Let's All Say It Together: The Unvaccinated Are NOT To Blame for Pertussis Outbreaks - Mothering Forums

 1Likes
  • 4 Post By Turquesa
  • 4 Post By ma2two
  • 1 Post By kathymuggle
  • 2 Post By rachelsmama
  • 2 Post By applejuice
  • 1 Post By rachelsmama
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 8 Old 04-18-2014, 07:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,393
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 583 Post(s)
I wonder if those who insist otherwise are ready to cry uncle?

Australia: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/4/13-1478_article.htm
(Here's a frustrating spin: Now the product is really, REALLY not working so we really REALLY need more of the same http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/whooping-cough-vaccine-loses-its-effectiveness-20140414-36np3.html#ixzz2yyZq9Ovh )

Netherlands: (From years back. Yes, it's been known that long) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631860/

United States: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/02/researchers-find-first-us-evidence-vaccine-resistant-pertussis

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor Private Parts are Private Property!
Turquesa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 8 Old 04-18-2014, 07:54 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,489
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Let's take it one step further: The vaccinated are causing pertussis outbreaks.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine/

 

Baboons given DTaP - colonized with b. pertussis for 35 days

Baboons given DTP - colonized with b. pertussis 18 days

Baboons that recovered from natural infection - colonized with b. pertussis 0 days.

(Thanks Mirzam, for summarizing) http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1396679/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine

ma2two is offline  
#3 of 8 Old 04-18-2014, 11:08 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5,071
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 701 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

Let's take it one step further: The vaccinated are causing pertussis outbreaks.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine/

 

Baboons given DTaP - colonized with b. pertussis for 35 days

Baboons given DTP - colonized with b. pertussis 18 days

Baboons that recovered from natural infection - colonized with b. pertussis 0 days.

(Thanks Mirzam, for summarizing) http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1396679/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine

Being perfectly honest, I am not sure this is quite true.

 

Pertussis is spread by droplets.  I imagine coughing or sneezing spreads droplets more effectively than breathing.

 

Let's say an unvaxxed person takes an average of 3 weeks to be diagnosed.  They cough and sneeze all over people for 2-3 weeks, then, upon diagnosis, self quarantine as best they can for the rest of the illness.  They might also be too sick to really be out and about. 

 

An unvaxxed person is unlikely to be diagnosed, period, as some are asymptomatic and some just have a nagging cough (and you know, they can't have pertussis as they are vaccinated…snort).  They will cough, sneeze and breath all over people for the full 100 days - but with less intensity.

 

So…short duration of great intensity of droplet spreading  versus longer duration of less intensity of droplet spreading.  The whole thing is enough to make ones head spin.

 

That being said, if I was a new mom or looking after a baby, I would prefer to be around the unvaxxed.  At least if they get sick it shows and I know to keep a wide berth.  Asymtomatic or  only mildly ill people wandering around with pertussis is scary.  

 

As per the Op, Turquesa is bang on.  

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 offline  
#4 of 8 Old 04-24-2014, 02:02 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)

Even the CDC does not point to the unvaccinated as the reason for the resurgence, so its always frustrating to see the media present that falsehood as fact. While I fall on the side that a more effective vaccine would be the best response, I don't think anyone is well-served by misinformation in the media on this topic.

 

Published April 22, 2014:

Nowhere is it suggested that population undervaccination is the reason for resurgence in "highly vaccinated populations."

 

"...resurgence of disease was observed worldwide, with significant mortality in infants. Possible causes for this include the switch from whole-cell vaccines (WCVs) to less effective acellular vaccines (ACVs), waning immunity, and pathogen adaptation."

 

So this study looked specifically at pathogen adaptation:

 

"Analysis of the genomes of 343 B. pertussis isolates from around the world over the last 100 years suggests that the organism has emerged within the last 500 years, consistent with historical records. We show that global transmission of new strains is very rapid and that the worldwide population of B. pertussis is evolving in response to vaccine introduction, potentially enabling vaccine escape."

 

http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/2/e01074-14

ss834 is offline  
#5 of 8 Old 04-24-2014, 02:41 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,608
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

Even the CDC does not point to the unvaccinated as the reason for the resurgence, so its always frustrating to see the media present that falsehood as fact. While I fall on the side that a more effective vaccine would be the best response, I don't think anyone is well-served by misinformation in the media on this topic.

 

Published April 22, 2014:

Nowhere is it suggested that population undervaccination is the reason for resurgence in "highly vaccinated populations."

 

"...resurgence of disease was observed worldwide, with significant mortality in infants. Possible causes for this include the switch from whole-cell vaccines (WCVs) to less effective acellular vaccines (ACVs), waning immunity, and pathogen adaptation."

 

So this study looked specifically at pathogen adaptation:

 

"Analysis of the genomes of 343 B. pertussis isolates from around the world over the last 100 years suggests that the organism has emerged within the last 500 years, consistent with historical records. We show that global transmission of new strains is very rapid and that the worldwide population of B. pertussis is evolving in response to vaccine introduction, potentially enabling vaccine escape."

 

http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/2/e01074-14

See, this right here is why I think we should be scaling back pertussis vaccination to just those people who are at particular risk from pertussis.  If we keep tossing the vaccine around willy-nilly, we'll keep driving the bacteria's evolution in response to the vaccine.  I suspect that if we limit the vaccine to those people who need the protection, the vaccine might remain effective (relatively) for a bit longer.  Obviously, there would be an initial upswing in diagnosed cases as the currently vaccinated population's vaccines wore off, but then as the rate of natural immunity rose, the rates would stabilise and come down a bit.  And no, I'm not naive enough to think there wouldn't be any tragedies, but I do think there would be slightly fewer tragedies (in the long run) than with the current strategy. 

Mirzam and applejuice like this.
rachelsmama is offline  
#6 of 8 Old 04-24-2014, 03:17 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 19,412
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)

rachelsmama - :clap 

 

The only problem would be the loss of revenue and profits for the drug companies that make the DaPT shots. I can live with that.

Mirzam and rachelsmama like this.

"The man in the street does not notice the devil even when the devil is holding him by the throat."

~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
applejuice is offline  
#7 of 8 Old 04-25-2014, 11:52 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 

See, this right here is why I think we should be scaling back pertussis vaccination to just those people who are at particular risk from pertussis.  If we keep tossing the vaccine around willy-nilly, we'll keep driving the bacteria's evolution in response to the vaccine.  I suspect that if we limit the vaccine to those people who need the protection, the vaccine might remain effective (relatively) for a bit longer.  Obviously, there would be an initial upswing in diagnosed cases as the currently vaccinated population's vaccines wore off, but then as the rate of natural immunity rose, the rates would stabilise and come down a bit.  And no, I'm not naive enough to think there wouldn't be any tragedies, but I do think there would be slightly fewer tragedies (in the long run) than with the current strategy. 

 

I think one important area to address this problem would be therapeutic-- focusing on improving outcomes for infants who end up with complications from the disease.

Delayed diagnosis is a serious problem, too. This seems to be a factor in most of the stories I have heard where infants have died.

 

I'm not sure how your strategy would be implemented beyond what is already being attempted with third trimester vaccination, and infant vaccination at 2,4,6 mos to target those at most risk. Most adults aren't vaccinated as it is. Who should the vaccine programs stop trying to cover? Maybe adolescents beyond the initial series, who expect no contact with infants?

ss834 is offline  
#8 of 8 Old 04-25-2014, 12:40 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,608
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

I think one important area to address this problem would be therapeutic-- focusing on improving outcomes for infants who end up with complications from the disease.

Delayed diagnosis is a serious problem, too. This seems to be a factor in most of the stories I have heard where infants have died.

 

I'm not sure how your strategy would be implemented beyond what is already being attempted with third trimester vaccination, and infant vaccination at 2,4,6 mos to target those at most risk. Most adults aren't vaccinated as it is. Who should the vaccine programs stop trying to cover? Maybe adolescents beyond the initial series, who expect no contact with infants?


I completely agree with your two suggestions about pertussis diagnosis and treatments.  I think those are critical regardless of what strategy is used regarding vaccination.

 

As for what I think could be done differently regarding pertussis vaccination:  around here it's recommended to get a pertussis booster before beginning school, another in grade 7, and at least one in adulthood; I think re-evaluating those doses would be good.  There's also been a bit of a push to encourage adults to get regular boosters with the implication that it will protect other people, but there's far, far too little information circulating about the limitations of the vaccine.   Regardless of whether anything else is done differently, I think it's important to get the message out that the vaccine has severe limitations.

applejuice likes this.
rachelsmama is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

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



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

Online Users: 9,681

66 members and 9,615 guests
angeebaby , bananabee , belltree , bhavinsw , ChrissyW , cocoheart , cynthia mosher , Daisy88 , dani2015 , Devaskyla , EllaD , elliha , funfunkyfantastic , FyerFly , happyhats , IntoTheRoseGarden , japonica , jojobean , katelove , KosmicMama , LadyAnnibal , LHcj2008 , lilmissgiggles , LiLStar , mama2004 , marilyn612 , mckittre , MeepyCat , metafisica , Milk8shake , MissMuffet , MsBe , Muriel2016 , NaturallyKait , Nazsmum , nikkialys , perkier , pumabearclan , quantumleap , ron.schaffner , rruchishrimalli , SandiMae , sarafl , Serafina33 , shantimama , SkiBum , Smokering , sofreshsoclean , springersw , Springshowers , static , SummerStorm22 , suvisade , TBallman , TeeThatsMe , ThePrimMom4 , Tigerle , TrishWSU , Tweety_Bird , wassernixe , weliveintheforest , Wild Lupine , Wild Rose
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.