Home > Parent Perspective, Preventable Diseases > The Public Supports Parents Who Take Pertussis Precautions

The Public Supports Parents Who Take Pertussis Precautions

This morning, the University of Michigan released its C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health. This national poll measures public opinion and  perceptions regarding major health care issues for U.S. children and people in their communities.  This month’s poll centered on protection from a vaccine preventable disease know as pertussis, or whooping cough.   With more than 41,000 cases of pertussis in the United States during 2012, including 18 deaths, public health professionals are pouring their resources into pertussis prevention and awareness, which makes this poll and it’s findings extremely relevant and timely.

It should be noted that pertussis is most severe for babies.  The majority of pertussis deaths occur among infants younger than 3 months of age and about half of infants younger than 1 year of age who get the disease need treatment in the hospital.   As parents are becoming more aware of this dangerous disease, they’re also seeking ways to reduce the risk to their infant children.

It’s currently recommended that pregnant women receive a Tdap booster with every pregnancy.  Additionally, fathers, grandparents, siblings and caregivers are also being encouraged to receive Tdap boosters at least two weeks prior to the arrival of a newborn child.  Some parents have even gone so far as to insist that anyone who wishes to visit their newborn – in the hospital or even at home – be up-to-date on their Tdap booster.  While some parents have expressed uncertainty as to how their friends and family might respond to this kind of request, this poll indicates that the public majority supports parents in taking these extra precautions.

MottPollwhoopingcough

According to the full report72% of adults agree that parents should have the right to insist that visitors receive the pertussis vaccine before visiting a newborn baby in the hospital, and 61% of adults agree that parents should make sure all adults receive the pertussis vaccine before visiting a newborn baby at home.

However, the report also suggests that many adults are unaware of their own vaccination status or are not adequately vaccinated themselves.  For instance, 61% of adults say they don’t know when they were last vaccinated against pertussis, 20% of adults reported that they received the pertussis vaccine less than 10 years ago, and another 19% indicating that their last pertussis vaccine was received more than 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, public support of these parental decisions hasn’t translated into adequate adult Tdap booster rates.  Hopefully, as parents encourage other adults to be vaccinated in an effort to “cocoon” their own children, this will in turn help educate people about the impact adult vaccinations can have in our attempts to protect our  youngest and most vulnerable members of our community from diseases like whooping cough.

If you’re an expectant parent who wants to make sure you create a “circle of protection” around your infant, consider sending these e-cards to your family and friends so that you can begin the important conversation about pertussis protection and the need for adult Tdap boosters.

ecardpertussis1ecardpertussis2

  1. Vaccine
    June 17, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    “another 19% indicating that their last pertussis vaccine was received more than 10 years ago.”

    Why is this a problem? The CDC doesn’t recommend adults receive pertussis every ten years (unless they have contact with a newborn, I guess).

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-schedule-easy-read.pdf

    “Get a Tdap vaccine once, then a Td booster vaccine every 10 years “

    Like

  2. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 8:03 am

    So does public opinion now have some truth value? My understanding of the aP vaccine is that is a vaccine against the toxin created by the bacterium and not really a vaccine against the illness at all. That being the case, the vaccine can only reduce symptoms in a vaccinated individual and has no effect on infection or transmission. So can a “circle of protection” protect a baby? In a word, no, but it can certainly increase risks to the baby by people having a false belief of protection and possibly already being infected but with milder symptoms that would avoid diagnosis. An interesting study:

    “It is becoming clear that B. pertussis bacteria are capable of infecting and proliferating in a large proportion of vaccinated individuals. In one study, 33% of the exposed individuals receiving the highly effective five-component acellular pertussis vaccine had evidence of infection and 24% coughed for 21 days or more (19). In the same study, 82% of individuals receiving a licensed whole-cell vaccine had evidence of infection and 65% coughed for 21 days or more.”

    http://iai.asm.org/content/68/12/7152.full

    If the true aim of this site is to promote health, maybe it’s time to look at the facts…

    Like

  3. June 18, 2013 at 11:03 am

    @Robert – so how exactly would you protect babies from Pertussis?

    Like

  4. Chris
    June 18, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Robert:

    That being the case, the vaccine can only reduce symptoms in a vaccinated individual and has no effect on infection or transmission. So can a “circle of protection” protect a baby?

    Citation needed. Something that is less than a decade old, and not done in a petri dish.

    And then, you can tell us your plan to prevent pertussis in infants. Make sure to provide documentation that it actually works to protect real babies, and not cells in a dish.

    Like

  5. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    You guys really take the cake! Lawrence, I was not proposing a solution, I was merely pointing out that promoting a false solution creates a false sense of security that actually increases the risks to babies. Your apparent “a bad solution is better than no solution” mentality endangers children’s lives, yet you and your ego are so insistent on being “right” that you really don’t care about the risks of what you are promoting, do you? What is the best solution? I don’t know, but encouraging risky behavior based on false “science” is exacerbating the problem, not solving it. Things are better left alone than to made worse by your silliness.

    Chris please give up on the “citation needed” crap. I have provided a citation, of course, unless you think that the American Society of Microbiology or the Department of Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry, and Microbiology, University of Cincinnati or the Departments of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Virginia School of Medicine are crackpot organizations trying to sell vitamins or books or subscriptions to research…. These are eminent professionals in the field and certainly qualify as “competent researchers”. So why do you quibble? I suspect because you don’t like it when your own experts disagree with you. And why do you persist, like Lawrence, with this fallacy that if I can provide a solution, yours must be the best? On top of that, if the aPertussis vaccine is a toxiod vaccine, which it is, and has no effect on infection or transmission, what difference does the age of the research make? Truth is truth. You are making yourself look a little silly with your canned objections to your own standards of source.

    Like

  6. Chris
    June 18, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    You provided a citation of a petri dish experiment. Now, that would be relevant if you are, in fact, just some stuff in a dish, specifically “30 μl of HBSA.” Though, that might explain a few things.

    Babies are not bovine serum albumin in a dish.

    Like

  7. Chris
    June 18, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Robert, the article predates the present pertussis vaccine schedule (before Tdap), and was just cells in a petri dish. It does not apply to real humans, especially babies.

    Like

  8. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    The article has nothing to do with babies. It has to do with the fact that all pertussis vaccines only protect against the toxin, not the infection. The CDC, among others, admit that the aPertussis is LESS effective on this count than the whole cell Pertussis vaccine. Why do you insist on splitting non-existent hairs? Oh, I know why. You really have no reply to the fact that the vaccines have no impact on infection or transmission so to protect your view, you ask erroneous questions. I think that is called a “diversionary tactic”. You have not refuted the claims (from your own hallowed sources) that the vaccine does not affect transmission or infection and therefore cannot protect babies. Maybe it is time for you to listen to your conscience and give up this gratuitous defence of the indefensible.

    Like

  9. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    And you have ignore the question about “public perception” somehow translating into ‘fact’. An oversight, I’m sure.

    Like

  10. Chris
    June 18, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    It is still just stuff in a petri dish.

    And the point is to protect babies. You have not come up with a viable solution.

    Like

  11. Chris
    June 18, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    See the title of Figure 1: “Opinions about Protecting Babies by Vaccinating Adults Against Pertussis.”

    The paper was before the adult pertussis vaccine, Tdap, existed. So how do you plan to protect babies?

    Like

  12. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    Chris :
    It is still just stuff in a petri dish.
    And the point is to protect babies. You have not come up with a viable solution.

    And neither have you. You labor under a false train of logic that since I have shown that your “solution” makes things worse, it doesn’t matter unless I suggest a better solution. That is nonsense and you know it, so why do you continue down such an illogical course?

    Like

  13. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    Chris :
    See the title of Figure 1: “Opinions about Protecting Babies by Vaccinating Adults Against Pertussis.”
    The paper was before the adult pertussis vaccine, Tdap, existed. So how do you plan to protect babies?

    The whole point is that by vaccinating adults against the toxin, it has NO impact on infection or transmission, but can mitigate symptoms to the point of misguidedly leading people to believe they are “clean” when they are in fact carrying and transmitting the infection to the babies you so piously claim to want to protect, thus undermining your own stated goals. Your logic contradicts itself. This is quite obvious, unless you have a hidden agenda…

    Like

  14. Chris
    June 18, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    I’m sorry, but your evidence is from a petri dish experiment. It has nothing to do with epidemiology. Which is covered here:
    Pediatrics. 2009 Jun;123(6):1446-51.
    Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children.

    Which basically says, that one is more likely to get pertussis if one has not been vaccinated. And seriously, your little petri dish paper is a riot. Especially since the pertussis vaccine contains other than the toxin bit. From an explanation here:

    10 µg detoxified pertussis toxin (PTx), 5 µg filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA), 3 µg pertactin (PRN), and 5 µg fimbriae types 2 and 3 (FIM) –

    Which means that bacterial surface proteins are also included.

    So, this article is about protecting babies. What is your tried and true way to protected babies from pertussis?

    Like

  15. Narad
    June 18, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    I’m rather perplexed that 28% of the survey population would disagree that “parents should have the right to insist that visitors receive the pertussis vaccine before visiting a newborn baby.” Do they think there’s some sort of right to visit whoever they want, however they want, in the hospital regardless of the wishes of the people being visited?

    Like

  16. Narad
    June 18, 2013 at 9:09 pm

    The whole point is that by vaccinating adults against the toxin, it has NO impact on infection or transmission, but can mitigate symptoms to the point of misguidedly leading people to believe they are “clean” when they are in fact carrying and transmitting the infection to the babies you so piously claim to want to protect

    Leaving aside the effect of the vaccine on colonization, has it occurred to you that the main symptom of pertussis is also the main route of transmission?

    Like

  17. June 19, 2013 at 3:34 am

    Robert: “The whole point is that by vaccinating adults against the toxin, it has NO impact on infection or transmission,”

    Except the citation did not actually say that. The conclusion recommended another toxin chemical to be included to improve the vaccine. And since the one paper (it was pure cherry picking) was over a decade old, that might have actually happened.

    Again, Robert (perhaps another “Joe” sockpuppet), needs to provide a tried and true way to protect babies from pertussis. We know that neither the DTaP nor Tdap are perfect. But they are better than getting the “hundred day cough” or a baby dying. Plus if more people are vaccinated, the fewer babies get pertussis.

    Like

  18. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 4:26 am

    I find it deliciously ironic that the original source article which Robert refers to as demonstrating vaccinated persons can catch pertussis is one which affirms the efficacy of the acellular vaccine (75%) and which also indicates that antibody levels correlate with protection (something he was very dismissive of in another thread).

    Robert, it might help to look at all the evidence, not just cherry picked, out of context fragments from papers that superficially seem to support your claims.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9796042?dopt=Abstract

    Like

  19. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 4:31 am

    And equally, if not more ironic, is the confirmation that acellular pertussis vaccine is effective from the Cochrane Collaboration, that source which Robert loves to cite when he thinks they say something he agrees with, but studiously ignores when they don’t.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001478.pub4/pdf
    (Efficacy for preventing pertussis of 85%)

    Like

  20. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 4:34 am

    And since Robert is so hot on pointing out mistakes anyone else might make, I look forward to his backing down on saying the multicomponent acellular pertussis vaccine is purely a toxoid vaccine, when it clearly is not.

    Like

  21. June 19, 2013 at 5:41 am

    @Dingo – I wouldn’t hold your breath on that……

    Like

  22. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 6:07 am

    While I undertand why the CDC may not be as forthright as other “public” health agencies (see Julie Gerberding and her reward from Merck for promoting the non-pandemic swine flu vaccine as head of CDC), European agencies are not as under the industry thumb. Here is what Public Health England have to say:

    “Pertussis has the highest incidence in infants. Young infants are at highest risk of severe complications, hospitalisation and death. Adults and older children are often the source of infection for younger siblings at home.

    Protection against whooping cough infection is not life-long and even after natural disease, individuals can get re-infected and spread infection to others. The same is true after whooping cough vaccination, although infection in fully vaccinated individuals is normally very mild. Because of this, the disease still continues to occur in cycles despite the high coverage of the vaccine. Protection from vaccination against serious whooping cough is very high for the first few years of life, when the risk of complications is greatest. Protection is extended further by the booster dose given shortly before children go to school. However, vaccinated people can get a mild infection, particularly as immunity wanes in late adolescence and adulthood, and these people may spread infection to those children who are too young to be vaccinated. When pertussis is circulating, this boosts people’s protection and eventually helps to stop transmission. However, a few years later immunity wanes again and infection can spread more easily – leading to these intermittent epidemics.”

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/WhoopingCough/GeneralInformation/

    Please note that they point out that it is the circulation of the disease itself, and not vaccination, which eventually stops transmission (true herd immunity) and that vaccinated people can and do contract the illness but with milder symptoms, thus reducing the likelihood of an accurate diagnosis and increasing the chance that the infected individuals will believe themselves to be “safe” and put children at risk based on that false belief. I back down from nothing, and I stand by my point that the reduction in cases in Vermont has nothing to do with vaccination rates, but rather, the cyclical nature of this endemic illness.

    Like

  23. Lauren @ the VEC
    June 19, 2013 at 7:31 am

    If you’re a new or expectant parent and want your family members to help surround your baby with protection from whooping cough by getting the Tdap vaccine, The Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has a question and answer sheet titled, “Pertussis: What you should know,” that you can print and give to family members who may have questions about Pertussis and the Tdap vaccine. You could also share the link with your friends and family: http://bit.ly/Pertussis_english

    Like

  24. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 7:57 am

    Lauren @ the VEC :
    If you’re a new or expectant parent and want your family members to help surround your baby with protection from whooping cough by getting the Tdap vaccine, The Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has a question and answer sheet titled, “Pertussis: What you should know,” that you can print and give to family members who may have questions about Pertussis and the Tdap vaccine. You could also share the link with your friends and family: http://bit.ly/Pertussis_english

    And all of you expectant parents should also be aware, in the interest of full disclosure, that the chief on immunology at CHoP is Dr. Paul Offit and he is a vaccine millionaire and his chair is funded by Merck to the tune of $1.5 MILLION per year. So remember when people on here claim that you can’t trust a doctor or researcher who happens to sell vitamins, CHoP and it’s staff are DEEPLY beholden to the vaccine industry and their information will undoubtably be biased based on this financial relationship worth hundreds of millions of dollars overall.

    Like

  25. June 19, 2013 at 8:15 am

    @Robert – and he is still a doctor who performs rounds & sees patients on a daily basis…..what exactly are the anti-vaccine groups doing to help others?

    Like

  26. Lawrence
    June 19, 2013 at 8:32 am

    Not to mention that he spent a couple of decades researching / developing a vaccine that has been responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives globally…..so, what have you done lately, Robert?

    Like

  27. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 10:29 am

    Robert, again you are being highly selective in your interpretation of evidence. Public Health England state, as you quoted, that “Protection against whooping cough infection is not life-long and even after natural disease, individuals can get re-infected and spread infection to others. The same is true after whooping cough vaccination.”
    There is no real distinction between the vulnerability of those who haven’t been vaccinated, those who have been vaccinated and protection has waned, and those who had natural infection and protection has waned.
    All of these contribute to the “susceptible” population in the SIRS model of herd immunity.

    There will be cyclical outbreaks because the susceptible population is variable – insufficient people have had vaccine to maintain immunity, but if sufficient people were adequately vaccinated then transmission would fall and outbreaks cease. That’s the problem- ideally all adults should get regular boosters and then that is what you would see.

    PS: I’d still like to see you apologize for your mistake in repeatedly saying pertusis vaccine is only a toxoid vaccine.

    Like

  28. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 10:46 am

    And all of you expectant parents should also be aware, in the interest of full disclosure, that the chief on immunology at CHoP is Dr. Paul Offit and he is a vaccine millionaire and his chair is funded by Merck to the tune of $1.5 MILLION per year.

    Yes, Paul Offit was responsible for producing a rotavirus vaccine that has saved tens of thousands of lives. He sold on the patent many years ago, and earns no money from the vaccine or the producers of it.
    He is a highly experienced, world renowned clinician specializing in Pediatric infectious diseases and vaccination, with multiple papers and professional book publications, and several other published books (royalties from which go to children’s charities for things like autism).

    Please parents, whatever you do, don’t listen to Professor Offit, since he clearly knows nothing and is biased. Listen instead to people like Robert and anonymous antivaccine trolls on the internet. They are the fount of true knowledge on vaccines.

    Like

  29. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Sorry blockquote fail, but you catch my drift.

    PS while we talk about Offit, he has a new website up and running:
    http://paul-offit.com/

    Like

  30. Lawrence
    June 19, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    @dingo – bookmarked!!!

    Like

  31. Chris
    June 19, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Robert quoting this like it is unknown to us in Comment #22:

    Protection against whooping cough infection is not life-long and even after natural disease, individuals can get re-infected and spread infection to others.

    Well, duh! It is the point of this whole article! They even say so in the video. It is clearly stated that the protection wanes, and that adults need to get a Tdap. And as Narad stated, if you cough less you spread pertussis less.

    Robert do you even read the articles before you comment? You certainly have not come up with a better solution to protect babies. And remember, if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

    By the way, Dr. Offit is not the only pediatrician that is at CHoP. There is a whole bunch in hospital, and many non-pediatricians who are responsible for its websites. If you check http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/about-the-vaccine-education-center.html you will see lots of other names. Perhaps Robert will find something wrong with each of those doctors, scientists, nurses and educators.

    Also, the last time I checked, Dr. Offit had nothing to do with the creation of the DTaP vaccine. It was first created by the Japanese. The DTaP must be okay dokay since it obviously not “western medicine.” 😉

    Like

  32. Narad
    June 19, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    Please note that they point out that it is the circulation of the disease itself, and not vaccination, which eventually stops transmission (true herd immunity)

    Dingo has covered the details, but I’d chime in to note that the insertion of “true herd immunity” here is one of the most clue-impaired statements I’ve seen in a while.

    Like

  33. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    The whole theory of “herd immunity” was based on natural immunity through infection, the vaccine theory is based on a model. You know, a computer simulation wherein there have been no actual studies done to confirm or deny the theory. There is no evidence that it works in vaccination scenarios even though you guys like to spout about it like its a proven fact. It is not. The original theory was based on observations of populations as pathogens infected, spread and then died out. An important part of the theory is based on lifetime, or at least long term, immunity being conferred after infection. We now know unequivocally that vaccines don’t confer long term immunity. There have been numerous vaccine failures that have shown that, among others, measles, mumps, chicken pox and pertussis do not confer long term immunity and this strips bare the fact that there have never been “herd immunity” theoretical levels of immunity to meet the supposed thresholds to give credit to the herd immunity theory for stopping or reducing incidence rates. It is hogwash.

    Like

  34. June 19, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    @Robert – then please explain what happened to Smallpox & Rinderpest, not to mention Polio, domestic measles, and the massive reduction of VPDs in the United States since the beginning of the Vaccine Program?

    Your last statement shows just how deluded you actually are, btw.

    Like

  35. Narad
    June 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    The whole theory of “herd immunity” was based on natural immunity through infection

    You can repeat this inanity until the cows come home, but that’s not going make it into anything other than a spectacular demonstration that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

    Like

  36. Chris
    June 19, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Robert, please explain why those who refuse pertussis vaccines for their children end up getting pertussis more often:

    Pediatrics. 2009 Jun;123(6):1446-51.
    Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children.

    Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Feb;108(7):99-104.
    Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents: findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS).

    The last study showed the only difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children was that the latter got sick more often from vaccine preventable diseases. Seriously, even “natural immunity” for pertussis wears off, so ii is a cruddy way to build herd immunity, getting Tdap is less annoying than getting the “hundred day cough”:
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 May;24(5 Suppl):S58-61.
    Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.

    So, Robert, what is your tried and true method for protecting infants from pertussis? You still have not given an adequate answer.

    Like

  37. Ann
    June 19, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    Australia discontinued sponsoring a program to vaccinate adults for pertussis to try to protect babies when their scientific tests found that it didn’t work.

    Like

  38. Ann
    June 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Is there a tried and true method for protecting infants from pertussis? Apparently it’s not to be found in the vaccine, since Control valve packaging the acellular vaccine gives poor or no protection from pertussis, and doesn’t prevent its transmission. Time to move on and consider other tactics for protecting infants.

    Like

  39. June 19, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    @Ann – you might want to get your story straight. The program was discontinued because vaccine-uptake wasn’t sufficient & the closing of the program was related to cost.

    Like

  40. Narad
    June 19, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    Australia discontinued sponsoring a program to vaccinate adults for pertussis to try to protect babies when their scientific tests found that it didn’t work.

    No doubt Australia will be surprised to learn of this.

    Apparently it’s not to be found in the vaccine, since Control valve packaging the acellular vaccine gives poor or no protection from pertussis

    “Control valve packaging”?

    Like

  41. June 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    @Narad – thanks for the clarification there. And a great link as well.

    Like

  42. Narad
    June 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    Aha, I see that the page linked is out of date.

    Like

  43. Narad
    June 19, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    I take it the original reference was to this. (Well, aside from the fact that The Conversation’s account is coherent.)

    Like

  44. Narad
    June 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    OK, I think I get it now.

    “Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the ACT have all dropped the free booster programs, with Western Australia likely to follow at the end of [2012 December], because the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Council has twice challenged the evidence that ‘cocooning’ children by vaccinating those around them works as a public health strategy.

    “Its refusal to recommend the booster program for commonwealth funding under the National Immunisation Program schedule means states have to pick up the bill, if they decide a program should be in place.

    “The Northern Territory has no plans to end its program and NSW has extended a trial until more information becomes available.”

    Of course, Ann could have stated the actual case rather than regurgitating something that she picked up at Gaia Health or one of the usual suspects.

    Like

  45. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Robert, you continually litter your posts with easily disprovable throw-away comments. It is sad to see someone throwing out accusations of unscientific thinking yet who relies on trite, simplistic , inaccurate and unscientific generalizations.

    The whole theory of “herd immunity” was based on natural immunity through infection, the vaccine theory is based on a model.

    At least you acknowledge herd immunity is real (which is more than most antivax people). But I cannot fathom why you think the protective immunity from a vaccine will not generate herd immunity when the protective immunity from a disease will. That is logically inconsistent. Perhaps you should read this:
    http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/2/265.long
    or if you have no Athens login, see here: http://op12no2.me/stuff/herdhis.pdf

    I also wonder why outbreaks and epidemics of disease are more severe and more frequent when vaccination is interrupted (eg Japan with Measles, Russia with Diphtheria, Sweden with Pertussis etc) when according to you there is no vaccine-induced “herd immunity”. In one sense, I don’t care what you call this protective population immunity, by any other name ‘twould smell as sweet.

    And as for your claim vaccine immunity is never long-lived?

    What about Polio? Rubella? Tetanus? Immunity from these is usually 20 years or longer. There is also good evidence that Hepatitis B vaccine is clinically effective long term, probably for life (despite a decline in B surface antibody titers within after 10 years), and recent WHO evidence indicates Yellow Fever vaccine immunity is lifelong.

    But you specifically mentioned Measles, so let’s see what they found in one survey:
    “About 85% of the vaccines still had detectable HI antibody titres 15 years after primary immunization. However, even when the HI titres decreased to undetectable levels this did not imply that they had lost immunity to wild measles virus. A total of 82% of the children who had no measurable HI antibody 1-5 years later, still had detectable levels of neutralizing antibody [which was clinically protective].”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2393239/pdf/bullwho00049-0041.pdf
    i.e. Long lived immunity.

    And remember that the duration of immunity to the “natural” infections is not always that “long lived” either (cf Pertussis, or if you prefer take something like Tetanus, which induces no protective immunity at all, actually).

    Your pathetic attempts to rubbish vaccines and vaccine science at every turn are pitiful.
    ……And I am still waiting for you to admit your previous mistakes…..

    Like

  46. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    Ann :
    Is there a tried and true method for protecting infants from pertussis?

    Yeah –
    1. Ensure women planning to get pregnant or who are pregnant get the vaccine.
    2. Ensure family members and other contacts have boosters.

    Next question?

    Like

  47. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Posting without links as I have had trouble getting things posted….

    Robert, you continually litter your posts with easily disprovable throw-away comments. It is sad to see someone throwing out accusations of unscientific thinking yet who relies on trite, simplistic , inaccurate and unscientific generalizations.

    The whole theory of “herd immunity” was based on natural immunity through infection, the vaccine theory is based on a model.

    At least you acknowledge herd immunity is real (which is more than most antivax people). But I cannot fathom why you think the protective immunity from a vaccine will not generate herd immunity when the protective immunity from a disease will. That is logically inconsistent. Perhaps you should read this:
    Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice Epidemiol Rev (1993) 15 (2): 265-302

    I also wonder why outbreaks and epidemics of disease are more severe and more frequent when vaccination is interrupted (eg Japan with Measles, Russia with Diphtheria, Sweden with Pertussis etc) when according to you there is no vaccine-induced “herd immunity”. In one sense, I don’t care what you call this protective population immunity, by any other name ‘twould smell as sweet.

    And as for your claim vaccine immunity is never long-lived?

    What about Polio? Rubella? Tetanus? Immunity from these is usually 20 years or longer. There is also good evidence that Hepatitis B vaccine is clinically effective long term, probably for life (despite a decline in B surface antibody titers within after 10 years), and recent WHO evidence indicates Yellow Fever vaccine immunity is lifelong.

    But you specifically mentioned Measles, so let’s see what they found in one survey:
    “About 85% of the vaccines still had detectable HI antibody titres 15 years after primary immunization. However, even when the HI titres decreased to undetectable levels this did not imply that they had lost immunity to wild measles virus. A total of 82% of the children who had no measurable HI antibody 1-5 years later, still had detectable levels of neutralizing antibody [which was clinically protective].”
    PMC2393239
    i.e. Long lived immunity.

    And remember that the duration of immunity to the “natural” infections is not always that “long lived” either (cf Pertussis, or if you prefer take something like Tetanus, which induces no protective immunity at all, actually).

    Your pathetic attempts to rubbish vaccines and vaccine science at every turn are pitiful.
    ……And I am still waiting for you to admit your previous mistakes…..

    Like

  48. June 19, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Robert :
    …this strips bare the fact that there have never been “herd immunity” theoretical levels of immunity to meet the supposed thresholds to give credit to the herd immunity theory for stopping or reducing incidence rates. It is hogwash.

    Are you suggesting that 100% of the population worldwide was vaccinated for smallpox? I think we can all acknowledge that was never the case, but yet after a large enough percentage of the population was vaccinated somehow, magically… we eradicated smallpox.

    It would seem we reached an acceptable level of herd immunity to prevent the disease from spreading, and as such eliminating it from the globe (minus a few samples retained under seal within laboratories of course).

    One might say the same about polio in much of the world. In those nations that have vaccinated or continue to vaccinate, polio simply doesn’t exist. Yet we know that not everyone is vaccinated – so once again we fall back upon herd immunity to protect those who cannot – or will not – be vaccinated for polio.

    We aren’t talking about theoretical levels here Robert… we are talking about historical fact. We know these vaccines were successful. We know they eradicated disease. We know lives were saved. We know it wasn’t merely a coincidence that the diseases stopped spreading and disappeared shortly after vaccination programs took effect.

    So I must ask… what is ‘hogwash’ about it? Is it only specific vaccines you feel are ‘hogwash’, or are you actually denying the success of all vaccines? Would you rather we went back to a time where vaccinations were never used and people had to anticipate that if they had four children that one of them was likely to die from smallpox?

    I’m just not following this logic.

    Like

  49. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Let’s take the polio scenario for a moment. In India, they have recently celebrated the elimination of polio by vaccination. At it’s peak, polio was attributed with causing 8,000 cases of paralysis annually. Now, there are between 40 and 60,000 cases of paralysis per year based on a “newly diagnosed” non-polio acute flaccid paralysis. Oddly, this condition ONLY occurs in the groups fully vaccinated against polio. The point is that all of these claims about disease “eradication” are self-fulfilling prophesies with no basis in reality when clinical diagnoses automatically discard a disease for which a vaccination has been received or the definition of the disease is changed to reduce reported incidence rates. Not everyone is fooled by the smoke and mirrors employed. US rates for polio declined at the same rate as the increase in “aseptic meningitis” diagnoses in the ’50’s. Why? Because clinical diagnosis recommendation changed to accomodate the desired “decrease” in polio as the vaccine was rolled out. The very same vaccine, which Maurice Hilleman admitted caused cancer and probably AIDS as well due to SV40 contamination.

    Now then, are you going to ask me to provide citations for these claims? Probably yes. Are you aware that I am speaking the truth? Probably yes. These facts have been told numerous times on here and other locations with full citations to substantiate the claims. You know this, yet you will still claim that since I have not done it AGAIN here for you here like some performing monkey that they cannot possibly be true. To that I say, your logic is flawed and anyone wishing to research the truth can find these facts and more with more than adequate substantiation. Providing this information for you is pointless as you will summarily dismiss anything that challenges your views since you are either engaged in cognitive dissonance or are in some way incentivized to support the positions you support. In any event, all I can say to anyone who would wonder who is telling the truth here is look for yourself. Don’t trust me, and don’t trust them. Do your own research and use your God given intelligence to discern truth from profit mongering propaganda. Use multiple sources and your own brain to determine which ones have the “ring of truth” and which ones tell you what you want to hear to protect their own gravy trains…

    Like

  50. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    Oh, and I see that the site has a new follower! Which one is it this time? Car insurance abroad for you? It seems that the only new names showing up here are spammers. Maybe you should all take a hint at how ludicrous this site has become. Maybe ECBT and AAP will stop paying the bills soon since there are many commenters successfully challenging the dogma and so little from the guardians, except “citation please” and “I don’t rate that source” or “but they sell vitamins”, etc. The defenders are stale and the challengers are, well, challenging with facts and sources that are not refutable except by summary dismissal without any real justification. The tide has turned and you all know it.

    Like

  51. Chris
    June 19, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    Robert: pertussis != polio.

    The rest is just hand waving tropes that have nothing to do with reality. For one thing, modern DNA analysis can find out which polio strain is causing the infection, so there goes “they renamed the disease” nonsense. Also Hillemann discovered the contamination in the 1960s, and within three years it was removed from the vaccines over fifty years ago. So there goes the SV40 nonsense.

    So, Robert, what is your tried and true suggestion to protect babies from pertussis? Please do not let us repeat what happened in Japan over thirty years ago:
    Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84.
    Acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan: past, present and future.

    Like

  52. dingo199
    June 20, 2013 at 4:06 am

    Robert, I see that rather than let the uncomfortable reality of functional vaccine herd immunity intrude upon your cosy dissonant antivax world you now wish to raise the strawman of acute flaccid paralysis in India.

    Fact is there are many causes of this, and polio is both clinically distinct (it is primarily unilateral in its motor dysfunction) and virologically identifiable. Vaccine related cases of paralysis are readily identifiable and are very few in number.

    The cases of paralysis that have seemingly increased in India have been identified precisely because officials are now monitoring actively for the symptoms as part of the global polio eradication program. Prior to this, the cases existed, but went unidentified.

    You know this, it has been covered many times in other blogs, but true to form, antivaxers conveniently “forget” these facts and continually resort to the fall back position of “polio vaccination causes massive paralysis outbreaks”.

    I have to ask, are antivaxers just so neuropenic they cannot remember simple facts from one week to the next, or are they deliberately misleading liars? There don’t seem to be other options bar these two. Which variety are you?

    Like

  53. June 20, 2013 at 10:34 am

    Robert :
    Now then, are you going to ask me to provide citations for these claims? Probably yes. Are you aware that I am speaking the truth? Probably yes. These facts have been told numerous times on here and other locations with full citations to substantiate the claims. You know this, yet you will still claim that since I have not done it AGAIN here for you here like some performing monkey that they cannot possibly be true. To that I say, your logic is flawed and anyone wishing to research the truth can find these facts and more with more than adequate substantiation. Providing this information for you is pointless as you will summarily dismiss anything that challenges your views since you are either engaged in cognitive dissonance or are in some way incentivized to support the positions you support. In any event, all I can say to anyone who would wonder who is telling the truth here is look for yourself. Don’t trust me, and don’t trust them. Do your own research and use your God given intelligence to discern truth from profit mongering propaganda. Use multiple sources and your own brain to determine which ones have the “ring of truth” and which ones tell you what you want to hear to protect their own gravy trains…

    Robert that is a rather long explanation on why you can’t or won’t provide a source. I would have thought it would have been much easier to simply say “source: website”.

    When you devote half of your comment to excuses on why you aren’t providing citations for your claims, it seems clear that you either don’t want anyone to know the source of the claim, you are unable to find a reputable source for the claim, or you are merely interested in stoking the fire and have no interest in actually having an honest debate.

    So which is it Robert?

    Then you go on to assume everyone would simply ignore any evidence to support your view (rather convenient excuse to avoid providing a source in the first place) and you even go so far as to suggest people might be paid to disagree with you. Really Robert? Really?? So now everyone who disagrees with you is either uncomfortable with the idea of learning something new and/or they are being paid to visit random websites on the Internet.

    Yes… that seems completely plausible. Dare I even bother to ask you to substantiate either of those statements with any form of evidence, or will that result in some Inception-like ‘source to prove comment about sources” confusion?

    Like

  54. June 20, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Robert :
    It seems that the only new names showing up here are spammers. Maybe you should all take a hint at how ludicrous this site has become. Maybe ECBT and AAP will stop paying the bills soon since there are many commenters successfully challenging the dogma and so little from the guardians, except “citation please” and “I don’t rate that source” or “but they sell vitamins”, etc. The defenders are stale and the challengers are, well, challenging with facts and sources that are not refutable except by summary dismissal without any real justification. The tide has turned and you all know it.

    Well I won’t speak for anyone else but I am fairly new here and I find the articles interesting. I enjoy seeing new information on the subject of vaccines and I’m continually trying to keep informed of the latest developments. Sometimes that involves reading comments, and I sometimes enjoy responding to them.

    That said, we obviously have a different viewpoint on the comments left here. What I tend to see from the antivaxxers is the same few people who register multiple sockpuppet accounts and who feel that everything they say should be treated as fact even when they refuse to cite sources to support their claims (or even when they write massive paragraphs specifically making excuses for why they won’t provide sources for their claims).

    You claim ‘the challengers’ are “challenging with facts and sources” but I surely haven’t witnessed that thus far in the comments I’ve read. First I’m simply not seeing the sources being presented, and when a source is listed it seems it is easily debunked. In fact I’m often surprised at how quickly a claim is countered with evidence such as when you attempted to claim polio wasn’t eradicated but rather simply renamed. Roughly half an hour later, Chris counters with a source that explains the three serotypes of poliovirus, and the source itself even offers additional source material. Dingo then goes on to explain how India is doing a much better job of identification of these disease due in no small part to the campaign to eradicate polio (which is very similar to how we are doing a much better job of identifying autism which results in some believing the actual incidence of autism is on a rocket trajectory skyward).

    So in the end who appears more trustworthy… a group of people who cite sources for their claims and offer explanations based upon science and virology? Or someone who claims diseases have been renamed which then would require us to believe that tens of thousands of scientists, clinicians, physicians, and researchers worldwide who study biology, chemistry, and virology have somehow colluded and conspired to fool the public into thinking one disease is actually multiple diseases and none of these people have ever had any desire to leak this information to the public, that none of them ever desired to be a whistleblower, and that everyone is somehow in on the little game for the sake of protecting their careers.

    Sorry – but that is idiotic.

    In an age when the head of the CIA is unable to hide an extramarital affair, when sites like Wikileaks gain access to some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets, and when men like Edward Snowden are able to leak information about a sensitive NSA program we are still expected to believe that the CDC, AMA, WHO, and every major medical body on the planet are all somehow involved in a massive conspiracy to rename diseases and sell vaccines as they continue to profit by fooling the public all so they can sit around in mahogany paneled rooms lighting hand-rolled Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills.

    Seems legit Robert. I’m simply shocked why vaccination rates continue to rise as more and more people realize so many of these anti-vaccine tropes are nothing short of modern day adaptations to stories written about alien abductions or how the CIA invented HIV to kill off communists.

    Keep fighting the good fight Robert – by my calculation every time an antivaxxer makes another silly post that borders on a raging conspiracy theory, it results in a mother shuffling her child off for the latest vaccinations. It seems nobody wants to be on the side of crazy.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: