Have you noticed all the "Get Your Whooping Cough Vaccine" commercials recently?

originally posted by: Scouse100
I really do hate the propaganda and scare mongering (from both sides) when what we need are clear facts. I feel uneasy about advertising vaccines (but it is different here in the UK of course).

Over here we don't generally vaccinate adults against it although it is offered to pregnant women. My kids got the jab but it does worry me that these vaccines are not thoroughly understood.

When I read the info in the link below released a couple of years ago, it really got me thinking as I had always assumed such fundamentals would be tested before releasing a vaccine to the general population but it appears not.

TextThe FDA conducted the study in baboons, an animal model that closely reproduces the way whooping cough affects people ... Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals. This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.

www.fda.gov...

Does anyone happen to know if any further research was ever conducted on this?

Here's a pretty comprehensive look into that study and a rational insight to its consequences.

www.redwineandapplesauce.com...

The take-away from it is that it further cements the need for individuals to be vaccinated against pertussis.

a reply to: Pardon?

Thanks for that, I have read it but found it to be in the most part speculation and opinion which I am sure could be twisted around the other way.

For example...

... (The R0 value refers to the number of people a person is likely to infect during the time period when they are carrying the infection and are contagious. .... One reason the R0 would plausibly be higher for an unvaccinated person is that they would show disease symptoms, namely coughing, and the severe, chronic coughing could increase the likelihood that the infected droplets are spread around them.

www.redwineandapplesauce.com...

I could argue that an infected person showing symptoms is more likely to stay away from unvaccinated people (such as newborns). They would therefore be less likely to spread WC than an infected person who has no idea. I know I was vigilant about this with my newborn and I am pretty laid back.

I would like to see more research on this and would have hoped it would be underway by now. Well actually, I would have hoped these fundementals would have been researched before it was released and I guess that is what really bothers me.

originally posted by: Scouse100
a reply to: Pardon?

Thanks for that, I have read it but found it to be in the most part speculation and opinion which I am sure could be twisted around the other way.

For example...

... (The R0 value refers to the number of people a person is likely to infect during the time period when they are carrying the infection and are contagious. .... One reason the R0 would plausibly be higher for an unvaccinated person is that they would show disease symptoms, namely coughing, and the severe, chronic coughing could increase the likelihood that the infected droplets are spread around them.

www.redwineandapplesauce.com...

I could argue that an infected person showing symptoms is more likely to stay away from unvaccinated people (such as newborns). They would therefore be less likely to spread WC than an infected person who has no idea. I know I was vigilant about this with my newborn and I am pretty laid back.

I would like to see more research on this and would have hoped it would be underway by now. Well actually, I would have hoped these fundementals would have been researched before it was released and I guess that is what really bothers me.

It's not really a fundamental and how could it have been checked prior to its release?
Think about it.
It doesn't affect the efficacy or safety of the vaccine.
It's not being vaccinated that can propagate the disease is it?

Unfortunately in older children and adults a cough is usually present for some time before any medical help is sought and a diagnosis obtained.
Do you go to the doctors at the first sign of a cough?
Didn't think so.

Aside from that one could argue that the whole study is speculation as it was performed on a different species of animal...

But the bottom line remains that children who are not vaccinated are 6-25 times more likely to catch the disease.
justthevax.blogspot.co.uk...

And that vaccinated kids will have a less vigorous form of the disease.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Pardon?

I would argue that the fact vaccinated people can become infected and then infect both vaccinated and none vaccinated people would fall under efficacy and is a fundamental. The study I linked to was commissioned for the very reason that the efficacy of the vaccine is under question due to a 50 year high in WC rates.

FDA study helps provide an understanding of rising rates of whooping cough and response to vaccination ... Whooping cough rates in the United States have been increasing since the 1980s and reached a 50-year high in 2012. ... “This study is critically important to understanding some of the reasons for the rising rates of pertussis and informing potential strategies to address this public health concern,” said Karen Midthun, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, where the study was conducted. “This research is a valuable contribution and brings us one step closer to understanding the problem. We are optimistic that more research on pertussis will lead to the identification of new and improved methods for preventing the disease.” ... “There were 48,000 cases reported last year despite high rates of vaccination,” said Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “This resurgence suggests a need for research into the causes behind the increase in infections and improved ways to prevent the disease from spreading.”

Yes you are absolutely right about the coughing and seeking diagnosis. However, I don't know if you are a parent, but I know one thing for sure about me and all the parents I know, we have all steered clear of anyone who is coughing all over the place with our newborns, and visitors who are ill have always postponed until they are better (of their own accord) when baby is tiny. So regarding the ad, baby would be more likely to be exposed if grandma got the jab and became infected unknowingly (in our case anyway).

I agree the study is not concrete, and that's the reason I am calling for more research. I'm not convinced one way or the other unfortunately. As I said what worries me is that this is just being discovered after how many years of the vaccination being recommended.

I don't argue that the vaccination protects from the symptoms of WC but more about giving a false sense of security for the unvaccinated who are being 'cocooned'.

The 6-25 more likely stat, would that be just reported cases I am guessing? I am sure we have no idea how many asymptomatic cases there have been in vaccinated people as they will go unreported (which is fine for the person themselves but not so great for the unvaccinated baby).

originally posted by: Scouse100
a reply to: Pardon?

I would argue that the fact vaccinated people can become infected and then infect both vaccinated and none vaccinated people would fall under efficacy and is a fundamental. The study I linked to was commissioned for the very reason that the efficacy of the vaccine is under question due to a 50 year high in WC rates.

FDA study helps provide an understanding of rising rates of whooping cough and response to vaccination ... Whooping cough rates in the United States have been increasing since the 1980s and reached a 50-year high in 2012. ... “This study is critically important to understanding some of the reasons for the rising rates of pertussis and informing potential strategies to address this public health concern,” said Karen Midthun, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, where the study was conducted. “This research is a valuable contribution and brings us one step closer to understanding the problem. We are optimistic that more research on pertussis will lead to the identification of new and improved methods for preventing the disease.” ... “There were 48,000 cases reported last year despite high rates of vaccination,” said Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “This resurgence suggests a need for research into the causes behind the increase in infections and improved ways to prevent the disease from spreading.”

Yes you are absolutely right about the coughing and seeking diagnosis. However, I don't know if you are a parent, but I know one thing for sure about me and all the parents I know, we have all steered clear of anyone who is coughing all over the place with our newborns, and visitors who are ill have always postponed until they are better (of their own accord) when baby is tiny. So regarding the ad, baby would be more likely to be exposed if grandma got the jab and became infected unknowingly (in our case anyway).

I agree the study is not concrete, and that's the reason I am calling for more research. I'm not convinced one way or the other unfortunately. As I said what worries me is that this is just being discovered after how many years of the vaccination being recommended.

I don't argue that the vaccination protects from the symptoms of WC but more about giving a false sense of security for the unvaccinated who are being 'cocooned'.

The 6-25 more likely stat, would that be just reported cases I am guessing? I am sure we have no idea how many asymptomatic cases there have been in vaccinated people as they will go unreported (which is fine for the person themselves but not so great for the unvaccinated baby).

Certainly your concerns are valid and I'm hoping that there will be more research to either prove or disprove this study and certainly to improve the vaccine.

However, all the study suggests is that baboons who have been vaccinated can transmit the disease in some circumstances..but only if they have the disease.
It definitely doesn't state that the vaccination causes the colonisation.
It doesn't show whether transmission occurs between the vaccinated population or just from un-vaxxed to vaxxed.
It doesn't show any nasty side-effects or an efficiency lower than what's already known.
So, it works, individually on baboons at worst.

So for me, it cements that people should get vaccinated against it, especially pregnant mothers.
And I'd rather my kids (yes I'm a parent to two healthy and fully vaxxed kids as am I) were vaccinated against it then if they were exposed they would be asymptomatic.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

As for the reporting, yes, it's probably under-reported but look at it another way.
People who follow the vax schedule are more likely to be seen regularly by a medical doctor.
If they're seen by one and pertussis is diagnosed it has to be reported.
People who don't and/or are anti-vax probably don't so in the real world the amount of purposely unvaxxed cases will be on the low side.
Would a naturopath diagnose a case of pertussis in a patient?
Probably not (certainly not in the States in the current climate).
Therefore would they report it?

a reply to: Pardon?

Thank you for acknowledging that, I do feel they are valid concerns

Nowhere did I say the study suggests that the vaccine causes colonisation, I am not sure if I was unclear or you are just making sure I know haha!

And yes my kids have had the vaccine. I am not happy however at the lack of transparency and facts around the whole push for cocooning and I am concerned that if they actually have no idea about who can transmit WC to who (as you acknowledge above) then the pre-market testing is not anywhere near as thorough as I had been led to believe.

Take your point about the reporting but really it is extremely unlikely an asymptomatic patient is likely to be diagnosed by any Dr isn't it?