90% convinced to not vaccinate - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 38 Old 05-25-2012, 12:34 AM - Thread Starter
 
sonflawah's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm 90% convinced to not vaccinate my 4 month old dd. Hepititis B, polio, and chickenpox were easy decisions to make. I am, however, questioning my decision about Hib and DTaP, but leaning towards not giving them. I just don't want to enter into this no vaccination decision lightly. I want to be well informed about each vaccine and look at each one separately.

 

Specifically, what scares me about Hib is that meningitis can be pretty severe, and that makes me want to consider the vaccine. I am also afraid of pertussis, being since there are several outbreaks in my state. Tetanus also scares me because of the fatality rate if it is caught. Diphtheria, eh, not worried about it.

 

What reasons should I not consent to the Hib or DTaP vaccines? I keep going back and forth, looking to solidify my decision.

sonflawah is offline  
#2 of 38 Old 05-25-2012, 07:41 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

Breastfeeding decreases the risk of Hib infection. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/2/443.abstract I'm sure there are other studies, but this was the first one I saw when I Googled it.

 

It's common for fully vaccinated children to get pertussis. The vaccine does not work well. In babies over 6 months old, pertussis is not dangerous. All 10 babies who died a few years ago in the California outbreak were under 3 months old. Conventional medicine does not have a good treatment for pertussis, but natural medicine does--high doses of sodium ascorbate (a type of vitamin C that you can get at a health food store or online).

 

Tetanus is extremely rare in the U.S.--about 30 cases per year, mostly in people over 40 years and heroin users. It has a 90% survival rate.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/tetanus.html

ma2two is offline  
#3 of 38 Old 05-25-2012, 10:39 PM
 
LoveOurBabies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In an Australian kitchen
Posts: 620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Your baby is getting close to the age where pertussis is not dangerous - 6 months. Until then, keep your bub out of crowded areas and do not let anyone who is sick near your daughter (as the initial stage looks like a normal cold). Like a PP mentioned, all the babies that died were under 3 months old.

If you look up sodium ascorbate and pertussis, you will find very handy information on how to treat it. Some homeopathic remedies are also successful (alongside the ascorbate). Also ensure your dd has adequate vitamin A natural, not synthetic) as this helps the cilia to regenerate (the destruction of the cilia by bordetella pertussis is what causes the characteristic cough).


Me: DH:

Our babies: Our researcher Our comedian Our boundless energy Our streaker Our cuddly bear
LoveOurBabies is offline  
#4 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 02:35 AM
 
katt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Great NorthWest
Posts: 3,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

most of the cases of Pertussis in WA state are people who have been vaccinated.  fyi

That vax is not very effective at all.

member234098 likes this.
katt is offline  
#5 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 03:36 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

and also those babies that died, i believe some if not all, were not diagnosed in  a timely manner...if they had been, they might have lived.  And who knows what other immune taxing things were done to their bodies while in the hospital, which could have been the culprit as to why they came down with it in the first place, and couldn't fight if off...of course, an accurate diagnosis would have helped. 

member234098 likes this.
emmy526 is offline  
#6 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 04:30 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The pertussis vaccine is 59-85% effective. Studies show vaccinated children are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis than non vaccinated children.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#7 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 04:59 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Which studies, and were they funded, designed, interpreted, and marketed by vaccine manufacturers or by groups funded by vaccine manufacturers? Since financial conflict of interest has resulted in unethical decisions (including lies) from the same companies with other products, resulting in deaths and fines, it is a valid concern.
Taximom5 is online now  
#8 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 05:12 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Here is one. http://xnet.kp.org/newscenter/pressreleases/nat/2009/052609immunization.html

I'm not here to debate it, I respect that this is the non vaccinating forum, I just wanted to provide some info help answer the mamas question. She can conclude from it what she wants.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 08:33 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)

Thanks for the link, Rrrrrachel. So Kaiser Permanente did that particular study.

Taximom5 is online now  
#10 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 08:35 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't think so. I think it's just a story about it on their website. It says who paid for it but now I can't remember.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#11 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 08:36 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
N/m, it does call it "a kaiser permanente" study.

Re funding: "Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, this is the first study to use electronic health records to look for immunization refusal and possible pertussis infections, making it the most definitive on the risk of vaccine refusal to date."
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#12 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 10:08 AM
 
LoveOurBabies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In an Australian kitchen
Posts: 620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The pertussis vaccine is 59-85% effective. Studies show vaccinated children are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis than non vaccinated children.

 

I'd also like to point out that some non-vaxxed kids don't contract Pertussis even when directly exposed to it for hours at a time (like my dc). The 9-23 times more likely if you are non vaxxed did not hold up to our experience. On the other hand, the child who had Pertussis was vaccinated. The child was not on antibiotics (or had recently completed the 5-10 day course) when the exposure occured. This was prior to diagnosis and PCR testing.

The fact that my dc did not contract Pertussis is not something to scoff at. After all, they were 9 times (at the bare minimum) more likely to contract it. 9 times! This isn't double the chance or triple the chance, this is 9 times the chance. That's a huge starting point.

 

Based on our experience, should I now safely state that every non-vaxxed person is very unlikely to contract Pertussis, while being vaccinated against it means you most likely will contract it? No, certainly not. The only statement I will make, is that it was just a random occurence like any other. You're probably wondering what my point is at this stage. Here it is: Just because vaccination is 59-85% effective in it's protection, doesn't mean you will fall into that group during an outbreak. It doesn't mean you will be the one who will be 9-23 times less likely to contract it. I would hate for a parent to rely on this statement and believe that they most likely will be covered. Because they very well may not be. We can tell from my own experience and the bolded portion of your post, most likely and least likely don't mean a damn thing in the end.

 

Now, please don't get me wrong - I am not intending to be snarky. I believe that each person should have a proper feel for what they could be in for and not just assume they will always be on the safe side of probability if they do x, y and z. This goes for vaxxers and non vaxxers alike. The amount of people I have known that take their newborn or infant out to crowded areas (where Pertussis often lurks) just because their baby has had 1 or 2 dTaP shots, is astounding. They naively believe their child is protected, without being aware that the vaccine doesn't offer full protection and even if it did happen to - You need to have completed the course of three injections to be offered this potential luxury. These people (and their child) would be better off having little faith in said vaccine and keeping their baby at home until the age where Pertussis is not as dangerous (6+ months), passes.


Me: DH:

Our babies: Our researcher Our comedian Our boundless energy Our streaker Our cuddly bear
LoveOurBabies is offline  
#13 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 10:12 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

N/m, it does call it "a kaiser permanente" study.
Re funding: "Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, this is the first study to use electronic health records to look for immunization refusal and possible pertussis infections, making it the most definitive on the risk of vaccine refusal to date."

 So it's funded by NIH, since NIAID is a division of NIH?  Does that mean it's funded by our tax dollars, by pharma grants, or both?

Taximom5 is online now  
#14 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 10:21 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Love, you are correct that probabilities tell us what will happen in general, they do not give you any assurances what will happen to a particular child, thanks for pointing that out. If a coin lands heads five times in a row we know we have some tails coming, but the probability on the next flip is still fifty fifty!

Taxi, I think it means tax dollars, you can find out more about niaid funding here.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/paybud/pages/default.aspx
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#15 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 11:45 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

DaPT.

 

Tetanus: tetanus is dangerous, but it is incrediably rare.  Here is a stat from this mainstream site  

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/25657

 

 

"Overall, however, incidence of the disease remained low -- at 0.10 per 1 million population overall, and at 0.23 among those ages 65 and up."

 

I have no doubt in my mind that the likelihood of getting in a car accident on the way to get the shot is higher than getting tetanus.  

 

Knowing a bit about tetanus may put your mind at ease.

 

The likelihood of getting tetanus if proper wound management occurs make a very unlikely possibility even lower.    Wounds should be encouraged to bleed, and should be cleaned properly.  A deep puncture wound from the outdoors (soil and fecal matter are a source of tetanus) might necessitate a trip to the ER for wound care and possible immunoglobulin - but that is pretty unlikely. 

 

Pertussis.  Ah pertussis.  Perhaps the most controversial vaccine.  Pertussis is not fun for anyone and dangerous for infants.  In some ways by the time one gets three vaccines under ones belt (DPT at 2, 4 and 6 months) , one is out of the very dangerous period. I would be very curious to see how much immunity is given after one, two and three shots.  

 

Pertussis is a lousy vaccine, IMHO.   It is no where near as effective as other vaccines, the disease might be mutating, it takes numerous shots and boosters  to achieve its lousy effectiveness rate. dizzy.gif.

 

Would I give a pertussis vaccine to an infant?  Maybe - but only if there was huge outbreak going on while my child was an infant.  I am more likely to cocoon my family in the event of an outbreak - I would try and make sure the immediate caregivers of an infant were protected against pertussis.  The infant would not being going out to the mall and on public transportation.  Yes, this is a PITA, but infants are not infants forever.  I would also get a DPT shot for myself to make sure the person the baby sees most does not make her ill.  I think it is less risky for me to get a shot than an infant.  I do not think cocooning works on the wide scale, but in a epidemic if you have an infant it may be wise.

 

Sorry, no info on Hib, I know very little about it.  I do know there are several ways to get menningits and HIb only protects from one or some of the ways.  

purslaine is offline  
#16 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 11:56 AM
 
LoveOurBabies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In an Australian kitchen
Posts: 620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

I am more likely to cocoon my family in the event of an outbreak - I would try and make sure the immediate caregivers of an infant were protected against pertussis.  The infant would not being going out to the mall and on public transportation.  Yes, this is a PITA, but infants are not infants forever.  I would also get a DPT shot for myself to make sure the person the baby sees most does not make her ill.  I think it is less risky for me to get a shot than an infant.  I do not think cocooning works on the wide scale, but in a epidemic if you have an infant it may be wise.

 

Thank you. I am glad someone else said this!

 

I am currently cocooning - 9 weeks and counting. Major pain in the behind and I'm going a little stir crazy, but I would rather this than the possibility of a far more depressing reality.

 

My personal belief is that every parent should aim to cocoon, vaxxing or not.


Me: DH:

Our babies: Our researcher Our comedian Our boundless energy Our streaker Our cuddly bear
LoveOurBabies is offline  
#17 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 12:29 PM - Thread Starter
 
sonflawah's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thanks for all the information. I am breastfeeding and she doesn't go to daycare, so I think that reduces some of the risks of exposure and ups her immune system.

 

Because of pertussis, I am cocooning right now. Never heard of that term before, but it describes what I'm doing. I sometimes worry about my husband coming home from work with pertussis since he works at a warehouse store where a lot of people shop. I also worry about coming home from the grocery store myself with it, which is the only place we go. We aren't vaccinated against it. I didn't know that the major risk of death ended at 6 months. We are almost there, and if the vaccine is ineffective anyway, even if I decided to vax with the DTaP, she wouldn't receive all 3 doses by then... so I can see it is rather pointless. Any statistics on the risks of pertussis after 6 months?

 

I have pretty much decided to not vaccinate now, well, 97% sure. :)

 

I wonder if things will change when I have more LOs and possibly one in school and a newborn at home.

sonflawah is offline  
#18 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 01:08 PM
 
Monkeygrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 842
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My 9yo contracted pertussis at 6mo. We were grilled on where we had been, etc, which was only to the grocery stores then home again. *shrug*

 

My son also has epilepsy. One of the risks of DTaP is seizures. I do not want to imagine how much worse his epilepsy would be if I had chosen to vaccinate him. 

 

I choose not to be afraid of any of the illness/diseases that vaccines are supposed to protect against. I would rather something happen and know they lived a full life up to that point, then to vaccinate and risk them losing their life potential at that moment. It's just not worth it to me. I have to be able to look myself in the mirror every day - not vaccinating is one way I make sure I can do that. 

shiningpearl and BeckyBird like this.

Homeschooling Ama to boys (ages 10 and 6) and my SoldierGirl who is serving in the US Army, StepMom to three crazy teens. I'm married to the love of my life. 

 

Love is an action word. 

Words have power...use them wisely.

Who you are is just enough.

Molon Labe

Monkeygrrl is offline  
#19 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 01:25 PM
 
rik8144's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I thought this site was very interesting when it came to looking at how many cases of diseases were reported. As we all know there are probably hundreds NOT reported, but still a handy little tool none the less. 

 

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/timeseries/TSincidenceByCountry.cfm?C=USA


Rikki ~~ Married Aug 04 ~~ DD Feb 06 ~~ DS Oct 07 ~~ DD April 12

rik8144 is offline  
#20 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 06:02 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonflawah View Post

 

 

Because of pertussis, I am cocooning right now. Never heard of that term before, but it describes what I'm doing.

My understanding is that the term "cocooning," in the context of disease outbreaks, is used to describe vaccinating all people who might be in contact with an infant who is too young to be vaccinated.

 

I'm not saying I agree with it (I certainly don't for pertussis, because the vaccine does NOT prevent vaccinated people from carrying and spreading the disease anyway), I'm just providing the context and usage of the term.

Taximom5 is online now  
#21 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 06:17 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Except even if a vaccinated person carries the bacteria they most likely aren't sick with a cough or are sick with a very mild one so they aren't nearly as likely to spread the disease. Cocooning certainly doesn't guarantee an a symptomatic person won't give your child pertussis, but it can help improve the odds!
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#22 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 07:17 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Except even if a vaccinated person carries the bacteria they most likely aren't sick with a cough or are sick with a very mild one so they aren't nearly as likely to spread the disease.

 

If they have a mild cough, they probably go about their normal lives, maybe even visiting friends with babies, whereas a person with the full symptoms of pertussis would not.

ma2two is offline  
#23 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 11:09 PM
Banned
 
Louisw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I have been riding the "vaccination" merry go around for several decades and am 100% convinced it is all one great deadly scam. The "vaccines" do not prevent their target disease and are EXTREMELY toxic to your children.

 

Yes I know this is an "extreme" position but after thousands of hours of study I feel very confident in making it.

 

For YOU there is no other way but to become INFORMED about "vaccination".

 

Most rational countries DELAY most "vaccination" beyond the first two years of brain development; FOUR is better.

 

Here is one of the great problems with "vaccination"; it is only ONE of MANY.

 

"All vaccines given over a short period of time to an immature immune system deplete the thymus gland (the primary gland involved in immune reactions) of irreplaceable immature immune cells. Each of these cells could have multiplied and developed into an army of valuable cells to combat infection and growth of abnormal cells. When these immune cells have been used up, permanent immunity may not appear. The Arthur Research Foundation in Tucson, Arizona estimates that up to 60 % of our immune system may be exhausted[19] by multiple mass vaccines (36 are now required for children). Only 10 % of immune cells are permanently lost when a child is permitted to develop natural immunity from disease. There needs to be grave concern about these immune system injuring vaccinations! Could the persons who approve these mass vaccinations know that they are impairing the health of these children, many of whom are being doomed to requiring much medical care in the future?"   Is the "vaccination" needle a weapon of mass destruction

Louisw is offline  
#24 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 11:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
sonflawah's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Wow, so what I'm getting is not only are there risks to the pertussis vaccine, there are actually no proven benefits?? I forget who posted the link to the cases of pertussis, but there seems to be an awful lot of cases if the shot worked.

 

I guess I misunderstood cocooning, I thought it to mean keeping the baby away from sick people...

sonflawah is offline  
#25 of 38 Old 05-26-2012, 11:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
sonflawah's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Wow, so what I'm getting is not only are there risks to the pertussis vaccine, there are actually no proven benefits?? I forget who posted the link to the cases of pertussis, but there seems to be an awful lot of cases if the shot worked.

 

I guess I misunderstood cocooning, I thought it to mean keeping the baby away from sick people...

sonflawah is offline  
#26 of 38 Old 05-27-2012, 04:07 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/167931/a-collection-of-mainstream-news-reports-and-studies-exploding-the-whooping-cough-vaccine-myth

Quote:
A collection of mainstream news reports and studies exploding the whooping cough vaccine myth
 

 

Pertussis Epidemic Scam Threatens Children

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/pertussis-epidemic-scam-threatens-children

 

Whooping Cough and Pesticide Programs
California Counties 2010

http://harpub.co.cc/whoop/

BeckyBird likes this.
emmy526 is offline  
#27 of 38 Old 05-27-2012, 07:17 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonflawah View Post

Wow, so what I'm getting is not only are there risks to the pertussis vaccine, there are actually no proven benefits?? I forget who posted the link to the cases of pertussis, but there seems to be an awful lot of cases if the shot worked.

 

I guess I misunderstood cocooning, I thought it to mean keeping the baby away from sick people...

 

 

 

Definition of cocooning:

http://www.preventpertussis.org/provider/

 

I don't think that is entirely how we have been using the word in this thread - but the intent is still the same.  Cocooning as defined by the CDC sets out to reduce risk by making sure those who care for baby are vaccinated.  On this thread we have discussed limiting the number of people who see baby to reduce risk.  The two are not exclusive - one can choose to get a booster for themselves while still limiting excursion where the masses are in close contact.  

 

 

Look at it this way:  

 

The baby sees or is in close contact with  only 2 people a day (mother and father for this example).  The baby might go for a walk or hang  out in the back yard, but is generally kept at a distance from people   (this article say drops spread through coughing travel 3 feet).  The baby really only has 2 sources of exposure  - the parents.  One may be able to reduce the risk further if the parents get a booster shot.

 

http://childrenshospital.org/clinicalservices/Site1863/Documents/What%20You%20Should%20Know%20about%20Germs.pdf

 

OTOH, a baby is brought out wherever.  Baby might go to the mall, festivals, ride on public transit, daycare, etc.  There are countless number of  transmission routes for pertussis and way more risk of exposure.  I think wandering around with an infant in a severe pertussis outbreak is not an overly safe activity.  

 

The question that remains  (for me ) is this:

 

When we say pertussis is 59-85 percent effective, what does that mean?  Does it mean 70% (ex) will not get the disease if exposed to it?  Does it mean some may get it - but it will be milder (which is of limited value for family members in regard to spreading the disease as they are in very close contact with the family).  What is the breakdown on getting a mild case versus not getting it at all for vaxxed adults?

 

I think limiting a babies outings is a good idea no matter what in a serious outbreak, but what effectiveness rate means might influence whether or not the parents choose to get a booster for themselves.  

 

Off to figure out exactly what they mean by effectiveness rate when they discuss pertussis!

 

Anyone know and have links?

purslaine is offline  
#28 of 38 Old 05-27-2012, 07:34 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

OP:

 

Here is a great link for you (or any lurkers) on pertussis.

 

http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Whooping-Cough.aspx

purslaine is offline  
#29 of 38 Old 05-28-2012, 10:53 AM
 
nukuspot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cocooning how the CDC describes it means making sure all adults and older kids who come into contact with an infant are vaccinated against pertussis. Now that also means basically that you don't take the baby to public places either since the vaccination status of each person is unknown. We plan on doing cocooning when our new baby is born in Sept. I call it "cocooning with a hole" since I am not going to vax my other 3 y/o daughter and she will be attending two day a week preschool. But every adult that comes to isot either must have TDaP or a history of recent (last 5 years) naturally acquired pertussis with a titer to prove it. And we will take turns leaving the house to go to the store, take DD to school, etc. it's going to be boring for sure, but I've really looked at all the risks and benefits and in my heart this seems like the best way I personally can go. Sure the Tdap is not 100% but I have no issues with fully grown consenting adults with no history of vaccine reactions getting it as added insurance. My DH and parents have already gotten it. (And a few weeks later my DHs workmate got pertussis! He's been out of work for months. DH did not get it. So i at least think the tiny percentage of effecacy of the vax might for sure been in his favor there.) As for me, had pertussis 4 years ago so I got a titer to make sure I am still immune. Anyway, I know for "perfect" cocooning I would be getting my other child her DTaP series. But after researching it very very extensively I found that 1.). It is a misconception that 3 doses is the base series. 3 is the base for D and T but for pertussis 4 is considered the base series. Only then do kids have the (poor) 56-80% immunity. There have been no studies throwing kids have a percentage of immunity from each shot. It could be assumed but without proof it's not fair to bet on it. So I'd have to give my DD 4 doses of DTaP to even give her minimal protection. There is not enough time to adequately space them before the new baby is born, as well as I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks of the vaccine.

Now tetanus, that's a different story. The vax is 98% effective after 2-3 doses. If there was a thimerasol free single tetanus vaccine I would do it in a minute....But it doesn't exist so again, all the risks and benefits have to be weighed again...

Midwife mama bellycast.gif to DD1 bouncy.gif (4.5) and DD2 h20homebirth.gif (1.5)
nukuspot is offline  
#30 of 38 Old 06-15-2012, 09:07 PM
Banned
 
Louisw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

When we say pertussis is 59-85 percent effective, what does that mean?  Does it mean 70% (ex) will not get the disease if exposed to it?  Does it mean some may get it - but it will be milder (which is of limited value for family members in regard to spreading the disease as they are in very close contact with the family).  What is the breakdown on getting a mild case versus not getting it at all for vaxxed adults?

 

It is all black magic Kathy. During flu season when you get sniffles 86% of the time it is NOT from the "seasonal flu" but one of the viruses you carry in your body year around. Whatever virus(es) was the cause of your sniffles the CDC nor anyone else knows. How can something this nebulous even be investigated on a mass basis. Smoke and mirrors; just another reason to get a needle into your arm and some mercury into your body.

 

Vitamin D can solve all your viral problems.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm.

Louisw is offline  
Reply

Tags
Vaccinations

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off