23 times more likely) and if they catch it to have more serious illness and be infectious for longer (increasing the number of chances to pass on the disease). So even if it's not a major factor in the outbreaks, it's sure not helping to prevent them.

 

 I also found this excerpt interesting. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Unvaccinated children have at least an eightfold greater risk for pertussis than children fully vaccinated with DTaP (7). However, because in most of the cases the patients were vaccinated, the 4.5% of Washington school children who were exempted from vaccination during 2011–2012 represented only a small proportion of those at risk for pertussis in the state. Although vaccinated children can develop pertussis, they are less infectious, have milder symptoms and shorter illness duration, and are at reduced risk for severe outcomes, including hospitalization (8–10).

 

 But we've gone way off topic from discussing responses to the congressional hearings. Perhaps we should start a new thread to debate the reasons for increased pertussis rates.... and leave this thread be.

 

 My fault for bringing up pertussis. I was just trying to explain why Phil Plait was angry and why therefore he's sometimes not polite about choices to not vaccinate based on what he (and I for that matter) see as misunderstandings of the risks of vaccination.

post #34 of 65
Thread Starter 
Pro- ive read some things lately I can't remember where that showed the demographics of an outbreak vary greatly between like the 5-7 year olds and the closer to ten year olds. Likely because of a needed booster that's not currently on the schedule.
post #35 of 65
I feel sorry for kids whose sole protection from disease is from vaccines with waning immunity. And I wonder how many of them "need" boosters before the recommended time.

Ironically I think I caught whooping cough as an adult in the 90s, but haven't had a cough like that since then and neither has my unvaccinated dd. I think one of the reasons may be because she never went to daycare and neither did my friends' kids. She wasn't exposed to a group setting until she was three in a preschool, but even then it was only for a few hours and twice a week.
post #36 of 65
Thread Starter 

That's great that you had that option.  

 

What protection, other than from vaccines, are you thinking that some kids have and some kids don't?

 

Immunity to pertussis is not lifelong, even after actually contracting the disease.  Natural immunity can fade in as little as four years.

post #37 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

They also have this review (from July 2012) of the Washington State outbreak. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm

The main conclusion seems to be:



This paragraph compares the vaccination status of people in the outbreak and the general population. 


 





But not in a very clear way - so I tried to extract comparisons below.  Not easy at all I have to say..... 

Percent vaccinated     Pertussis cases  General population

3months -10 yrs       75.8%               -
19-35 months           -                        81.9-93.2%

11-12 years              43.1%

13-19 years              77.2%               70.6% (13-17 yrs)


Looks like in young children (<10) quite significantly more unvaccinated (or not fully vaccinated) children got pertussis than those vaccinated (but the age ranges are not that same so I cannot say that with any certainty). The vaccination rate among 10-12 yr olds having pertussis is really low (43%!), but no comparison set is given. In older teenagers it seems vaccination status is irrelevent to if they get whooping cough (even might be slightly higher vax rates in those having the disease than in general - but the age group is slightly different and it may be within the statistical uncertainty). 

This hints to me that vaccination exemptions might be having an effect on the outbreak among the younger children - and of course having more pertussis in circulation means the older children are more likely to encounter it. 

 And frankly that above is why I will continue to state that exemptions do play a role in these outbreaks. Unvaccinated children are more likely to catch pertussis if exposed to it (8 times according to this CDC article, but I've seen numbers of 9-23 times more likely) and if they catch it to have more serious illness and be infectious for longer (increasing the number of chances to pass on the disease). So even if it's not a major factor in the outbreaks, it's sure not helping to prevent them.

 I also found this excerpt interesting. 




 But we've gone way off topic from discussing responses to the congressional hearings. Perhaps we should start a new thread to debate the reasons for increased pertussis rates.... and leave this thread be.

 My fault for bringing up pertussis. I was just trying to explain why Phil Plait was angry and why therefore he's sometimes not polite about choices to not vaccinate based on what he (and I for that matter) see as misunderstandings of the risks of vaccination.

I don't think you have enough information here to conclude that exemptions played any role. Children who are not "up to date" on their vax may be partially vaccinated, and making assumptions without knowing what that vague label represents is hasty. If my child were due for his one year shots but his appointment isn't until a few weeks after his first birthday, he's technically not up to date. You are massaging this data pretty hard to support your bias.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

That's great that you had that option.  

What protection, other than from vaccines, are you thinking that some kids have and some kids don't?

Immunity to pertussis is not lifelong, even after actually contracting the disease.  Natural immunity can fade in as little as four years.
Yes, I'm curious about that, too.
post #39 of 65
Point well taken about the need for a new thread, Prosciencemum. :-) I only ask that we wait a day or two because I have a busy life offline that's screaming for my attention . . .
post #40 of 65
duplicate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Slate article on congressional hearings