6-in-1 vaccine concern

[Ladyaudley675]

Hi all , I am reading a book called The Vaccine Book which discusses the issue of waning immunity for this vaccine - it refers to research by a key expert about how the vaccine actually wears off pretty quickly after teenage boosters and makes people more vulnerable to catching whooping cough for the rest of their lives. Please see attached excerpt which explains it better. Does anyone know more about this please ? As I am working my way through the schedule for my baby , I really want to make fully informed decisions and feel more confident about them.

Another research piece (Oxford academic) I just come across states this “Increasing pertussis incidence was observed in some countries with high vaccination coverage. McGirr et al estimated that the incidence of pertussis increased by 33% every additional year since the last dose of DTaP, and with no significant difference between 3 and 5 vaccine doses. Understanding the waning of vaccine protection is crucial to control the reemergence of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

tysm x

👍🤣

When NICE make their recommendations, it’s done by identifying credible data and pulling all that information together. Unless you are from a medical background with postgrad training, your research will not be even close to that level (I say this as a drowning healthcare post grad who genuinely feels overwhelmed by the task). Vaccination timetables are not something to mess with. Your baby is special… like all babies, but it doesn’t need different treatment that could put it them at risk.

That's a really complicated area of immunology OP (I've done some at postgraduate level). Scientists don't really understand it/if it is actually the case and how or why it works.
Basically there are different ways of producing immune cells and that particular type of vaccine possibly inhibits one of the cells which facilities this response. But doesn't inhibit the others. They also don't know the extent of the inhibition. Given that there are many antigen presenting cells it may not affect things much.

However, we do know that:

1. whooping cough is a dangerous disease for babies, about a third under 12 months who contract the disease will need hospital treatment and 1-2 in a 100 will die. I personally know someone whose child is brain damaged as a result of pertussis.
2. The previous whooping cough vaccine, which created a "stonger" immune response was withdrawn as there was a higher risk of vaccine complications.

So, we want to protect small babies with an effective vaccine which doesn't cause side effects. The current vaccine does this. The trade off is that immunity wanes in mid-teens and there could be a slightly weaker immune response if they are exposed to pertussis then. Does that really matter?

If you are worried you can always give your teenager a booster. The important thing is that you've protected your baby from dying of whooping cough.

This:

"Doing your own research” has become a shorthand for reading a load of dubious and unbalanced stuff which is based on trying to sell more books. “Doing your own research” never involves reading peer reviewed literature by people who understand vaccines."

Pretty much. Often said by people that don't understand what peer reviewed research is. Clue, it's not listening to some prat on YouTube!

Piss poor anti-vax post, OP.

At least give us the ‘libertarian’ arguments. And you haven’t done enough anecdotal scaremongering: anti-vaxxers always know a small army of vaccine damaged children, despite incontrovertible evidence that vaccine damage is so rare it barely registers.

If you really want to go for it, post some totally bogus graphs and start denying that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination.

@Abbimae hi Abbie, genuinely looking for reassurance and more credible informatio

So you come to Mumsnet? 🤨

The problem is that even if you're an educated person, it's impossible to be as knowledgeable about this did as the people who make national guidelines.

There are so many studies and you need to understand the complexities of study design, statistical analysis etc to be able to weigh it all up.

I really do think vaccination is an area where you have to trust the experts. You can't read and understand all the studies they do.

The clue to understanding the book is that it's a book. He's gone to a publisher and pitched it.

Would a book saying 'get the vax, it'll be fine' fly off the shelves? No, books sell when they say slightly controversial things you wouldn't have thought of for yourself.

Or at least make us feel better when taking our babies to the appointment, knowing we have done our research and understand benefits vs risks and what we are putting in their bodies .

But what research can you, as an untrained layperson, do that is better than that done by the experts in each country that have decided that the vaccines are safe and to be used? You don't have access to the trials, and if you did, you wouldn't be able to understand them. All your research will do is put you in contact with the charlatans or tinfoil hat wearers who are just as unqualified as you to assess risk.

One word

Polio

Is this the book thst says if you dont vaccinate dont tell your friends and family so your child is protected by their herd immunity?
He should be struck off!
Also doesnt know the difference between IV fluids and an injection

@Ladyaudley675 if you're on Facebook, there's an excellent group on there called "Vaccine Talk: An Evidence Based Discussion Forum" where you can ask your questions. There are many medical / immunology experts on that forum, but also a mix of folks who are pro- and anti-vaccine or on the fence, so you'll get a range of information. One of the rules of the group is that any claims have to be backed up by evidence, and any people claiming to be experts have their credentials verified by the moderators. It's an excellent source of information, though a large group so sometimes responses come in thick and fast and can be overwhelming. I recommend it, in any case. The information I've seen on that group about Dr Sears is less than complimentary (I believe his brother is a member of the group, and a paediatrician, and does not agree with his brother's books at all)

Oh good, someone is here to spread Russian propaganda with the aim of causing the resurgence of diseases that haven't been rife for decades.

Worst bit is it's not just the children of the dim antivax parents who will die, but newborn babies and children too sick with conditions like cancer that aren't able to be vaccinated will perish.

Just reading journal articles is meaningless if you don’t know how to critique their quality and think critically about their contents. There is an awful lot of poor quality and limited research out there and being published in a journal doesn’t automatically mean it’s any good.

If you want to research this sort of thing you need to learn how to do it properly for it to actually be useful and credible in informing your decision making.

So you say 'key expert' and 'came across an Oxford academic'

How do you know it's a key expert? Because he/she call themselves one? Oxford academic - there are a huge number of people connected to Oxford University. It's not the magic all-seeing qualification people think

In formulating vaccination recommendations, panels of experts (likely degree, masters, PhD, post doc or two, lectureship and professorship, or leading role in hospital/research organisation - 30 years or so of experience) come together. Centuries of combined experience and expertise.

They review existing evidence and grade it on quality, things like number of patients, whether the study controlled for confounding factors, how applicable it is broadly - eg. Study that only looked at one ethnic group might not be applicable across all.

They then sort through all this evidence and find consensus on what can be recommended. For vaccines, that will be around timing and number of doses, details of the vaccine, storage, likelihood of complications and side effects.

And this will be regularly reviewed as more evidence comes to light. Guidelines can be national but are also sometimes regional or global.

In contrast, you read a book that was probably published some time ago, and found one study online.

You just can't possibly encompass the scale of information the experts have. They know there can be side effects, there's no cover up, it's just still overall beneficial.

The internet gives people unprecedented access to information but this is not the same as the knowledge of how to process and interpret this information.

I would read this as saying that the previous vaccine is far too dangerous to consider. Leaving only the current one, and while it may increase whole life susceptibility, it does produce antibodies for the child now when they are most vulnerable to serious disease outcomes. So essentially there would be a trade off that is worth it.

I would urge you not to base your decisions on the accounts from one author as they may be biased.

Go to google scholar and read actual papers… but the unless you have a medical or scientific background it could be difficult to discern what is/isn’t bad science.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190010/ This is 10 years old now but produced by the iom and gives a lot of information and weighs the research on adverse reactions for vaccines. Covers each disease and their vaccines

Hi, OP -

I understand your worries. Of course you want the best for your precious DC.

But I am a STEM academic with a good understanding of statistics and I wouldn’t dream of doing my own vaccine research. As @PermanentTemporary says, it is that complicated. Honestly, the NHS may be falling down in many ways and I can be quite critical, but NICE is tops for intellectual rigour and the childhood vaccination programme is excellent.

It might be rational to ignore NICE guidelines and have some treatment you can afford but which is not generally available on NHS. Sadly.

But it just never could be rational to ignore NICE guidelines in not having available treatment - including vaccines.

If you don't understand this you are stupid. Most stupid people nevertheless benefit from NHS and NICE guidelines, faute de mieux as it were. (That's partly what NICE is for.) Some extra-stupid people manage nevertheless to harm themselves (and/or, in the nature of things, others, their children perhaps) by their own stupidity. Harming others because you're so stupid makes you a bad person. Don't be one of those, OP.

This is independent of "your own research". It's simply to do with the nature of rationality in the face of risk. But by all means check out the research ("do your own research"). It might be interesting, possibly illuminating. Here's a little test you might do as a preliminary:

1. Explain the difference between sensitivity and specificity.
2. What are Odds Ratios, and how are they derived from Bayes' Theorem?
3. ... Oh, enough.

Are you really on top of even these most basic aspects of medical/statistical research? And if not, how on earth do you think you are capable of deciding for yourself contrary to people who do understand such matters?

What @NoCloudsAllowed said

I’m very sorry @Ladyaudley675 but you are not remotely qualified to be doing serious research… you don’t have any expertise nor access to much of the relevant literature.

It is folly to think that you know better than trained people, experts in their field.

It might be better for you to use your time more profitably and trust in the schedule set up to protect your child and the population as a whole.

You are putting your child in danger if you
don’t protect them from childhood diseases by vaccinating. It really is that simple.

Exactly. Though it's difficult for people who haven't had at least a degree level education in this stuff to understand it.

Infectious disease researcher here (though I don't specifically research vaccines). It's completely normal for immunity to wane over time from vaccination. It means the vaccine worked in the first place.

This is why we need boosters and why it's not unusual to be non-immune to certain childhood illnesses in adulthood. This isn't normally an issue because most childhood infectious are rare or mild in adults (or adults are generally protected through herd immunity gained by widespread childhood vaccination of new generations of children).

It's not unusual to get the Tdap again as an adult - I've had it twice in my pregnancies due to whooping cough campaign and adults often get the tetanus vaccine for various reasons over their lifetimes, maybe for travel or preventatively for an injury. And that boosts immunity again.

I nearly died from Whopping cough at 3 months, caught it before my vaccine. My parents were told i was unlikely to survive, it must have been traumatic for them and i was in hospital a long time!

Interesting to read about the T1 diabetes though! Will look in to that more - thank you