or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › HIB and The Vaccine Book
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HIB and The Vaccine Book

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I've just read the HIB chapter and Dr. Sears ends it by stating that the ongoing use of the HIB vaccine in the USA helps keep it away... but now that the type B has almost been eliminated, the non-type Bs are increasing and are more resistant to antibiotics and cause more severe reactions.

I'm so confused. If HIB is only one of many bacteria that can cause the infections that we're trying to avoid, but there are no vaccines for the other bacteria, why create one for HIB?

And if there are now all these other more dangerous non-type B forms, why should I/would I even consider the HIB vaccine?
post #2 of 15
The vaccine was created for the most common strains, or the strainsthatcaused most of the disease. As that picture changes I would expect they work to adapt and adjust the vaccine as necessary.
post #3 of 15

google serotype replacement. 

post #4 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

google serotype replacement. 

 

It's discussed in the (well referenced) wikipedia article about PCV.

 

Basically a "serotype" is one of the versions of bacteria which cause pneumoccal disease. And serotype replacement refers to the most common types of bacteria causing these diseases shifting away from the strains in the vaccination. 

 

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

 

From that (go to link to see references):

 

 

 

Quote:
The original 7-valent formulation [of prevnar] contains serotypes 4,6B,9V,14,18C,19F, and 23F, and results in a 98% probability of protection against these strains, which caused 80% of the pneumococcal disease in infants in the US. In 2010, Pfizer introduced Prevnar 13 which contains six additional strains (i.e., 1, 3, 5, 6A, 19A and 7F), which protect against the majority of the remaining pneumococcal infections

 

 

 

 

Quote:
While an overall decline in invasive pneumococcal disease is well documented, concerns have been raised regarding a potential increase in the rate of infections caused by serotypes not covered in the vaccine. Recent data suggest that serotype replacement is increasing (1.61- and 1.28-fold increase in children and adults) but remains minimal when compared to the significant reduction observed in the burden of this vaccine-preventable disease.

 

 

 It seems to me this could be a natural result of a successfull vaccination program. If the serotypes in prevnar (and now prevnar 13) are becoming less common because of vaccination, then while overall rates of pneumoccocal go down you would still see a proportional increase in cases caused by serotypes not in the vaccine. 

 

 Is it something more than this? 

post #5 of 15

In my opinion, Serotype replacement is like playing Russian Roulette, since more invasive germs could take over as it has been observed with the pneumococcal vaccine. Our bodies are covered inside out with over 100 trillion bacteria alone. To upset this highly vulnerable system of checks and balances by eradicating certain types just because they may be harmful under certain circumstances, seems to be inviting disaster sooner or later. Or are there just going to be more vaccines added to the schedule until the human body is germ free?

post #6 of 15
Wikipedia is not a real source and shouldn't be used as such. I could submit an entry about owning a unicorn with a top hat and it would be a published on Wikipedia. Content comes from users, who may or may not have an agenda and who may or may not have the right info. An alternate source is needed for an argument to have any credibility.
post #7 of 15
And if you submitted an article about said unicorn it would be corrected very quickly. And if you've never contributed there before it would probably not be published. Studies show Wikipedia is as accurate or more accurate as a print encyclopedia.

The Wikipedia article is far better referenced than half the stuff about vaccines out there. If you have a correction to make let's hear it, but attacking something just because it came from Wikipedia is so ten years ago.
post #8 of 15

Other studies have shown that Wikepeia is not accurate.  Even on the undegrad  level siting Wikepedia will get you an F

post #9 of 15
Yes. Wikipedia should not be used in formal writing or research settings. Nor should any other encyclopedia, they're not primary sources. That's not so much the setting we're in here, though.

Seriously, when people are citing natural news, Wikipedia is the one folks are going to complain about? Really?

If the information is incorrect, correct it. Otherwise, get over it.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Attacking something just because it came from Wikipedia is so ten years ago.


Did an adult write that sentence? Seriously.
post #11 of 15
Ok, no sense of humor, check.
post #12 of 15
Oh, I have a sense of humor. That's just not funny.
post #13 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

It's discussed in the (well referenced) wikipedia article about PCV.

 

Basically a "serotype" is one of the versions of bacteria which cause pneumoccal disease. And serotype replacement refers to the most common types of bacteria causing these diseases shifting away from the strains in the vaccination. 

 

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

 

From that (go to link to see references):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 It seems to me this could be a natural result of a successfull vaccination program. If the serotypes in prevnar (and now prevnar 13) are becoming less common because of vaccination, then while overall rates of pneumoccocal go down you would still see a proportional increase in cases caused by serotypes not in the vaccine. 

 

 Is it something more than this? 

 

And then wouldn't there be a "need" to create more vaccines?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post

In my opinion, Serotype replacement is like playing Russian Roulette, since more invasive germs could take over as it has been observed with the pneumococcal vaccine. Our bodies are covered inside out with over 100 trillion bacteria alone. To upset this highly vulnerable system of checks and balances by eradicating certain types just because they may be harmful under certain circumstances, seems to be inviting disaster sooner or later. Or are there just going to be more vaccines added to the schedule until the human body is germ free?

 

That's what I'm wondering... when does it end? 

post #14 of 15

I think that's one of the major dividing points between the pro-vax folks and the anti-vax folks: on the one hand, the pro-vax folks say that we will just develop new vaccines to the new strains, while the anti-vax folks say, it's kind of like an arms race, in which the vaccines are chasing quickly evolving organisms and in the mean time causing super bugs to develop, not to mention weakening our immune systems by messing with the way we develop immunity to viruses and bacteria. The flu vaccine doesn't seem to have resulted in eradicating the flu, and in some studies seems to have made it all the more virulent. 

post #15 of 15
Except most of what we vaccinate before ISN'T rapidly evolving.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › HIB and The Vaccine Book