DTaP and Transmission - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 52 Old 09-14-2008, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It has been repeated frequently on this board that DTaP doesn't prevent transmission.

I am wondering where this "fact" comes from. If you have a study or something academic or scientific stating this, please post it. I would really like to see where this is written and how people came to this conclusion in their research.
anewmama is offline  
#2 of 52 Old 09-14-2008, 01:23 PM
 
rlneub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok lets look at pertussis

http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar06may-2.pdf

Quote:
Pertussis is considered an endemic disease, characterized by an epidemic every 2–5 years. This rate of exacerbations has not changed, even after the introduction of mass vaccination – a fact that indicates the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing the disease but not the transmission of the causative agent (B. pertussis) within the population
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/115/5/1422

Quote:
Serologic studies suggest that the rate of B pertussis infection in adolescents and adults is 2.0% per year. The rate of cough illnesses (pertussis) caused by B pertussis infection in adolescents and adults is between 370 and 1500 per 100 000 population. These data suggest that there are between 800 000 and 3.3 million cases per year in the United States.
Again evidence that the vaccine does not give herd immunity as it does not prevent transmission of the disease.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ull/104/6/1381

Quote:
This definition required 21 days of paroxysmal cough plus laboratory confirmation of pertussis in the subject or household contact. There are 2 problems with this definition. The first is that a substantial number of B pertussis infections in unvaccinated children are mild and would not meet the case definition. The second is that all pertussis vaccines tend to modify duration and severity of disease rather than completely preventing illness.18,2326-29,35,36,40 Therefore, the WHO definition has made all vaccines look better than they are and it has tended to obscure differences between vaccines
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Citation

Quote:
Since the neurologic picture is not specific for pertussis vaccination, its temporal relationship to the vaccination is the critical variable for determining causation. Although the majority of seizures following pertussis vaccination are associated with fever, it was the consensus of the neurologists attending the workshop, that these do not represent febrile convulsions, but are non-benign convulsions. The incidence of post-vaccine encephalopathy is difficult to ascertain
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccineInfo/vaccine_detail.cfv?id=2...

Quote:
In rare cases (about 100 children out of 10,000 shots given, or about 1%) children have moderate reactions such as prolonged crying, fever of 105 degrees or higher, seizure, or the child becoming limp, pale, and less alert.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8917236

Quote:
After 67,000 doses, 153 serious adverse events (0.23%) were reported, 8 considered possibly related, and 5 related to vaccination, including 1 hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode.

----------------------------------

Now my point is, the pertussis vaccine is advocated to protect newborn infants from receiving pertussis, yet the vaccine does not stop transmission. 1% of those vaccinated have moderate adverse reactions and 0.23% have severe reactions.

An issue I find troubling is that since the vaccine lessens the severity of the cough, many people with whooping cough may not know they have it and thus may come into contact with infants and thus pass this on to the infant. The infants getting pertussis will be blamed on the unvaccinated as the issue when in reality it is more likely that an undiagnosed mild case carrier gives the disease to the infant.
rlneub is offline  
#3 of 52 Old 09-14-2008, 04:39 PM
 
pantufla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
pantufla is offline  
#4 of 52 Old 09-15-2008, 11:26 AM
 
Ophelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 2,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlneub View Post
Now my point is, the pertussis vaccine is advocated to protect newborn infants from receiving pertussis, yet the vaccine does not stop transmission. 1% of those vaccinated have moderate adverse reactions and 0.23% have severe reactions.

An issue I find troubling is that since the vaccine lessens the severity of the cough, many people with whooping cough may not know they have it and thus may come into contact with infants and thus pass this on to the infant. The infants getting pertussis will be blamed on the unvaccinated as the issue when in reality it is more likely that an undiagnosed mild case carrier gives the disease to the infant.
I totally understand this part, but why don't I hear about infants (not vaxed or not fully vaxed) getting pertussis all of the time? You'd think you would hear a lot more of that. Especially since it's worse for that age. Or are they, and it's just getting diagnosed as something else?

DS 2006 nocirc.gif DiaperFreeBaby angel1.gif March 2010, DD 2011

Ophelia is offline  
#5 of 52 Old 09-15-2008, 08:24 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Breastfeeding could be a factor.
wallacesmum is offline  
#6 of 52 Old 09-15-2008, 08:33 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ophelia View Post
I totally understand this part, but why don't I hear about infants (not vaxed or not fully vaxed) getting pertussis all of the time? You'd think you would hear a lot more of that. Especially since it's worse for that age. Or are they, and it's just getting diagnosed as something else?
The average age of infection is aroung age 4 or 5, and most people are infected with pertussis every 4 or 5 years, so it'll be "sorta" rare for a newborn to be unlucky enough to catch it so young. But it does happen.
I'd guess that it is probably usually misdiagnosed as asthma or bronchitis even in infants as young as 4 months. Also, nobody knows how well the first shot or two works, so there's a chance it's pretty effective at reducing the symptoms enough to guarantee that most vaxed babies who catch it won't be diagnosed.
I've heard pedis say stuff like "All the infants under one I've seen with pertussis need to be hospitalized"...but, all that tells you is what those docs expect pertussis to look like, and that they always misdiagnose the milder cases.
mamakay is offline  
#7 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 11:11 AM
 
berkeleyp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
so there's a chance it's pretty effective at reducing the symptoms enough to guarantee that most vaxed babies who catch it won't be diagnosed.
If they don't have enough symptoms to be diagnosed, doesn't that also mean they aren't likely to be hospitalized - so isn't that a good thing?
berkeleyp is offline  
#8 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 12:07 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sure, a less severe case is a good thing. That's why I think it is critical to know how to care for pertussis, in order to lessen the symptoms.
wallacesmum is offline  
#9 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 12:55 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wallacesmum,

This comes up, but there is very little that can be done to care for someone with a case of pertussis. Beyond making them more comfortable, but there isn't any care that is available to lessen or hasten the diseases progress. SA is often mentioned here but I haven't ever seen a whole lot of research on SA as a treatment, or how many people here have actually had to use this treatment on a very young infant/toddler who might refuse to drink a solution of SA. What other treatments are you referencing? Antibiotics? I hear that is only somewhat effective right in the beginning.


Mamakay, what do you think? Do you think the Pertussis vax doesn't prevent transmission?
anewmama is offline  
#10 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 01:45 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, there is plenty of older clinical evidence for the efficacy of vit. C in neutralizing toxins. Pertussis does its stuff using toxins. So one could conclude that the anecdotal experience of folks, alongside the biological activity of an antioxidant as powerful as vit. C, is sufficient evidence that there might be something to it.

Edit: I missed part of your post. As to what I would recommend with a very young child: well, in a truly severe situation I would probably look for a practitioner who uses IV vit. c, but for more mild situations I would just dose up mom and nurse heavily - that's what we did anytime ds was sick.
wallacesmum is offline  
#11 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 02:55 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Right, but no solid evidence or information from current studies. I just think that is really important for people to hear. That studies are old and evidence frequently anecdotal. Particularly for mom's no longer nursing or who can't. And even dosing mom and nursing, without evidence of how much C is being transmitted and used by the child, it's sort of a shot in the dark (no pun intended), don't you think?

Certainly none of this is concrete enough to call a definite treatment. Most illness respond to antibiotics. That is an example of a definite treatment in my book.
anewmama is offline  
#12 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 06:38 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Mamakay, what do you think? Do you think the Pertussis vax doesn't prevent transmission?
I've never been able to find any evidence that it does, and there's loads of epidemiological evidence that it doesn't, and according to the cell biology, it can't.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ull/104/6/1381

Quote:
Case definition has been particularly problematic in all of the recent DTaP vaccine efficacy trials. For uniform comparative purposes a case definition was suggested by a WHO expert committee.39 This definition required 21 days of paroxysmal cough plus laboratory confirmation of pertussis in the subject or household contact. There are 2 problems with this definition. The first is that a substantial number of B pertussis infections in unvaccinated children are mild and would not meet the case definition. The second is that all pertussis vaccines tend to modify duration and severity of disease rather than completely preventing illness.18,2326-29,35,36,40 Therefore, the WHO definition has made all vaccines look better than they are and it has tended to obscure differences between vaccines
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/WHO_V&B_99.03.pdf

Quote:
In discussion, Dr Cherry pointed out that in Japan also the reported pertussis incidence in children under three months of age has not declined substantially with return to a high vaccination coverage.
(aka...no herd immunity with mass vaccination. The newborns are the "canaries in the colemine" for detecting how much pertussis is "out there" circulating.)

From an Adacel ad:

http://www.adacel-locator.com/index....E&P=HowS_pread

Quote:
“It is unknown whether immunizing adolescents and adults against pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants.”

A bunch of studies going into the why's and how's of the vaccine not actually preventing infection:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search
mamakay is offline  
#13 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 06:47 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by berkeleyp View Post
If they don't have enough symptoms to be diagnosed, doesn't that also mean they aren't likely to be hospitalized - so isn't that a good thing?
Oh, definitely. If the first few doses actually do anything. I suspect that they probably do, but nobody really knows for sure.
mamakay is offline  
#14 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 09:48 PM
 
runes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
Right, but no solid evidence or information from current studies. I just think that is really important for people to hear. That studies are old and evidence frequently anecdotal. Particularly for mom's no longer nursing or who can't. And even dosing mom and nursing, without evidence of how much C is being transmitted and used by the child, it's sort of a shot in the dark (no pun intended), don't you think?

Certainly none of this is concrete enough to call a definite treatment. Most illness respond to antibiotics. That is an example of a definite treatment in my book.
But you can't just put that out there without delving into WHY recent research and evidence isn't there about Vitamin C and it's role in health and healing. Care to venture to guess why it's not being looked into? Just saying the evidence is "old" is deceptive. Why do you need evidence on the amounts of Vitamin C? Do you know how it works? The dosage needed for each person is highly variable on the individual as well as their health status, but luckily, our bodies are pretty clear on telling us when we've reached a threshold level of Vitamin C. Just because "science" looked into it before but isn't currently looking at it doesn't mean that it's not a safe/effective treatment.

By the way, you wanna talk about old? Go look up the package insert of the MMR, and look at the dates of some of the studies that are cited on it. Then we can address the double standard.
runes is offline  
#15 of 52 Old 09-16-2008, 10:38 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,664
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
funny incident on old research

I was attending a public forum to discuss water fluoridation. The pro-F people had a very standard line of attack: all the research against water F was old. I brought up a study by a highly respected science explaining that F destroys enzymes. One of the pro-F people said: "But that article is from 1982." I replied: "If F destroyed enzymes in 1982, it stills destroys enzymes in 2006. That sort of science doesn't expire." They didn't have an answer.

So, if the evidence that vitamin C is effective against certain types of toxins is 70 or 80 years old, it doesn't really matter. Once an effect has been demonstrated, it stands until someone shows that there was an error in the original research.

We need to learn how to spot some of the standard strategies used to convince people that they can't figure stuff out for themselves. Learned helplessness is the goal, I think.
Deborah is online now  
#16 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 02:41 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
On vit C and pertussis...here's the old research...

http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorba...37-n2-p134.htm

http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorba...-p1884-eng.htm

There's a lot more recent research on ascorbate treating other toxin mediated bacterial diseases.

(like this)
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/co...665/frame.html

So, I think it's quite possible the old research on VitC and pertussis was right...but it's not completely a "fact", IMO, without more followup.
mamakay is offline  
#17 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 09:06 AM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'd love to see new research, and I hope that it will start to happen as vit. c is re-entering the spotlight as a cancer treatment.

But, yeah, it doesn't bother me that the research is old, if it is valid. I don't know why people are so scared to think vit. c might work, and there is very little risk in trying. Compared to the risks of antibiotics, (and how current is that research?), I'll take SA anytime.
wallacesmum is offline  
#18 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 01:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidspiration View Post
But you can't just put that out there without delving into WHY recent research and evidence isn't there about Vitamin C and it's role in health and healing. Care to venture to guess why it's not being looked into? Just saying the evidence is "old" is deceptive. Why do you need evidence on the amounts of Vitamin C? Do you know how it works? The dosage needed for each person is highly variable on the individual as well as their health status, but luckily, our bodies are pretty clear on telling us when we've reached a threshold level of Vitamin C. Just because "science" looked into it before but isn't currently looking at it doesn't mean that it's not a safe/effective treatment.

By the way, you wanna talk about old? Go look up the package insert of the MMR, and look at the dates of some of the studies that are cited on it. Then we can address the double standard.
I am guessing you will say that the reason for no research into it is money and the powers that be not wanting us to know about it.

This is not my point. My point is that there is SOME research and it's old.. There is a VERY high chance your infant or young toddler will NOT be willing to drink SA. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO ME. When my daughter was very sick with pre-pneumonia and straph (diagnosed tentatively after 4 days), she would NOT drink or eat anything and barely wanted to nurse. And when I took stuff, it did not work. In the end, antibiotics were the only thing that worked. Whether SA would have worked for this particular illness is not the point: the point was there was no way to get it into her. And it might have worked for these illnesses as they really were never confirmed by a lab test or x-ray, but the fact is what little I could get to her via breastmilk did not work.

I just get burned with the somewhat flippant recommendations that exist on this forum for how to treat illnesses when they do NOT come with any sort of caveats. The recommendations come with tones of certainty and proven effectiveness.

Yes, maybe maybe SA has been helpful. Yes, maybe some kids will drink it. Maybe some breastfeeding mom's can pass on some Vit C in whatever form through breastfeeding.

But to throw out SA and some of the treatments recommended here as if they work 100% and have been SHOWN to do so is just as bad as vaccine makers throwing out their vaccines and telling you they work without enough science and study and research. You just can't have it both ways.

So back to what sparked this.... yes, SA might help. There may be some treatments. But to be so empirical in stating that these are treatments to many of these VPD is wrong IMHO. It gives people the illusion that they will have effective options for treating their child and therefore, there is no need to vaccinate. This is just not presenting an accurate picture. If you want to present all the buggy information on vaccines, you must do the same for SA (and CLO) for their to be true balance and for anyone to really make a good decision.

And for the record, I have not vaccinated my daughter yet except for one DTaP. I am not advocating vaccines or anything. It's an individual choice. But when I read mom's here saying the know how to treat diseases so they are well armed for not vaccinating, I honestly cringe. How many diseases have they REALLY had to treat? Is this based on experience or just reading some book? Have they had to try to treat the full range of a diseases potential course? For instance, the worst case of measles or just a mild case? The worst case of pertussis or just a mild, diagnosed at home case. Have they really had a case of polio start to go haywire? To say it doesn't exist isn't the point. The point is do they really know how to treat these diseases and all the directions they can take when complications start to arise.

Do you understand what I am trying to say?
anewmama is offline  
#19 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 01:47 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallacesmum View Post
Compared to the risks of antibiotics, (and how current is that research?), I'll take SA anytime.
Sure, I would take it too. But at some point, if nothing is improving, I will resort to antibiotics, no question. And for my own history of illnesses, there is nothing that I didn't have that in the end didn't get cured by antibiotics without any near term side effects. Who knows what will happen to me in 30 years and if it is a result of antibiotics.
anewmama is offline  
#20 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 01:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
So, I think it's quite possible the old research on VitC and pertussis was right...but it's not completely a "fact", IMO, without more followup.
This is what I believe. It needs much more follow up and people being advised by other moms on this board need to be aware of this. It's "malpractice" to not state this when SA is recommended. IMHO. It is being presented much too empirically.
anewmama is offline  
#21 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 02:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mamakay:

http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorba...37-n2-p134.htm


I have to read it again more carefully but the information here is not hugely convincing though promising based on the tiny study. Seems there is an awful lot of experiments in the first part where there was no effect. And this stands out: "The short series of cases presented is too small to draw any statistical conclusions, but one fact stands out. Ascorbic acid has a definite effect in shortening the period of paroxysms from a matter of weeks to a matter of days. "

And the average age is at least 6, if not higher (just glancing at the ages)

This particular study doesn't say a whole lot about using this approach for infants.
anewmama is offline  
#22 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 02:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorba...-p1884-eng.htm


What stands out to me in this is that here, Vit C was used as opposed to SA which I understand is different to a degree. Also, the C that was given was injected and not ingested:

"Accounting for the degree of illness and the age of the children, intravenous or intramuscular injections [were given as follows:] "

This treatment method is different than SA bought at your local health food store, it appears to me. Maybe it is the same. But the C administered here is not similar to what most people have access to at home.

Could doctors inject it rather than reach for antibiotics? Sure, but back to the money issue of pharma and antibiotics. Is this a shame? Sure it is. Should more be done to pursue this? Sure, absolutely.

But is this experiment and most home treatments the same? They don't sound like it. But without the cross comparitive study.....
anewmama is offline  
#23 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 02:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/co...665/frame.html

Trials first done on rats. Then they researched for trials.

"A single, non randomised, poorly reported trial of vitamin C as a treatment for tetanus suggests a considerable reduction in mortality. However, concerns about trial quality mean that this result must be interpreted with caution and vitamin C cannot be recommended as a treatment for tetanus on the basis of this evidence. New trials should be carried out to examine the effect of vitamin C on tetanus treatment."

Again, more study needed. If a poor study were upheld for advocating a particular vaccine (as it happens), it would be shredded. So should this one as it admits to being a poor study.

But again, more study seems to be implied by some good results.
anewmama is offline  
#24 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 04:03 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, I see what you are saying. And you make a good point. However, there are lots of places, even in the archives here, where many of these things are discussed in full, and the opportunity to research further always exists. We are always dealing with some element of uncertainty, and, I think you realize, peds will often suggest that there is NO possible treatment or prevention for these diseases other than their precious vaccines.

ETA: I don't think anyone should take random, unqualified advice. In fact, I never gave any above. This forum, and many like it, are an opportunity for conversations that should lead to further research. Sorry your experience was so frustrating - was she willing to take the antibiotics?
wallacesmum is offline  
#25 of 52 Old 09-17-2008, 04:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
no, no one should take random advice. When I approached DD's illness with SA, it was doing so thinking it might help but not convinced. The antibiotics were easy to force down her when she was at her worst and didn't want anything. As she got better, she was willing to take them.
anewmama is offline  
#26 of 52 Old 09-18-2008, 05:04 AM
 
pantufla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OP, your original question was about DTaP and transmission.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/pdf/srugo.pdf
Quote:
The whole-cell vaccine for
pertussis is protective only against clinical
disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore,
even young, recently vaccinated children may
serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of
infection.
This doesn't quite answer your question, as this refers to DTP not DTaP, but I do believe this fulfills your request for actual documentation.
pantufla is offline  
#27 of 52 Old 09-18-2008, 02:28 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
anewmama, I want to thank you for reminding me of some important issues that sometimes get lost in these discussions. I have been thinking about your comments, and you are very right that:

Medicine and health are personal. I believe they are fundamentally personal, in line with theoretical physics and the observer as defining the interaction. No one else can make a recommendation that is 100% in line with another's body - I really think this is true.

Even when we "know" something to be true, it is important, indeed essential, to revisit it on occasion and examine it in light of our current perspectives, knowledge and experience.

Every conversation is an opportunity to pursue our own research; it is never enough to hear it from someone else.

So, anyway, just wanted to write that down because it is easy for me to forget it sometimes.
wallacesmum is offline  
#28 of 52 Old 09-19-2008, 12:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wallacesmum, that was very well put. Thanks for summarizing that nicely.

I just feel that like vaccines (which aren't for everyone), no treatment is universal and this forum needs to be reminded of that when people advise others (yes, like it or not, that is what we are doing here by sharing our decisions and knowledge and choices) on what they are doing in lieu of vaccines.

My daughter is my first child and my first experience with treating a reluctant 9 month old patient (she is now 17 mo). I had never thought of what if my daughter wouldn't do SA or CLO at a critical time. So I lived it through experience and feel it's important to bring it to the attention of other new mom's. Any treatment recommended here might not work either because you cannot get your child to take something or because your own child's illness and disposition make it so the treatment won't work.

So what are the alternatives? Are there any? If one elects to not use vaccines as a "treatment" (stop the disease maybe before it begins) then it needs to be "public" that some other options might not work EITHER. That absolutely needs to factor in to decisions people make. The board is sometimes too cavalier and jaunty in alternatives to vaccines and I don't think that's healthy (pun intended) for people new to the whole idea of not vaccinating, learning about these diseases, etc.
anewmama is offline  
#29 of 52 Old 09-19-2008, 02:06 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,664
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
you are right

but the general attitude of the media and doctors towards vaccines is incredibly cavalier and jaunty

of course vaccines work
reactions are very rare
if your child does have a reaction there is a program to help out and provide care (ha!)
these diseases are very dangerous
people don't remember how awful things were back in the 1950s before we had all these wonderful vaccines

my attitude is influenced by my mother, born in 1918, now deceased, who brought up 5 children starting in the 1940s and continuing through the 1970s when the last one hit 18, WITHOUT vaccines. No internet, no other mums to chat with, no books. She went with her mother's advice, help from one naturapath for a few years, and her own basic good sense. We all survived and continue to survive. And of course most of the dangerous diseases were running rampant in those years: measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, polio, hepatitis B (okay, I'm drifting into sarcasm), whooping cough, etc.

In some ways we all have it very easy nowadays, in other ways, no.

Perhaps we should have a warning thread on everyone's worst experiences treating vaccine (supposedly) preventable diseases? To provide some balance.
Deborah is online now  
#30 of 52 Old 09-21-2008, 11:43 PM
 
columbusmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Running
Posts: 3,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

Wife to DH(15 years)and Mama to: Jacob(5/02)kid.gifribbonpurple.gif, and Alina(7/07)energy.gifI luxlove.gifbellyhair.gif
columbusmomma 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