Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Let's face it - the whooping cough vaccine is a flop (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1360440-let-s-face-whooping-cough-vaccine-flop.html)

Mirzam 08-12-2012 02:44 PM

2 Attachment(s)

The CDC, can't blame the non vaxers for the outbreaks, the vaccine, from the CDC Press briefing transcript on the pertussis epidemic in WA:

 

Dr Anne Schuchat, CDC director for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases:

 


"We know there are places around the country where there are large numbers of people who aren't vaccinated. However, we don't think those exemptors are driving this current wave. We think it is a bad thing that people aren't getting vaccinated or exempting, but we cannot blame this wave on that phenomenon. Next question"

 

 

Here is the full transcript:

 

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

 

 

I highly recommending reading this chapter on Whooping Cough from Hilary Butler's book, "From One Prick to Another, because the reason why adults and children are spreading pertussis is because they were vaccinated in the first place. It can be accessed as a download from this article.


ma2two 08-12-2012 06:57 PM

I've seen this before. The CDC has been admitting for awhile that pertussis outbreaks have nothing to do with unvaccinated people.

 

But I'm wondering, why is the CDC admitting that unvaccinated people aren't to blame? Is it because the evidence is so obvious, that they don't want to look like fools saying otherwise?


emmy526 08-12-2012 06:58 PM

Why is nobody studying vitamin C in whooping cough? – Conventional medicine’s hypocrisy. by Suzanne Humphries, MD

 

Why Whooping Cough Vaccine Does Not Work As Advertised

 

Whooping cough: What is it that they don't get about "fail"?

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/URItheFlu/33998

Sheridan S, et al "Number and order of whole-cell pertussis vaccines in infancy and disease protection" JAMA2012; 308: 454-456.


prosciencemum 08-13-2012 02:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

But I'm wondering, why is the CDC admitting that unvaccinated people aren't to blame? Is it because the evidence is so obvious, that they don't want to look like fools saying otherwise?

 

Or maybe they're actually telling the truth as they see it based on the evidence they've collected - maybe they are in other things too.... 


minerva23 08-13-2012 03:08 PM

What I read was that these pertussis cases are caused by B. parapertussis. The regular pertussis vaccine does not work. Wanna bet the next vaccine that comes out on the market will cover B. parapertussis as well.
 


littlec 08-13-2012 04:16 PM

I couldn't agree more. I wrote about it on another thread, but it didn't get much attention. I don't know how it hasn't been removed/revamped or something by now. Here's the evidence I collected:

 

From the CDC Pink Book:

Pertussis incidence has been gradually increasing since the early 1980s. A total of 25,827 cases was reported in 2004, the largest number since 1959. The reasons for the increase are not clear.

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

 

I'm not familiar with this site, but I read most of the links- they are just news reports discussing pertussis outbreaks among vaccinated individuals and areas with high vaccine coverage:

 

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

 

 

Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community. More studies are needed to find the immunologic basis of protection against infection and colonization and thus an effective way to eradicate pertussis.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414768_3

 

Vaccination Coverage over the last 30 years or so shows that the coverage has been high, between 94-96% since 1994:

http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=80100

 

 

Disease Rates:

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html

 

 

Year Reported Cases*
2000 7,867
2001 7,580
2002 9,771
2003 11,647
2004 25,827
2005 25,616
2006 15,632
2007 10,454
2008 13,278
2009 16,858
2010 27,550
2011** 15,216

*Total reported cases include those with unknown age.
**2011 data are provisional

 

 


Rrrrrachel 08-13-2012 04:36 PM

It makes you 9-23 times less likely to get whooping cough. What a flop.

ma2two 08-13-2012 11:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post

What I read was that these pertussis cases are caused by B. parapertussis. The regular pertussis vaccine does not work. Wanna bet the next vaccine that comes out on the market will cover B. parapertussis as well.
 

 

That's what I thought too, based on how the CDC is acting. But out of the nearly 300 new vaccines currently in development, none are for parapertussis.

http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/2251/vaccines2012.pdf


MamaMunchkin 08-14-2012 08:03 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

But I'm wondering, why is the CDC admitting that unvaccinated people aren't to blame? Is it because the evidence is so obvious, that they don't want to look like fools saying otherwise?

 

Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

Or maybe they're actually telling the truth as they see it based on the evidence they've collected - maybe they are in other things too.... 

 

CDC's statement that unvaxed aren't to blame seems to contradict the oft-repeated claim that unvaxeds put others at risk. 

 

So - which statement is true?  Or, is it only for pertusis that unvaxeds do - not - put others at risk?  Or is it something entirely different?


emmy526 08-14-2012 09:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

CDC's statement that unvaxed aren't to blame seems to contradict the oft-repeated claim that unvaxeds put others at risk. 

 

So - which statement is true?  Or, is it only for pertusis that unvaxeds do - not - put others at risk?  Or is it something entirely different?

i dont think the CDC even knows what their own stance on this issue is...it changes from week to week to fit the current disease trend in the news


Bokonon 08-14-2012 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It makes you 9-23 times less likely to get whooping cough. What a flop.

 

What year is that data from?


prosciencemum 08-15-2012 02:56 AM

This Cochrane review published in March 2012 (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001478/acellular-vaccines-for-preventing-whooping-cough-in-children) gives the efficacy of pertussiss vaccines to protect against the disease, separated into serious and mild whooping cough. Efficacy is related to how much less likely you are to get the disease if you have the vaccine than if you are unvaccinated. 

 

They say: 

 

 

 

Quote:
The efficacy of multi-component (≥ three) acellular vaccines varied from 84% to 85% in preventing typical whooping cough (characterised by 21 or more consecutive days of paroxysmal cough with confirmation of B. pertussis infection by culture, appropriate serology or contact with a household member who has culture-confirmed pertussis) and from 71% to 78% in preventing mild pertussis disease

 

Translating those percentage efficacies into how much more likely a vaccinated person is to get the disease than unvaccinated (which if you do the math is 1/(1-E/100) where E is the percent values above) I get from these numbers that a vaccinated person is 6-7 less likely to get a serious case of the disease following confirmed exposure, and 3.5-5 times less likely to get a mild version. 

 

Not exactly the same numbers as Rrrachel, but making the same point - it's not a flop, in that it will reduce your risk of catching whooping cough if you are exposed, and particularly reduces the risk of getting a serious case. Be nice if those efficacies were higher of course. 


Bokonon 08-15-2012 09:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

This Cochrane review published in March 2012 (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001478/acellular-vaccines-for-preventing-whooping-cough-in-children) gives the efficacy of pertussiss vaccines to protect against the disease, separated into serious and mild whooping cough. Efficacy is related to how much less likely you are to get the disease if you have the vaccine than if you are unvaccinated. 

 

They say: 

 

 

 

 

Translating those percentage efficacies into how much more likely a vaccinated person is to get the disease than unvaccinated (which if you do the math is 1/(1-E/100) where E is the percent values above) I get from these numbers that a vaccinated person is 6-7 less likely to get a serious case of the disease following confirmed exposure, and 3.5-5 times less likely to get a mild version. 

 

Not exactly the same numbers as Rrrachel, but making the same point - it's not a flop, in that it will reduce your risk of catching whooping cough if you are exposed, and particularly reduces the risk of getting a serious case. Be nice if those efficacies were higher of course. 

 

But the studies in that review were up to January 2012 (and I couldn't tell from the abstract what dates the data were actually from), and with concerns that the bacterium has mutated, those numbers may not be accurate.


MamaMunchkin 08-15-2012 01:28 PM

Flop or not, the bottomline is their expectation is off and they don't know why yet.


minerva23 08-15-2012 02:50 PM

Sanofi Pasteur is one of two pharmaceutical companies that supply pertussis vaccines to the U.S. In an email the company said it has new pertussis vaccines in late-stage clinical trials, some of which are being studied for use in the U.S. Sanofi also maintains that as a class, its pertussis vaccines are 80 to 85 percent effective.

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

 

What do you know!

 

So in this article they are actually aiming for yet another booster shot (No. 7). If a little is good, more is better - or what!  I am just wondering because pertussis is always combined with tetanus and diphtheria. I have read that one can get overdosed/ overvaccinated with the tetanus component. Does anybody here know of such thing or can provide further data for me. That would be nice.
 


jupitermama 08-15-2012 09:08 PM

I had to take a vaccine class for work and remember learning about arthus type reactions after a tetanus shot, it is associated with receiving too many tetanus boosters in too short a time. If you google arthus reactions after tetanus shot you get a lot of links, mainly to provaccine sites. Of course say all say this phemomenon is "rare." eyesroll.gif

littlec 08-15-2012 09:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It makes you 9-23 times less likely to get whooping cough. What a flop.

 

I'm sorry, but with all the figures I posted, I cannot wrap my mind around how anyone can believe it works. You can look at studies that tout the efficacy, but you can also look around you. The disease rates are going up, not down, all while vaccine rates are increasing. I do not believe that all vaccines do not work- I think they carry a lot more risk than it appears, but I don't think as a whole they do not do their job...but yes, Rachel, the whooping cough vaccine IS a flop, or the components of pertussis have changed, something. Otherwise, there would be less people getting it, not more. Read those newspaper articles I linked...outbreaks in areas with nearly 100% vaccination coverage.

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

 

SAN DIEGO — A KPBS investigation has raised questions about how effective the whooping cough vaccine is in preventing people from getting sick. Nearly two out of three people diagnosed with whooping cough in San Diego County this year, were fully immunized....

KPBS examined data from San Diego County’s Health and Human Services Agency. Of the 332 confirmed cases of whooping cough in the county so far this year, 197 of the people who got sick were up to date with their immunizations. That's nearly 2 out of 3 cases.

 

 

If I told you I had a cure for the common cold, and people took my medicine, yet still had colds....would you not think I was wrong, no matter what the studies said?


lovebeingamomma 08-16-2012 09:06 AM

Interesting, an article that doesn't outright blame non-vaxer's.  

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/08/16/why-whooping-cough-is-back/


Mirzam 08-16-2012 09:30 AM

2 Attachment(s)

Another commentary on the pertussis situation:

 

Whooping Cough: Under-Diagnosed or Coming Back? Here are the Facts


minerva23 08-16-2012 12:53 PM

In fact an interesting article can be found in ‘Emerging Infections Diseases Vol. 6, No. 5, September-October 2000,’ that states that recently vaccinated adults can infect unprotected infants.
via.pngWV Outpost (http://s.tt/1cno9)

Mirzam 08-16-2012 04:27 PM

2 Attachment(s)

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization 

 

 

 

Quote:
Despite widespread vaccination, whooping cough incidence is on the rise worldwide, making it the only vaccine-preventable disease associated with increasing deaths in the United States. Although this disease is most often attributed to Bordetella pertussis infection, it is also caused by the closely related pathogen, B. parapertussis. However, B. pertussis has remained the center of attention, whereas B. parapertussishas been greatly overlooked in the development of whooping cough vaccines.

MamaMunchkin 08-16-2012 08:29 PM

 

One vax begets another. 

 

It reminds me when one takes a medication, and sometimes has to take a few others to deal with the side effects of the first one - granted there's usually a need for the first one. 

 

For a given vax, sometimes the issue is not only of safety but also of its necessity.  

 

As an aside, for Hib, aren't there 6 distinct types and the vax is only for type b? I wonder how the different types interact, if at all - could something similar happen, or not?  Also, Gardasil - it targets only some types of HPV, doesn't it?


minerva23 08-17-2012 05:20 AM

So we all know what is going to happen should big pharma produce a vaccine containing both B. pertussis and B. parapertussis. Instead of these two another maybe more serious pathogen will colonize the vaccated space. Nature is bound to do so. So with all these vaccines we are just going to make matters worth and not any better. But humans just have to be so stubborn. Observe and learn and do not try to fit it in with your own theory. (see Pasteur, Koch etc.)
 


emmy526 08-18-2012 06:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

One vax begets another. 

 

It reminds me when one takes a medication, and sometimes has to take a few others to deal with the side effects of the first one - granted there's usually a need for the first one. 

 

For a given vax, sometimes the issue is not only of safety but also of its necessity.  

 

As an aside, for Hib, aren't there 6 distinct types and the vax is only for type b? I wonder how the different types interact, if at all - could something similar happen, or not?  Also, Gardasil - it targets only some types of HPV, doesn't it?

yes gardasil only covers 4 strains


Mirzam 08-19-2012 11:15 AM

2 Attachment(s)

Whooping cough and chameleons

 

 

 

Quote:
I can tell you now and so can whole generations who had whooping cough naturally..., that natural immunity to whooping cough lasts a WHOLE lot longer than immunity from EITHER the whole cell or acellular vaccine does. There are many medical articles which confirm that.  I can also tell you now, that the majority of carriers are VACCINATED people whose immunity to whooping cough is dysfunctional, because of “original antigenic sin” – a situation where the doctor-induced immunity doesn’t prevent either carriage or reinfection. 
 

canadianhippie 08-25-2012 02:49 PM

This is what I've been thinking! 

 

I have a newborn on the way and a 3 yr old, and thought oh gosh, theres pertussis outbreaks all over Canada right now....I know how i feel about vaccines, but should I? 

 

Then I saw the link on the mothering page for the pertussis video (the link didnt work) however i was googling a bit, and thought the same thing

 

Well, if the vaccine works, why is there an outbreak? Because of all us "crazy jenny mccarthy reading nuts" dont vaccinate? I know we got some numbers behind us, but theres not that many of us 

 

I notice when we watch American channels (like cbs, etc) there are SO many vaccine and med advertisements, it is not like that on regular canadian tv at all. I saw one for the chicken pox today, with this old guy saying how painful shingles can be, its like an Apple iphone ads

 

"There's a vaccine for that"

 

I would never ever trust pharmaceutical companies for reliability, safety or truth


kathymuggle 08-25-2012 03:49 PM

Hey CanadianHippie,

 

I found this online that might interest you:

http://www.oahpp.ca/resources/documents/presentations/2012aug10/Pertussis%20webinar%20-%2008.10.12%20Final.pdf

 

It looks like there are projected to be 6 cases of confirmed pertussis in Ontario this year per 100 000 population.  1 in 16 000.  Pg. 9.

It also looks like there was a change in 2009 to include probable cases in statistics.  Hmmmmm…..

 

This site says there were 277 cases of whooping cough last year.  12 million (population of Ontario) divided by 277 is about 1 in 43 000

 

1 in 16 000  to 1 in 43 000 is not nothing - but the way the media goes on, you would think pertussis was everywhere…...

 

good luck deciding,

 

kathy


minerva23 09-09-2012 10:38 AM

http://www.cbs8.com/story/19479083/2-whooping-cough-cases-reported-at-san-diego-county-schools

 

 

I find it interesting that one of the commentors wants to vaccinate everybody each year with the whooping cough vaccine. But isn't it always combined with TD? So I am just wondering what the result of overvaccinating esp. for Tetanus would be? Any input here please


Bokonon 09-09-2012 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post

http://www.cbs8.com/story/19479083/2-whooping-cough-cases-reported-at-san-diego-county-schools

 

 

I find it interesting that one of the commentors wants to vaccinate everybody each year with the whooping cough vaccine. But isn't it always combined with TD? So I am just wondering what the result of overvaccinating esp. for Tetanus would be? Any input here please

 

I love this:

 

"Both students were up-to-date on immunizations.

County health officials urge all parents to get their children vaccinated."

 

Makes total sense.


minerva23 09-09-2012 01:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

I love this:

 

"Both students were up-to-date on immunizations.

County health officials urge all parents to get their children vaccinated."

 

Makes total sense.


Makes sense when you want to contract whooping cough



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.