E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. is on course for a record year for whooping cough, health officials said this week. And while vaccinating kids is clearly the most important defense, health experts say adults may not realize they’re supposed to be getting regular shots, too.
Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is a bacterial infection best known for causing a deep cough in children. They cough so long and so hard that when they can finally catch a breath, they make a distinctive “whoop” sound on the intake. So far this year, the United States has seen more than 16,000 validated cases of whooping cough, said Stacey Martin, an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That’s more than the 15,216 cases reported last year. The latest peak was 27,550 cases in 2010, when it killed 27 people, 25 of them babies.
“We are on track to have a record year, I think,” Martin said in a telephone interview.
Pertussis has reached epidemic levels in the state of Washington, with more than 2,700 cases so far this year, and CDC is following outbreaks in 18 other states: Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Idaho, Montana, Texas, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Florida, Arizona, Maine, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and Oregon.
"This time last year we had about 200 cases, which was a lot," said Tim Church, a spokesman for the Washington state department of health. "So to have 2,700 this time is just the most we have seen in my lifetime."
The problem is caused by a number of factors. Babies less than two months old are too young to get the vaccine, so they are especially vulnerable. And the formulation of the vaccine was changed in the 1990s to make it safer, but that also made it a little less effective, Martin said.
“We went to safer vaccine with fewer side effects but the duration of protection is not as good,” she said. Church adds that in Washington state, many parents have opted not to have their children vaccinated -- another factor that could affect the epidemic, although he said there is not data to demonstrate just how badly.
The good news is that 95 percent of U.S. children are vaccinated, Martin says. The bad news is that only 10 percent of adults are.
Children need five doses by age 6 to be fully protected and even then they may need a booster in their teens. Every adult should get at least one dose of the combined tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis vaccine, CDC says in its latest guidelines. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends the shot once every 10 years.
"That’s been our big push in Washington state -- to help adults understand they need to get vaccinated too," Church said.
This is extra-confusing because there are several vaccines on the market, some of which contain just tetanus and diphtheria and some that also protect against pertussis, said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, who directs the Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville and who is a board member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
To protect the youngest babies, pregnant women should be vaccinated in the later stages of pregnancy, the CDC says. “I think it is hard to vaccinate pregnant women, because pregnant women have this feeling that they aren’t supposed to put anything in their body,” Edwards says. While this is understandable, studies have shown it’s very safe and the mothers-to-be pass on their immunity to their newborns, she said. This is the same for flu, too.
Even health experts often don’t realize the need for adults to be vaccinated. Edwards and colleagues surveyed 1,800 health care workers in 2007, and only 13 percent planned to get a whooping cough shot, with most saying they were unaware they even needed one. Half the time, when babies get whooping cough, a parent is the source, Edwards said. And whooping cough can make adults very sick, as well.
“Adults get whooping cough, and they cough and cough,” Edwards said. The cough can persist for weeks, but doctors and patients alike often don’t even think to check for pertussis. “Certainly, whenever adults need their booster for tetanus and diphtheria, they should include pertussis,” Edwards advised.
It’s not just whooping cough that adults need to be vaccinated against.
The CDC just released updated its adult vaccination recommendations to say adults should think about getting vaccines to prevent a range of diseases: chickenpox; measles, mumps and rubella (German measles); influenza (every single year); hepatitis A and B; and meningitis. Younger adults also need vaccinations against HPV or human papillomavirus, which causes cervical, penis and head and neck cancers (after about age 26 it’s too late), while adults older than 60 need a dose of vaccine against shingles and also should get a shot that protects against a batch of bacterial infections called pneumococcal diseases every five years.
More on Vitals:
- Big jump seen in Oregon parents delaying vaccines
- Calif. cuts whooping cough deaths to zero
- Extra whooping cough booster might protect more kids
Washington State, California, Oregon and Vermont are all experiencing similar outbreaks. NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman reports.
Leave a Comment:
NO child should have or (adult) should have, catch whooping cough. Just poor parenting and neglect on the adults part .
POOR vaccine and reasoning skills. This vaccine doesn't work as thought. It doesn't stop transmission and it only lasts for 3 years if it at all.
A person at my work got it from there child, they got it, and passed it on to me, my husband, and my infant. Even going to the hospital and emergency room to try to figure out what I had they never tested me for whooping cough. I even suggested that I had whooping cough after researching it online and they still never tested me, they said I was having an asthma attack though I have never had that in my life and prescribed me an inhailer. Only when my 8 week old baby got it did they test for it and it turned out positive, so 4 cases went unreported. If you hear your cough or childs cough progress from 1 cough, to 2 coughs, to 4 coughs, to 6 coughs, get tested! Whooping cough was the worst at night, I would be gasping for breath! I don't care if people say vaccines don't work I would get them any day even if it cut the risk in half or a quarter. The alternative I don't wish on anyone it was 100 days of the worst experience of my life!
Get the vaccine!!!
Umm.... Raymond? My daughters attend one of the schools in Texas that had a Pertussis outbreak. Do you know what nearly all the kids who got sick had in common? Vaccination for Pertussis.
As the article stated, the newest version of the vaccine, while safer, is not as effective.
And Robert? The vaccine was better than nothing. None of the kids required hospitalization, and none of them died.
The "other" vaccine caused a lot of brain damage in babies. The U.S. government has paid out more for the pertussis vaccine than any other vaccine. That's why they changed to the less effective vaccine. But that doesn't stop them from socially charging the unvaccinated. It' pure propagand BS.
Almost all whooping cough deaths occur in small infants under 3 mos. Too young to get the vaccine. The vaccine does not prevent transmission of infection. The manufacturer admits this.
Sorry to say I had the whooping cough eight weeks ago and I'm still suffering. I thought that I was up to date with the shots I needed. The missing thing was that this shot only lasts a few years and isn't 100% effective anyway.
Even so, I have to say that it's the most terrible thing I've experienced. You start to cough and you can't clear your airway. You cough and cough then you can't breathe. One time I went a whole minute without being able to breathe. I went to the Dr the same day and was given an antibiotic. That made things better but the coughing fits are still here weeks later. In some parts of the world it's called "the cough of 100 days" even after the antibiotic the cough lingers.
Check with your doctor about the shot!
One more thing. I went to a doctor and was diagnosed with pertussis but my state isn't on the list of confirmed cases so don't think you're safe if you aren't in one of those states
@Robert,
You are just mindlessly parrotting the rantings of the anti-vaccine crowd. Vaccines have never been supposed to block the transmission of diseases. Period. In the 3,000 or so years that vaccines have been in use, no one ever made that claim for individuals.
Where vaccines block the transmission of disease lies in "herd immunity." Herd immunity reduces the pool of infected people and "interferes" with the transmission of disease to the point of diminishing returns.
What vaccines do is trigger the individual's immune system to "recognize" a disease so that the person's body can produce enough white cells to overwhelm the disease before it can get established.
"The vaccine does not prevent transmission of infection. The manufacturer admits this." is a really stupid piece of false logic. It is a great deal like saying, "Fords cannot go to the moon. The manufacturer admits this." It may be technically true, but it is so stupid as to be a lie.
It's real simple, Chris. Babies represent the majority of pertussis deaths. Babies that young do not get vaccinated. The sales technique used on the public is "get vaccinated so you don't give a "too young to be vaccinated" baby pertussis.
You are either ignorant of this or you are just playing word semantics.
@Chris,
Robert is correct. You don't understand. The pertussis vaccine does not prevent ANYBODY from catching the pertussis bacteria, and carrying it around in their bodies, and spreading it to others. There is no herd immunity from the pertussis vaccine. Its only purpose is to reduce the symptoms in the person who is vaccinated.
The pertussis vaccine works agains the toxin that the bacteria produce in the body. The toxin is what causes the cough.
http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar06may-2.pdf
Robert,
Let's break this down, since you apparently misunderstood or ignored Chris's explanation:
Somewhat correct, though not entirely. According to this 2006 publication, the most commonly infected demographic is actually 10-14 years. This is followed by infants <1 year of age, and then by 15-19 year old individuals. So really, the bulk of the infections appear to be teens.
Regardless, even if the facts supported your assertion, they would still bolster the value of herd immunity. Let's say 100% of pertussis cases were infants, just for argument. It won't spread to the population at large nearly as easily if children, teens, adults and seniors who contact these children are protected by proper vaccination (even if that vaccination is only partially effective).
Yea, that's just a terrible marketing ploy, isn't it? Come on. That's a valid concern - who wants the most vulnerable cohort of individuals (those with the most underdeveloped/naive immune systems) to be exposed to a population at large who may harbor the disease? If this is a primary objection, I think you're really clinging to straws, no?
Hah, sure - he's ignorant and playing word games. Right.
No, I think it's pretty clear that Chris has a firm grasp on the most reasonable stance here. Look at your statements in comparison - Your greatest objections are not entirely factual, and rely on an assumed bias/agenda in marketing tactics. That looks more like anti-vax propaganda and word games than anything Chris posted.
@Robert and @Sandra,
You are both absolutely wrong and are spreading dangerously incorrect information. Yes, the largest number of pertussis DEATHS are among infants under 3 months who are too young to receive the vaccine. But the greatest number of CASES, by far are among adults where it can also be very deadly, especially to the elderly and the immuno-compromised. Ask any adult who has had it.
Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on herd immunity. Notice that pertussis is included in herd immunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Of course, there is the other option ---- that over 100 years of medicine are incorrect and the gullible and anonymous @Robert and @Sandra know things hidden from the rest of the world.
Dangerous, dangerous idiots spread their OPINIONS and state that they are facts. People, do not believe these sorts of people. Do quick and easy research --- the CDCP web site is great for info as is the NIH web site.
You can stop right there.I don't need to read any further. I said deaths . You said I was somewhat correct and then went on about cases and gloating about something. I am entirely correct with that statement. Your argument is moot. Try again. Next time pay attention to the details.
Again what exactly is incorrect? Because you said
No incorrect information there nor anywhere else that I have posted.
Oh OK. wikipedia says says "pertussis" and "herd Immunity". Is that your argument? Do you even understand how the vaccine works?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/pdf/srugo.pdf
ANd...this is the more effective and reactive vaccine not less effective one used today.
@Chris
"hidden from the rest of the world"? Even the manufacturer of the pertussis vaccine admits, "It is unknown whether immunizing adolescents and adults against pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants."
http://www.vaccineplace.com/support/brochure/adacelpatientbrochure.pdf (page 5)
You are right, Robert. Deaths. Babies dead. Older people dead. Humans dying and being seriously ill for extended lengths of time. Yeah, guess that's no big deal to you and you would rather flit around the internet posting the same old stuff thinking no one will question you, and when they do you attack. You just aren't right in saying or insinuating that vaccines aren't useful and that they don't make a big difference. They aren't perfect, but they make a difference. But by all means keep posting and posting...I have seen you before. But keep in mind that just posting all over threads doesn't make what you say true. People can research for themselves and I hope they do.
If we can't discuss things civilly what is the point of discussing anything? Read the studies and not websites with agendas...read.
That's a strawman argument. I post about problems with mass vaccine propaganda and you argue that I don't care about humans dying. False logic.
I do to. I encourage it
Robert,
Do you know why babies do not get vaccinated until 6 months? It is not because they are too young to be vaccinated. It is because their mother's immune system fights off those bugs for them. After birth, babies do not produce their own immune-responses until 6 months. At the 6-month mark you are supposed to vaccinate your kids because at that point they are no longer protected by their mother's immune system.
This is assuming the mother was also vaccinated or had specific diseases and so produced the antibodies for those diseases. If the mother was not vaccinated/had a disease then the babies are unprotected for that first 6 months.
Even with a 100% vaccination rate, there would still be those who catch and die from whooping cough.
Yes, It's called maternal fetal antibodies. The waning of them varies from mother to mother. It interferes with vaccine efficacy. Mass vaccination ideologists can't stand this and are trying to find ways around it. Waiting is just an obstacle to decrease compliance in their eyes. It's the same reason why some have suggested to not breast feed so they can get the vaccines into the babies. It's ridiculous but they are one track minded.
Robert,
First - yes, I made a mistake in reading your previous post. My apologies, I should have read more carefully. You know, you can point that out without rejecting the rest of a post. It was an obvious error, and doesn't make my point "moot." I'm fine admitting when I've made an error - so can we now focus on the issue here?
Would you be willing to explain how any of the rest of my point was in error? Again, even if 100% of deaths were infants (which isn't the case), how would this favor reducing vaccination? My reasoning still stands regardless of who is dying due to pertussis. Herd immunity prevents the spread by reducing infection and symptoms that spread the pathogen (coughing, and fluid production) in the general population. This contains the contagion more effectively than it could be in non-vaccinated populations.
What are your qualifications by the way? You seem very proud of your knowledge on this subject - where are you getting your information, and what level of education do you hold that is informing your evaluation of this information? Honestly curious if you are a health care professional or not.
What are "mass vaccination ideologists," and what do they stand to gain? Seriously, what is the big conspiracy you seem to be hinting at??? Seriously, what is behind your opposition here - again, I'm honestly curious what your position is.
Robert....
After reading your posts I, like Natural_SciGuy, am very interested in both what you believe a better approach than vaccinations would be and if you truly believe that there is a massive conspiracy of "vaccination ideologists" out there? Vaccines have historically been wildly successful in controlling some of the worst and most debilitating illnesses humans have faced. i.e. My father often mentions how everyone knew someone crippled by polio when he was a kid, but polio is nearly eradicated now. Smallpox? Polio? Diphtheria? Measles? These used to be heavy hitters in terms of mortality.
Would you honestly rather live without vaccines or maybe I am misunderstanding you and it's just the Pertussis one that you are against.
I'm no immunologist, but it's always been my understanding that while natural immunity is technically more effective in the long run we would still see an increase in mortality figures due to these diseases if we tried to approach these diseases by allowing a policy that hoped for the majority of the population acquiring natural immunity rather than vaccinating them. No?
Reported Cases and Deaths from Vaccine Preventable Diseases,
United States, 1950-2011*
United States Disease Death Rates
Vaccines came in AFTER the massive decrease in mortality!
Early diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccination associated with higher female mortality and no difference in male mortality in a cohort of low birthweight children: an observational study within a randomised trial
Hi Robert,
The information in the "Health Sentinel" (United States Disease Death Rates) link is simply incorrect/skewed.
For instance, it has the Pertussis (Whooping Cough) vaccine being introduced around 1940, but it was actually developed in the early 1920's and was already being used extensively before it was combined with Diptheria and Tetanus vaccines to create the DTP combined vaccine in the early 1940's which I am assuming is what your Health Sentinel link is referring to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pertussis
Diptheria's vaccine was created in 1913 after all of the science of understanding the disease had been developed from 1880 forward. The antitoxin while helpful in reducing Diptheria is not an acceptable longterm population-wide solution because of the huge risks associated with it, therefore in 1913 the vaccine was created. The Health Sentinel graph does show a dramatic downtown after that point as well, so it is still correct that the vaccine has been a great benefit to society.
Measles cases and deaths were reduced by 99% post vaccination. While I was incorrect in lumping measles in with the others as a major killer (450 deaths per 3.5 million cases) that is still a bigger saver of human life.
http://measles.emedtv.com/measles/history-of-measles.html
The inclusion of Scarlett Fever in the graphs is different altogether since while there is/was a vaccine for it it was not used much because of the introduction of antibiotics which has been used to control Scarlet Fever.
Also, I notice the graph doesn't include Polio's vaccine history. The vaccine was created in 1950. Within 10 years polio cases were reduced roughly 90% from 33,000 cases to 3000.
The information on the link: Reported Cases and Deaths from Vaccine Preventable Diseases,
United States, 1950-2011*
confirms what I suggested that the mortality rates associated with these diseases have dropped significantly since the introduction of these vaccines.
Do I think that the administration and development of these vaccines could be better? Yes. For instance, you link to DTP's potential association with female mortality rates in specific parts of Africa suggests that there might be an issue there. However, in no way do I think that there is a case for us being better off if society got rid of these vaccines.
Thoughts? You point out the studies, but didn't give your personal opinion about whether we should do away with vaccines altogether? I'd be very interested in hearing your (seeming) reasons for being against the vaccines.
Thanks for the links,
StMiller
The vaccination is a complete failure and the unvaccinated are not to blame. I have proof:
A collection of mainstream news reports and studies exploding the whooping cough vaccine myth
(Mainstream study documents vaccine causing mutation, spreading of whooping cough):
Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization
"....vaccination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of mice.....these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection."
The overwhelming majority of those who contract this disease are fully vaccinated. I have dozens and dozens of mainstream news stories to back this up - including the following:
(Vaccine failure in NY):
"179 reported cases in Suffolk County, NY - according to Suffolk health officials, all those affected had been immunized in the past."
(Vaccine failure in Atlanta):
Whooping cough vaccine not as powerful as thought
"Of the 18 students in the recent Cobb cluster, 17 were properly immunized with five doses of DTaP vaccine..."
(Vaccine has caused bacteria to mutate, rendering vaccine useless):
Whooping cough strain now immune to vaccine - -
“The bacteria that causes whooping cough has mutated, eroding the protection provided by the vaccine now given to children, scientists warned yesterday. Our findings suggest that the use of the acellular vaccine may be one factor contributing to these genetic changes."
(Mainstream researcher admits vaccine is failure and vaccinated are spreading disease):
"The greatest concern", Witt said, "is that the children who were presumed to be protected, but apparently were not, could have served as a transmitter of infection to others in their families and neighborhoods ..."
(North Carolinians confused as to why all 103 cases fully vaxed and no unvaccinated kids got it):
(Excerpt): ... (the) outbreak...has grown to include more than 103 cases.....SHAPLEY-QUINN SAID there’s no instance of a child who had not been vaccinated getting pertussis....
(SHOT DOWN !!!) Board member Tony Rose had asked for information about the number of students who don’t get vaccinations because of religious or other reasons. “I think it’s 15 kids in your entire system (who) have an exemption for medical or religious reasons,” Shapley-Quinn said. None of the pertussis cases involved those students, she said.
Bass said the system has a “really good vaccination rate,” which “raises questions about the vaccine itself” and its effectiveness in preventing the disease.
(Proof that the vaccine is CAUSING outbreaks and making cases more severe):
(Excerpt): Microbiologists from the University of NSW have found variants of the pertussis bacteria with a particular genetic signature have increased to 86 per cent of all samples taken from infected people after a continuing disease epidemic began in 2008. Although the strains were present in Australia as early as 2000, they accounted for only 31 per cent of all samples collected between 2000 and 2007 – suggesting they have flourished alongside the current vaccine.... An acellular vaccine – introduced in Australia in 1997 - appeared to have promoted the spread of these variants, Dr Lan said, which overseas authorities had linked to "higher virulence on the basis of hospitalisation and case mortality data".
(Australia ends free pertussis vaccines for adults because it's ineffective):
"PARENTS across Australia will no longer receive free whooping cough vaccinations because it is not effective in protecting newborns from the potentially deadly illness, a parliamentary committee has heard."
"The PBAC, which is totally independent and very expert, has determined that there is no clinical effectiveness of this strategy," Professor Brook said.
He said this had made it clear the cocooning strategy should not be continued.
"So all jurisdictions who have been in this program will be effectively ceasing the cocooning strategy as of the end of June this year."
"There has been a national committee meet to look at this and to make decisions on the basis of the best scientific evidence available ... the evidence is that the strategy has not been effective."
Vaccinations are NOT the answer. Why do these articles only mention vaccinations as the solution to our immune systems being able to defend against various bacteria and viruses? It's a huge disservice to mankind to keep perpetuating this religion. Our bodies are FAR more complicated than just VACCINES, VACCINES, VACCINES, VACCINES !!!!
Why don't doctors stress the basics before chemicals?
Why don't these articles stress the need for ingesting all 90-some-odd vitamins/minerals/amino acids?
Why don't these articles stress the need for breastfeeding?
Why don't these articles stress the need for avoiding toxic, processed, GMO, sugared foods?
Why don't these articles stress the need for exercise?
Why don't these articles stress the need for getting plenty of sleep?
The point being, ALL of the above-mentioned items are far more important than vaccines (if vaccines can even be considered important at all - at least in a positive way).
Stressing vaccines over the BASICS of our bodies speaks volumes regarding the true intentions of these "experts" who all have a vested interest in keeping everyone unhealthy so they can then provide endless "treatments" for the masses.
Obviously you never had whooping cough otherwise you would be getting the vaccine over getting the alternative! Nursing didn't keep my baby from getting whooping cough. If there is an option to prevent something then you get that option. You fool!
Jesus Mary and Joseph. Have you ever heard of fact gathering beforehand and putting it all in one comment? Your information isn't important enough to justify 10 different comments from you.
Just the fact that you weren't prepared at all for this makes me question every single source you've posted.
PatrickThomas
I have to applaud you in how your excerpts have twisted facts to your own end for example:
You quote: "PARENTS across Australia will no longer receive free whooping cough vaccinations because it is not effective in protecting newborns from the potentially deadly illness, a parliamentary committee has heard"
The vaccine prevented the parents form getting whooping cough very effectively but the line stating it was not effective refers to the strategy not the vaccine. As newborns can not be vaccinated until they are about 6 weeks of age it was though vaccinating parents may help reduce the chance of the spread of whooping cough to newborns until they can be vaccinated. How ever due to the low incidences of individuals vaccination this strategy did not work.
I find your twist of the truth into lies disingenuous as the least.
For thousands and thousands of years, people died from whooping cough, small pox, diphtheria, even chicken pox. We have the ability to keep ourselves and our children safe from ever contracting those diseases with vaccines. Taking vitamins and breast feeding DOES NOT prevent any of those diseases.
I got my pertussis (whooping cough) shot last week to protect the new baby living in my house. It didn't even hurt a little :-)
PatrickThomas -
Another anti-vax loon. Look, I get it, there is a lot of importance in health and immunity regarding proper diet and exercise. As far as breast-feeding goes, it wears off very quickly. Basic hygiene is really more important than pretty much all the things you listed up there, though, as in washing hands, showering, using proper cleaning techniques, etc. Soap has ended more disease than proper diet and exercise ever will.
It's true, that as vaccines become more widespread, bacteria can mutate (or likely already have and they were generally outcompeted by the more common strains). If that is the case, then the bacteria that aren't protected against will be selected for. It's called selection, one of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory, and the one that Charles Darwin is most famous for.
But, you anti-vax loons get so up in arms whenever ANYTHING is found like this, it boggles the mind. Do you think this was unexpected? Do you think that physicians and doctors are complete tools? Look in the mirror for a complete tool, Patrick. The solution is not ending vaccines. You exclaim, "Oh, look, this bacteria we vaccinated against is gone, but now this other one is showing up much more frequently. We must burn the scientists at the stake and all go back to eating organic foods and detoxifying and using natural supplements, and Big Pharma is coming to steal your souls and give your kids ADD or Asperger's or something! Yeah!" That is, literally, weapons-grade stupidity. As in, it costs lives. Mostly, lives of children, whose parents actually listen to morons and idiots like you, Jenny McCarthy, and Andrew Wakefield, and say, "We shouldn't vaccinate our kids."
Let me ask you, in all your searching, how many kids came up with the aPertussis infections? Didn't see any numbers with that in there.
I get what you're saying, I really do. You're saying that there are possible problems with vaccination schedules, that some lose effectiveness more quickly than others, that some protect against certain types of bacteria that cause a disease but not against others causing that disease, blah blah blah.
GET OVER YOURSELF! The answer is not to get rid of vaccines. The answer is to make more vaccines, better vaccines, vaccines that can work for little babies and old people, vaccines that work longer, protect against more causes. For @!$%#'s sake, you'll have us back to a 1 in 2 child mortality rate, if you have your way.
In short, please, take your knowledge and use it to encourage better vaccines, not destroying the system. However, as you have shown yourself to be firmly in the camp of people like Wakefield, I invite you to take a long walk off a short pier.
http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/images/stories/graphs/us-deaths-1900-1965.jpg
This graph show the decrease in mortality before the widespread use of vaccines. The evidence differs from your implications.
"What is the evidence for a causal link
between hygiene and infections?"
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/55441/1/Aiello%20A,%20What%20is%20the%20evidence%20for%20a%20causal%20link%20between%20hygien%20and%20infections,%202002.pdf
The answer is to stop using straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks
Robert-1126350
Hygiene and less crowded living has certainly made inroads to a healthy society and less infections, they can only do so much.
However you have also forgotten during the period of time you quoted (1900-1965) the use of antibiotics had also begun which decreased mortality but not the damage to the individual from this disease,
I didn't forget. I am aware. The point is that vaccines can not take credit for which they are so mistakenly given.
The U.S. has one of the most aggressive vaccination schedules in the world, and our children are no more healthier for it. There is a missing link here, and it does a disservice to all to ignore it and press on by creating more and more vaccines.
Robert-1126350
Actually they can, three things happened to reduce the level of these diseases before vaccines became the protective force when these preventative measures are not enough.
Doctors began washing their hands between patients, hygiene became more wide spread and antibiotics and medical treatment became more advanced. However, the one main problem with the graph is it is a measure of mortality, the actual numbers of morbidity dropped with the advent vaccination.
That's not a problem. It's labeled as such on the graph. It shows that our resistance to disease increased without vaccines.
morbidity - The rate of incidence of a disease. Resistance is not the same as morbidity. Resistance happens after you've gotten the disease, not the statistic of people getting it. Of course resistance increases when you get the disease. That's obvious, but the problem is you have to get the disease to get naturally acquired immunity.
You mean the virus not necessarily the disease.
When I said resitance above I meant it as a means to survive clinical manifestations of infection. Poor nutrition can lower resistance to disease.
You correct one word in my comment when yours still has nothing to do with Krestov's. Acquiring the virus, still has nothing to do with the aftermath of it for your statistics. Once you put in some valuable information about transmission from this source that you go off of, then I will stop correcting you.
One last note Pertussis is not a virus.
I was referring to vaccines in general in which most are for viruses.
Thanks Krestov, I've been working all morning with HPV that it didn't even phase me when virus was mentioned.
NOB,
Excellent work! I'm a bacteria guy myself. :)
Could you tell the readers how long the HPV vaccine lasts? If my daughter gets it at age 12 will she still be protected at age 22? 32? 42? Why can't this be answered? The CDC can't seem to answer that question.
Robert- they can't be sure because the vaccine is so new. You have to use titers for the vaccinated people, but it hasn't been around long enough to test every so often. As of now, the three dose vaccine has worked indefinitely, but there won't be any evidence of wearing off as it cannot be tested for years. Unfortunately, if the vaccine does wear off (which will not be known for some time to come), it cannot be given to people in their late 20's.
Krestov- Unfortunately I do not work with the virus itself. If only :). Kudos to you for your work!
Oh, it can be given.
@Robert, @Sandra, and especially @Patrick,
I can only assume that you are incredibly gullible because otherwise I must assume that you actually beliueve the garbage that you are spreading. None of the three of you have any idea whay you are talking about. Partick and Robert, you are twisting and mis-stating the very sources that you give. The common name for this is telling lies.
I have no idea what your asocial motive might be, but it is a very dangerous thing to be doing. You can kill people with your stupid opinions and your mis-statements of fact and yopur deliberate misinterpretations of things you found on the web.
These are your OPINIONS, not facts. And your opinions are crap. Don't bother to respond. You went on ignore. You are truly dangerous people.
Wow. Patrick, that was actually interesting to watch you keep adding more stuff to post after post. Did that make what you said any more true? Nope.
Oh, but, Chris! I was looking forward to telling my daughter that when she has kids all she has to do is make sure they have excellent nutrition, plenty of vitamin supplements, etc., and she can skip the polio vaccine, the smallpox vaccine...
@Patrick
I have a better question, why did you post 9 posts instead of one giant one? Spamming only damages your validity around here.
Robert-
That wasn't a strawman argument I made. Patrick up there actually is arguing against the use of vaccines, particularly the Pertussis vaccine. Therefore, my retort to not give up on vaccines is of value.
As for ad hominem, you are mistaken there, too. An insult is different from an ad hominem. Had I merely called Patrick a moron and said his arguments did not need to be addressed, that would be an ad hominem attack, and worthy of derision. Since I replied to his arguments, then called him a moron, that is merely an insult, based upon his ramblings and, in my opinion, with good reason.
Insult != ad hominem. Read for comprehension, please.
If an insult is given to attack ones character and therefore call into question one's arguments then the insult is a personal attack and is an ad hominem attack. Calling someone a moron or idiot implies that their intellect, ideas, arguments, are not to be trusted or are false. This is false logic.
If you called him a poopy pants then that would be an insult. Calling someone a moron is an ad hominem. There is no need for insults or ad hominems.
Calling someone a quack, antivaccine loon, etc., is an adhominem and possibly a poisoning the well fallacy.
If you want to be a skeptic then you should follow the skeptics rules.
Btw, skeptics tend to be atheists. Are you an atheist? Do you believe in a materialist view of the universe? Do you follow scientism?
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174
Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Firstly, my use of "moron" was qualified by my preceding refutation of his argument. "Anti-vaccine" and "quack" are descriptors, the first used to describe somebody who opposes the use of vaccines (for whatever reasons), the second used to describe somebody who is dispensing bad medical advice. They're protected forms of opinion. That some choose to see those as insults, well, that's their choice, but they definitely don't fit under the ad hominem regime.
Poopy-pants isn't a real insult, IMO. It's just childish name-calling. Insult is a deserved term that is applied to a person, based upon that person's actions or character. Note, an insult is not the same as impugning one's character in order to shut down an argument, rather is used as a descriptive term to label one's arguments as insufficient, ignorant, or plain lying. Name-calling is simply putting ignorance out for everyone to see. Now, if he had actually shat his pants, then poopy-pants might be a descriptive, as well as an insulting (through humiliation), term. However, given no reason to suspect that Patrick has shat his pants, poopy-pants is merely suggesting that he is a person of less than respectable hygienic habits, which has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
As for whether I'm a skeptic, yes, I am. I do follow scientism to a certain extent, but I realize that science does not yet have (nor will it ever have) all the "answers." Asked if I believe in something without a scientific study, it will depend on what you are asking. As to whether I'm an atheist, I don't see why you brought that up, but yes, I am an atheist. I don't believe in any kind of god, karma, leprechauns, unicorns, or other fairy tales that *most* adults in this world choose to not grow out of and leave behind when they enter adulthood. However, as a skeptic, if you provided a rational argument backed by (most importantly) real evidence, then yes, I could accept these things as true. For instance, show me a unicorn (not a horse with cardboard glued to it's head), and yes, I'll accept it's existence. Later on, if I find out you slipped something in my drink, I'll stop believing, unless you show me it when I'm not drugged up. Assuming you survived the consequences of drugging me in the first place, at any rate.
Point being, why does my materialistic, deterministic view matter so much to you?
That's exactly what I thought!
Really? You really really would? Nah, you wouldn't. I could show you that without vaccinating I have a 99.999% chance of not getting and then dying of measles. And this is before the widespread use of vaccines. I could then argue that many who do die have comorbidity issues. I don't which would make my risk even drastically lower. It's plenty reason to forgo the measles vaccine.
But this wouldn't be enough for you because as a skeptic you most likely lean toward socialist/communist/statist philosophies and politics. Those biases would then be the underpinnings of your next argument against my rationally thought out and evidence based objection. Rationality and evidence aren't enough for skeptics.
Robert,
This whole "scientism" meme is the last bastion of those who assert to understand logic and critical thought, but fail to apply it to their own sacred cows. Remember, it's all about questioning one's assumptions and aligning your beliefs with evidence. The default position of "no belief" in an affirmative claim when lacking of evidence for said claim is preferred to an affirmative position. Atheists/naturalists have one very large assumption less than theists do - so if you want to have a phallic-like skepticism-measuring contest, atheists are one up on theists by default, just in terms of the assumptions they make.
All I can do is encourage you to recognize the inherent dissonance in your professed brand of skepticism, and try to reconcile it with what science (the only way of minimizing uncertainty in any belief) tells us.
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood materialist/atheist/humanist/scientist
p.s. Janstince - thanks for the thorough reply above. Glad to see other reasonable folks on here.
And now we see the true colors/atheists come out. You are free to believe your own belief system.
But You should tell the "regular folk" that you think they are stupid, irrational, and dangerous first. Tell them that you see them as an amorphous blob called "the public".
We'll see how far your atheist/skeptic policies go. If you're smart you want admit them on the surface. It's not good PR.
Most "believers" have cognitive dissonance. This is true.
Unfortunately for you, your "science" does not provide certainty. It can only give probability. And that is the hard sciences. Medicine is far from the hard sciences. Medicine is a game of guesswork derived from a soft sciences and is mostly wrong and deadly. History tells us this is so. How much of yesterday's "scientific" medicine is deadly? How much of today's "scientific medicine" will be wrong tomorrow?
I thought poor Janstice would reply this way. She must be an immature skeptic/atheist. I anticipated the "scientisim" denial angle would be her response.
Hey, Mr. Scientism/naturalist/atheist guy,
What does science say about injecting multiple vaccines of live viruses into subjects? What happens? what are the possible repercussions?
Gene-swapping vaccines spawn lethal poultry virus
Three vaccines used to prevent respiratory disease in chickens have swapped genes, producing two lethal new strains that have killed tens of thousands of fowl across two states in Australia, scientists reported on Friday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/07/13/gene-swapping-vaccines-spawn-lethal-poultry-virus/#ixzz20Yyxmilv
Go back to your skeptic/atheist/mass vaccinationist/socialist base and come up with an objection. One has already been made to defend this. I just want to see how astute a skeptic/atheist/mass vaccinationist you are.
Robert,
I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you - the following reply is blunt, but you apparently need to hear a blunt opinion. It isn't an angered reply - I'm just going to be very frank. I hope you choose to read this understanding that this isn't anything other than an objective assessment of your arguments and apparent level of understanding regarding the vaccine issue.
First - before I respond to your specific concern above:
You don't understand immunology- that much is clear. That's also perfectly fine! It just means you should be careful when evaluating claims, and probably err on the side of not placing faith in fox/nbc/*insert news media here* to fully cover the important details. There are very many forms of vaccines (attenuated-live, killed, inactivated, DNA, toxoid-based, etc), and some are more/less appropriate than others given specific contexts in disease prevention. Many carry risks when administered to sick or compromised individuals (such as sick chickens or those harboring an attenuated viral strain of similar constitution).
I'm also very sorry that you choose to see valid discoveries coming from science through a misanthropic lens, and further try to employ a "guilt by association" tactic by strawmanning secular worldviews and linking them with the scientific disciplines that you apparently distrust. That's not fair. It would be like claiming that religious people cannot do good science - which they certainly can. They simply don't apply the same skeptical reasoning to their supernatural beliefs. And that's OKAY (not my preferred situation, but it's their right). So I ask you to drop the implied association fallacy - cool? Okay.
Next - You are performing a classic Gish gallop (and a poor one at that). Instead of answering any questions, you pick a new line of argumentation in each reply. I'm going to be polite and not do the same to you. I'm answering your question, because it's rude to ignore people if you actually want to discuss something. I'm fine if you think I'm a dick for telling you off on this point, but come on - be civil and stick to one issue at a time. It makes this a lot easier and a lot less likely to end in frustration. Plus, perhaps we'll actually get somewhere and settle a point. Unless you aren't interested in doing so - in which case, simply stop replying and save us all the time/hassle.
On to your arguments:
The honest reply is nuanced. It's important to first remember that science informs us best by getting things wrong. We learn where we are wrong, and continue to poke holes in our hypotheses/approaches to problems until we arrive at the greatest level of certainty possible given our technology and evidence (usually, a theory - the strongest level of explanation offered by science). We minimize uncertainty with science.
In the case of the chicken vaccine - it's not really surprising. Live viruses can cointegrate and some can engage in horizontal gene transfer similar that seen in bacteria. This looks like a case of poor regulation in the industry, poor records keeping, and misuse of attenuated viral vaccines. This happens all the time in nature is the thing that you didn't seem to understand. It's cool, but not threatening to see it happen in this way. This is very similar to the experiments that initially revealed DNA to be the information-bearing molecule in life - we've known viruses behave this way for a long time. So what? Medical experts treating humans do know this. Vaccine schedules are carefully planned and timed in most cases. Sure, mistakes happen, but we don't go around injecting potentially volatile combinations if we know better. And when we learn that we've made mistakes, we improve the system. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Our vaccine programs work until people begin to think they can outsmart the PhDs and MDs and take matters into their own hands. Vigilante medicine does no favors:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/e2.full
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)04334-1/fulltext#cite_note-Gangarosa_pertussis-26
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=07000&article=00002&type=abstract
http://www.immunize.org/exemptions/allen.pdf
Furthermore, we don't use "overlapping" strains in human vaccines. There were apparently (for better or worse) fewer precautions taken with the chicken vaccines - that or the possibility of this recombination wasn't a serious threat, and may have even been predicted. It seems likely to me that the vaccinated populations would have carried antibodies recognizing antigenic epitopes of both viruses individually, and thus possibly recombinant form as well. This would be a point in favor of vaccination, not against it though. The study should be done to see if this is the case before you go freaking out and buying into the Faux-News propaganda. It may be a good story: "OMG CHICKEN VIRUS BORNE FROM VACCINE!" but it's atrociously bad science journalism. The science article, or even the science illustrated article do better jobs explaining the entire story than the piece of alarmist BS you provided as a source above - if you had cared enough to read past the shocker headline story.
But, let's ignore the immunology that you don't care to think about for a second - how does your latest galloping move provide evidence against the pertussis vaccine? It doesn't. You lose with this point. You're trying to move to another issue because your recognize the failed line of argumentation you provided above.
And you know what? That's OKAY! Seriously, it doesn't make you stupid. It doesn't make you anything other than wrong on that specific issue. And the brilliant thing is that you can change your opinion in light of new evidence that doesn't require you to accept propaganda or suspend your own disbelief.
Again, I'm asking you to do nothing more than that. Be intellectually honest. It doesn't mean anything to be wrong. If you provided real evidence that vaccination had not worked beyond our wildest dreams then I'd be on board with your conclusion that vaccination isn't a good idea. But you haven't - at best you've given a misinterpretation of epidemiological data (the coincidence of antibiotics, vaccines, and reductions in the morbidity/comorbidities of common ailments over the 20th century).
The bulk of data supports the successful roles of vaccines in preventing the spread, or nearly eradicating many life-threatening diseases. Will they always be perfect - no! But for the bulk of the population they will help, and when regulated properly, the actual side-effects can be minimized and dealt with properly.
Please, don't buy into the anti-vax jargon - it is in large part responsible for the resurgence in whooping cough, and perhaps one of the largest public health threats currently being dealt with in our country.
You want the skeptic's view - I encourage you to read science based medicine, a blog by Dr. Steven Novella (Yale Neurosurgeon and prominent skeptic), and other scientifically literate, professional scientists and medical professionals.
Here's a great overview of the pertussis situation, and why it is so vitally important that you consider altering your stance regarding vaccination: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/whooping-cough-epidemic/
Please, I'm not picking a fight with you. I'm just offering the alternative position, and encouraging you to give it a thorough review. There's no downside to reading it objectively.
Regards
Your retort is a yawn. And I'll get to it later piece by piece. But in the meantime your, "science based medicine" blog is hardly a professional blog, nor is it collegial, or a civil discussion of science and ethical matters. Sorry for you to be so deceived by it.
Hah, okay *rolls eyes*.
So, you are just a troll.
Good day - I'll look forward to your reply, but I don't expect much more than Sunday morning comedy.
You're flirting awfully close to threatening words here. Not surprising given your bombastic replies and complete lack of ability to communicate civilly.
Explain why it isn't smart to be honest? As far as I can tell I've been far more rational and cordial than you here. Same goes for the other non-believer you have been harassing.
If you want atheists to look bad, perhaps you should pretend to be one yourself, because we seem to be doing fine on the PR front by simply avoiding the tactics of abusive interlocutors such as yourself. Your behavior portends a much greater social deficit than that which you ascribe to atheists. We're nice, normal, humanitarian, and pretty darn fun people in most respects, and generally have the same range of personalities as just about any other sampling of humanity. Our PR cred is fine - check yours recently? ;)
Robert-
Firstly, I'm not a "she," for future reference.
Secondly, I don't really give a @!$%# about being cordial or civil with you. What matters to me is getting the facts right.
Thirdly, yeah, okay, you've got your god. Go hide behind his dress and make fun of us atheists. We've got work to do, so don't get in the way.
What fact do I have wrong. Please do tell.
Not just atheists but the skeptic brand of atheism.
You passed civil and cordial when your started in with the personal attacks that you call insults. Like I said it's a hallmark of the skeptic brand of science. It's par for the course.
The bottom line is you only like facts that support your worldview. No different than anyone else.
Oh, I only like facts that support my worldview? Please, tell me more about myself, as I'm dying to know.
Also, note that for every single little sky-is-falling article you posted up there, there have been real tests of vaccines to determine efficacy, lethality, etc. I'd trust those experiments that have been reproduced, verified, and documented, far above and beyond your snivelling.
Citations please. You can just stick to pertussis to save face. Can you show an RCT trial that shows long term safety of the current pertussis vaccine. Can you provide an RCT that shows long term efficacy in the current pertussis vaccine. Unbiased studies only please. Meaning none that are pharmaceutically funded directly or indirectly. As these have been shown to contain bias and/or fraud.
Its an IDIOT like PatrickThomas above ranting that will make your child suffer needlessly . The vaccine has been proved a million times over. Ask your Doctor.
NOPE! Sorry you're just going to have to do better than personal attacks. Could you please explain why this vaccine is failing?
Robert-
The vaccine isn't failing. True, it may not prevent transmission, but it does prevent infection. It is allowed to spread when large percentages of people do not have the vaccine.
One of the pro vaccine scientists said it was because they picked the wrong strain in 1980's. Could it be that the Acellular vaccine just isn't as good as the whole cell vaccine that was responsible for large amounts of vaccine damage?
It does NOT prevent infection which is WHY it doesn't prevent transmission. The vaccine is for the toxin and it's effects.
You have believed the angle of the story that pharma/government wants you to receive. The other reality is the vaccine doesn't work as good as they sell it.
Vaccine doesn't work in everyone and it wears off in 3 years. Hardly anyone who's been vaccinated is immunized. Hence the push for even more "boosters". Instead they blame the unvaccinated instead of vaccine failure.
Robert-1126350
However behind the scare mongering it saves the lives of thousands of children and spares thousands of children form a life time of mental and physical problems.
It's 2012. Can you give a citation that the current whooping cough vaccine saves thousands of lives. I would like to see how you scientifically came to that conclusion and how you accounted for vaccine failure, faulty diagnosis, errors in estimating instead of confirmed cases, and the fact that the vaccine is for the toxin not infection.
Sure no problem
http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/Pertussis_coverage.gif
Which shows the decline in cases of whooping cough as incidence of vaccination increases.
Unfortunately I have not been able to find concrete world wide death rates so the numbers on the graph are cases. Hazard to say that the decrease in incidence also follows a decrease in death rates.
Robert - can you give a citation for anything you have claimed? All I see in posts above are your opinions and personal anecdotes.
Regardless, having petty quarrles on Newsvine is counter productive and accomplishes nothing. Hundreds of posters here know you are wrong, yet we can say nothing to convince you otherwise, even in the face of countless pieces of evidence you have been presented with.
If you want to learn, about vaccines or anything in general, go visit your local University. Google is no substitute for academia. I suggest the immunology department, go hash it out. You may just learn something new.
Beer, what is specifically you dispute.
Can you be specific? How exactly do they "know" I'm wrong?
Apparently you think this is an issue of parents just not knowing enough about the specific mechanisms of a vaccine. And only smart perfessers can decide if individuals should receive pharmaceutical reccomended pharmaceuticals.
So perfesser, what exactly am I wrong about besides disagreeing with your personal views lifestyle strategies?
And the issues with childhood vaccinations do not end with childhood. Today, there are around 10 million people (3.6% of the population) who are immuno-compromised. These are people living with HIV and people with defective immune systems and people who have had organ transplants and are on immuno-suppressants, and cancer patients undergoing treatment, people with lupus and Crohn's Disease and rheumatoid arthritis and others.
These people live in absolute terror of "childhood" diseases among others. For someone with a suppressed immune system pertussis can kill them in a matter of hours and it isn't a pretty death since it comes with a dramatic and rapid form of pneumonia. They literally die right before physicians' eyes. And it isn't just pertussis --- it is the other childhood diseases and diseases such as CMV that are generally harmless. These people are incredibly at risk, but cannot get vaccinations because their immune system is defective. If you don't care about efforts to save babies, then care about these people who are often fighting diseases that have absolutely nothing to do with vaccinations. They depend for their very lives on herd immunity and are a generally unreported sector of deaths from "childhood" diseases, often passed on to them by their own family members.
The anti-vaccine people have been with us in this country continuously since the 1760's --- before there was a polarizing argument about independence, newspapers (a new and novel idea at the time) carried story after story about either the dangers of vaccination or the wonders of vaccination depending on which side they were on. Everybody seemed to be on one side or the other. Calvinists were against vaccinations because they opposed God's will and Anglicans favored vaccines because they were a cheap effective solution to a serious recurring problem. The educated favored vaccines because they understood Lister's work. The uneducated opposed vaccines because they had no idea who Lister even was and didn't believe in organisms they couldn't see. Virtually every one of the Founding Fathers was in favor of vaccination while most of the Crown-appointed colonial officials were against vaccination. Washington despaired of the endless bickering over vaccinations from his deathbed.
But then, just as now, you have poorly informed people who have no basic understanding of the issues involved in public health who seem to take delight in a contrarian view of anything in science or medicine. But it is a lost argument. Vaccines work. Yep, there will always be problems with vaccines because a vaccination in intended to provoke an immune response from the person being vaccinated and some of those people will have poorly functioning or dysfunctioning immune systems and the reaction provoked will not be the one desired. Medicine is constantly trying to improve the effectiveness of vaccines, but it is a very slow and expensive process. That process is diluted every time science has to spend energy on a sidetrack such as the bogus autism-vaccination link. A health economist put forth a good argument on TED that about 600,000 people died in this country and the UK, the majority being small children, the elderly or the immuno-compromised, because of a single completely falsified "study" and a bunch of trolls that kept telling parents not to have their kids vaccinated.
There is a lot riding on this. Most people assume that a parent should balance the risks of their child suffering adverse effects with the benefits. But that is a false charge. The real decidion is between the risk to your individual child versus the public health of everyone else in the world. If you add your child to the unvaccinated pool, you are actively adding to a reservoir of disease that can kill with lightening speed. You are partially responsible for any death from the disease. When you put out bad or mis-leading information about vaccinations, even if you claim to believe it yourself, you are adding anyone who believes your opinion to the disease reservoir. The reason that Gates is spending billions trying to wipe out disease in Africa is to shrink that reservoir so that lives are saved in this country.
I am sure the anti-vaccination posters will disagree, but they are, in fact, not opinion, aiding disease by using their own ignorance as an epidemiological vector. Sometimes ill-informed and wrong-headed opinions kill people. It is true of texting while you are driving and it is true of trying to convince people not to have their children vaccinated. Sometimes I dispair of the American love of myths and conspiracy theories and their hatred of science. I guess that is one reason why this country is 42nd in health care.
There is so much unreferenced bull crap in there I don't even know where to begin. But I think this pretty much sums up your philosophical ideology.
Because they do not have profits in mind, drug companies to appease, or vaccine schedules dictated to them by the CDC? What a joke.
Not all doctors agree (to varying degrees) about the effectiveness of vaccines or the aggressive schedule by which children are subject to.
Our pediatrician educates us and makes it our choice in how to manage our children's healthcare.
Stupid newsvine. vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/c ases&deaths.pdf
Vaccine-preventable diseases are a very real threat to children who are not properly protected. Each year children do get sick, and some of them die, from illnesses such as influenza (flu), pertussis and meningitis.
1. Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine. (Minimum age: birth)At birth:• Administer monovalent HepB vaccine to all newborns before hospital discharge.• For infants born to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)–positive mothers, administer HepB vaccine and 0.5 mL of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) within 12 hours of birth. These infants should be tested for HBsAg and antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs) 1 to 2 months after completion of at least 3 doses of the HepB series, at age 9 through 18 months (generally at the next well-child visit).• If mother’s HBsAg status is unknown, within 12 hours of birth administer HepB vaccine for infants weighing ≥2,000 grams, and HepB vaccine plus HBIG for infants weighing <2,000 grams. Determine mother’s HBsAg status as soon as possible and, if she is HBsAg-positive, administer HBIG for infants weighing ≥2,000 grams (no later than age 1 week). Doses after the birth dose:• The second dose should be administered at age 1 to 2 months. Monovalent HepB vaccine should be used for doses administered before age 6 weeks.• Administration of a total of 4 doses of HepB vaccine is permissible when a combination vaccine containing HepB is administered after the birth dose.• Infants who did not receive a birth dose should receive 3 doses of a HepBcontaining vaccine starting as soon as feasible (Figure 3).• The minimum interval between dose 1 and dose 2 is 4 weeks, and between dose 2 and 3 is 8 weeks. The final (third or fourth) dose in the HepB vaccine series should be administered no earlier than age 24 weeks and at least 16 weeks after the first dose. 2. Rotavirus (RV) vaccines. (Minimum age: 6 weeks for both RV-1 [Rotarix] and RV-5 [Rota Teq])• The maximum age for the first dose in the series is 14 weeks, 6 days; and 8 months, 0 days for the final dose in the series. Vaccination should not be initiated for infants aged 15 weeks, 0 days or older.• If RV-1 (Rotarix) is administered at ages 2 and 4 months, a dose at 6 months is not indicated.3. Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine. (Minimum age: 6 weeks)• The fourth dose may be administered as early as age 12 months, provided at least 6 months have elapsed since the third dose.4. Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccine. (Minimum age: 6 weeks)• If PRP-OMP (PedvaxHIB or Comvax [HepB-Hib]) is administered at ages 2 and 4 months, a dose at age 6 months is not indicated.• Hiberix should only be used for the booster (final) dose in children aged 12 months through 4 years. 5. Pneumococcal vaccines. (Minimum age: 6 weeks for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV]; 2 years for pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV])• Administer 1 dose of PCV to all healthy children aged 24 through 59 months who are not completely vaccinated for their age.• For children who have received an age-appropriate series of 7-valent PCV (PCV7), a single supplemental dose of 13-valent PCV (PCV13) is recommended for:— All children aged 14 through 59 months— Children aged 60 through 71 months with underlying medical conditions.• Administer PPSV at least 8 weeks after last dose of PCV to children aged 2 years or older with certain underlying medical conditions, including a cochlear implant. See MMWR 2010:59(No. RR-11), available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5911.pdf. 6. Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). (Minimum age: 6 weeks)• If 4 or more doses are administered before age 4 years, an additional dose should be administered at age 4 through 6 years.• The final dose in the series should be administered on or after the fourth birthday and at least 6 months after the previous dose.7. Influenza vaccines. (Minimum age: 6 months for trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine [TIV]; 2 years for live, attenuated influenza vaccine [LAIV])• For most healthy children aged 2 years and older, either LAIV or TIV may be used. However, LAIV should not be administered to some children, including 1) children with asthma, 2) children 2 through 4 years who had wheezing in the past 12 months, or 3) children who have any other underlying medical conditions that predispose them to influenza complications. For all other contraindications to use of LAIV, see MMWR 2010;59(No. RR-8), available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5908.pdf.• For children aged 6 months through 8 years:— For the 2011–12 season, administer 2 doses (separated by at least 4 weeks) to those who did not receive at least 1 dose of the 2010–11 vaccine. Those who received at least 1 dose of the 2010–11 vaccine require 1 dose for the 2011–12 season.— For the 2012–13 season, follow dosing guidelines in the 2012 ACIP influenza vaccine recommendations. 8. Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. (Minimum age: 12 months)• The second dose may be administered before age 4 years, provided at least 4 weeks have elapsed since the first dose.• Administer MMR vaccine to infants aged 6 through 11 months who are traveling internationally. These children should be revaccinated with 2 doses of MMR vaccine, the first at ages 12 through 15 months and at least 4 weeks after the previous dose, and the second at ages 4 through 6 years. 9. Varicella (VAR) vaccine. (Minimum age: 12 months) • The second dose may be administered before age 4 years, provided at least 3 months have elapsed since the first dose.• For children aged 12 months through 12 years, the recommended minimum interval between doses is 3 months. However, if the second dose was administered at least 4 weeks after the first dose, it can be accepted as valid.10. Hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine. (Minimum age: 12 months)• Administer the second (final) dose 6 to18 months after the first.• Unvaccinated children 24 months and older at high risk should be vaccinated. See MMWR 2006;55(No. RR-7), available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5507.pdf.• A 2-dose HepA vaccine series is recommended for anyone aged 24 months and older, previously unvaccinated, for whom immunity against hepatitis A virus infection is desired. 11. Meningococcal conjugate vaccines, quadrivalent (MCV4). (Minimum age: 9 months for Menactra [MCV4-D], 2 years for Menveo [MCV4-CRM])• For children aged 9 through 23 months 1) with persistent complement component deficiency; 2) who are residents of or travelers to countries with hyperendemic or epidemic disease; or 3) who are present during outbreaks caused by a vaccine serogroup, administer 2 primary doses of MCV4-D, ideally at ages 9 months and 12 months or at least 8 weeks apart. • For children aged 24 months and older with 1) persistent complement component deficiency who have not been previously vaccinated; or 2) anatomic/functional asplenia, administer 2 primary doses of either MCV4 at least 8 weeks apart.• For children with anatomic/functional asplenia, if MCV4-D (Menactra) is used, administer at a minimum age of 2 years and at least 4 weeks after completion of all PCV doses. • See MMWR 2011;60:72–6, available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6003. pdf, and Vaccines for Children Program resolution No. 6/11-1, available at http://www. cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/downloads/resolutions/06-11mening-mcv.pdf, and MMWR 2011;60:1391–2, available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6040. pdl for further guidelines.
"Vaccine preventable disease" is a rhetorical term. If one gets vaccinated and still gets the disease is it still considered "vaccine preventable disease"?
If the vaccine works then you should be confident no matter someone elses vaccine status. Could you please tell me what number it takes to reach herd immunity? Can you tell me how that number was reached? Is it scientific?
Robert-
If the vaccine works, then it only means that in a normal person, they are vastly more likely to not develop the disease. Additionally, vaccines are only effective when they are administered under the right conditions(which means that they don't work if the kid or person is already sick). However, regardless of these facts, the only 100% guarantee in life is that everyone dies. No medications or vaccines work 100% for all people. This is why herd immunity is so important.
Herd immunity is a delusion with this vaccine. Could you please tell me the critical number for herd immunity? Could you please tell me how scientists track the immune status of previously vaccinated so they can accurately blame the unvaccinated.
Since a recent study showed that 76% of vaccines were improperly stored/ and or expired leading to reduced efficacy then those "right" conditions may not be very common.
I've been getting vaccines my entire life, traveled to many different countries, and have yet to contract a disease I've been vaccinated against. Either I'm really lucky, have an outstanding immune system, or the vaccines work.
Good for you!
How dumb are Americans? "health experts say adults may not realize they’re supposed to be getting regular shots, too."
The news media needs some ethical standards and should be subject to tort law. The media always hypes links of anything to scares. The news media stopped parents from vaccinating their kids. The news media is guilty of injuring and killing kids! The US Government now regulates everything BUT THE TRUTH! It is time for government regulation of the news media. They lie, they die!
here we go with the latest fear tactic. the CDC "predicts" the worst whooping cough year. what a scare tactic now targeting adults. Geez, does it ever get told that the vaccine is just plain ineffective? Most of the cases that are brought home to babies are from their very own vaccinated siblings who harbor the disease inside them, symptomless. I am sure next we will see the headline for the worst flu season yet, everyone get your flu shots.
We have a lady in our office who has had a cough for 8 months, with phlegm. She either has TB or Whooping cough but she won't admit it. And she deals with homeless and children.
Don't let her breathe on you, and encourage her to cover her mouth when she hacks all over the place. You know, it amazes me the adults who don't cover their mouths when they cough...they just have no respect.
YRUNuts - Sounds like very sound advice.
chris-65 - In some state those in charge of schools, camps, child care facilities, and the like, are required by law to report possible cases of TB. I think many places who deal who deal with children can require on demand TB tesing. Some locales specifically require periodic testing for volunteers as well as full-time employees. I think I would make a some calls to a couple of her bosses at varying levels of responsibility. If they don't listen to reason they may be swayed by a legal requirement.
Regards - Buzz
i love how the articles says too "“We are on track to have a record year, I think,” Martin said.". "I think???". so that must make it true right? Actually, "i think" this whole article is full of misinformation. so i must be right becuase "i think" it is. right?
I noticed on the new CDC chart for adults that if you are over 64 you cannot get the pertussis vaccine. Seems like an odd cut-off age. What is the reason for this? Could it be dangerous for an older person to receive the pertussis vaccination?