Meryl Doreyʼs difficulty with the truth about Pertussis vaccine efficacy, Denmark and The Netherlands

“One day AVN... Pow! Straight to the Moon!”

“Contrary to the assertions of Mr McLeod, the current increase in the incidence of pertussis has nothing to do with any purported decline in the rate of vaccination. Instead, we are seeing an outbreak of pertussis despite a substantial increase in vaccination against it – an experience which is being duplicated in every country for which mass vaccination against this illness exists.2, 3 “ - Page 7; AVN reply to HCCC

Reference 2 is: Pertussis in the Netherlands: an Outbreak Despite High Levels of Immunization with Whole-Cell Vaccine; Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 3, No. 2, April-June 1997 - http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no2/melker.htm

Merylʼs aim here seems to be to confuse “outbreaks” with increasing vaccination rates. As vaccination has proved successful whole-cell pertussis vaccines have been replaced with acellular vaccines in a number of countries. Thatʼs acellular - no cells. The AVN tend to describe vaccines such that one may think they were scraped off the floor before we could muster a clean up in aisle 6, or dripped out of the bottom of your KFC bag. Aborted fetal cells, monkey kidney cells, “immortal” cells used in manufacture that cause cancer in the body. Acellular vaccines should address many lines of misinformation.

Yet Meryl Dorey ignores;

Part 2 - Meryl Dorey and pertussis vaccination - Netherlands, Denmark.

“Our surveillance data suggest a decrease in vaccine efficacy, but estimation of vaccine efficacy from surveillance data should be interpreted with caution. However, there are no indications of significant bias from physicians' perceptions of vaccine efficacy that could have caused selective reporting of vaccinated patients; a higher probability of a positive serologic test result due to priming in vaccinated persons; or misclassification of cases with respect to vaccination status.”

“The decrease in pertussis notification in the Netherlands at the end of 1996 may indicate a seasonal variation in incidence. The 1996 data, including those on hospital admissions, are still being analyzed. [...] Protection of these infants is the main reason for pertussis vaccination.”

“In conclusion, in the Netherlands a sudden increase of pertussis notification has been observed, which seems to reflect a true increase in incidence. Nevertheless, the cause of this increase has not been definitively determined. A possible mismatch between the vaccine and the circulating Bordetella strains is being investigated.”

Part 2 - Meryl Dorey and pertussis vaccination - Netherlands, Denmark.

Consider this compelling graph, above, in the publication Meryl has just cited - Figure 3. Between 1 - 9 years old in every year of the outbreak, vaccinated patients fared better. Or, for the entire outbreak vaccinated children present with less infection than non-vaccinated.

Reference 3 is Impact of routine vaccination with a pertussis toxoid vaccine in Denmark; 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.03.046 - http://bit.ly/i9hjMz

Okay, so weʼve mentioned acellular vaccines. The other dynamic the AVN bemoan is the number of shots given to infants. This abstract notes an “outbreak” but alludes to acellular vaccines and “.... where the youngest infants are unvaccinated for a longer time-period compared with the prior schedule...” [see abstract]. Just so weʼre clear, this is the second reference cited for, ”... we are seeing an outbreak of pertussis despite a substantial increase in vaccination against it – an experience which is being duplicated in every country for which mass vaccination against this illness exists”.

ABSTRACT:

“In many countries, acellular pertussis vaccines have replaced whole-cell vaccines. We evaluated the impact of a pertussis toxoid vaccine on pertussis in Denmark. We calculated incidence rates for pertussis before and after pertussis toxoid vaccine was introduced, and estimated vaccination effectiveness (VE).

We found that routine vaccination with pertussis toxoid vaccine was effective against both hospitalisation with pertussis (VE, 93% for three doses) and non-hospitalised pertussis (VE, 78% for three doses).

However, after the introduction we found an increase in pertussis among the youngest infants, a direct result of the new schedule (ages 3, 5 and 12 months) where the youngest infants are unvaccinated for a longer time-period compared with the prior schedule (ages 5, 9 weeks and 10 months).”

END ABSTRACT

How can such disparate and ambitious irrelevance as published by Meryl Dorey actually refer to the very same references above? Neither supports her claim of rising infection correlating causally to increased vaccination - so why cite them in mounting such a claim? Plagiarism? Misguidance? Deception? Desperation?

One reply to date is that the AVN “actually read research papers” - or words to that effect.

Part 2 - Meryl Dorey and pertussis vaccination - Netherlands, Denmark.