Hilary's Desk

Edited on 4th September 2013.  Continue Reading

It will be easier to understand this blog if you read all the material embedded.  In a letter dated 18 May 2012, the Ministry of Health wrote:

The pertussis containing vaccines are effective but do not protect all babies. The pertussis vaccine currently used in New Zealand and other developed countries offers protection of around 84 percent after three doses….. Adults immunisation is recommended for those who have contact with babies or someone who has an underlying respiratory condition.

Pertussis incidence and mortality have declined in the last 50 years in many places around the world mainly as a result of immunisation activities. However, the incidence of pertussis disease has increased in countries where pertussis immunisation rates decreased in the past for example Japan, Sweden and United Kingdom. When immunisation programmes were re-established the rates of disease decreased again.

So lets look at the comment about Japan, because again, the insinuation is that before Japan dropped the vaccine in 1974, things were great, and after they started the vaccine, things went back to 'wonderful'.   

The classic article quoted by vaccine pushers, relating to the rise of pertussis notifications after the discontinuation of pertussis vaccination in Japan is: "Impact of antivaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story" written by E. J. Gangarosa et al. Lancet, volume 351, January 31, 1998. 

As I stated in a 2005 BMJ  rapid response  there are many problems with this article, but let's just stick with Japan for the purposes of this blog.

As the reference for 80% vaccination rates in Japan in 1974, Gangarosa quotes a Lancet study,  ("Developments in pertussis immunisation in Japan", by Kimura M et al) July 1990; 336: 30 - 32 article  .

But, that referenced study ... didn't mention vaccination rates.

 Continue Reading

(The purpose of this blog series - and all other blogs I do -  is to educate the public, using medical literature which the medical profession has, but does not usually provide to parents, to show parents that there is other information you need to know in order to make an informed choice about vaccination.  Remember, this is medical information, not "opinion".).  You would think, wouldn't you, that before developing a whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, scientists would actually understand what constitutes immunity, and how the immune system responds to the whooping cough bacteria. Right? Wrong. In terms of defining how immunity developed, the twentieth century could best be described as "flying blind"... because the only "obsession" was with "antibodies" in the blood. It was assumed that antibodies was all a person needed to provide whooping cough immunity, and nothing else mattered.  Immunologists did not realise that their understanding of pertussis immunity was fatally flawed, or that they didn't know enough.    As Leef 2000 says: Continue Reading

(While you will get the gist of this blog in the text a much fuller understanding will come from reading the embedded articles).  In a letter dated 18 May 2012, the Ministry of Health wrote:

The pertussis containing vaccines are effective but do not protect all babies. The pertussis vaccine currently used in New Zealand and other developed countries offers protection of around 84 percent after three doses….. Adult immunisation is recommended for those who have contact with babies or someone who has an underlying respiratory condition.

Pertussis incidence and mortality have declined in the last 50 years in many places around the world mainly as a result of immunisation activities. However, the incidence of pertussis disease has increased in countries where pertussis immunisation rates decreased in the past for example Japan, Sweden and United Kingdom. When immunisation programmes were re-established the rates of disease decreased again.

Has the whooping cough vaccine stopped whooping cough in New Zealand?

No.  Continue Reading