[HeatherHeather]

I was looking at the original article in Pediatrics and the study does in fact show that the whooping cough vaccine is ineffective at preventing pertussis. If you go to<br><br><a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/5/1069" target="_blank">http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ull/112/5/1069</a><br><br>
look at the first table, it breaks down the total number of cases of pertussis by group. There is no difference b/w the three groups.<br><br>
In the archived thread it says that it is only reported that there was no difference in the reported cases b/w July and September. That was what was in the text, however if you look at the table, then you also see that there was no difference overall.<br><br>
I'm sure that wasn't spelled out in the text b/c Pediatrics wouldn't publish it if it were.<br><br>
Could this information be added to the archived thread? I want to make sure that it is completely clear that the study showed no differences in the number of pertussis cases in pertussis vaxed vs. pertussis unvaxed groups.

 

[HeatherHeather]

Bumping.<br><br>
Hello, this study actually shows that the pertussis vaccine doesn't prevent pertussis.

 

[DevaMajka]

Some funny (not funny ha ha) quotes:<br><br>
"The results of the analysis of variance models showed that vaccination against pertussis reduced the length of cough from 3 to 10 days and the length of spasmodic cough from 4 to 8 days."<br>
"Children who received an antibiotic had a duration of cough 6 to 11 days longer and spasmodic cough 4 to 13 days longer than untreated patients."<br><br>
"Conclusions. Duration of cough can be greatly influenced by vaccination status."<br><br>
"There was no difference in the number of hospitalizations and visits by vaccine group. "<br><br>
And its interesting that they say "Culture-positive pertussis was more common among the DT recipients than among the DTaP recipients (DT: 61.7%; DTaP SB: 39.6%; DTaP CB: 36.5%; P < .001). " when they previously said that a diagnosis of pertussis didn't have to include a positive culture.<br><br>
Very interesting, indeed.

 

[CallMeIshmael]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>HeatherHeather</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">look at the first table, it breaks down the total number of cases of pertussis by group....the study showed no differences in the number of pertussis cases in pertussis vaxed vs. pertussis unvaxed groups.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
It's true that the numbers of kids getting pertussis was approximately the same in each of the three groups: 261 who got DT only, 278 who got one brand of DTaP, and 249 who got another brand of DTaP.<br><br>
However, the Methods section explains that each DTaP group had 3x as many kids as the DT group. If the pertussis vax were doing nothing, you'd therefore expect three times as many cases in those groups.

 

[CallMeIshmael]

Also, keep in mind that the study wasn't done to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine -- the authors already did that in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8538704&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_DocSum" target="_blank">this 1996 study</a> .<br><br>
In the more recent study we're discussing in this thread, the authors are simply re-analysing the same 15,601 kids and their 788 confirmed cases of pertussis that they described in the 1996 study. (If you do a pubmed search on Tozzi + Pertussis, you'll discover that they've gotten quite a few papers out of the same data set.)

 

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Maximum data extraction from minimum work, huh CallMeIshmael...