or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccinating pregnant women "halves the risk of pertussis in infants' first four months" - A critique by Dr Suzanne Humphries
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccinating pregnant women "halves the risk of pertussis in infants' first four months" - A... - Page 2

post #21 of 83
Here's an interesting bit on OAS and the flu vaccine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120817092509.htm

It really is an interesting topic.
post #22 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Here's an interesting bit on OAS and the flu vaccine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120817092509.htm

It really is an interesting topic.

did YOU read it? or just paste it quickly? 

 

within 5 mins you posted another link, RIGHT AFTER Mirzam's ROTFLMAO.gif yet you had time to read this one, not the other one you posted?

 

copy-paste-copy-paste


Edited by serenbat - 3/23/13 at 5:21pm
post #23 of 83
Huh? Yes, I read them both. I posted them an hour and a half apart. What are you talking about?
post #24 of 83
Mirzam - do I interpret correctly from your comments about original antigenic sin that you do not believe the pertussis vaccine does anything to prevent pertussis? How do you then explain that vaccinated children are less likely to catch pertussis? Is that your inconvenient truth?
post #25 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Mirzam - do I interpret correctly from your comments about original antigenic sin that you do not believe the pertussis vaccine does anything to prevent pertussis? How do you then explain that vaccinated children are less likely to catch pertussis? Is that your inconvenient truth?

 

You can interpret in whatever way chose given your rabid, vaccine apologist bias, but that is not an inconvenient truth for me. ACT is a vital component in the immune response to natural pertussis. Nature is not a fool, and the body is innately wise and does everything for a reason. By preventing natural infection, the vaccinated population is no longer able to mount an effective immune response to pertussis, thus you get mothers who are unable to provide immunity through breastmilk to their very young infants, children with very fast waning immunity, which gets even worse after 5 doses, adults that spread disease unaware they even have it. To top that off, you have parapertussis, which the body utilizes ACT in a natural infection also. You have a strain of pertussis which is appearing to be more virulent. Add to that the vaccine is reactive and can cause harm, I would go for natural infection at the appropriate age; pre-vaccine, most children had had pertussis by age 12 with 25% of the infections asymptomatic or so mild they were forgotten. Today, we have the ability to control whooping cough with very effective vitamin C therapy - of course the pharma Cos won't want this to be general knowledge because they aren't able to control and profit from that kind of treatment.

 

The inconvenient truth is the pertussis vaccine is shite (and they know it), you are seeing outbreaks where 97% of those infected were vaccinated, some with as many as five does. You are seeing very young infants infected when they should be protected by maternal antibodies, so now pregnant mothers are being urged to vaccinate themselves with every pregnancy and have their unborn babies become part of one massive clinical trial. 

 

PCM, you are an unabashed stumper for the vaccine industry, and frankly, I don't know why I bother to justify my position with you. I try not to subject myself to the offensive pro-vax blogs and sites, so forgive me if I ignore your posts for the most part. Please feel free to vaccinate the #$!! out of yourself and your children if you so wish. But know your pro-vax rhetoric does nothing to help your cause, as can be evidenced by the reaction to your hostile takeover of the MV forum.

post #26 of 83
So you do agree that children who have had the pertussis vaccine are less likely to get pertussis. To me that's a good thing (not that you agree - I could care less about that, but that they're less likely to get whooping cough). And the 75% who catch whooping cough who do have symptoms (your statistic above which I have not fact checked) I'm sure think so too.

"The classic symptoms of pertussis are a paroxysmal cough, inspiratory whoop, and vomiting after coughing.[5] The cough from pertussis has been documented to cause subconjunctival hemorrhages, rib fractures, urinary incontinence, hernias, post-cough fainting, and vertebral artery dissection." - From Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whooping_cough

Sounds lovely. Not.

Why does the Mindful Vaccination board bother you so much? You can just stay on "I'm not vaccinating if you want to only hear opinions which agree with you.
post #27 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

So you do agree that children who have had the pertussis vaccine are less likely to get pertussis.

No, she didn't say anything of the sort. 

 

Please stop deliberately misquoting those who criticize vaccines. Such baiting tactics have no place here.  

post #28 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

No, she didn't say anything of the sort. 

Please stop deliberately misquoting those who criticize vaccines. Such baiting tactics have no place here.  

She wasn't quoting in that post, she was asking a question - quit accusing her of doing something she didn't do.
post #29 of 83
Just too tempting to edit that to:

"Please stop deliberately misquoting those who *don't criticize *all* vaccines. Such baiting tactics have no place here."

If Mirzam would like to prove that the pertussis vaccine has 0% efficacy I'd be happy to look at the proof.

Look I'm as interested on keeping things natural as the next person (well more so than most), but there just isn't any good proof that vaccines are harmful and there's lots of proof that they do good. That's what it now down to for me. And I don't like natural parenting being hijacked into an anti-vax party, when the two things are unrelated. We can get the best of both worlds and be happy with that choice (and live and let live with those who choose otherwise, but that doesn't mean leaving the entire forum to be full of the misinformation some of them post). That's what keeps me here. That's all.

Plus I'm learning a lot, which I find interesting.
post #30 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

pro"science"mum, how clear do I have to make it for you? The pertussis vaccine is a piece of crap vaccine. 

In your opinion. Not everyone shares your opinion so no need to make "your opinion" any clearer.

post #31 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post

 

In your opinion. Not everyone shares your opinion so no need to make "your opinion" any clearer.

I am free to post my opinion as I see fit, especially under a relentless barrage of baiting by pro"science"mum.

post #32 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post


She wasn't quoting in that post, she was asking a question - quit accusing her of doing something she didn't do.

Questions have question marks.  She was not asking a question.

post #33 of 83
Bicker bicker bicker
post #34 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post

In your opinion. Not everyone shares your opinion so no need to make "your opinion" any clearer.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850

 

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/aug/15/whooping-cough-vaccine-failures-increasing/

Of particular concern was the number of cases in California occurring in fully vaccinated children 7 through 10 years of age. For cases in which immunization history was known, more than 80 percent of the children in that age group diagnosed with pertussis had been fully vaccinated, according to an analysis of state data.

 

Does this mean success to you? 

post #35 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Bicker bicker bicker

How ironic of you.

post #36 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

How ironic of you.

Yeah I acknowledge that. I'm working on it.
post #37 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850

 

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/aug/15/whooping-cough-vaccine-failures-increasing/

Of particular concern was the number of cases in California occurring in fully vaccinated children 7 through 10 years of age. For cases in which immunization history was known, more than 80 percent of the children in that age group diagnosed with pertussis had been fully vaccinated, according to an analysis of state data.

 

Does this mean success to you? 

Thank you for posting this.

 

It's clear that the pertussis vaccine is inadequate.  It's also clear that even the acellular version has caused severe adverse reactions in some children, and there is increasing evidence that vaccines in general may be causing health problems, such as autoimmune disorders, that are not yet fully understood.

 

So sad to see so many people defending vaccines rather than calling for improved safety and efficacy.

post #38 of 83
No. That's not clear. At all.

I can defend current vaccines as safe and effective (less effective in the case of pertussis but still effective at reducing disease) AND advocate for them to be safER and more effective. Those positions aren't mutually exclusive.

Particularly in terms of effectiveness, I think there's a lot of research going on right now towards that end. Especially for pertussis and flu. Hopefully we see a lot of progress made on the next few years.
post #39 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

No. That's not clear. At all.
 
I can defend current vaccines as safe and effective...
 

Then I suggest that you actually read the links we post.  Perhaps it will become clear to you.

 

From Serenbat's 2nd link, above:

 

"I think 2010 was a real eye-opener,” said Dr. James Cherry, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at UCLA. “My friends at the department of public health are saying vaccine failures are a much bigger part of this and I agree with them.” (bolding mine)

 

and

 

"New studies published in prominent medical journals have called into question the 85 percent efficacy quoted in the vaccine’s package inserts. For example, one study by scientists at Kaiser Permanente found vaccine effectiveness in Marin County in 2010 to be between 24 and 79 percent for children 2 to 18."

 

This is what we have been saying all along.  The manufacturers have exaggerated the efficacy, and covered up evidence of harm, and the experts are starting to realize this.

 

And you want to defend vaccines as being safe and effective.

 

As I said before, how sad.

post #40 of 83
I agree it would be nice if the pertussis vaccine were more effective. Even 24% is still not zero though - so it still prevents some vaccinated children catching pertussis. Would be nice if it were more I absolutely agree.

I also agree that we should all be advocating for excellent vaccine safety programs and for vaccines to be as safe as possible. Like Rrrrrachel I see no inconsistency in believing they are already pretty good (and better than doing nothing) while pushing for them to be better.

But claiming the vaccine is completely worthless and our children would be better off in a world without it is just ignoring the facts.

Choose not to get it for your kids - fine. That's your choice. But you benefit from it anyway, since it does reduce pertussis rates, so it does make it less likely your kids will encounter someone with pertussis.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccinating pregnant women "halves the risk of pertussis in infants' first four months" - A critique by Dr Suzanne Humphries