Pertussis vaccine does NOT prevent transmission? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 03:21 PM
 
lyttlewon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
Chickenpox is the only one out of those that probably infects others semi-regularly. Measles and mumps have never been documented to do that, and rubella only seems to when it's a mother who gets it (the vax) after having a baby, and it infects the baby.
The rotavirus vaccine is farily new, so no one knows for sure yet, but it probably sheds a LOT. Flumist infects others, but not terribly often.
So does that mean there isn't secondary infection of Measles and Mumps or just that no one has ever studied it?
lyttlewon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 04:01 PM
 
mykdsmomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: On the way to or from Starbucks
Posts: 3,170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy View Post
The dtap and tdap vaccines don't prevent pertussis 100% but they have been shown in a lot of research to make for less severity in cases of pertussis. So, yes, you could still pass it to an infant but the idea is that there is less pertussis with the vaccine and that cases are less severe. Dr. Sears says this much in his Vaccine Book. He also says pertussis is common but that it is milder due to the vaccine.
I'm not following how pertussis can be milder due to the vaccine if the vaccine doesnt prevent transmission? If someone was vaccinated for pertussis but still got pertussis but only a mild case.....then that said person infected another person, how would the aforementioned person be guarateed a milder case as well? (did you get that? sorry for the weird wordage)

Here's me I married then we had dd15 , dd11 , ds10 , and then and now we and I blog!
mykdsmomy is offline  
#33 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 04:11 PM
 
nicolebeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykdsmomy View Post
I'm not following how pertussis can be milder due to the vaccine if the vaccine doesnt prevent transmission? If someone was vaccinated for pertussis but still got pertussis but only a mild case.....then that said person infected another person, how would the aforementioned person be guarateed a milder case as well? (did you get that? sorry for the weird wordage)
I was thinking the same thing exactly! Not weirdly-worded at all.
nicolebeth is offline  
 
#34 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 04:54 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyttlewon View Post
So does that mean there isn't secondary infection of Measles and Mumps or just that no one has ever studied it?
I'm personally 99% sure if it happened on an even quasi-regular basis, it would have been documented by now in a case report.
It's hard to say if it's just never been studied before, though. I'm not sure if case reports on it not happening would even get published.
mamakay is offline  
#35 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 06:07 PM
 
cortsmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 1,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The origin of disease really interests me in how it relates to herd immunity. I'm not sure where I should post this, bear with me. So many interlocking threads here and things are getting moved and ahhhh! lol.

If herd immunity is true then in order to make a disease disappear we need 95% of the given population to be immune (according to their herd theory). If this is true then was herd immunity in the past able to be accomplished through natural outbreak of disease? If a population becomes naturally infected with a disease then you will have instances of people who are non-infected/non-immune, non-infected/immune, infected/non-immune, previously infected/immune, and dead because of the infection. Now the people who are dead are no longer a part of the population so maybe I shouldn't mention them, but they were touched by this disease and their death as a result of the disease lowered the population. Now as the infection spreads people will either become immune or dead, until eventually 95% of the population would naturally become immune. Did this protect the entire community? For how long?

Now vaccines come in and they attempt to make people immune without having to deal with the headache of infection and thus prevent the death of infection. However, it is acknowledged that they don't always makes people immune, sometimes cause death, and sometimes despite the lack of symptoms or immunity, result in the person still being capable of spreading the disease. However, the non-immune/non-infected (this would include the non-vaccinated) pose the least amount of risk to infect others because they do not have the germ at all to spread. So when someone says that people who are non-vaccinated are spreading disease is not true, they have the POTENTIAL to spread the disease in the future if they later become infected, but the vaccinated have the potential to spread disease at any given moment.

It makes sense to me that if we really want to protect the "herd" then the best way to do that would be through quarantine of the sick and quarantine of the transmitters. That is how we eliminated smallpox (through quarantine). However, it appears that some diseases you cannot tell if a person is a transmitter or not just by looking at them or by their symptoms since they can be sub-clinically ill so that presents a problem.

And still this all begs the question, if we can only get some diseases from other people and not from some other source or risk factor (anthroponosis), then how did the very first person that ever got the disease get the disease? A lot of people think they jump from animals. If that is the case then there would be certain diseases that we could not get rid of in ourselves through either quarantine or vaccination because there is some other animal that also is a transmitter of that germ. An example would be the flu because my ferrets can give me the flu and vice versa. Therefore, the flu vaccine definitely can never afford herd immunity nor erradicate disease.

Also, will every single person who is non-immune and exposed to the germ going to display sickness or will only some people get sick from the germ? Why?

My final idea on this:

If we want to protect the population and rid the world of any particular anthroponosis then logically we would want the entire population to be a non-carrier of the germ and we would want to know what exactly causes infection in some non-immune people but not others so we could use that information to give all people that x-factor (that obviously has nothing to do with immunity). We would want to eradicate the germ itself because the only people that 100% cannot spread the illness are people who are non-infected/non-immune because they are the only people who absolutely cannot possibly be harboring the potential to spread infection.
cortsmommy is offline  
#36 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 06:58 PM
 
13Sandals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: north of NY
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy View Post
The dtap and tdap vaccines don't prevent pertussis 100% but they have been shown in a lot of research to make for less severity in cases of pertussis. So, yes, you could still pass it to an infant but the idea is that there is less pertussis with the vaccine and that cases are less severe. Dr. Sears says this much in his Vaccine Book. He also says pertussis is common but that it is milder due to the vaccine.
Did you not see Proverbs quotes from the vax insert? :
Quote:
It is unknown whether immunizing adolescents and adults against pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants.3


what part of this tells you that the adult boosters will help out infants at all? It says absolutely nothing about there being 'less pertussis' in the infant population. Sounds like the adult booster can help out one person only - the adult who receives it...so why doesn't the campaign say "Do it for yourself!".

Anyone, why would the FDA allow this misleading campaign to go on when the booster clearly has not demonstrated that it will do anything for 'Sophie'?
13Sandals is offline  
#37 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 08:39 PM
 
aniT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon, by way of Cali.
Posts: 15,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13Sandals View Post
Anyone, why would the FDA allow this misleading campaign to go on when the booster clearly has not demonstrated that it will do anything for 'Sophie'?
Because the people who serve on the FDA own stock on the company that makes it, would be my guess.
aniT is offline  
#38 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 08:51 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It makes sense to me that the pertussis vax could reduce severity, precisely because it doesn't prevent carriage and transmission, but the toxoid activity. The whoop is a symptom from the toxoid, right? So, even if the vax doesn't work 100%, it might reduce the whoop.

And if you aren't hacking all over your grocery cart, you might be less likely to pass it on. So I can see it affecting transmission in that respect. Nonetheless, every winter I hear about people having bouts of the "100 day cough" or whatever, so just because they aren't whooping doesn't mean they aren't coughing out pertussis.
wallacesmum is offline  
#39 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 08:57 PM
 
superlori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13Sandals View Post
Did you not see Proverbs quotes from the vax insert? :

what part of this tells you that the adult boosters will help out infants at all? It says absolutely nothing about there being 'less pertussis' in the infant population. Sounds like the adult booster can help out one person only - the adult who receives it...so why doesn't the campaign say "Do it for yourself!".

Anyone, why would the FDA allow this misleading campaign to go on when the booster clearly has not demonstrated that it will do anything for 'Sophie'?
And this is what sickens me the most. That they can lead a pathetic (in the original sense of the word) campaign to tug on heartstrings and bring tears to your eyes and make you go out and 'do it for sophie' KNOWING THE WHOLE BLOODY TIME IT IS A LIE. Even the manufacturers admit there is no evidence that this works. It. Makes. Me. Sick.
superlori is offline  
#40 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 09:04 PM
 
superlori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykdsmomy View Post
I'm not following how pertussis can be milder due to the vaccine if the vaccine doesnt prevent transmission? If someone was vaccinated for pertussis but still got pertussis but only a mild case.....then that said person infected another person, how would the aforementioned person be guarateed a milder case as well? (did you get that? sorry for the weird wordage)
If I'm understanding your question correctly, here's a breakdown (as far as I understand - anyone correct me if I'm wrong somewhere):

**Assuming the vaccine works**
The pertussis bacteria can be passed through air, etc. When it enters the body, it 'bursts', releasing a toxin which is what makes you sick.

The vaccine protects you from the toxins. Or at least partially protects you from the toxins. When the bacteria release the toxins, the vaccine is in you to protect you from the damaging effects of the toxins, helping you cope with it, making your symptoms mild or non-existent.

HOWEVER, you are still carrying the bacteria and breathing it around. If someone else gets the bacteria from you, but do not have the vaccine to protect them from the toxins, they could get the nasty version of pertussis.

This is all assuming the vaccine works as they say it does.

THUS, a baby who is not fully immunised can breathe your bacteria and without the toxin-protecting effects of the vaccine, can get full-blown nasty pertussis. Meaning the 'do it for sophie' campaign is a load of crap.


(Again, anyone correct me if I've gotten any part of that wrong. It's been a long time since I've done my research on this particular disease.)
superlori is offline  
#41 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 10:19 PM
 
maxwill129's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyttlewon View Post
Tetanus isn't a communicable disease.
Oops. Yup. I knew that. Not sure where my brain was!
maxwill129 is offline  
#42 of 45 Old 12-08-2007, 10:40 PM
 
attachedmamaof3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
superlori, I'd say you've gotten the message! Except for one point.

You would be exposing ANY infant/child/adult vaccinated or not. Vaccines aren't 100%, so all "fully immunized" means is that they are POTENTIALLY protected from severe cases of pertussis and are likely silent carriers.

"Do it for Sophie" is a joke.
attachedmamaof3 is offline  
#43 of 45 Old 12-09-2007, 12:26 AM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,488
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy View Post
... So, yes, you could still pass it to an infant but the idea is that there is less pertussis with the vaccine and that cases are less severe.
It would not make a difference whether the infant was contaminated by a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. The bacteria in the infant would act the same.


Quote:
Polio has been eradicated in the USA. If I recall correctly, that Amish case was found to originate in another country and was brought back in to the USA.
No it was from a vaccine virus.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wallacesmum View Post
The whoop is a symptom from the toxoid, right?
The whoop is mostly in a very young child because the trachea is narrow and the air while exhaling makes that sound. Older kids generally don't have a whoop and neither do grow-ups of course.


Quote:
And if you aren't hacking all over your grocery cart, you might be less likely to pass it on. So I can see it affecting transmission in that respect.
I don't think it is spread that easily. You have to come in close contact like kissing or cuddling a baby. And anyone can spread the bacteria. You don't have to be coughing.
Even a person who has no cough can spread it if they carry the bacteria.



Quote:
Originally Posted by superlori View Post
It's been a long time since I've done my research on this particular disease.)
But you did remember correctly!
Gitti is offline  
#44 of 45 Old 12-09-2007, 01:42 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Gitti, you don't cuddle with your grocery cart?
wallacesmum is offline  
#45 of 45 Old 12-09-2007, 01:50 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,401
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3205 Post(s)
Looks to me like six of one, half a dozen of another.

If you do vax, you can still carry and share pertussis. You can even get sick with pertussis, although you might not cough as hard. The problem here is that you might not realize that you've got pertussis and that means you could be wandering around sharing it with vulnerable people, in blithe ignorance.

If an adult doesn't vax, they can still carry and share pertussis. They might get sick with pertussis, have a mild case and still go around coughing and sharing it, in blithe ignorance. There is a slightly greater chance of correct diagnosis if an adult is not vaxed.

As far as I know, I've never had pertussis. Not once in my entire life. According to something MK posted many threads ago, some people can have it and be completely symptom free. This seems to be true in my family as I've never known anyone in my immediate family to have pertussis. But I could still be carrying it and sharing it. A nasty, tricky, sneaky disease, that one is.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
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: 1,084

12 members and 1,072 guests
alex-alex , Arishaa , bellydancingmommy , CricketVS , Deborah , idler , KerriB , LadyDreamer , megaluv2give , powerfullg
Most users ever online was 21,860, 06-22-2018 at 09:45 PM.