Home > Preventable Diseases, Science & Research > Pertussis Vaccine in Pregnancy Key to Preventing Disease in Infants

Pertussis Vaccine in Pregnancy Key to Preventing Disease in Infants

Pregnant women should be vaccinated against pertussis during each pregnancy to best protect babies from infection.

PertussisThe Global Pertussis Initiative (GPI), an expert scientific forum charged with addressing the global burden of pertussis, announced this recommendation earlier this week.  However, this isn’t the first time we’ve heard this suggestion.  The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) first recommended that women get a Tdap vaccine during pregnancy in October of 2011.  Then, in October of 2012, they updated the recommendation stating that women should get a Tdap vaccine during each pregnancy.

As the GPI decision explained in a recent Medscape article,

Vaccination of women with Tdap during pregnancy is expected to provide some protection to infants from pertussis until they are old enough to be vaccinated themselves. Tdap given to pregnant women will stimulate the development of maternal antipertussis antibodies, which will pass through the placenta, likely providing the newborn with protection against pertussis in early life, and will protect the mother from pertussis around the time of delivery, making her less likely to become infected and transmit pertussis to her infant.   

While this excerpt may suggest the basis behind the GPI’s recommendation, the ACIP’s decision was further referenced in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) published in February, 2012, which explained,

protect-babies-from-whooping-coughVery young infants are dependent solely on maternal antibodies and lack the ability to mount a cell-mediated response. The effectiveness and optimal concentration of maternal antipertussis antibodies in newborns are not yet known, but high levels of antibodies in the first weeks after birth likely confer protection and might prevent pertussis or modify disease severity. Studies on the persistence of antipertussis antibodies following a dose of Tdap show antibody levels in healthy, nonpregnant adults peak during the first month after vaccination, with substantial antibody decay after 1 year. Antibody kinetics in pregnant women likely would be similar. One study evaluated persistence of maternal antipertussis antibody concentrations from maternal delivery and cord blood pairs from women who received Tdap within the prior 2 years. The estimated antipertussis antibody concentrations at birth in most of these infants were considered unlikely to provide adequate protection. These findings indicate that maternal antibodies from women immunized before pregnancy waned quickly and the concentration of maternal antibodies was unlikely to be high enough to provide passive protection to infants. Because antibody levels wane substantially during the first year after vaccination, ACIP concluded a single dose of Tdap at one pregnancy would be insufficient to provide protection for subsequent pregnancies.

The ACIP went one step further and even suggested that the vaccination of pregnant women preferably occur within the third trimester, stating the following in the MMWR,

Tdap may be administered any time during pregnancy, but vaccination during the third trimester would provide the highest concentration of maternal antibodies to be transferred closer to birth. After receipt of Tdap, a minimum of 2 weeks is required to mount a maximal immune response to the vaccine antigens. Active transport of maternal immunoglobulin G does not substantially take place before 30 weeks of gestation. One study of pregnant women who received Tdap within the prior 2 years noted that maternal antibodies waned quickly; even women immunized during the first or second trimester had low levels of antibodies at term. Therefore, to optimize the concentration of vaccine-specific antipertussis antibodies transported from mother to infant, ACIP concluded that pregnant women should be vaccinated with Tdap during the third trimester.

The CDC offers an extensive list of studies on this subject.  

As we can see with the GPI’s recommendations, experts agree that the primary strategy to protect infants from pertussis is vaccination in pregnancy. While the passive transfer of pertussis antibodies from the mother to the fetus is the best chance at protection, the most robust strategy would be to also immunize family members and other close contacts and caregivers in a secondary line of defense known as “cocooning”.  This is especially helpful in reducing the likelihood of a baby being exposed to pertussis before they can begin their own infant series of pertussis vaccination (DTaP).

According to a new Pediatrics study out this week, the first dose of pertussis vaccine (DTaP) is also protective against severe pneumonia, hospitalization and death. This is especially important for parents living in areas where there are high numbers of pertussis cases, such as we’ve seen in the state of Washington in 2015.  Since the first dose of DTaP can be administered between 6-8 weeks of age, expectant parents should consider talking to their doctor about the possibility of getting their child the DTaP vaccine at six weeks to help boost their protection as early as possible.

If you know of a family that is expecting, please consider sharing these important recommendations with them.  You could actually help save a child’s life and put a parent’s mind at ease.  

  1. Dave
    May 14, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    I don’t think any vaccines should be given during pregnancy. There is evidence that the immune reaction from the vaccine can increase the chances of schizophrenia in the child. Vaccinations during pregnancy have inadequate long term testing.

    Like

  2. Nancy
    May 15, 2015 at 1:17 am

    Agreed Dave!

    Like

  3. novalox
    May 15, 2015 at 2:54 am

    @dave

    Do you have any actual evidence to support your viewpoint, because I don’t see any that supports your views,

    Like

  4. Lawrence
    May 15, 2015 at 5:46 am

    @Dave – please present the evidence, I would love to take a look at it.

    Like

  5. Shay
    May 18, 2015 at 10:28 am

    Dave — if you’re referring to the 2007 study out of Scandinavia, it showed a link between maternal infections during pregnancy and schizophrenia, not vaccines.

    Like

  6. Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
    May 18, 2015 at 10:33 am

    I did a quick search of PubMed, US Library of Medicine’s online database. I found NO articles mentioning schizophrenia and pertussis vaccine; but did find one article that explained the risk of schizophrenia to fetus from prenatal influenza virus infection. I don’t have time to do a more thorough search, so this will have to suffice for now:

    Brain Behav Immun. 2014 Nov;42:212-21. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2014.06.202. Epub 2014 Jul 8.
    Influenza vaccination during early pregnancy contributes to neurogenesis and behavioral function in offspring.
    Xia Y1, Qi F1, Zou J1, Yang J1, Yao Z2.

    Abstract
    Prenatal influenza virus infection has been associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia. Thus, inactivated flu vaccines are widely recommended for pregnant women. . . Altogether, the results suggest that maternal influenza vaccination promotes neurogenesis and behavioral function, as well as protection from LPS insults in the developing offspring.

    Note. while this is just one study and one shouldn’t base conclusions on it, it is the exact opposite of what Dave and Nancy are claiming.

    In over 40 years of involvement in epidemiology and public health, the risks from the actual wild-type microbes have always been exponentially higher than from vaccines. While vaccines are not risk free, any rational person should understand the benefit/cost ratios which overwhelmingly are in favor of vaccines. Antivaccination websites either totally ignore risks from the natural wild-type microbes or downplay them, e.g. portrayal of measles in episode of the Brady Bunch. In this episode all six kids are sent home with measles. Temperatures taken is a little over 101 Fahrenheit and a facial rash. The kids run around, play, thoroughly enjoy time off from school, and the parents prepare their favorite meals followed by desserts which they woof down. In reality, measles involves a terrible itchy rash over entire body, temperature often 103 or higher, malaise, and anorexia (loss of appetite). Prior to advent of the vaccine almost 100% of children would get measles; but due to success of vaccine, few today have even seen a case, thus relying on a sitcom’s portrayal. Do the same people who trust the Brady Bunch also believe Hogan’s Heroes gave an accurate portrayal of life in a Nazi German prisoner of war camp? In addition to the above description of measles, prior to the vaccine about 500 kids died each year, several thousand suffered permanent disabilities, e.g. seizure disorders, mental retardation, blindness, and deafness, and 10s of thousands were hospitalized.

    There are NO perfect choices; but to vaccinate is about as close as we humans can get.

    Like

  7. Nancy
    May 19, 2015 at 11:37 am

    @Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH – I never made such a claim. What I agree with is that vaccines should not be given to pregnant women. I trust your quick search will have to suffice.
    Vaccines are not as close to perfection as humans can get, we can do better. Unless you don’t care about the vaccine injured?? It sounds like from you comment above that you totally ignore the risks from vaccines or downplay them.

    Like

  8. Chris
    May 19, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    “Vaccines are not as close to perfection as humans can get, we can do better”

    Nirvana Fallacy.

    “Unless you don’t care about the vaccine injured??”

    Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the pregnancy Tdap has caused more harm than pertussis in infants.

    “It sounds like from you comment above that you totally ignore the risks from vaccines or downplay them.”

    Dr. Harrison actually looked for that injury, and the only thing he found was a benefit. You seem to be exaggerating the risk beyond what is reasonable. Again, it is up to you to provide evidence that risk from vaccination is greater than the disease, a disease that is very very dangerous to babies. Your “belief” is not sufficient evidence.

    Like

  9. Chris
    May 19, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    “Unless you don’t care about the vaccine injured??”

    What we are getting is that you do not seem to care about the very real deaths from pertussis to babies.

    If you do care, then you would provide a viable proven method to protect them from pertussis. It has to be realistic, not something that requires the mother and baby being quarantined at home for a full year without seeing others including father, other children and especially not going to well baby checks at a medical clinic.

    If you have such a solution, provide the PubMed indexed study that proves it works.

    Like

  10. Nancy
    May 19, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    @Chris – You DON’T care about the vaccine injured and if you don’t care about them then you are not worth talking to and a waste of time.
    You claim the benefits outweigh the risks – great, good for you. It may or may not be true, but what about the vaccine injured????????????????????????????????????????????????
    You think we can do no better? Then that is the end of the discussion isn’t it? Why should we try to do better – right? It is what is is huh? You only care about some of the children and not others. Your kind of thinking makes me literally sick.

    Like

  11. May 19, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    @Nancy – and your proof that companies aren’t constantly improving vaccines is what exactly?

    Like

  12. Chris
    May 19, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    “@Chris – You DON’T care about the vaccine injured and if you don’t care about them then you are not worth talking to and a waste of time.”

    That is an empty accusation from someone who seems to have no desire to protect babies from pertussis.

    Fortunately, for those who are actually injured by vaccines have sparked improvements in the vaccine programs. One who was very important was John Salamone who was instrumental in the move from OPV to IPV in the USA after his son was paralyzed. Then there were the sharp eyed epidemiologists who knew how to use the Vaccine Safety Database project and removed RotaShield from the schedule.

    So, Nancy, what is your proven plan to protect babies from pertussis? Be specific and provide PubMed indexed documentation that is actually works, and does not involve total isolation.

    Like

  13. Nancy
    May 19, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    @Chris

    “That is an empty accusation from someone who seems to have no desire to protect babies from pertussis.”

    It is not an empty accusation. You called it “Nirvana Fallacy” in regards to vaccine injured children. Tell me Chris, what percentage is OK to get injured for the greater good? 10%? 20%? 30%? Anything up to 49%? Where do you draw the line?
    Pertussis has nothing to do with what I stated. Do you always go straight to a straw man argument when you are on the defensive?

    Like

  14. Chris
    May 19, 2015 at 6:18 pm

    “Tell me Chris, what percentage is OK to get injured for the greater good? ”

    That is what I asked you, and yet you have not answered. Cut and paste from above: “Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the pregnancy Tdap has caused more harm than pertussis in infants.”

    “Pertussis has nothing to do with what I stated.”

    I am ignoring that you are trying to change the subject to avoid answering the above. Perhaps you need a reminder about what the subject is, here is the title: “Pertussis Vaccine in Pregnancy Key to Preventing Disease in Infants”

    This is why I am asking you to provide your proven way to protect babies from pertussis, and to include actual verifiable documentation that it works.

    Like

  15. Lawrence
    May 19, 2015 at 11:59 pm

    @Nancy – perhaps you’d like to give us your definition of “vaccine-injury?”

    I suspect you believe a bunch of things completely unrelated to vaccines…..

    Like

  16. Shay
    May 20, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Nancy, do you know what the Nirvana Fallacy is? It is the logical fallacy that posits that, unless something works 100% perfectly 100% of the time, it doesn’t work. You are invoking that with vaccinations when the simple fact is that no medical procedure is completely risk-free. None.

    Does this mean that we should stop, completely, using modern medical care?

    None of the proponents of vaccination (of whom I am one) will deny that there are risks to vaccines. What the opponents of vaccination refuse to accept is that the risk of the disease is far, far greater than the risk of the vaccine.

    Just as an example — how many children have died in the past 5 years from the pertussis vaccine, and how many children have died from pertussis?

    Like

  17. jgc56
    May 20, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    ” Vaccines are not as close to perfection as humans can get, we can do better.”

    Which may be an argument in support of developing even better vaccines that are available today, but is not an argument opposing pregnant women receiving the existing pertussis vaccine–agreed, nancy?

    “Unless you don’t care about the vaccine injured?? It sounds like from you comment above that you totally ignore the risks from vaccines or downplay them.”

    it’s instead the antivax contingent that is grossly exaggerating the risks associated with vaccination, often by asserting in direct opposition to the current body of evidence taht things like autism spectrum disorders, diabetes, etc. are causally associated with vaccines.

    That simply isn’t the case: the adverse consequences which associated with vaccination are well understood: those that are common are both minor and transient (e.g., soreness at the site of injection, low grade fever, etc.) while those which are serious (e.g., encephalopathy) are extremely rare. Any rational analysis of relative risk argues overwhemingly in favor of vaccination and against remaining vulnerable to the infectious diseases vaccines protect against.

    Like

  18. dingo199
    May 27, 2015 at 9:13 am

    Just to point out that another recent study (from June 2015) confirms no harm from Tdap vaccine in pregnancy, comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26000515?dopt=Abstract

    Interestingly, it looks like the outcomes for some medical complications of pregnancy were significantly worse in the unvaccinated:

    “preterm birth rates at 36 weeks of gestation or less (6% compared with 12%, P<.001), incidence of small for gestational age (10% compared with 15%, P=.03), and length of neonatal hospitalization (3.9 compared with 4.7 days, P<.001) were all significantly increased in the unvaccinated cohort."

    Like

  19. Sarah
    May 27, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    The CDC has some great resources about vaccines while pregnant. Not all vaccines are recommended while a woman is pregnant, and those that are have undergone many studies, as have already been covered in the original post and many of the comments. The American College of Midwives has a great site as well that discusses many of the common questions specifically about vaccines during pregnancy. It can be found here: http://ourmomentoftruth.com/The-Importance-of-Vaccines

    The CDC and American Medical Association recommendations are found here:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/rec-vac/pregnant.html
    They also include a whole section on possible side effect that have been demonstrated in many studies. It is great information for those looking for information on what has actually been studied.

    Like

  20. Lawrence
    May 27, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    Great info Sarah – thanks for posting!

    Like

  21. Jeanne
    May 28, 2015 at 8:30 pm

    It’s a horrible idea to vaccinate pregnant women!!

    Like

  22. novalox
    May 28, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    @jeanne

    Any evidence for your assertion, because I don’t see any evidence that would support your viewpoint.

    Like

  23. jgc56
    May 29, 2015 at 10:48 am

    “It’s a horrible idea to vaccinate pregnant women!!”

    Jeanne, your evidence demonstrating vacinating pregnant women is a horrible idea would be….what, exactly? Be specific.

    I mean, you do actually have some–right?

    Like

  24. Jeanne
    May 29, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    I mean like, for sure, yes!

    Like

  25. Chris
    May 29, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    So, Jeanne, please provide that evidence.

    Like

  26. Jeanne
    May 29, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    Umm like OK
    I mean, I do actually have some.
    For sure for sure
    I mean, you do actually have some–right? Chris?

    Like

  27. Jeanne
    May 29, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    So, Chris, please provide your evidence. Like Ok? I mean.

    Like

  28. Chris
    May 29, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    I am not the one making a claim that it is “a horrible idea to vaccinate pregnant women.” So you need to tell why with actual evidence.

    The evidence that is a good idea to protect babies is in the above article, I suggest you read it.

    Like

  29. novalox
    May 30, 2015 at 9:29 am

    @jeanne

    If you don’t present any evidence for your assertions, we can assume that you are lying to us and that we can treat your comments as such.

    You brought up the assertions that go against the established science, it’s your job to put up or shut up.

    Like

  30. Jeanne
    June 1, 2015 at 11:49 am

    It’s a horrible idea to vaccinate pregnant women!!

    Like

  31. Lawrence
    June 1, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    @Jeanne – the only thing you’re missing is the “RANDOM CAPS-LOCK!”

    Seriously, any particular reason why vaccinating pregnant women is a bad idea?

    Like

  32. Chris
    June 1, 2015 at 1:59 pm

    Jeanne, please provide citations on why it is a horrible idea. Repeating the claim does not make it true, especially if you refuse to provide evidence.

    Also, why does your avatar keep changing. Did you get banned again, Ms. Parker?

    Like

  33. Jeanne
    June 2, 2015 at 3:34 am

    IT’S a horrible IDEA to VACCINATE pregnant WOMEN. not SURPRISING when YOU see WHO funded THOSE studies. YOU people ARE drinking THE kool AID.

    Like

  34. novalox
    June 2, 2015 at 4:39 am

    @jeanne

    Again, where is your evidence? Why should any rational person believe someone who doesn’t support their views and instead attacks with false accusations. Your continuing use of unfounded attacks and failure to support your assertions make you look like a liar.

    But then again, what else should we expect from someone who would rather have infants and children suffer from something preventable. Of course, the use of the old Pharma Shill Gambit is a pretty good clue that you have no argument to speak of.

    Like

  35. Lawrence
    June 2, 2015 at 4:57 am

    Since Jeanne seems to be taking my advice (the random capitalization is a nice touch – totally denotes crazy & such)….perhaps she’d like to provide evidence to back up her screeds?

    Like

  36. Chris
    June 2, 2015 at 10:21 am

    Jeanne: “IT’S a horrible IDEA to VACCINATE pregnant WOMEN.”

    Why? Provide some actual evidence.

    And why has your avatar changed yet again? Trying yet another email address, Ms. Parker?

    Like

  37. Jeanne
    June 2, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    Are you referring to me as Ms. Parker?
    Two words for you – Kool Aid

    Like

  38. Chris
    June 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    Where is your evidence that it is bad to vaccinate pregnant women?

    And why did your avatar change again? You must be yet another sock puppet.

    Like

  39. Jeanne
    June 2, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    Why are you so concerned about avatars? I have no idea why it is changing.
    You should be concerned about pregnant women and their babies. Who do you work for Chris? Are you a nurse?
    I come from a family of nurses and none of them get vaccinated while pregnant.
    You should do your own research and not believe everything you read.

    Like

  40. Lawrence
    June 2, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    @Jeanne – well, we’ve done our research, but obviously, you haven’t done yours – since you seem to be unable to provide any evidence to back up your statements.

    Like

  41. Chris
    June 2, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    Jeanne, your avatar changes when you change email address. It is obvious you are trying to evade the moderator. It is also an indication of your lack of honestly, especially since you cannot provide any evidence for your claims.

    Like

  42. Jeanne
    June 2, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    I am not evading anybody Chris. I have two different emails I use, so what is the big deal?
    So lack of honesty? Hardly.
    I trust my family of nurses and have also done my own research and talked to my doctor.
    Getting vaccinated when pregnant can cause all kind of complications for mother and baby, and I have all of my families stories as all the evidence I need.

    Like

  43. Lawrence
    June 2, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    @Jeanne – so you admit that you have no actual scientific evidence of harm….good to know.

    Like

  44. Jeanne
    June 2, 2015 at 5:36 pm

    How immature you are Lawrence.
    I just said I did my own research which includes medical sites and peer reviewed studies, not to mention my family of nurses and their experiences which is better then any study and I have had conversations with my Doctor who is highly educated and obviously in the business. Why don’t you play your childish games with somebody else.

    Like

  45. Chris
    June 2, 2015 at 5:44 pm

    “I just said I did my own research which includes medical sites and peer reviewed studies”

    Prove it. Post the PubMed indexed studies to support your claims. Otherwise you are being dishonest.

    “I have two different emails I use”

    Okay, a valid explanation. Now pony up those citations.

    Like

  46. Lawrence
    June 3, 2015 at 5:39 am

    No Jeanne, showing a level of maturity would have been posting links to the evidence that you found compelling enough to develop such a strong opinion against vaccines & pregnancy….since you haven’t done that, you are, by the definition, not mature.

    Like

  47. jgc56
    June 3, 2015 at 8:11 am

    Jeane, if you believe that anecdotal accounts from “your family of nurses” is “better than any study” clearly you have lot more research to do before you can discuss the topic of vaccine safety intelligently. The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘evidence’.

    Like

  48. Mike
    June 3, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    I agree with you Jeanne. If you can’t trust your family, especially since they sound like they are experienced nurses, who can you trust?

    Hiding vaccine injuries http://edgytruth.com/2015/06/02/feds-hiding-key-vaccine-facts-mainly-vaccine-injury-winning-cases/#

    Like

  49. Lawrence
    June 3, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    @Mike – I’m not sure how anyone can say anything about “hiding” of facts, when all of the original information is available, just by scroll down the PDF…..

    Like

  50. Chris
    June 3, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    Mike, please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that giving pregnant women a Tdap is a “horrible idea,” Thank you.

    Like

  51. Mike
    June 3, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    I trust Jeanne’s family more than any study. I found in my many many years on this planet that real life experience trumps everything else. I trust the parents and Doctor’s that are in the trenches and I don’t trust studies that are done by the manufacturer’s of the products they sell.

    Like

  52. Chris
    June 3, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    So you know who Jeanne is, and her whole family. Also you don’t seem to understand the data used in PubMed indexed studies are also “real life experience.”

    Why should we believe you?

    Like

  53. Lawrence
    June 4, 2015 at 6:36 am

    @Mike – then how about all of those studies that are done that aren’t by the manufacturers?

    Like

  54. Mike
    June 4, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    I don’t know Jeanne and her whole family but I believe what she is saying. PubMed studies are not necessarily “real life experience” and there are a lot of questions with peer-reviewed studies and fraud right now. Also, I never asked you to believe me, I am merely offering my opinion.

    lawrence, there doesn’t seem to be many studies done that are not by the manufacturers or paid by the manufacturers.

    Like

  55. Lawrence
    June 4, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    @Mike – interestingly enough, I can find plenty of them…..surprised that you cannot.

    Like

  56. Mike
    June 4, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    Because it is so easy to find them. I highly doubt you have any at all.

    Like

  57. Lawrence
    June 4, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1734688&resultClick=3

    Here you go Mike – just one of many. Feel free to try to find the COI here.

    Like

  58. Mike
    June 4, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    Surprise surprise, “Dr Chen reported serving as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche; receiving grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche; and receiving payment for lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche.”

    Like

  59. Lawrence
    June 4, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    @Mike – moving the goalposts, much? You said you didn’t trust studies paid for by the manufacturers…who paid for that particular study?

    Like

  60. Mike
    June 4, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    You are very humorous lawrence. I didn’t move any goal posts. Those corporations listed in the “conflict of interest” paid Dr, Chen.

    Like

  61. jgc56
    June 4, 2015 at 5:51 pm

    ” I found in my many many years on this planet that real life experience trumps everything else.”

    Mike, it would be a good thing if you’d recall it was the same type of “evidence” Jeanne is relying on to conclude vaccinating pregnant women against pertussis that was previously led physicians to believe bloodletting was a good idea. It was large scale clinical studies that demonstrated that contrary to reports of “everyday experiences” from doctors “in the trenches” bloodletting was killing people who would otherwise have survived.

    Like

  62. Lawrence
    June 4, 2015 at 9:09 pm

    @Mike – but they didn’t pay for the study.

    Like

  63. Lawrence
    June 4, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    And god forbid an expert in HepB speak to companies who are developing vaccines and treatments for the disease.

    Like

  64. Mike
    June 6, 2015 at 12:50 am

    lawrence, um, yup they did.

    jgc56, good thing we don’t live in the 1600 – 1800’s. This is the 21st century, big, big difference.

    Like

  65. Lawrence
    June 6, 2015 at 7:30 am

    @Mike – please point out where those companies are listed as funding sources for the study.

    Like

  66. jgc56
    June 6, 2015 at 8:27 am

    Way to miss the point, Mike.

    Yes, there is a big difference–and a major part of that difference with respect to current medicine versus that of the 1800’s is that we no longer rely on the type of evidence you and ketamine believe indicates it would be a bad idea to vaccinate pregnant women when assessing the safety and efficacy of medical interventions because we have found it to be unreliable and prone to problems like confirmation bias, etc.

    Like

  67. jgc56
    June 6, 2015 at 8:30 am

    You and JEANNE, not ketamine. Damn you autocracy!

    Like

  68. Mike
    June 6, 2015 at 6:55 pm

    jgc56, so when a nurse has been in her position for over 20 years and witnesses the same thing happening over and over again we should just dismiss it because some study (funded by the person selling the goods) somewhere says it shouldn’t be happening? Ignore the evidence? Wake up and smell the coffee jgc56. PLEASE.

    lawrence, this is from the link YOU provided, “Dr Chen reported serving as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche; receiving grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche; and receiving payment for lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche.”

    Like

  69. Chris
    June 6, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    “so when a nurse has been in her position for over 20 years and witnesses the same thing happening over and over again we should just dismiss it because some study”

    Tell us when this nurse publishes her study in a PubMed indexed journal. Anyway, how do you know this nurse isn’t trying to make sure more people get sick so that she has more reasons to be employed at a hospital?

    By the way, I checked the links in the above article and saw there were several. I did not find the one with a “Dr. Chen.” Can you please tell me which one that was and which paragraph is was cited in?

    Like

  70. Lawrence
    June 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Mike seems to have missed this:

    Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants from the Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, and Academia Sinica.

    Like

  71. Mike
    June 8, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Chris, so when you see something happen right in front of your eyes you should just ignore it? What planet are you from?

    lawrence, so you just want to ignore this? “Dr Chen reported serving as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche; receiving grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche; and receiving payment for lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche.”

    Isn’t it convenient that the two of you just ignore things that you don’t like or don’t support your view.

    Like

  72. Lawrence
    June 8, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    @Mike – again, why wouldn’t an expert in HepB deliver lectures to companies that develop both vaccines and treatments for it?

    And again, they didn’t fund the study.

    Like

  73. jgc56
    June 8, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    Yes, Michael: when evidence in the form of properly designed clinical or epidemiologic studies exists which contradicts claims based on anecdotal accounts or personal testimonies—and which, we must note, make no attempt to demonstrate a causal association beyond invoking a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy–we should dismiss those claims.

    Just as we previously did with respect to the claimed safety and efficacy of bloodletting.

    Like

  74. jgc56
    June 8, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    “Chris, so when you see something happen right in front of your eyes you should just ignore it?”

    What is it you believe we’ve seen happen right before our eyes that we’ve ignored, Michael? Be specific. It has to be something OTHER than purported risk accruing from vaccinating pregnant females against pertussis, since rather than ignore that possibity it’s been examined extensively (Christine’s post containes a link to a CDC list of multiple studies addressing that concern, remember?)

    Like

  75. jgc56
    June 8, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    Mike, if I’m included in your “the two of you just ignore things that you don’t like or don’t support your view”, I have to ask:what is it you believe I’m ignoring? I’m not ignoring the claims by Jeanne’s “family of nurse”–I’m instead noting that there exists a large number of studies indicating they are in error.

    Like

  76. Billy
    June 17, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    You are MORE likely to get whooping cough if you are vaccinated for it.

    “vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains. Moreover, when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients, the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.”

    CDC Study – Page 6
    http://www.cdc.gov/maso/facm/pdfs/BSCOID/2013121112_BSCOID_Minutes.pdf

    Like

  77. Lawrence
    June 18, 2015 at 5:33 am

    @Billy – I don’t think you have any idea what that actually means, do you?

    Like

  78. jgc56
    June 18, 2015 at 9:06 am

    No,Billy, you’re NOT more likely to develop whooping cough if you’ve been vaccinated against pertussis.

    the link you provided simply noted that should a vaccinated individual become infected, the strain causing the infection is more likely to be PRN-deficient than would be the case in unvaccinated individuals.

    Like

  79. Billy
    June 18, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    It’s very easy to understand and spelled out in black and white.
    The vaccinated are more likely to catch the PRN-deficient strain as compared to a unvaccinated person and they believe this is another reason for the “resurgence of pertussis”

    Here’s the top part of it,
    “Resurgence of Pertussis. As reported at the May 2013 BSC meeting, the recent resurgence in
    pertussis cases has been associated with waning immunity over time in persons who received the
    acellular pertussis vaccine (which is administered as the pertussis component of DTaP vaccine).
    However, a recent study suggests another explanation for decreased vaccine effectiveness: an
    increase in Bordetella pertussis isolates that lack pertactin (PRN)–a key antigen component of the
    acellular pertussis vaccine.”

    I suggest you go to the link and read the whole thing, it is very clear.

    Like

  80. jgc56
    June 18, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    “The vaccinated are more likely to catch the PRN-deficient strain as compared to a unvaccinated person and they believe this is another reason for the “resurgence of pertussis”

    Which isn’t the same thing at all as “The vaccinated are more likely to become infected with pertussis than are the unvaccinated”–agreed?

    And yes, I did go to the link and read the whole thing, which is whay I know your claim (“You are MORE likely to get whooping cough if you are vaccinated for it”) isn’t supported by teh link you provided.

    Like

  81. Lawrence
    June 18, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    Amazing that an anti-vaxer wouldn’t bother to read the entire link….

    Like

  82. Billy
    June 18, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    I did read the whole thing and that is how my statement is true.
    JGC56 – If we look at the quotes you just right you would appear to be correct, the problem is you didn’t provide all of the information, you just cherry picked the section you wanted.

    You left this out, “Resurgence of Pertussis. As reported at the May 2013 BSC meeting, the recent resurgence in
    pertussis cases has been associated with waning immunity over time in persons who received the
    acellular pertussis vaccine (which is administered as the pertussis component of DTaP vaccine).
    However, a recent study suggests another explanation for decreased vaccine effectiveness: an
    increase in Bordetella pertussis isolates that lack pertactin (PRN)–a key antigen component of the
    acellular pertussis vaccine.”

    They are explaining why there is an increase in outbreaks and the reason is the vaccinated are more susceptible of catching the PRN-deficient strain, thus increasing the over-all amount of kids getting it.

    Like

  83. jgc56
    June 19, 2015 at 11:53 am

    And if you look at the section you quoted you’ll see it does not state people who have been vaccinated against pertussis are more likely to be infected than people who have not been vaccinated against pertussis.

    That was the claim you made, remember?

    Protection against infection offered by the acellular vaccine in.use now wanes more rapidly than was the case with the previous vaccine. And yes that results in additional new cases.

    But those vaccinated against pertussis are not “more likely to get whooping cough” than those who have not been vaccinated.

    Like

  84. Billy
    June 19, 2015 at 7:09 pm

    You are flat out wrong and it is in black and white. The whole article is about the increase on top of the already waning vaccine. It says the resurgence is due to waning and ANOTHER REASON, which is the susceptibility of the vaccinated to catch the prn-deficient strain.

    “pertussis cases has been associated with waning immunity over time in persons who received the acellular pertussis vaccine (which is administered as the pertussis component of DTaP vaccine). HOWEVER, a recent study suggests ANOTHER explanation for decreased vaccine effectiveness: an increase in Bordetella pertussis isolates that lack pertactin (PRN)–a key antigen component of the acellular pertussis vaccine.”

    If you disagree with this then please explain what the “other reason” is. Waning and ????

    Can’t wait to hear this.

    Like

  85. jgc56
    June 19, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Billy, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you as well.

    The link you provided offers no evidence that people who have been vaccinated against pertussis are more likely to get whooping cough than those who have not. It notes only that protection from the current acellular vaccines wanes over time, such that some (not all) people who have been vaccinated may no longer produce protective antibody titers and become infected–and should this happen, it is more likely that they will be infected by a pRN deficient strain than is the case with people who have never been vaccinated who are equally likely to be infected by pRN deficient and pRN non-deficient strains.

    I suggest you visit http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/pregnant/mom/vacc-effectiveness.html, where you will find

    “In general, childhood whooping cough vaccines (called DTaP) are effective for 8 or 9 out of 10 children who receive them. Among children who get all 5 doses of DTaP vaccine on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose — nearly all children (98 out of 100) are fully protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following year. About 7 out of 10 of children are fully protected 5 years after getting their last dose of DTaP vaccine and the other 3 are protected against serious disease.”

    So in the first year after completing the series, vaccinated individuals are 80 to 90% LESS likely to get whooping cough. By 5 years after completion they’re 70% LESS likely,
    At no time after vaccination are they MORE likely to be infected than someone who has not been vaccinated.

    Like

  86. Lawrence
    June 20, 2015 at 7:19 am

    Yes, Billy is deliberately misunderstanding what he’s posted……and it is widely known that the DTaP vaccine is not as effective (for Pertussis) as the old DTP. But again, “less” effective doesn’t mean “not” effective….because an reasonably effective vaccine is better than no vaccine at all.

    Also, this drives researchers to look for better ways to combat pertussis, including more effective vaccines as well – but the process takes time – and until such time as a more effective vaccine is on the market, we need to make do with what we have & encourage adults, especially, to remain up to date on their pertussis vaccinations.

    Like

  87. Billy
    June 23, 2015 at 1:36 am

    JGC56, you just posted the 2nd reason, waning and….. “people who have been vaccinated may no longer produce protective antibody titers and become infected–and should this happen, it is more likely that they will be infected by a pRN deficient strain than is the case with people who have never been vaccinated”
    There you go, the 2nd reason for the resurgence. Just like I stated.

    Like

  88. jgc56
    June 23, 2015 at 10:50 am

    Not just like you stated–or, at least, not like any statement of yours I’ve tried to address.

    Do I have to remind you what statement of yours I have been addressing? Here’s a direct quote from your post of June 17, 2015 at 8:52 PM:

    “You are MORE likely to get whooping cough if you are vaccinated for it.”

    That statement is false.

    Like

  89. Chris
    June 23, 2015 at 11:44 am

    Billy, what is your proven method to prevent pertussis in infants? Just provide the Pubmed indexed study that your system has a record of saving babies.

    Like

  90. Billy
    June 23, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    JGC56 –

    This statement is correct. “You are MORE likely to get whooping cough if you are vaccinated for it.”

    The vaccinated are more likely to get the PRN-deficient strain and it is the 2nd reason they list for the “resurgence” of whooping cough.

    Chris, beside the point. A bad way of doing something doesn’t make it right or right to do anyway. Kids are being injured by vaccines and that matters. Obviously,the risk of vaccine injury is not worth this crappy vaccine that doesn’t work anyway.

    Like

  91. jgc56
    June 23, 2015 at 9:38 pm

    That simply isn’t true, Billy, and repetition won’t serve to make it true.

    Visit the link I included in my post of June 19, 2015 at 7:39 pm to see that in the first year after completing the series, vaccinated individuals are 80 to 90% LESS likely to get whooping cough, and by 5 years after completion=despite waning protection–they’re 70% LESS likely to become infected than are un-vaccinated individuals.

    At no time after vaccination are vaccinated individuals MORE likely to be infected with pertussis than someone who has not been vaccinated.

    Like

  92. Chris
    June 23, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    Billy: “Chris, beside the point.”

    Except that is the point. Go up and read the title of this article a few times. If you don’t like the method proposed then you must provide a viable alternative, with supporting evidence.

    “Kids are being injured by vaccines and that matters.”

    Prove it. Provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that vaccinating pregnant women with the Tdap injures kids. Also provide the other studies by reputable qualified researchers that the DTaP causes more harm than pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus. Babies are dying from pertussis, a child has suffered from tetanus in Canada and another child is in the hospital in Spain for diphtheria. Prove that those diseases are safer than the DTaP.

    Like

  93. Billy
    June 24, 2015 at 1:48 am

    JGC56,

    “That simply isn’t true, Billy, and repetition won’t serve to make it true.”

    It is true, please read it again, the link is provided below, again.
    Let’s just assume the RN-deficient strain of pertussis is going around in your neighborhood right now. Vaccinated children are more susceptible of catching it than unvaccinated children.

    Here you go….
    CDC Study – Page 6
    http://www.cdc.gov/maso/facm/pdfs/BSCOID/2013121112_BSCOID_Minutes.pdf

    Like

  94. Billy
    June 24, 2015 at 1:50 am

    Chris,

    “If you don’t like the method proposed then you must provide a viable alternative, with supporting evidence.”

    If one way of doing things is dangerous and/or doesn’t work, it is not required to come up with a better solution to STOP the madness. Your logic is very twisted Chris.

    Like

  95. Chris
    June 24, 2015 at 2:23 am

    Excuse me? If the present method is flawed, then you must have a better way! What is it? Billy, babies are dying because you are holding back on that very important information. What is your proven method to keep babies from dying from pertussis?

    And what real PubMed indexed studies show that pregnant women (who we assume are adults) who get a Tdap cause kids to suffer?

    Seriously, you made that claim, so you need to provide the evidence.

    Like

  96. Lawrence
    June 24, 2015 at 5:50 am

    Billy seems to think that his cited study says something that it obviously does not.

    Like

  97. jgc56
    June 24, 2015 at 11:21 am

    I think: we’ve reached the ‘have to understand it for you” stage I was speaking about previously.

    “Vaccinated children are more susceptible of catching it than unvaccinated children.”

    The linked minutes of the December 2013 meeting of the OID’s Board of Scientific Counselors doesn’t indicate this, Billy. It instead notes an uptick in the number of total infections, that 85% of the infections were caused by pertactin deficient strains, and that “…when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients, the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.”

    That’s all the minutes say. No where in the Board’s minutes will you find any statement made that people who have been vaccinated against ertussis are more likely to become infected with pertussis than people who have not been vaccinated.

    No where in the actual study whose results the minutes discuss (“Prevalence and molecular characterization of pertactin-deficient Bordetella pertussis in the United States”, PMID:24256623) will you find any statement that people who have been vaccinated against ertussis are more likely to become infected with pertussis than people who have not been vaccinated.

    TLDR? The minutes and the study do not say what you think they say.

    Like

  98. Billy
    June 24, 2015 at 11:37 am

    Chris,
    “Excuse me? If the present method is flawed, then you must have a better way! ”
    Why must I have a better way? Who says? The better way is to stop vaccinating and stop injuring children.

    Like

  99. Billy
    June 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

    2 questions for Lawrence and JGC56.

    1- If the PRN-deficient strain is going around, who is more likely to catch it? A vaccinated kid or an unvaccinated kid?

    2- What are the 2 reasons the study claims for the resurgence of whooping cough? The first one is “waning”, please tell me what the 2nd reason is,

    Like

  100. Chris
    June 24, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    Billy: “The better way is to stop vaccinating and stop injuring children.”

    How does that prevent pertussis? Where are the studies that the DTaP and Tdap vaccines injure children more frequently than pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus?

    Provide evidence that you can prevent pertussis in children, so that we do not have a repeat of Japan’s experience:
    Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84.
    Acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan: past, present and future.

    Which says:

    An antivaccine movement developed in Japan as a consequence of increasing numbers of adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the mid-1970s. After two infants died within 24 h of the vaccination from 1974 to 1975, the Japanese government temporarily suspended vaccinations. Subsequently, the public and the government witnessed the re-emergence of whooping cough, with 41 deaths in 1979. This series of unfortunate events revealed to the public that the vaccine had, in fact, been beneficial.

    So, Billy, why do you prefer dead infants over vaccinating pregnant women with Tdap, and babies with DTaP?

    Like

  101. jgc56
    June 24, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    “ If the PRN-deficient strain is going around, who is more likely to catch it? A vaccinated kid or an unvaccinated kid?”

    Not “THE PRN deficient strain”, Billy, but “A PRN deficient strain” and the unvaccinated child would be more likely to become infected if one was going around than an unvaccinated child. See http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/pertactin-neg-strain.html, which notes what I’ve been trying to explain to you for the past several days:

    ‘There is a new study that found the likelihood of having reported pertussis caused by pertactin-deficient pertussis compared to pertactin-producing pertussis is greater in vaccinated persons. However, current evidence suggests pertussis vaccines continue to prevent disease caused by both pertactin-positive and pertactin-negative pertussis strains since other components of the vaccines provide protection.”

    “ What are the 2 reasons the study claims for the resurgence of whooping cough? The first one is “waning”, please tell me what the 2nd reason is.”

    The study itself makes no claims regarding an observed resurgence nor assigns any cause to such.

    The OID minutes which discuss the study indicate that pertussis resurgence is a consequence of waning protection and an increase in pertussis isolates that lack pertactin. Note that neither proposed contributor to the resurgence argues that people who have been vaccinated are more likely to become infected with pertussis than those who have not been vaccinated.

    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: