×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Calif. Study, Most Kids With Whooping Cough Were Fully Vaccinated

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the conventional-wisdom-isn't-always dept.

Medicine 293

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

293 comments

Here we go (1, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#39734185)

The tinfoil hat crowd is probably pleased by this. Now they can invite kids with whooping cough to their chicken pox parties.

Re:Here we go (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734237)

Keep vaccinating your kids and exposing them to lovely chemicals at a young age instead. Too bad the vaccines don't work but the poisons inside do.

Re:Here we go (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39734257)

What poisons are those?

Re:Here we go (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734503)

Rather than have enough dead viruses in the vaccine, vaccines have added adjuvants to increase the immune response against the dead viruses. There are many different adjuvants, but the pharma companies choose the cheapest and often poorer quality ones. Sometimes these adjuvants cause inflamation which can have deadly side effects. I wish I as a consumer could choose better quality vaccines in the market place instead of having whatever crap the pharma companies shove down my and my kids' throats. Adding preservatives like thimeserol is also not a needed ingredient, vaccines can and are made without.

Re:Here we go (5, Informative)

jackbird (721605) | about 2 years ago | (#39734651)

Thimerosol hasn't been in childhood immunizations for over 10 years (except seasonal flu, and even there it's available thimerosol-free). No corresponding drop in autism rates.

Re:Here we go (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734719)

Right. Now let's work on improving the adjuvants used. For example during the swine flu scare a few years ago, Germany used a quality adjuvant that could not cause guillain-barre syndrome. In the US we used a worse adjuvant that caused various incidents of guillain-barre syndrome, narcolepsy, and death? Why? So the pharma companies could save a few cents per vaccine?

Re:Here we go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734607)

The mind control poisons the government puts in the vaccines!

Re:Here we go (2)

VMaN (164134) | about 2 years ago | (#39734333)

I love how "chemicals" somehow is implied to mean something opposite of "natural".

Idiot...

Re:Here we go (2)

jamvger (2526832) | about 2 years ago | (#39734427)

Isn't gasoline derived from all natural ingredients? That means it's good for the environment. We all have to do our part!

Re:Here we go (2)

WillDraven (760005) | about 2 years ago | (#39734743)

If one wanted to, one could argue that the only non-natural materials are the transuranian elements. I will say that with this definition I certainly wouldn't want to be eating any non-natural ingredients!

Re:Here we go (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734369)

I know it's slashdot, so you can't be bothered to RTFA, but the article says the kids most vulnerable were ages 8-12. It then when on to address why there was a sharp cutoff at age 12, and points out that at age 13, kids are eligible for a booster shot. So it seems the vaccines DO work, and we just need to readjust the booster schedule.

Re:Here we go (1)

Formorian (1111751) | about 2 years ago | (#39734315)

I can't speak to whooping cough. However, I did have some concerns with the CPox vaccines when I got my kids vaccinated (daughter is5, son is almost 4).

From what I was informed, they will need to be re-vaccinated later in life. Cpox is more deadly to adults then kids. Most times once you get Cpox as a kid, your immune for life, and if you do get it a second time it's much milder.

So I did debate doing a Cpox party type thing with my wife, before we just decided to get them both the Cpox, but it was a tougher decision then any of the other vaccines (in fact only vaccine we talked about, my wife tends to listen to dr's more then playboy pinup's).

That said, my son did contract Cpox even with the vaccine, although it was very mild. Just have to set up reminders when they are adults to get re-vaccinated.

Re:Here we go (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39734377)

Whether you get chicken pox from another person or shot, it's still the same virus. Except the vaccine virus is already dead, so it's harmless. I don't know why you would be opposed to doing it.

BTW thanks for the reminder. I need to get my adult vaccinations. (It's been 20 years since last time.)

Re:Here we go (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734423)

Kids who get chicken pox rarely get shingles as adults. Kids who get chicken pox vaccines can get shingles as adults.

Dead bass ackwards (5, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | about 2 years ago | (#39734543)

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.

Re:Here we go (4, Informative)

samkass (174571) | about 2 years ago | (#39734495)

Chicken pox vaccine is a live virus vaccine, but it's a weakened form of it. It likely gives some amount of protection for life, but due to relatively low amounts of data they recommend boosters for now. Even so, since your body now forever hosts the weakened virus, it's hoped that later episodes of shingles will also be less severe and prevalent. Hopefully once everyone vaccinates we can eliminate this painful and sometimes disfiguring, debilitating or deadly disease from humanity forever.

Re:Here we go (1)

Formorian (1111751) | about 2 years ago | (#39734567)

Whether you get chicken pox from another person or shot, it's still the same virus. Except the vaccine virus is already dead, so it's harmless. I don't know why you would be opposed to doing it.

BTW thanks for the reminder. I need to get my adult vaccinations. (It's been 20 years since last time.)

Apposed to having to get boosters later on. And some people, even if taught to go to Doctor, go all the time as kids, doesn't as an adult (my sister for one).

We were just discussing if we wanted them to get Cpox as kids for lifetime immunity, or vaccines with boosters later on.

Yea I got my boosters at 19 I think. I can't remember, should check that out I guess. 33 now.

Re:Here we go (0)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#39734749)

Whether you get chicken pox from another person or shot, it's still the same virus. Except the vaccine virus is already dead, so it's harmless. I don't know why you would be opposed to doing it.

BTW thanks for the reminder. I need to get my adult vaccinations. (It's been 20 years since last time.)

Good luck with that - from the people I know who have/have not contracted shingles, it seems to have zero correlation to vaccination (some get it a number of years after vax, some get it soon after vax, some never get it - recent vax or not).

Sadly, I doubt anybody has been funded to produce an unbiased study of shingles and vaccination, at least not real one (with N>100).

Re:Here we go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734447)

CPox is far more dangerous to adults than children. IMHO, the only ones who should be vaccinated are those who have not had the disease prior to say 10 years of age (I'm not sure what age catching it becomes a problem). I'm also of the opinion that anything worth vaccinating for is also worth trying to eradicate. Small-Pox has been eliminated, Polio is on the verge. It's hard to do and costly, but it probably costs less than vaccinating everyone forever.

Re:Here we go (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#39734455)

So I could have skipped shingles if I had been vaccinated? Darn.

No, wait, I contracted chicken pox in 1962. No vaccine for me.

Re:Here we go (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734561)

Go read up on the link between chicken pox and shingles. Then read up on what it's like to have shingles. When you are done, I hope you come to the conclusion that it's best to do everything you can to avoid exposure to chicken pox, and that intentional exposure is a bad idea.

Re:Here we go (1, Interesting)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | about 2 years ago | (#39734609)

I talked do a doctor about this yesterday. He said that chicken pox is worse in adults mainly because adults complain more than 3 year olds. In his career he's never seen an adult chicken pox case that had complications. He wouldn't even give out the vaccine if it wasn't required by law.

I was having that conversation because my wife and I were just exposed to a child who came down with chicken pox even after being vaccinated. I've never had it and my wife had a bad case as a child but now tests negative for the antibodies.

Re:Here we go (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39734657)

"Most times once you get Cpox as a kid, your immune for life, and if you do get it a second time it's much milder."
I wonder if anyone informed you of shingles? cPox parties seem to not mention that for some reason.

Glad you did the right thing.

You son probable got it because some other ass wipe made the wrong decision and didn't have their kids vaccinated.

Re:Here we go (-1, Troll)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#39734401)

So because your bias that all vaccines all the time are good and doctors don't make mistakes is disproved by facts you view it as a bad thing?
Let me guess, people should be forced to use whatever vaccines the governments thinks that they should and if science ever finds out that one of those vaccines actually did harm it should be covered up so that no one ever decides that personal choice is sometimes more important then blind obedience to what the government tells you is in your best interest?

Re:Here we go (5, Insightful)

Loughla (2531696) | about 2 years ago | (#39734625)

Personal choice only goes so far. If your personal choice puts my family at risk, then it ceases to become a personal choice. You do realize that there is a compromise between "ALL HAIL THE GOVERNMENT OVERLORD" and "FUCK THE FED", right?

Perhaps vaccinations aren't bad? If they're properly researched and proved effective, they might even be good?

Re:Here we go (-1, Offtopic)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#39734745)

So no one should be allowed to own guns then I guess, because they just might be used to hurt your family?
Everyone should be monitored and tracked to give you that .05% more safety?
Take away whole swatches of rights to make your family minutely more safe?

YAY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734199)

Another study that provides a pharmaceutical company with more revenues!

So... (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39734205)

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!!!"

Re:So... (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#39734255)

No, we will generalize it to "vaccines don't always work".

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about 2 years ago | (#39734277)

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!!!"

There's also the possible effect of non-vaccinated kids lowering the herd immunity. Basically increasing the chances of those who got the vaccine which for some reason or another wasn't effective in immunizing them to come in contact with the virus.

Like you said, lots of variables, more study needed. We do need to verify the effectiveness of the vaccine (or even the effectiveness of a particular batch of the vaccine) is not being compromised.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734565)

There's also the possible effect of non-vaccinated kids lowering the herd immunity.

Say what? I wish people would stop bashing the non-vaccinators (I'm not one of them). If you want to be vaccinated then fine, but don't blame someone else when it doesn't work. It really bothers me every flu season when people say *I* should get vaccinated to protect the old and vulnerable (those at risk should be vaccinated if they're concerned). If we want to talk about eradication, then I'll be all aboard making everyone play if the plan makes sense. If you just want to perpetuate an industry, don't bother me. There is also a near certainty that a disease that is vaccinated but not eradicated will eventually evolve immunity to the vaccine - which could be construed as the vaccinated kids causing problems ;-)

Re:So... (1)

Wain13001 (1119071) | about 2 years ago | (#39734643)

There is also a near certainty that a disease that is vaccinated but not eradicated will eventually evolve immunity to the vaccine - which could be construed as the vaccinated kids causing problems ;-)

Except if everyone were vaccinated the virus would be eradicated fairry quickly even taking into consideration that vaccines aren't 100% successful....so no, you have made a very strange conclusion here.

Re:So... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#39734701)

If it was herd immunity, you would still expect to see a significantly higher number of infected amongst the unvaccinated.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 2 years ago | (#39734313)

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.

Or the booster given at 11-12 should be given at 8-9.

Unfortunately, most people will take this and generalize it to "vaccines don't work!!!"

Yeah, there is that. Though there really isn't enough detail in the article to make that conclusion.

Of the whooping cough cases, 81% were fully vaccinated, 11% were partially vaccinated, 8% were not vaccinated. If more than 8% of the population was not vaccinated, then you could start down the path to building a case against vaccination.

Re:So... (5, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39734619)

The story point to the vaccine schedule in California needs to be updated to the CDC recommendations. Nothing more.

Re:So... (1)

Kozz (7764) | about 2 years ago | (#39734627)

Unfortunately, most people will take this and generalize it to "vaccines don't work!!!"

Yeah, there is that. Though there really isn't enough detail in the article to make that conclusion.

I don't think that's ever stopped the anti-vaxxers.

Re:So... (1)

Loughla (2531696) | about 2 years ago | (#39734691)

Unfortunately, most people will take this and generalize it to "vaccines don't work!!!"

Yeah, there is that. Though there really isn't enough detail in the article to make that conclusion.

How many people will RTFA in the greater community, instead of simply seeing the sensationalist headline?

Re:So... (0)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#39734713)

Of the whooping cough cases, 81% were fully vaccinated, 11% were partially vaccinated, 8% were not vaccinated. If more than 8% of the population was not vaccinated, then you could start down the path to building a case against vaccination.

This looks like the vaccine increased the chance of getting the disease.

What would be interesting is to see the figures for vaccination, are 81% of people fully vaccinated, 11% partially and 8% not at all? If so, then I'd say that this strain of Whooping Cough spread indiscriminately, and has no correlation with whether or not the children were vaccinated.

If >81% of people are vaccinated, then you can say that it had some effect.
if 81% of people are vaccinated, you could argue that the vaccine increased the chance of infection.

Either way, the fact that any people who were vaccinated, got the Cough, means that it fits the GP's comment.

Re:So... The vaccine did work. (4, Insightful)

TheSunborn (68004) | about 2 years ago | (#39734319)

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".

Re:So... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734341)

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!!!"

Not so. If the anonymous reader had read the entire article from which he or she posted, s/he would have seen that what was found is that researchers had overestimated how long the whooping cough vaccine was effective. So if a kid had gotten the original shot or booster shot fairly recently (didn't say how many years out it was good for), that kid did not develop the disease.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734353)

No, it is because the effectiveness of the vaccine wears off over time, just like many other vaccines, and you need to keep applying it to keep one's immunity.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734397)

The article mentions there is a sharp decline in cases above age 12, and age 13 is when kids are eligible for the booster shot.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734459)

It really annoys me this "vaccination is evil" talk.

Vaccination is extremely good and everyone should be forced to take them. Then it would be safe for me to continue refusing to take them...

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734535)

"Unfortunately, most people will take this and generalize it to 'vaccines don't work!!!'" You know I live in what most internet commentators would consider a gulible part of the US. Mixed in among the Obama birth certificate, Global climate change is fake, the country is turning against my religion posts on my social networking pages I have not once seen someone suggest that vaccines are dangerous or don't work. While it is worrysome that some people are putting my children at greater risk through this movement, I don't see it as something "most people" will run with. "Most people" still tend to be taking the medical community at its word despite a growing distrust of experts.

Re:So... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#39734581)

Nothing wrong with it, aside from it not being as effective as everyone would like it to be. Reducing an immunized kid's chance of getting a serious disease by 80% still seems like a good bet, unless your foil hat is on too tight or you still believe that floride is "a commie plot".

Or herd immunity. (2)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | about 2 years ago | (#39734677)

It's probably a breakdown in herd immunity [wikipedia.org] . Not everyone who gets the vaccine develops a strong immunity to it. But if enough of the population is vaccinated, the disease doesn't have enough vulnerable hosts to spread. In other words, vaccination doesn't just protect you, it protects the people you come in contact with, too.

Sadly, with fewer people getting vaccinated, there's more of a chance for pockets of disease to linger, and catch not only unvaccinated people but also those who didn't respond strongly to the vaccine.

Re:So... (5, Informative)

garyebickford (222422) | about 2 years ago | (#39734705)

There's another possibility. I did not RTFA, so I don't know if the absolute numbers were in there, but if the number of unvaccinated kids is small relative to the number of vaccinated kids, then it could just be an artifact of the small numbers. There is a theorem in probability about this IIRC, but I forget the name. It's often mentioned with respect to false positives in blood tests, for example.

If a blood test for a disease is 90% accurate for both positive and negative results (for simplicity we use the same value), but only 3% of the population truly has the disease, then the following can occur:

Of the 3% that have the disease, 10% (0.3% of the total population) will show negative
Of the 97% that don't have the disease, 10% will show positive - more than three times as many as the number who actually have the disease. This is the key fact - the results may be purely due to this kind of imbalance.

Only the 2.7% that have the disease will correctly show positive. In the total population about 12.7% will show positive, of which over 3/4 will be false.

Substitute vaccination for blood test - some small percentage of vaccinations will fail, but if the incidence of the disease is relatively quite small, that failure will show as a majority of those who have the disease.

Re:So... (1)

mean revision (2542028) | about 2 years ago | (#39734711)

If the vaccines aren't 100% effective and an area has a high vaccination ratio, we would expect that a high percentage of the infected have also been vaccinated. After all, they are the majority. Imagine if one kid in a million isn't vaccinated - we'd expect that virtually all kids in the hospital would be vaccinated since the unvaccinated are so damn hard to find.

Before saying there's something wrong with the vaccine we have to know how the percentage of infected who have been vaccinated compares to the percentage of the population that has been vaccinated.

Re:So... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#39734725)

No the article states that the immunity did not last as long as previously thought. Normally pertussis vaccine is given 5 times during childhood with the last booster at 12 years. In the outbreak, 132 cases of under 18 yr olds with pertussis were found. 81% of them had the full shots according to schedule while 11% had at least one vaccine. There were fewer instances of infection in the 2 to 7 year group ( when they get 3 boosters) compared to the 7 to 12 year old group (no boosters). Also the rate was lower for the 13 year olds (after last booster).

Re:So... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#39734763)

something wrong with the vaccine

There's something wrong with every vaccine - 10% or so of the people don't get a sufficient immune response to get immunity. That's why it's more useful when more people get the vaccine.

Unfortunately, some people take this as justification to use violence to vaccinate people against their will. I see far too little vaccine education in popular media venues (and the science is not taught in most schools).

 

Could still be because of unvaccinated kids? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734221)

If the kids who weren't vaccinated acted as cultures to create a lot more whooping cough bacteria then that might allow more diversity which in turn may more easily create strains resistant to the normal vaccination.

Play it safe, Don't vaccinate (1, Funny)

rfioren (648635) | about 2 years ago | (#39734225)

... majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children...

Hm. Better not vaccinate my kid then, since he's more likely to get whooping cough if he's fully vaccinated.

Re:Play it safe, Don't vaccinate (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39734571)

that is a horrible out of context quote, btw.
What it means is:
Kids between 11 and 13 who have the state recommended schedule see an increase in whooping cough. This is because the vaccine wears off. It's also why the CDC recommends 11,12 and not 13 for the booster.

and this:
" since he's more likely ..."
Is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I don't have kids, but I would vaccinate them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734259)

I would love to have a Rain Man at my disposal. I would clean out Atlantic City and Vegas.

Also, it would be like having a walking encyclopedia at your disposal, better than an iPhone.

No way I'm letting that fucker drive though.

Re:I don't have kids, but I would vaccinate them (2)

Jhon (241832) | about 2 years ago | (#39734391)

I have kids -- and I *DO* vaccinate them.

I, however, have suffered massive reactions to vaccines in the past and now refuse them. The worst was a HepC which knocked me on my arse for a month. Never finished the full course of that vaccine.

Blame the unvaccinated kids (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39734261)

It's their fault (so will say the CA and US politicians/bureaucrats). "Truth is fluid. Truth is subjective. Truth is what the state tells you to believe. It is the preeminent truth of our time: You cannot fight the system."

BTW I am vaccinated, as are my kids. But I don't believe in forcing people to take shots, anymore than I believe in forcing them to buy insurance, or forcing them to attend church. I am Pro-choice in everything.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734357)

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.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (3, Insightful)

djdanlib (732853) | about 2 years ago | (#39734441)

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.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39734655)

You're right except I can't take the risk of my child getting a deadly illness until he or she is age 20 (when the brain reaches full maturity). I make the decisions.

Besides: My house; my rules. Outside my house people can do as they please (I will not force them), but inside my house then they obey the rules. No smoking. No cursing. No stealing. No illegal immigration through my front door unless they ASK first if they may enter. And so on.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (0)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#39734659)

If you had your kids vaccinated before they were able to discuss it with you, you believe in forcing people to take shots.

Wow stupid AC. If you believe in feeding your children, then you must believe in forcing people to do things. Parents make tons of decisions on behalf of their children, this is different than the state or other parents making them.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (5, Insightful)

Yobgod Ababua (68687) | about 2 years ago | (#39734399)

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.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39734515)

>>>to be unvaccinated significantly increases the risk for you and your children.

No it doesn't. We are at no more risk from unvaccinated humans than we are from unvaccinated cows (which also carry the virus). Even previous diseases that are supposedly "dead", like smallpox, are making a comeback. Every human in the world was vaccinated, but the viruses survived in other organisms and mutated.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (2)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#39734759)

I think you are mixing up your diseases. There hasn't been a case of smallpox since 1978 and there hasn't been a case in the wild since 1975. Perhaps you mean polio.

Also, pertussis is a bacteria, not a virus, and the form found in cattle is not the same as the one that causes whooping cough in humans.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (2)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | about 2 years ago | (#39734761)

How many people died of smallpox each year before vaccinations? Now it's zero. While we'll never be able to completely eliminate the theoretical possibility that smallpox may come back at some point in the future, the smallpox vaccine has done tremendous good for mankind.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#39734487)

I am Pro-choice in everything.

Really? You have no problem with murder? You don't want "The Man" saying you have to drive on the right side of the road or stop for red lights?

I'm sorry, but until you can have a planet all to yourself, complete freedom is a fantasy.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39734723)

>>>Really? You have no problem with murder?

Dumbass question. You already know the answer because it's obvious. Nobody has the right to infringe upon another's rights (damage to their body or property (car)).

"Nobody has the right to harm another. And that's all the government should restrain him." - Thomas Jefferson; author of the Declaration, coauthor of the Bill of Rights, founder of the Democrat Party, second highest IQ among our presidents (estimated at 150-160).

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39734601)

Great, the you won't mind if I build a coal fire plant next to your home? Cause that's my choice.

Also, I drive on the left side of the road, because I'm an 'merican and that's my choice, fuck all of you.

'merica FUCK YEAH.

Re:Blame the unvaccinated kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734689)

I drive on the sidewalk. Why should "pedestrians" get special rights to that part of the pavement?

My wife has had the vaccination at least... (1)

toadlife (301863) | about 2 years ago | (#39734281)

...five times. Aside from having it when she was a child, during every one of her four pregnancies a test that suggested she still needed the vaccination and she was given it again.

Surely the fifth time was the charm.

Re:My wife has had the vaccination at least... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39734527)

What do you me "the charm"?
They wear off.
And the pregnancy shots are for the fetus's sake.

Not exactly shocking (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 2 years ago | (#39734285)

Vaccines aren't perfect, and with pertussis it's important to get them vaccinated as soon as most of them can mount an effective response. So if enough kids are vaccinated, the odds that the ones who do come down with it are vaccinated becomes greater than that they're unvaccinated.

All in all a pretty basic exercise in high-school probability algebra.

Re:Not exactly shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734363)

All in all a pretty basic exercise in high-school probability algebra.

So the real reason, you're saying, is the poor American educational system?

I doubt it's the vaccine (5, Insightful)

misosoup7 (1673306) | about 2 years ago | (#39734331)

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.

Re:I doubt it's the vaccine (5, Informative)

misosoup7 (1673306) | about 2 years ago | (#39734387)

Also, the article clearly points out that the vaccine works, just it's effect wanes over time. And it is recommended to get a booster. This extract grossly misquotes the intent of the article and undermines the work that the medical community does.

Re:I doubt it's the vaccine (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 2 years ago | (#39734617)

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.

I'd like to know what % of children in CA are not vaccinated for whooping cough. TFA had the figure of 8% for the number of unvaccinated children in the population with whopping cough. If the number of unvaccinated children is much less than 8%, that'd be clear demonstration of the danger of not vaccinating.

I also wonder if that 8% figure is low. Some folks don't vaccinate because of lack of education or access to medical care. But for the folks who actively avoid vaccination, how many of them refuse other forms of medical care? How many unreported cases were there from parents who never take their children to a doctor under any circumstance?

This makes perfect sense (4, Interesting)

Yobgod Ababua (68687) | about 2 years ago | (#39734361)

This actually makes perfect sense. Consider the following:

1. Most children -are- vaccinated.
2. Vaccinations do not really make you "immune" to catching a disease, they train your body to more efficiently fight it off.

So, what happens is that the small percentage on unvaccinated children are bringing Whooping Cough back into contact with the rest of us, and those vaccinated children who perhaps don't have their immune system running at full capacity (tired, stress, fighting other illnesses, etc) catch it. Since there are statistically so many more of the latter available, it makes perfect sense that there are more cases in vaccinated children than unvaccinated.

A more interesting statistic would be if every outbreak could be traced back to an unvaccinated "patient zero". I strongly suspect this is the case.

Re:This makes perfect sense (3, Interesting)

Giftmacher (2621375) | about 2 years ago | (#39734453)

Exactly, what the study is highlighting is that the vaccine's efficacy may wane slightly earlier than expected which means the booster at 12 years of age is a bit too late to provide continuous protection. At worst the study is pointing to the need for additional/rescheduled vaccinations, not that the vaccine is ineffective. Moreover the article notes: "Ward, who did not participate in the new study, also said that immunized kids who catch whooping cough don't get as sick as unimmunized kids." If anyone has ever seen whooping cough in action you'll know how important reducing the symptoms is...

Re:This makes perfect sense (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#39734577)

I don't know why everyone blames the unvaccinated.
If there is anything that this article shows it is that the infected unvaccinated are a tiny minority and as such not significant.
It also shows that vaccination is not a perfect shield/solution to decease, so your all outbreaks are caused by the unvaccinated is illogical.

Re:This makes perfect sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734623)

The study was saying even though people thought they were vaccinated the vaccine was not being effective.

So while your diatribe on 'un-vaccinated' people (and by inference the autism thing) perhaps you should calm down a bit.

Someone did a study and found an interesting result. So now they will study why people who are considered vaccinated are in effect not. Meaning not only was it ineffective it was a waste of money and time.

So even if you had a 100% vaccinated group some portion of that group is still vulnerable (as some viri can jump species or live on other medium than just humans).

Also vaccination is not 100% effective either. It gives you a good chance of not getting something. But it does not mean you will not get it. Your odds of getting it just go way way way down.

Re:This makes perfect sense (1)

Yaddoshi (997885) | about 2 years ago | (#39734707)

Another possible theory (and I use the term theory because there are presently no unbiased studies that have looked thoroughly into both short term and long term effects of multiple vaccines being administered simultaneously to a human) is that the average child's immune system, which is known to be in its development stage until approximately eight years of age, has been partially compromised by receiving 21 vaccines (or more if they have received their yearly flu shot) by the age of six. Therefore the resulting under developed immune system that has never had to create its own antibodies naturally is potentially more susceptible once the temporary protection afforded by the vaccine in question has worn off. This in combination with a diet consisting primarily of foods containing refined flour, refined sugars, monosodium glutamate, and high fructose corn syrup alongside lack of exercise and exposure to contaminants in the food supply, water supply and air can all contribute to the susceptibility of an individual to a disease or illness.

The assumption that there is one smoking gun that either explains or can prevent these health issues is a common phenomenon on this site, and one that I believe is deeply flawed.

Anti-vac still dangerous, should be criminal. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734393)

This is not necessarily unusual. Vaccines are not 100% effective. Having the vaccine administered to you is not a 100% guarantee of immunity!
We know this, and we've always known this. It's one of the very important reasons that you must vaccinate as many people as possible.

Vaccinations require a population-wide threshold to prevent the spread of disease. This group, along with those that cannot be vacinated (Weak immune systems, the very young) Count against that threshold. That is why it is critical that all that are able to be vaccinated be vaccinated. That is why anti-vac morons are dangerous to themselves and those around them.

VERY IMPORTANT OMISSION (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734407)

The majority of cases were in vaccinated children BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHT AND TWELVE. The pertussis vaccine is given in a five-shot sequence at 2, 4, 6, and 18 months and between four and six years old, with a booster shot at 11 or 12. So kids whose last vaccination was within 2 years didn't get pertussis. For all we know, all the kids who got pertussis at age eight were among those who got the shot at age four, and those who got pertussis at age twelve hadn't received the booster shot yet, so the suggestion here is that the five-to-eight-year effectiveness assumed for the pre-booster vaccine is more like two-to-four years. Another interesting question would be whether these kids were all in a cohort who received their four-to-six shots after a particular change in the manufacturing process that might have limited the effectiveness of the vaccine.

But go ahead, make the assumption that the vaccine doesn't work!

TDaP is also required for college (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#39734449)

The previous effectiveness was assumed to be 20 years, but it seems closer to 5-10. That is one reason that most colleges require proof of the 12 year booster (which is often given at age 18 since an incoming freshman needs it to start attending but most parents skip it in adolescence.)

I caught whooping cough when I was 25 because I had not had the booster since I was 12. I was also required to get a fresh TDaP at age 31 to start attending graduate school, again because the booster was assumed to wear off after 20 years.

Perhaps they need to change the booster recommendations from every 20 years to every 10 years.

Pre teens (0)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#39734489)

TFA says kids from 8 to 12 are getting pertussis due to the vaccine wearing off. But here's my question: What's the mortality rate from whooping cough in this age group?

The motivation to vaccinate older kids and adults has been to prevent them from infecting infants, where the vaccine is not effective or not recommended and for whom the mortality rates can be quite high. Once the kid is older, its just a nasty cough (assuming no complicating conditions). So, is a booster shot really worthwhile? Particularly for their own health? The down sides of such a vaccination could be less than for young children. I don't think autism kicks in at this late an age, whether from vaccines or whatever. Keep in mind that in a few years, these kids will be cutting their heroin with who knows what. A few traces of some preservatives are the least of their worries.

Re:Pre teens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734661)

Who cares how non-deadly whooping cough is to older kids. Older kids are an exposure vector for younger kids. Older kids should be vaccinated to help protect the younger kids who can't be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine doesn't work. It's a public service. You know, a way to say thank you to the society that vaccinated their older kids when you were very young, thus ensuring that YOU didn't die from it at a young age.

I hope that Dr.s quote is out of context (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39734497)

It is known the shot wears off, it is know that a booster at 13 should be done, and again in adults.

There is no surprise here.
The headline should read:
"Study shows CDC correct. Booster should be given at 11, and not 13.'

""The longer you went from your last vaccine, the greater your risk of disease," Witt told Reuters Health."
Oh really? How is an infectious disease Doc not already aware of this? I'm am not a Dr, but I have spent 12 years reading vaccine studies and even I am aware of that fact.

I hope it's just a poor aticle, and this Dr. Wit just wasn't quoted in the correct context.
Based on every other article about science, that's probably the case.

mountain grown (1)

ripler (19188) | about 2 years ago | (#39734545)

We're here at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, where we've secretly replaced the fine vaccines they usually serve with Folgers Crystals. Let's see if anyone can tell the difference!

Was patient zero vaccinated though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734553)

According to "herd immunity" theories, a good chunk of vaccines' effectiveness comes from the fact that the surrounding animals' immunity keeps the disease from gaining a foothold.
If an unvaccinated individual travels to a high risk area, there's a decent chance they can be infected and allow the disease to incubate enough to attack a segment of vaccinated individuals.

They were vaccinated for Autism (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 2 years ago | (#39734555)

Unfortunately the Autism vaccine causes Whooping Cough. I read it in a scientician paper.

Bayes tells us that this is no surprise. (1)

Phillip Birmingham (2066) | about 2 years ago | (#39734599)

No vaccine is 100% effective, so some people who are vaccinated will catch the disease. Since the vast majority of people are vaccinated, it's no surprise that most of the victims were vaccinated.

Lying with statistics (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#39734709)

According to the article, only 8% of kids were unvaccinated. So even if they were ten times as likely to get the disease, most of the cases will still be vaccinated kids.

What TFA actually says is that vaccinated kids are LESS likely to get the disease, and kids with multiple booster shots are even less likely to get it. The article's conclusion is that the vaccines work, but they work even better with a booster. The misleading Slashdot headline and summary implies the opposite conclusion.

read it while you can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734771)

Evidence that a harmful vaccination is also ineffective against its sole purpose...

I can pretty much guarentee that this article will be erased
(just like the recent kids' visit to Mexico was erased from most of the media).

Just sayin'

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...