90 percent of whooping cough cases in Vermont among vaccinated children - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 20 Old 10-23-2012, 06:26 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I realize this is more of the same  but I thought the graph in the article was very revealing of the lack of efficacy of the DTaP, although the article notes they have started to use a more sensitive test this year.

 

http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/08/90-percent-of-whooping-cough-cases-in-vermont-among-vaccinated-children/

 


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#2 of 20 Old 10-23-2012, 07:27 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

Want to point out again that this is a misleading statistics. 95% (or something like) of children in Vermont are vaccinated, so 90% of the cases being amongst vaccinated children demonstrates that the vaccine does make them less likely (than the 5% of the unvaccinated children who make up 10% of the cases) to catch pertussiss.

 

Yes we would like the vaccination to be more effective, but the rise in cases isn't soley down to its decreasing efficacy - to catch the disease you also have to be exposed to it, and the amount circulating has been going up (partly because of people not vaccinating, partly because of the decreasing efficacy).

 

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.  


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#3 of 20 Old 10-23-2012, 08:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Want to point out again that this is a misleading statistics. 95% (or something like) of children in Vermont are vaccinated, so 90% of the cases being amongst vaccinated children demonstrates that the vaccine does make them less likely (than the 5% of the unvaccinated children who make up 10% of the cases) to catch pertussiss.

 

Yes we would like the vaccination to be more effective, but the rise in cases isn't soley down to its decreasing efficacy - to catch the disease you also have to be exposed to it, and the amount circulating has been going up (partly because of people not vaccinating, partly because of the decreasing efficacy).

 

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.  

 

I want to point out that those vaccinated 90% were exposed to pertussis and got it. That points to epic vaccine fail. It has nothing to do with unvaccinated, as the CDC has rightly pointed out. Your argument is very weak, you actually stated in your post that roughly 95% of children are vaccinated, so if the vaccine was worth a lick and vaccine herd immunity actually exists, then the number of vaccinated getting whooping cough would be equal to or less than the unvaccinated. It is likely the most of the unvaccinated that came in contact with b. pertussis were already immune through natural infection which recent studies have shown to last between 30 and 70 years, and it has been shown up to 25% of natural infections can be non-symptomatic. Of course it comes back to Original Antigenic Sin again. 

 

ETA: I also wanted to point out that it appears the more vaccines you get the more likely you are to get whooping cough which isn't a ringing endorsement of the vaccine either.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
As of Aug. 10, there were 178 confirmed cases of pertussis in Vermont children between the ages of six months and 18 years. Of that number, 90 percent — or 160 kids — had received at least one dose of the child vaccination, while the majority had received five or six doses. According to the DOH, one child had received one or two doses, eight had received three doses, nine had received four doses, 74 had received five doses and 68 had received six doses.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#4 of 20 Old 10-23-2012, 08:47 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Want to point out again that this is a misleading statistics. 95% (or something like) of children in Vermont are vaccinated, so 90% of the cases being amongst vaccinated children demonstrates that the vaccine does make them less likely (than the 5% of the unvaccinated children who make up 10% of the cases) to catch pertussiss.

 

Yes we would like the vaccination to be more effective, but the rise in cases isn't soley down to its decreasing efficacy - to catch the disease you also have to be exposed to it, and the amount circulating has been going up (partly because of people not vaccinating, partly because of the decreasing efficacy).

 

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.  


I would like to point out that there are likely unconfirmed cases of whooping cough in vaccinated people since some doctors won't consider it in a vaccinated person, even if they would test an unvaccinated person if they presented with so much as a sniffle.  The people who are contagious but asymptomatic are probably largely vaccinated too, so it's possible that 95% of the actual infections are in the vaccinated population. 

kathymuggle likes this.
rachelsmama is offline  
#5 of 20 Old 10-23-2012, 11:34 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

I want to point out that those vaccinated 90% were exposed to pertussis and got it. That points to epic vaccine fail. 

 

Not at all as I have explained. If the vaccine were a complete failure the percentage of those getting pertussis would be the same as those who got the vaccine. It's lower, so the vaccine did help prevent pertussis in some cases. Like I said we all wish it worked better, but it's just not true to say it's a complete failure.

 

You seem to imply a vaccine can only be a success if it prevents 100% of people exposed to the disease from getting it. That's not how vaccines work, and no scientifically trained person would ever say that. They do lower the risk of you getting a disease (in some cases more effectively than others) and through this lower the amount of the disease circulating (so you're chance of being exposed to it). The combination of these two things is the real success story of vaccination in my opinion.  


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#6 of 20 Old 10-23-2012, 11:37 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

 

ETA: I also wanted to point out that it appears the more vaccines you get the more likely you are to get whooping cough which isn't a ringing endorsement of the vaccine either.

 

 

I doubt that's what those statistics show either - it's more likely pointing out the distribution of number of doses of vaccination.

 

Stopping vaccinating against pertussis will make these outbreaks worse though - and there'll be more cases in young children where it can be much more serious.  


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#7 of 20 Old 10-23-2012, 06:28 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 

 

You seem to imply a vaccine can only be a success if it prevents 100% of people exposed to the disease from getting it.

 

Is there an effectiveness rate and/or or length of immunity rate where you would go  - "no, it is not effective enough or long lasting enough for me to have my children take the risks of this vaccine."  What is that number? (ballpark is fine).

 

ETA:  I imagine this rate would vary from vaccine to vaccine, as reactiveness of vaccines varies, and the nature of diseases vary.  Answering for pertussis, which is the what the thread is about, is fine

rachelsmama likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is offline  
#8 of 20 Old 10-24-2012, 02:53 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wish dtap were more effective. I think some really smart people are working on that and I'm glad. That being said, this statistic is hugely misleading. It's comparing the wrong rates, as I've pointed out many times before. The question shouldn't be what percentage of people who got whooping cough were vaccinated, but what percentage of vaccinate people got whooping cough. The rate of whooping cough among vaccinated groups is lower than the rate of whooping cough among unvaccinated groups, even with a mediocre effectiveness rating for the vaccine.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 20 Old 10-24-2012, 03:06 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I wish dtap were more effective. I think some really smart people are working on that and I'm glad. That being said, this statistic is hugely misleading. It's comparing the wrong rates, as I've pointed out many times before. The question shouldn't be what percentage of people who got whooping cough were vaccinated, but what percentage of vaccinate people got whooping cough. The rate of whooping cough among vaccinated groups is lower than the rate of whooping cough among unvaccinated groups, even with a mediocre effectiveness rating for the vaccine.
emmy526 is online now  
#10 of 20 Old 10-24-2012, 03:15 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry, let me try again.

You have a group of 1000 people. 950 of them are vaccinated. 50 are not. They all get exposed to pertussis. Say half the vaccinated group gets pertussis (I think it's more effective than that, but it makes the math easy) and all the unvaccinated group gets it. You now have a group of 525 people with pertussis. 475, or 90% of them, were vaccinated. 50, or ten percent were not. Wow, that looks pretty bar for the vaccine! Except, the rate of pertussis among the vaccinated group was only 50% and the rate in the unvaccinated group was 100%! Despite the misleading statistic, you're half as likely to get pertussis if you're vaccinated vs not!

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#11 of 20 Old 10-24-2012, 03:23 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

And i know of families who's older vaxed kids caught it,  yet  the younger unvaxed did not contract it, or got it much milder than the older vaxed sibling....same family, same germ going around.  

emmy526 is online now  
#12 of 20 Old 10-24-2012, 03:24 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That's nice.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#13 of 20 Old 10-25-2012, 03:51 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

http://www.digtriad.com/news/article/216176/57/What-You-Need...

 

 

 

Quote:
Thursday, the Alamance County Health Department said they now have 82 confirmed cases. The Health Department also said all of those cases had previously received the pertussis vaccine.

 

 

 

Quote:
Bottom line -- local health departments stress vaccines are important. The Guilford County Health Department tells News 2 each person who gets vaccinated essentially helps build a wall around the community. The stronger the wall, the less likely infection will be able to break through.

 

Bottom line:  Get vaccinated with a useless vaccine in order to lessen everyone else's fears about whooping cough, and  buy into the theory that this vaccine will protect you, even though people who are vaccinated for it still caught it anyway. .  

Marnica likes this.
emmy526 is online now  
#14 of 20 Old 10-25-2012, 04:31 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That simply is not a meaningful statistic. When the vast majority of people are vaccinated its expected there will be numbers like that. Finding reporters who make the same mistake as you doesn't make it right.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#15 of 20 Old 10-25-2012, 04:34 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Actual studies show vaccinated people are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis than unvaccinated people. When they do get it's usually milder, less infectious, and less likely to end in hospitalization.

This is sort of a side note. There are several really interesting studies that have come out in the last year comparing pertussis in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. They have all found significant differences in the two groups, except in the 5-13 ish year old range. The thought is we need another booster before the 11-12 year old tdap.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#16 of 20 Old 10-25-2012, 04:40 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

so the health dept's stats for that outbreak are now meaningless?  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

That simply is not a meaningful statistic. When the vast majority of people are vaccinated its expected there will be numbers like that. Finding reporters who make the same mistake as you doesn't make it right.
emmy526 is online now  
#17 of 20 Old 10-25-2012, 04:45 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The statistic that "x% of people in the outbreak were vaccinated" is fairly meaningless, yes. At least, it doesn't have the meaning people are trying to give it ere, and it's being used in a very misleading way. Especially with such a small sample like 80 some people.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#18 of 20 Old 10-25-2012, 06:04 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Actual studies show vaccinated people are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis than unvaccinated people. When they do get it's usually milder, less infectious, and less likely to end in hospitalization.
 

 

Source, please.  The CDC says vaccinated people are at least 8 times less likely to get pertussis. I suspect it is 8-9 times less likely; if it was 8-23 times less likely they would sing if from the rafters wink1.gif  

 

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is offline  
#19 of 20 Old 10-25-2012, 06:14 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've cited these numbers many many times in this forum. I believe they're cited in the case for vaccination article, as well. I'm on my phone right now, but I'll try and dig them up later.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#20 of 20 Old 10-26-2012, 05:56 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,049
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Yes we would like the vaccination to be more effective, but the rise in cases isn't soley down to its decreasing efficacy - to catch the disease you also have to be exposed to it, and the amount circulating has been going up (partly because of people not vaccinating, partly because of the decreasing efficacy).

 

 

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

 

 

Quote:

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. 


In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Reply

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