Slashdot Mirror
In Calif. Study, Most Kids With Whooping Cough Were Fully Vaccinated
An anonymous reader writes with this extract from a Reuters article: "In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough — the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. 'We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention,' said Witt."
The tinfoil hat crowd is probably pleased by this. Now they can invite kids with whooping cough to their chicken pox parties.
So... either their was something wrong with the vaccine, there was a mutation, or else this particular vaccine is less effective than most other vaccines. Unfortunately, most people will take this and generalize it to "vaccines don't work!!!"
No, the vaccine worked. The reason most of the children who got infected also had the vaccines, was that 81% of all children had recieved the vaccine. The risk of getting the infection was still greater for the children who newer got the vaccine.
So the correct headline would be "Vaccine not as effective as previously thought".
Let's put it this way. When you have a vaccine that works 95% of the time, and 99% of the kids are vaccinated. You'll have ~5% of the population contracting the disease despite being vaccinated. And the 1% of the population will contract the disease because they weren't vaccinated. You end with way more students that are vaccinated with the disease than those who are not vaccinated (absolute number wise). But it also ignored the fact that 94% of the population was protected against the disease.
If you had your kids vaccinated before they were able to discuss it with you, you believe in forcing people to take shots.
Perhaps not ALL people. Just the ones you think are incapable of making a good decision on their own. In which case, that's not so different than anyone else.
Consider: Allowing them to choose to be unvaccinated significantly increases the risk for you and your children.
Diseases like this only vanish when everyone is vaccinated, otherwise local outbreaks can still spread from the unvaccinated into the general population.
That's called parenting. Until your kids reach the age of majority or are otherwise emancipated, you have to make these decisions for them. You're legally obligated to do so, in fact.
Where do you think shingles came from before there was a CP vaccine? "Shingles" is the reactivation of the same freaking virus you had long ago -- because herpes is forever.
The vaccine, unlike the wild virus, does not take up residence in nerve roots and does not have the potential to cause shingles later. However, both the wild immunity and the vaccine immunity wane with age, so if you're not routinely exposed to the wild virus you need a booster to prevent shingles.
Which, thank you, I will be getting along with my pertussis booster in about two years. Both I and my (now adult) children have had the wild flavor of chicken pox, and I can do without another round with it. Unlike some, I can read the medical literature on this stuff. I even talk to my doctor, believe it or not.
Now, get off my lawn.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Pointing out the inevitable consequences of not vaccinating isn't "bashing".
Not everyone can be vaccinated, and many (such as the elderly) don't develop a strong immunity when vaccinated. For example, in my son's kindergarten class, there's a kid who have to have a liver transplant, and hence is on immunosuppressive drugs. Having my kids vaccinated helps protect that kid's life.
You don't understand how vaccines work.
They expose the adaptive immune system to the virus/bacterium in question. The adaptive immune system develops (in a pretty much evolutionary way) a response. It's unique to every individual - no two people produce the same antibodies. Some of them are more effective than others (hence the differing strength of immunity people display after being vaccinated, and why some rare people get really lucky and develop robust immune responses even to outliers like HIV) but there's such a variety that disease organisms can't "evolve immunity" in the way you're talking about.
Some fast-mutating viruses - like the flu, or even more, the cold viruses - can change enough to require new vaccines periodically, sure. But (a) that's not 'evolving immunity to a vaccine' and (b) the old vaccine remains just as effective against the old variants.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I hope you noticed that the researchers behind this study are doctors too.
Not all doctors buy into the status quo (where medication trumps diet and lifestyle, and doctors merely follow rules and guidelines instead of thinking for themselves). Remember what actually determines the status quo (political power, not independent research).
Did you know that coronary artery disease (for example) is nearly 100% attributed to diet, specifically the exponential rise in meat and dairy consumption over the past century? All doctors know that diet is a factor, but nearly all believe that medication is the answer (and hardly any could tell you that the average American today eats orders of magnitude more meat/dairy as the average American 100 years ago. But there have been very reputable studies that have shown the exact opposite of what most doctors believe -- that the answer is diet. Of course, adjusting one's diet doesn't generate any revenue for the health care industry.