New study confirms unvaccinated children are at higher risk of contracting whooping cough - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 06:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
"For the study, Glanz's team looked at cases of pertussis among children born between 2004 and 2008 and seen at eight managed care organizations. They identified 72 cases of pertussis and matched them with 288 similar children who didn't have the disease.

Of 72 children with pertussis, 34 (about 47 percent) had not gotten the recommended four doses of the DTaP vaccine -- compared with 64 (about 22 percent) of the children who didn't have the disease.

Children who weren't fully vaccinated for three or four doses of DTaP were about 18 and 28 times more likely, respectively, to have had pertussis than children who were fully vaccinated, the researchers found."


http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/09/09/whooping-cough-risk-higher-among-kids-who-miss-vaccinations-study

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 07:01 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Um, if they weren't, wouldn't that mean that the Vax was entirely ineffective? For a Vax that requires 4-6 doses, and does have adverse effects, that would be a huge tragedy. I would hope it worked @ least a little to balance out the adverse effects!
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#3 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 07:03 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But this study is pretty much ridiculously underpowered. 72 cases? That is approaching anecdote.

I prefer real world Epidimeology on Pertussis, as it is, unfortunately, available.
applejuice and JenVose like this.
dinahx is offline  
#4 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 07:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Um, if they weren't, wouldn't that mean that the Vax was entirely ineffective? For a Vax that requires 4-6 doses, and does have adverse effects, that would be a huge tragedy. I would hope it worked @ least a little to balance out the adverse effects!

So, in your opinion, is a 2 month old infant more likely to die from whooping cough or from the whooping cough vaccine?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#5 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 07:13 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This study would rank every 2 month old infant the same: because they haven't received 3-4 shots.

Also every 2 month old (theoretically) would receive the Vax, whereas only a very small fraction would contract Pertussis.

Does the ProVax camp even acknowledge 'death' as ever being attributable to DTaP? I don't know that they do so, trick question.
Pookietooth and applejuice like this.
dinahx is offline  
#6 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 07:17 AM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

There are new requirements for pregnant women??? Uh, no, they are called recommendations. Sure wish people could understand the difference and speak accordingly.

 

Were the children who didn't have it ever exposed? That is kind of a requirement to getting it. 

 

Were there any children who were completely unvaxxed in this study? A brief glance looks to me like they were partially vaxxed. 

 

Either way, I think the conclusions are pretty much a duh to most non-vaxxers. 

applejuice and JenVose like this.
fruitfulmomma is offline  
#7 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 07:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

This study would rank every 2 month old infant the same: because they haven't received 3-4 shots.

Also every 2 month old (theoretically) would receive the Vax, whereas only a very small fraction would contract Pertussis.

Does the ProVax camp even acknowledge 'death' as ever being attributable to DTaP? I don't know that they do so, trick question.

So your not going to answer then?

I was asking a general question not specifically related to the study.

Even one dose offers protection, and makes a case of whooping cough less severe if the baby does get it. Less severe could mean the difference between life and death for a tiny newborn.

I'd like to know what you think the rate of death is from the WC vaccine.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#8 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 07:22 AM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

Good points Dinah, how did they differentiate between children who weren't up to date and those who had not received the whole series because they weren't old enough yet?

 

And this particular vaccine has the highest associated death rate of all vaxxes.Only topped by the previous, more effective DPT.

applejuice likes this.
fruitfulmomma is offline  
#9 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 10:06 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,209
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"For the study, Glanz's team looked at cases of pertussis among children born between 2004 and 2008 and seen at eight managed care organizations. They identified 72 cases of pertussis and matched them with 288 similar children who didn't have the disease.

Of 72 children with pertussis, 34 (about 47 percent) had not gotten the recommended four doses of the DTaP vaccine -- compared with 64 (about 22 percent) of the children who didn't have the disease.

Children who weren't fully vaccinated for three or four doses of DTaP were about 18 and 28 times more likely, respectively, to have had pertussis than children who were fully vaccinated, the researchers found."


http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/09/09/whooping-cough-risk-higher-among-kids-who-miss-vaccinations-study

 

A couple of issues:

 

1.  I do not see the study linked?  It is really hard to draw any conclusions without the study.

 

2.  Bolding mine.  I am not sure what their point is.  47% of those with pertussis had not been fully vaxxed, which I guess means 53% of kids with pertussis were fully vaxxed?  None of this means anything without knowing how large the sample size was they were drawing from and how many kids were undervaxxed or fully vaxxed.  It would be great if the broke down the rates after one, two  and three vaxxes (that information seems to be woefully lacking, AFAIK).  

 

3.  My understanding of the pertussis vaccine is that it is not particularly effective as vaccines go- and that it also wears off really quickly. The study looked at kids who are 5-9.  Fully vaxxed kids would have received a booster within the last 1-4 years.  The vaccine may not have worn off yet.  In short they looked at children who were recently vaxxed - probably the best people to look at if you want to showcase high efficacy.  

applejuice and JenVose like 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 online now  
#10 of 30 Old 09-10-2013, 03:21 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
2.  Bolding mine.  I am not sure what their point is.

Their numbers are a little wonky right?

 

I don't expect much from a newspaper though. Hopefully the actual study did a better job proving their point.

applejuice likes this.
fruitfulmomma is offline  
#11 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 06:20 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,209
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)

18-28 times higher seems quite the number - so I went digging a little bit.

 

This study, which is larger,  shows fully vaxxed children are 8 times less likely to get pertussis that non-vaxxed children.  The study looked at 4-10 year olds.  I will say that 8 is more more in line with other studies I have read recently.  

 

article:

http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/whooping-cough-vaccine-less-effective-over-time-study-671046.html

 

here is the study:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1456072

applejuice and sassyfirechick like 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 online now  
#12 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 06:39 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

18-28 times higher seems quite the number - so I went digging a little bit.

This study, which is larger,  shows fully vaxxed children are 8 times less likely to get pertussis that non-vaxxed children.  The study looked at 4-10 year olds.  I will say that 8 is more more in line with other studies I have read recently.  

article:
http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/whooping-cough-vaccine-less-effective-over-time-study-671046.html

here is the study:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1456072

This study in Pediatrics also shows a significantly higher increase, 23 times higher in unvaccinated children.



http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.full.pdf

" Our study found a strong association between parental vaccine refusal and the risk of pertussis infection in children. Vaccine refusers had a 23-fold increased risk for pertussis when compared with vaccine acceptors, and 11% of pertussis cases in the entire study population were attributed to vaccine refusal. This study is the first to examine this relationship in a well-defined cohort with verified individual-level data on vaccination and disease status. Access to individual patients’ medical charts and laboratory results allowed us to identify and validate cases of pertussis. We were also able to validate which vaccinations were administered, when they were administered, and whether an immunization was re- fused. These precise measurements helped to minimize potential biases because of misclassification of exposure (pertussis vaccine refusal status) and outcome (pertussis disease)."

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#13 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 06:45 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,209
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


So, in your opinion, is a 2 month old infant more likely to die from whooping cough or from the whooping cough vaccine?

 

I will answer your question.

 

With some diseases your child really is more likely to have severe adverse advent from the vaccine than get and have a severe adverse event from the disease.  This is typically because the disease is very, very unlikely, and all vaccines carry some risks.  A pro-vaxxers would probably argue these are vaccine success stories. :wink

 

A few examples:  diptheria, tetanus, polio. rubella.

 

With  pertussis, a 2 month old may be, depending on the year and location,  in more in danger from whooping cough than from the vaccine (probably - based on understanding of vaccine side effects - which is poor) .  Ditto a fully vaxxed 4 month old.  

 

This is not a good thing, not a success story. The vaccine is lousy in term of effectiveness and duration of effectiveness. A good vaccine in terms of effectiveness reduces the likelihood of a disease floating around, thus protecting vulnerable populations - and the pertussis vaccine doesn't.

applejuice 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 online now  
#14 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 06:46 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,209
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


This study in Pediatrics also shows a significantly higher increase, 23 times higher in unvaccinated children.



http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.full.pdf

" Our study found a strong association between parental vaccine refusal and the risk of pertussis infection in children. Vaccine refusers had a 23-fold increased risk for pertussis when compared with vaccine acceptors, and 11% of pertussis cases in the entire study population were attributed to vaccine refusal. This study is the first to examine this relationship in a well-defined cohort with verified individual-level data on vaccination and disease status. Access to individual patients’ medical charts and laboratory results allowed us to identify and validate cases of pertussis. We were also able to validate which vaccinations were administered, when they were administered, and whether an immunization was re- fused. These precise measurements helped to minimize potential biases because of misclassification of exposure (pertussis vaccine refusal status) and outcome (pertussis disease)."

 

That study is old - 2009, and looked at rates from 1996-2007.    Pertussis rates have changed since then.

applejuice 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 online now  
#15 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 07:11 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

That study is old - 2009, and looked at rates from 1996-2007.    Pertussis rates have changed since then.

Ahhh the classic "move the goal post" tactic.

" Otherwise known as moving the goalposts, this involves continually changing the standards of evidence deemed necessary to convince antivaccinationists of vaccine safety or efficacy so that they can’t be met"

So now 2009 is too old. What about 2010? 2011? And now for a study to be valid the RATE of the disease when the study was conducted has to remain unchanged too? Guess we should toss out the good old Salk vaccine trails then since the rate of polio was certainly different then than it is now. eyesroll.gif

And how on earth does rate of disease invalidate a study? Has the disease or vaccine changed since 2009 ? Is pertussis eradicated and no longer an issue here in the US? The current outbreak in TX of over 2,000 cases and climbing and two infant deaths suggests it is still an issue.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#16 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 08:22 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Please: how is this 'move the goal posts'? Your camp pulls the 'old study' card CONSTANTLY.

 

Sorry you linked to a study with sample size of 72. Que Lastima.

 

And using X times is usually misleading. 23 times a very low number would still be a low number. And the idea that someone not vaxed for Pertussis is more likely to catch it, well isn't that the whole point of the Vax? If that wasn't the case, wouldn't there be no point to the Vax whatsoever?

Mirzam, applejuice and kathymuggle like this.
dinahx is offline  
#17 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 08:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Please: how is this 'move the goal posts'? Your camp pulls the 'old study' card CONSTANTLY.

Sorry you linked to a study with sample size of 72. Que Lastima.

And using X times is usually misleading. 23 times a very low number would still be a low number. And the idea that someone not vaxed for Pertussis is more likely to catch it, well isn't that the whole point of the Vax? If that wasn't the case, wouldn't there be no point to the Vax whatsoever?

I'd like some examples please of times we've said that a study should be invalidated for being a few years old. Note the word study.

Or are you talking about the quote?article?opinion piece? from the 1800s when blood letting was still being performed claiming that vinegar prevented smallpox as analogous to saying a study that is less then 5 years old is "too old" ?

The study linked observed many children over many years and confirmed vaccine status and pertussis diagnoses using medical records. It was a very well done study that has been peer reviewed and published.

Saying that a 4 year old study is "too old" is indeed moving the goal post. Lets throw out every study before 2010! And then next year, when its 2014, we have to throw out any study done before 2011! eyesroll.gif

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#18 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 08:57 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,559
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


Ahhh the classic "move the goal post" tactic.

" Otherwise known as moving the goalposts, this involves continually changing the standards of evidence deemed necessary to convince antivaccinationists of vaccine safety or efficacy so that they can’t be met"

So now 2009 is too old. What about 2010? 2011? And now for a study to be valid the RATE of the disease when the study was conducted has to remain unchanged too? Guess we should toss out the good old Salk vaccine trails then since the rate of polio was certainly different then than it is now. eyesroll.gif

And how on earth does rate of disease invalidate a study? Has the disease or vaccine changed since 2009 ? Is pertussis eradicated and no longer an issue here in the US? The current outbreak in TX of over 2,000 cases and climbing and two infant deaths suggests it is still an issue.

It's not a "move the goalpost" tactic when the goalposts are living organisms that are actively adapting to the pressures they are faced with (in this case, the vaccine).

applejuice and kathymuggle like this.
rachelsmama is offline  
#19 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 09:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

It's not a "move the goalpost" tactic when the goalposts are living organisms that are actively adapting to the pressures they are faced with (in this case, the vaccine).

As per the part you bolded, can you show me evidence that pertussis has changed/mutated since 2009 thus warranting invalidating the study?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#20 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 09:43 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,592
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1209369 (note date February 2013)

 

Quote:
Although much attention has been given to the waning immunity associated with the introduction of acellular vaccines,1 another factor contributing to the outbreaks may be the adaptation of B. pertussis to vaccine selection pressure. Pertactin is a component of acellular vaccines. Pertactin-negative variants of B. pertussis have recently been reported in clinical isolates from Japan, France, and Finland. The variants from Japan and Finland had deletions or insertion sequences in prn1, an allelic variant of the gene encoding pertactin (prn); the French isolates had deletions or truncations in the prn2 allele.2,3 Pertactin mutants retain lethality in mouse models of infection and are transmissible in humans.2

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  
#21 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 10:07 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1209369 (note date February 2013)


Here's information from the CDC from May 2013 (a whole THREE months more recent than your link!)


Q: Are pertussis bacteria changing and causing an increase in pertussis cases?
"Unlike a foodborne illness where one strain causes an outbreak, multiple types or strains of pertussis bacteria can be found causing disease at any given time, including during outbreaks. There is a lot of diversity in strains causing pertussis in the US. While strains have changed over time, strain changes do not seem to be the cause of the increase in pertussis we've been seeing. And there's no direct evidence that strain changes have reduced the effectiveness of the vaccines. It's more likely that waning immunity is the driving force behind the increase in cases."

So, no evidence that strain changes have reduced the effectiveness of the vaccine, which has been around a lot longer than 4 years.

Oops forgot to add that didnt answer my question. I asked to show me evidence that the strain has changed from 2009 to now. Pertussis outbreaks have been occurring long before 2009.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#22 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 10:21 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,209
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


Ahhh the classic "move the goal post" tactic.

" Otherwise known as moving the goalposts, this involves continually changing the standards of evidence deemed necessary to convince antivaccinationists of vaccine safety or efficacy so that they can’t be met"

So now 2009 is too old. What about 2010? 2011? And now for a study to be valid the RATE of the disease when the study was conducted has to remain unchanged too? Guess we should toss out the good old Salk vaccine trails then since the rate of polio was certainly different then than it is now. eyesroll.gif
 

Thanks for the chuckle.  If you are going to pull out the "move the goalpost" line, I suggest you wait until someone actually says something goal-posty.

Pertussis  rates are up.  Clearly, the pertussis component of the vaccine is not as effective as it used to be - or are you denying this?

 

I do think 2009 is a little old in terms of pertussis studies.  Pertussis numbers have changed recently.  More concerning, though, the AAP study you linked from 2009 looked at data from 1996 - 2007.  I mean, come on!  We changed over from DPT to DaPT around 1996 - there is a very good possibility pertussis rates overall were lower (and thus the spread in disease rate greater between vaxxed and non-vaxxed)  in the late 90's because DPT was a better vaccine in terms of efficacy.

applejuice and BeckyBird like 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 online now  
#23 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 10:28 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,209
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post




Here's information from the CDC from May 2013 (a whole THREE months more recent than your link!)


Q: Are pertussis bacteria changing and causing an increase in pertussis cases?
"Unlike a foodborne illness where one strain causes an outbreak, multiple types or strains of pertussis bacteria can be found causing disease at any given time, including during outbreaks. There is a lot of diversity in strains causing pertussis in the US. While strains have changed over time, strain changes do not seem to be the cause of the increase in pertussis we've been seeing. And there's no direct evidence that strain changes have reduced the effectiveness of the vaccines. It's more likely that waning immunity is the driving force behind the increase in cases."
 

Bolding mine - from your link.

So, given that pertussis for one reason or another is up, doesn't it seem inappropriate to use data from 1996-2007 and argue that is the case today?

applejuice and BeckyBird like 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 online now  
#24 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 12:24 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

I think this is starting to get a bit like splitting hairs. You can't have both long term studies, and studies which have exactly the same situation as right now - things changes over timescales. It's reasonable, in my opinion, to use data from 2009 to understand pertussis. At least our hygiene practices haven't changed much in the last 4 years....


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  
#25 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 12:29 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,209
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

I think this is starting to get a bit like splitting hairs. You can't have both long term studies, and studies which have exactly the same situation as right now - things changes over timescales. It's reasonable, in my opinion, to use data from 2009 to understand pertussis. At least our hygiene practices haven't changed much in the last 4 years....

 

The study was from  2009.  The data was from 1996-2007.  Not splitting hairs - particularly where pertussis is concerned.

 

Study in OP:  data from 2004-2008

Study I linked (which was quite a bit larger, and hey, we have the study and not just an article) :  data from 2010

Further study teacozy linked:  data from 1996-2007

 

I am not going to consider the data from the AAP study teacozy linked in terms of the current pertussis vaccine effectiveness- it is from too long ago.  Pertussis rates have changed.  The disease may have morphed in some ways.  There is less residual coverage from the more effective DPT.  But hey, if anyone wants to consider old data on a disease that has increased fairly substantially in the last 10 years or so, knock themselves out.  

 

___________________

 

In general:

 

I know people are on opposite sides here but telling people they should look at data that goes back as far as 1996 for vaccines and pertussis seems irresponsible.  I am genuinely having trouble believing any pro-vaxxer who has done any research (and most have on this forum) would advocate this.  

applejuice and rachelsmama like 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 online now  
#26 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 12:49 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The real issue with the study is not age anyway: it is minuscule sample size & sorta obvious/redundant conclusion.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#27 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 12:53 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,209
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

The real issue with the study is not age anyway: it is minuscule sample size & sorta obvious/redundant conclusion.

 

yes - in the first one.

 

My beef with the second study teacozy listed is the age of the data

applejuice 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 online now  
#28 of 30 Old 09-11-2013, 03:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Don't have time to reply, husband came home from work sick mid day but here is an explanation on the pertussis bacteria mutation for those who are interested. It's a bit science heavy just an FYI


http://lymphosite.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/another_prn_on_the_barbie/

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#29 of 30 Old 09-16-2013, 12:50 PM
 
Detroit mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My neighbor's kid got pertussis despite being fully vaxxed. So the pediatrician said "hmmm, she's fully vaxxed, so it can't be pertussis. It must be something similar that mimics pertussis, but not actually pertussis, called para-pertussis (sp?)"

 

So, yeah, when you mis-diagnose the fully vaxxed kids, the whole effectiveness study is totally skewed.

 

And even further skewed when non-vaxxed kids are subject to additional tests for vaccine-preventable diseases upon admittance to a hospital that fully-vaxxed kids are not subject to. ("Your kid isn't vaxxed? Well THAT changes things. We now need to test him for 10 different diseases") A double whammy where the end result will skew to show that fully vaxxed kids hardly get the vaccine-preventable illness, while unvaxxed get it too often.

Detroit mama is offline  
#30 of 30 Old 09-17-2013, 01:51 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,618
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


So, in your opinion, is a 2 month old infant more likely to die from whooping cough or from the whooping cough vaccine?

 

Well my daughter reacted pretty severely to her DTaP at 2mos old, near seizing.  I don't need a study to tell me that the vaccine has dangerous side effects - If I had it to do over again I'd much rather take my chances with pertussis.

applejuice likes this.
sassyfirechick is offline  
Reply

Tags
Vaccines , Vaccinations

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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