I just got this month's issue and was enjoying it when I stumbled across a full page ad warning parents to receive the TDaP booster.
Is parenting magazine unaware of the careful wording within the actual manufacturer insert and clinical studies? The vaccine does not prevent transmission.
To further support the manufacturers, several trials and researchers have concluded that Pertussis transmission is NOT prevented by the variety of vaccine products licensed in the US. Pertussis has been found on the nares of patients after vaccination and indeed, yet ANOTHER dose is being recommended because this vaccine has such poor efficacy levels.
It concerns me to see such an inaccurate ad in a well-circulated magazine. It might influence parents to choose to get their boosters, putting their newborn infant at risk of contracting the disease. Parenting magazine, by choosing to run this ad, is offering medical advice that is a contraindiction to the actual function of the vaccine.
For more information, here is some research to get started:
Characterization of Bactericidal Immune Responses following Vaccination with Acellular Pertussis Vaccines in Adults
Similarly, opsonization with the postimmunization sera failed to enhance attachment or phagocytosis of bacteria by neutrophils, and one postimmunization sample with a strong response to filamentous hemagglutinin caused an inhibition of phagocytosis that was statistically significant compared to that observed for the no-serum control. In summary, booster immunization of adults with acellular pertussis vaccines was not found to increase bactericidal activity over preimmunization levels. Identifying ways to promote bactericidal immune responses might improve the efficacy of acellular pertussis vaccines.
What they're saying is that the antigens in the vaccine that are supposed to teach your immune system how to combat the actual bacteria, don't. It should, and it's supposed to....but it doesn't work.
Which is almost certainly why the 5 component acellular vaccine isn't much more effective than the monocomponent "pertussis toxoid only" vaccine.
The antigen they need to have in there is probably this one:
Neutralizing Antibodies to Adenylate Cyclase Toxin Promote Phagocytosis of Bordetella pertussis by Human Neutrophils
But the current pertussis vaccine doesn't have that toxin in there.
Adenylate Cyclase Toxin is sort of like a "forcefield" for the pertussis bacteria. Pertussis excretes that toxin to hide from your immune system. That's probably why the pertussis vaccine also doesn't work to help you clear pertussis more quickly.
Of particular interest is the lack of a significant ACT antibody response in children for whom the DTP or DTaP vaccines failed. This induced tolerance is intriguing and may be due to the phenomenon called “original antigenic sin” . In this phenomenon, a child responds at initial exposure to all presented epitopes of the infecting agent or vaccine. With repeated exposure when older, the child responds preferentially to those epitopes shared with the original infecting agent or vaccine and can be expected to have responses to new epitopes of the infecting agent that are less marked than normal. Because both vaccines contained multiple antigens (i.e., PT, FHA, PRN, and fimbriae), the patients who had been vaccinated responded to the antigens that they had been primed with and did not respond to the new antigen (i.e., ACT) associated with infection. \\
It means that, in theory, DTaP vaccinated kids might be MORE CONTAGIOUS when they catch pertussis compared to unvaxed kids after they catch pertussis.
How do you know what all that means? And frankly, vaccines dont work as well as they claim. I think they also lie, doctors, when they say that you cant get sick from them because you can! I got pertussis from someone whose kids had the vaccine, and i wasnt vaccinated because my brother got it from the vaccine.
You mean the studies? Eh, it's just a language of specificity. After reading and writing a bunch of them, your mind starts to cut through it. Don't ever feel overwhelmed...just break it down and look for the common elements (e.g. methods, participants, conclusions).
That's the thing with this particular vaccine! It is not supposed to prevent transmission (e.g. the replication and spread of the bacteria). It's supposed to reduce the symptoms of the 'whoop' part of the sickness. The whooping happens AFTER the contagious period, so those who are infected with Pertussis can be silent carriers of the disease even if they are vaccinated (and in some cases because of vaccination).
So I found it amazing that Parenting took such a risk with the ad. I mean, I know it was paid for by Sanofi, but I'm thinking a death or even severe secondary complication can make a judge very sympathetic.
I find it so sad that our country has come to this. It seems like everyone is trying to find a way to sue someone or as many someones as they can to get as much money as they can for doing absolutely nothing. Honestly, I don't think Parenting should be liable if someone's kid gets Pertussis. It's not like the magazine is makeing the vaccine or giveing the vaccine. They were paid to have an ad placed in their magazine. Maybe I should sue Parenting because I was injured in a car accident and I'm sure they've had a Dodge ad in their magazine so they must pay.
Loud mom of 2 loud boys ages 10 & 7.
That's it? A major magazine is openly going against science and supporting something that at the very least is dangerous, if not deadly, and you think it's sad that they might get sued for it?
Yes, I agree with burgher. It's a liability for the company who manufactures it, I guess. But it isn't like Parenting mag is directly responsible for anything that could happen. If there is a false advertisement being made, that is not up to the people of Parenting, the drug company putting the ad out is responsible. You can be upset all you'd like about the product, but just direct your anger appropriately.
Mom of twin girls, age 3, and a new baby boy born in January!
hopefully parentings readers are educated consumers and do their own research on a vaccine before running out to get one. It is an ad and should be taken as such, not as advice from the magazine.
BTW - I support science and medical research. They are saving all of our lives everyday! So the next time your child has a bacterial infection, thank a scientist, because he created the medicine you just got a script for.
Loud mom of 2 loud boys ages 10 & 7.