Melb baby dies of whooping cough...

[LizLemon]

No, this is not really the case. The pertussis vaccine is given as a series of three separate immunisations, spaced out in order to provoke a more pronounced immune response and therefore a better resistance to the infection. Once you have had your course (presuming you are not in the 10% who doesn't develop an immunity) you are very unlikely to contract pertussis. And if you don't get it, you can't spread it.

Michael can you just clarify that - because as mums we have always been told that if the child is immunised and still DOES contract the disease that they will receive a milder form. And that's what I thought Catherine was saying. Are you saying that this is not the case and it will be all or nothing? Also, that (again contrary to what we've always been told) there is no such thing as "carriers"?

Or have I totally misunderstood your post?

Ta

[Schmickers]

Some children may catch the pertussis germ and develop mild symptoms. Some children will not catch it at all. And around 1 in 10 or possibly more children will develop no protection, and if they catch the pertussis germ they will develop full symptoms. The first and third groups can spread the disease; as far as I am aware, the second group cannot. I am not aware of it being possible to be a pertussis "carrier" without actually contracting the disease.

[Marlene]

A paediatrician I know and respect has told me that in his experience, the average case of pertrussis has a 4-hour exposure to someone else with the disease.

Hmmmm, maybe I shouldn;t have spent $85 on antibiotics!!! Better to be safe than sorry, I suppose

[Inertia]

Have not read every reply so if this has been covered, then just ignore me.

A study in Canada (dealing with serious whooping cough outbreaks) has found that the best protection for newborns is for mum to be vaxed immediately after birth. It takes a week to two weeks (depending on if they were vaxed as a child) for the antibodies to develop. Then they pass that onto their baby in breast milk. So long as they stay bfed, baby is fed pertussis antibodies for 6 months until they finally work their way out of mums system.

But this is the thing, and this is why Vax is a con.

It trains your body to develop antibodies. In most cases this only reduces the severity and duration of the illness. It does not stop it all together. You can still catch it, you can still be contagious. All that is happening is your body is fighting it quicker and more efficiently because it has 'encountered' it before.

That said, I do not think it is my public duty to inject six diseases into my childs body even if they are 'inactive'. They can still get sick because the body is reacting how it will if they get the real disease. That is too much to ask of a 2 month old.

Yes, six in the one needle. NSW uses Infanrix Hexa.

I should probably add as it is probably relevant - I am a delay vaxxer who goes out of her way to find someone who does not use Hexa.

[Marlene]

It trains your body to develop antibodies. In most cases this only reduces the severity and duration of the illness. It does not stop it all together. You can still catch it, you can still be contagious. All that is happening is your body is fighting it quicker and more efficiently because it has 'encountered' it before.

Well, that's good enough for me!!

[loulabelle]

I just find it so sad that this family have lost their baby and as usual, the media is turning it to something it's not.
More details may have come since I read but, the family had not mentioned vaccinations at all.( maybe in other articles?)

You are never safe, vax or no vax. Regardless of what I do with my children, everyone is entitled to make what choice they feel is best for them. I guess it shows us we need to be hyper vigilant when it comes to symptoms, treating as early as possible.

It's just sad

[Dollyroux]

I am absolutely pro-vaccines. 100%. I do agree that big pharma need further scrutiny.
I was a fully vaccinated child who caught whopping cough AND mumps (early 80s, separate occasions) If I wasn't vaccinated, I may have likely died. Vaccinated children who catch the disease they were vaccinated against are more likely to get a milder form of the disease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[~Stoked~]

A bit OT but I had something strange happen with my Rubella immunity and this has reminded me to ask my Dr about it tomorrow!

I fell pregnant with my DS in March 09 and had my immunity checked around April. I had borderline immunity. I was last vaccinated against Rubella when I was 12 (so 16 years beforehand).
Anywho, I didn't do anything about my borderline status as I'd thought I'd wait until I was no longer immune to worry about it.
I'm now pregnant again. Had my immunity checked again in November '10 and I'm suddenly immune... What the!? I definately haven't been vaccinated since and I definately haven't contracted Rubella in the meantime. I am really, REALLY interested to know why I suddenly have immunity. Seems very, very odd to me.

[sunshine_sieben]

No idea. But it would be interesting to know how accurate these test results are. Maybe one of the tests was a fluke?

[~Stoked~]

I don't know. I asked my midwife too and she is stumped. My immunity is huge at the moment too.. I don't know what units they measure it in but it was 29 and it's now 224!

[Yeddi]

Herein comes one of the greatest lies about vaccination. Vaccination only produces IgG antibodies, however there are 5 types of antibodies that work in fighting off a disease, therefore high or low levels of IgG antibody alone doesn't mean much. People have caught the disease they are immunised against when they have high IgG and haven't caught it when unimmunised and have lower IgG. This also is where the lie of "herd immunity" through vaccination comes in too, because herd immunity has only ever been proven with real virus' and real virus' produce at least 3 of the antibodies, not just one!

The break down:
IgG antibodies are predominantly involved in the secondary immune response, as in, it has to have got past all the other checks and balances before this antibody even comes into play in fighting off a disease.
IgM is a common antibody and is the first formed in response to an infection once it has begun.
IgE is a low concentration antibody involved in allergic reactions and fighting eukaryotic protozoa.
IgA is present in the mouth and intestinal tract, which is the main way for virus' and bacteria enter the body, therefore first line of defence.
IgD is found on the surface of B-lymphocytes and together with monomeric IgM, serves as antigen receptor for the activation of B cell and is very important in slowing or stopping the spread of a pathogen during the initial stages of an illness.

And hence the reason vaccination (at most) can only claim to maybe mean you only get a milder case of whatever disease, not to stop the disease altogether. If you don't get the disease at all, it's because the other antibodies (which aren't effected by vaccination) have done their job first.

[Little Chicken]

Have you been exposed to rubella at all? Could explain the sudden leap in circulating antibodies.

[~Stoked~]

Herein comes one of the greatest lies about vaccination. Vaccination only produces IgG antibodies, however there are 5 types of antibodies that work in fighting off a disease, therefore high or low levels of IgG antibody alone doesn't mean much. People have caught the disease they are immunised against when they have high IgG and haven't caught it when unimmunised and have lower IgG. This also is where the lie of "herd immunity" through vaccination comes in too, because herd immunity has only ever been proven with real virus' and real virus' produce at least 3 of the antibodies, not just one!

The break down:
IgG antibodies are predominantly involved in the secondary immune response, as in, it has to have got past all the other checks and balances before this antibody even comes into play in fighting off a disease.
IgM is a common antibody and is the first formed in response to an infection once it has begun.
IgE is a low concentration antibody involved in allergic reactions and fighting eukaryotic protozoa.
IgA is present in the mouth and intestinal tract, which is the main way for virus' and bacteria enter the body, therefore first line of defence.
IgD is found on the surface of B-lymphocytes and together with monomeric IgM, serves as antigen receptor for the activation of B cell and is very important in slowing or stopping the spread of a pathogen during the initial stages of an illness.

And hence the reason vaccination (at most) can only claim to maybe mean you only get a milder case of whatever disease, not to stop the disease altogether. If you don't get the disease at all, it's because the other antibodies (which aren't effected by vaccination) have done their job first.

So, basically, it doesn't really matter what my immunity is. If I'm going to contract rubella, I will. Is that right? So, does my new immunity status mean that my natural antibodies are strong or am I just totally confused!? Haha

As far as I am aware I have not been exposed to Rubella. Definately not in the last year or so anyway!

[Inertia]

That is strange indeed. I vaguely remember reading IgA somewhere - and I don't mean the supermarket!

Is it possible that we have had the exposure, the previous antibodies killed it at the first line of defence - so we didn't get sick or affect iykwim - but the rest of the body responded anyway and formed all the others that has kept our immune systems boosted?

[Yeddi]

I can't tell you if you are more likely to get a disease or not, but I can say without a doubt that there is absolutely no 100% guarantee that you can't catch a disease, irrelevant of what the blood test says. My point was that the focus on IgG antibodies alone is an incomplete and simplistic picture of a very complex biological system, and it is this simplistic view that is the basis for most of vaccination's assumptions about disease protection.

A blood test will show IgA antibodies if it is testing immunity, but that doesn't mean these mucus based antibodies have been created by an intravenous vaccination iykwim.

[sunshine_sieben]

Yeddi, I must spread the love, so have to thank you this way for an amazingly informative post.

[~Stoked~]

Yes, thankyou Yeddi!

[JellyBean]

In a study of children who died of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) two-thirds had been vaccinated with pertussis (whooping cough) prior to death. Of these, 6.5%died with 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within three days; and 37, 61 and 70% within one, two and three weeks, respectively. Source: Torch, WC. Neurology 1982;32(4): pt.2.

"vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths" Source: Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research by Dr. Viera Scheibner, M.D - formerly pro-vaccination.

Challenging information - but if you delve into it far enough, I'd be surprised to find anyone who claims this vaccine is safe, let alone beneficial- for not even the vaccine manufacturers have done so, although they have led us to believe otherwise.
This is not to take away from the terrible tragedy of the loss of a new baby's life to pertussis - however keeping the virus alive perpetually via vaccination instead of letting it die out naturally like many other diseases have over past millenia is the surest way to ensure sad cases like this continue to happen.