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

Fuck me! The first book is written by "Anonymous". Why isn't the author prepared to put their name on it so you can at least judge if they have any credentials whatsoever? Or are they a known quack who knows they wouldn't or shouldn't be believed?

What’s your alternative?

Thinking of books ...

Of course you'll want to understand the statistical basis of claims in this area, OP. So as well as the, erh, more popular books recommended above, you might like to start with some more basic texts.

Try, perhaps,
Multivariable Analysis: A Practical Guide for Clinicians and Public Health Researchers by M. H. Katz
... And, well, for a move away from the (some would claim somewhat outdated) Neyman-Pearson paradigm, check out, for example,
Modern Bayesian Statistics in Clinical Research by T. J. Cleophas & A. H. Zwinderman

There are lots more, of course. But an appreciation of statistical inference is obviously a prerequisite for any serious assessment of any of this material, as I'm sure you realise.

(Also several UK universities offer Masters courses in statistics for medical research, of course: I'm sure you could get on one of those. (Oxford's 'Evidence-Based Health Care' MSc is pretty well thought-of, for instance.))

Well maybe it does decline. On the flip side, children are the super spreaders, so those are the humans we want to have the best immunity. I genuinely don't know anyone my age who has had whooping cough vaccine amd then caught it as a child or adult. My mum caught it before the vaccine came out, as it was very common, and still remembers how awful it was. She was coughing for months. No one remembers feeling rubbish for a couple of days after the vaccine.

Did some of you mean to be so patronising ? Attempts to mock or shut down questions parents have a right to ask is quite unsettling and totalitarian. I appreciate people feel strongly, on all sides , but it seems that some won’t acknowledge that this topic is maybe not that black and white, that some professionals in the industry have been asking questions and don’t all hold the same universal view/truth, that some have had a negative experience and that indeed there’s an array of research and sources need to be considered - but the potential for bias and financial motives skewing results can go both ways right ? Attacking and silencing people for asking questions can create more suspicion. For those who are genuinely attempting to provide info to reassure or help/ provide balance, thank you 🙏🏼

@Ladyaudley675

Nobody is being patronising or totalitarian.

Firstly, a lot of papers with relevant info are inaccessible or hugely expensive for Joe Public to access. If you are studying or working in a relevant field you may have access, but otherwise not. A lot of the most up to date data won’t even be in journals yet.

Secondly, even if you could access, if you haven’t been medically or scientifically trained with a good deal of experience it would be difficult to separate out the guff from a decent paper.

Finally, even if you do have a science/medical background… this is highly specialist stuff and judgement is best left to those with relevant experience who can actually understand it.

Biased waffle in a book from whs by a known controversial author is going to get you no where…. If you want to waste your time on it by all means go ahead. But everyone here, and anyone qualified, will tell you it is unreliable.

@Ladyaudley675

code of practice for jcvi if you doubt impartiality

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a747f37e5274a7f9c58672f/dh_115363-JCVI-JCVI-Code-of-Practice.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23715040_The_Problem_With_Dr_Bob's_Alternative_Vaccine_Schedule

Im assuming that it’s Dr Bob Sears, here’s a counter argument to his theory. Remember research isn’t perfect and people with an agenda will always choose studies and manipulate findings to ‘prove’ their theory.

Of course NHS Doctors etc have to follow the NHS schedule. They can’t all be doing their own thing based on their own research. Do your kid a favour and just get the vaccines. And maybe read up on just how hard it is to get a vaccine recommended

The people who recommend alternative schedules make money out of those recommendations

I don't think I would trust what that author is saying. I think his views have been discredited and described as dangerous

The whole antivax thing irritates me disproportionately right now. My 3 year old is having to hold off her preschool boosters as my DH can’t be exposed to live vaccines during his chemo.

Of course it's unsettling when people point out something you don't understand. But it can be useful for you if you approach it in the right way, and with a smidgeon of due modesty.

How would you feel if someone did something you knew was bad for their children (and other children too), purely because of what appeared a wilful lack of knowledge and understanding, and based on nothing more than a conceited overestimate of their own relative intellectual capacity?

This isn't like a disagreement about, say, the efficacy of prayer, or the explanatory power of star-signs: no, this is important. Go read up about it - I suggested some useful texts earlier - and then, when you know something about it, and understand how little you understand, come back and explain about how "it isn't black and white", the "potential for bias" and the relativism of truth. Until then, it's rather more appropriate for you to trust those who do know what they're talking about. NICE, for instance.

Sorry if this is patronising. Sometimes the truth hurts.

A counterpoint to the previous poster's recommended book "Turtles all the way down": https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/part-1-10-the-grand-debunk-of-the-antivaxxer-book-turtles-all-the-way-down/

If you're "doing your own research", you really need to examine the other side to the books you are reading

To further the point@Ladyaudley675. You wrote of whooping cough vaccines. Here's the "Results" section of a 2023 paper, The association between vaccine hesitancy and pertussis: a systematic review and meta-analysis:

"Twenty-two studies were included, with a mean quality score of 7.0 (range 6.0–9.0). Infants and children with pertussis were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy to all doses (OR = 4.12 [95% CI: 3.09–5.50]). The highest OR was between children who were unvaccinated over four doses and children who were fully vaccinated (OR = 14.26 [95%CI: 7.62–26.70]); childhood vaccine delay was not statistically significantly associated with pertussis risk (OR = 1.18 [95% CI: 0.74–1.89]). Maternal vaccine hesitancy was associated with significantly higher pertussis risk in infants aged 2 and 3 months old, with higher pertussis ORs in infants ≤ 2 months old (OR = 6.02 [95%CI: 4.31–8.50], OR = 5.14 [95%CI: 1.95–13.52] for infants ≤ 2 and ≤ 3 months old, respectively). Maternal and childhood VEs were high in reducing pertussis infection in infants and children. The administration time of maternal vaccination had little effect on VE."

Do you understand all of that, @Ladyaudley675? Do you know what "OR" means, and its relation to relevant conditional probabilities? What about "95%CI"? - Do you understand why this doesn't quite mean we can be 95% confident (whatever that might mean)? How would you explain the precise meaning of "statistically significantly associated"? And so on.

If you don't understand, my suggestion, if you want to "do your own research", would be be to work first at your understanding of these basics, then to think of challenging the scientific consensus (as expressed in NICE guidelines, for instance) based on such results. Until then, just desist with your ungrounded scepticism; it's just silly.

@Ladyaudley675 there are children having increased burden of disease, disability and death now, this year, because people listen to self-publicists casting doubt on vaccination. Anti-vaccination propaganda has been a feature of public life since 1832. It isn't new or exciting, it's very old and very depressing. There are lots of better books to read.

You need to accept OP that in some instances, there is no “balance”. The longstanding evidence in favour of vaccines is overwhelming.

Ah, the good folk of 19th century Leicester. That is a fascinating study in mass delusion and suggestion. As is anti-vaxx nonsense today, of course.

Although my guess is that Goody Smith of Leicester nearly two hundred years ago had a less cynical motive than Ms Smith of London does today, in shunning vaccinations.

DON'T. Just don't. Reported