Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by DoritReiss

Immunized People Getting Whooping Cough

"The so-called medical procedure of vaccination deposits its ingredients - disease antigens, known neurotoxins, undigested food proteins and unknown contaminants - where they don't belong; into the bloodstream, via the capillary beds of the muscles"

A. Vaccines are not injected into the bloodstream, but as you point out, into the muscle. Why do we inject them, rather than, for example, swallow most of them? Most vaccines are injected because the partial, inactivated or weakened pathogen (germ) in them is too weak to get very far if they had to deal with the stomach acids. That's why polio and rotavirus can come in swallowed form: these viruses are used to dealing with our stomach and digestive system. Other bacteria and viruses are not: the systems they are designed to get around are in our noses and other areas.

That is why the risks of vaccines are so low: it's nowhere near being exposed to the wild virus or bacteria. But it means that what is in there needs help to get to a lymph node, if it's to trigger the immune response that will protect us. The point of vaccines, as Dr. Offit explained in a variety of contexts, is to create an immune response without exposing you to the risk of the diseases.

B. Describing vaccine ingredients in such problematic terms is a common tactic of anti-vaccine activists, and it is incorrect. Here is a useful source on vaccine ingredients, explaining why each of them is there and how we know they're safe:

June 13, 2014 at 2:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Immunized People Getting Whooping Cough

And yes, the answer to a vaccine that wanes faster than we expected, until we can get a better vaccine, is more boosters.

June 13, 2014 at 11:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Immunized People Getting Whooping Cough

"There have been almost 1,000 reports of deaths related to the Dtap and Tdap vaccines over the last twenty-five years, and as many permanent disabilities, and the reporting system is dysfunctional - as few as only 1% of actual serious vaccine reactions ever get reported. "

The commentator is misleading the readers. Without naming it, the commentator is referring to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System - VAERS - and pretending as if reports show deaths. That's not actually the case. The reports include every serious thing that happened after a vaccine, connected to vaccine or not. While there is probably some under reporting - though there's no real basis for the 1% number - there is also evidence of substantial over reporting, which means most reports really aren't caused by vaccines. That's why it's a really bad source of information.

The commentator is welcome to provide credible medical or scientific information of any death related to the DTaP or TDaP vaccines in the last twenty five years.
We know pertussis killed two babies in California alone this year, and more in the past. Before the vaccine, it would kill 4000 babies a year.

June 13, 2014 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Immunized People Getting Whooping Cough

We could use a better pertussis vaccine, but the description in this article is misleading. The question is not how many people out of those who got pertussis have whooping cough; the question is what is the relative risk between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Let me explain the difference between absolute numbers and rates with an example. Imagine the following calculation: a school with 1000 children, 95% (950) vaccinated, 5% (50) unvaccinated. A whooping cough outbreak. 10% of the vaccinated get it: 95 children. 80% of the unvaccinated: 40 children. There are more vaccinated children who got pertussis, but your chances to get it are much higher if you're in the unvaccinated group: you're at larger risk. It's much safer to be vaccinated.

That's exactly what the studies show. Study after study shows that the rates are much higher among the unvaccinated, and that communities with low vaccination rates are more prone to outbreaks. See:
Jason M. Glanz, et al., Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children, 123 PEDIATRICS 1446(2009).

Saad B. Omer, et al., Nonmedical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements: Secular Trends and Association of State Policies With Pertussis Incidence, 296 JAMA 1757(2006).

Saad B. Omer, et al., Geographic Clustering of Nonmedical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements and Associations With Geographic Clustering of Pertussis, 168 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 1389(2008).

Aamer Imdad, et al., Religious Exemptions for Immunization and Risk of Pertussis in New York State, 2000–2011, PEDIATRICS (2013).

June 13, 2014 at 10:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Shot Delays: Alternative Vaccine Schedules Mean Fewer San Diego Students Are Fully Immunized

There is no scientific support for delaying vaccines; there is nothing that suggests spreading them out is safer, and it's pretty clear that it leaves children at risk of diseases for longer - for example, infants that are most vulnerable to whooping cough are left unprotected until they parents get around to it. It also involves more doctor visits, with the risk of exposure, and more stress on the children, as they are vaccinated more often. In short, it's a bad proposition all around - for the individual child, and public health. It really is not something parents should be doing.
There is no credible evidence that vaccines cause autism; there is evidence that the unvaccinated are at higher risk of vaccine preventable diseases. Deciding to leave your child exposed to a real risk because of a gut feeling or instinct is problematic.

September 19, 2013 at 9:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )