“Vaccine Shedding”: Time Up For Another Vaccine Myth

One myth often pulled out by antivaccination lobbyists to malign vaccine safety is the senseless term “Vaccine Shedding”.

Whilst in context we all know what is meant, it’s worth pausing to consider that the term is a byproduct, if you will, of the antivaccination movement’s skill at sowing misinformation. The unrivaled ability to scan a headline and regurgitate some ghastly tale about vaccines. To squeeze another fallacious vaccine “danger” onto the shelf, content in the knowledge it will soon have a life of it’s own.

The colloquial use of this nonsensical term seeks to convey that an individual who has been vaccinated can readily shed part of the vaccine and cause infection in the unvaccinated. Which by definition demands them to have shed not a vaccine but an infectious agent. Indeed a virus. Which by extension demands the vaccine to be a live virus vaccine. This then opens the door to viral shedding the vast complexities of vaccine induced immunity and viable modes of excretion – aka shedding. That won’t stop your garden variety anti-vaxxer claiming any vaccine can lead to infection of the unvaccinated via this ghastly “vaccine shedding”.

But that’s only part of the story. “Vaccine shedding” is a double barrelled myth in that transmission is assumed to occur ipso facto. Shedding is not transmission. Period. Yet denial of vaccine efficacy requires internalisation of some whacky stuff. Including the erroneous belief that viral shedding follows MMR vaccination. Yet worse is the myth that inactivated vaccines pose the risk of infection due to “vaccine shedding”.  Pertussis often brings out the malicious side of anti-vaxxers. DTaP is inactivated. Indeed the pertussis component is acellular. So, you may wonder at the nature of Cynthia Janak who writes in Will the vaccinated infect the unvaccinated? That is the question with Whooping cough:

Before I continue I want to tell you about a fact that is known by the CDC, etc. That is called vaccine shedding. This is the transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person. [....] I want you to understand that this is true for vaccines including the Whooping Cough. What you could have happen is that all these parents and child care workers are going to get the vaccine and then take care of children. [....] The vaccinated have the potential to infect the unvaccinated child. This could cause the next epidemic of disease like what happened with the small pox epidemic.

So, in Cynthia’s mind “vaccine shedding” is, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”. Wrong. And it’s true for whooping cough. Impossible. Yet there’s potential for an epidemic like smallpox? Pure fiction. Contracting pertussis because an unvaccinated and infected child or adult who ignores boosters has breathed on someone is, however, a simple fact. Aiming to inflate the danger of her misguided concern about “vaccine shedding” as “known by the CDC”, Cynthia uses references to FluMist.

FluMist a live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) sprayed into the nostrils and well understood regarding shedding. Concerns about administering a live virus this way should be respected. So should the facts about any risks. It sheds in low concentration for short periods via nasal discharge. It is not associated with person to person transmission. Given that wild type influenza sheds at far higher concentration, is found on fixtures, objects, skin and is strongly associated with transmission, severe illness and complications it seems Cynthia has been selective about what’s “known by the CDC”.

“Vaccine shedding” is better suited to mid 19th century notions like the infectious miasma, wafting about in terrifying unseen clouds held aloft by our lack of knowledge. Nor does the rare instance of shedding suddenly turn any agent into a virus with the infectious capability of Ebola. But anti-vax voices are often raised in triumph that the crime of “vaccine shedding” places the community at greater risk than the rising numbers of unvaccinated.

The scale of error associated with this belief is akin to the myth of potential vaccine injuries outweighing the benefits of vaccination. Serious injuries that do occur are primarily in populations genetically predisposed to latent complications and manifestation is extremely rare. Injuries, disability and death from vaccine preventable disease would occur at magnitudes many hundreds or thousands of times greater and can manifest in anyone. Vaccine injuries are artificially inflated by confusing correlation (sometimes years apart) with causation, and by including red marks, crying, sleep disturbance or omitting that event X was a serious allergic reaction to latex syringe components. Similarly, arguing ones unvaccinated child is at risk from, or has been infected by, a recently vaccinated child is quite a claim.

Viral shedding itself is by no means ignored by the medical community. It’s of primary concern in the management of immune compromised patients, pregnant women and newborns. Varicella is an excellent example in that a.) viral shedding is well understood and b.) the risk from shedding can be discerned from precautions taken. Following varicella vaccination, viral shedding can be detected in the stools for six weeks.

In the case of immunodeficiency disorders or immune suppression from drugs, transfusions, stem cell transplant, chemotherapy etc, the recommendations are to avoid contact with fecal matter of vaccinated subjects and to observe good hygiene. To put this in context, unvaccinated children who spend one hour in a room with an infected child (shedding varicella) stand a 95% chance of contracting varicella (chicken pox). This is why vaccination against varicella is vital and choosing to not vaccinate your child places him or her and by extension countless others at risk of serious complication.

For nursing mothers post natal varicella vaccination need not be delayed if they are varicella-susceptible as varicella hasn’t been found in breast milk post maternal vaccination. There is no problematic risk of viral shedding to newborns provided hand washing and other hygiene measures are followed.

Whilst rare, a post-varicella immunisation vesicular rash can form. Again whilst quite rare, viral shedding can occur at this site. Plainly stated it’s incredibly rare for an unvaccinated child to be infected with varicella from a vaccinated subject and a series of events, including transmission, must occur within a small window of opportunity. Greatest precautions must be taken in the case of immune suppression. Writing in Vaccines in immunocompromised patients, Janet R. Serwint, MD Consulting Editor notes:

Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves.

In March this year there was an interesting case of viral shedding. The antivaccination lobby bellowed that Varicella zoster virus DNA had been found in the saliva of people over 60 vaccinated with the live Zostavax vaccine manufactured by Merck. In this age group Herpes zoster (shingles) is the target. Shingles is the result of infection with VZV earlier in life which may reactivate as immunity declines or from novel infection. Despite blog headings like Vaccinated people SHED LIVE HERPES for up to a month AFTER vaccination, be aware it was 2 of 36 “vaccinated people” who made the grade.

There was no indication of infection risk at the time. Today transmission is considered rare. Packet inserts carried the standard warnings found in varicella immunisations to avoid contact with infants, nursing mothers and immunocompromised individuals. “Doctors never tell you this”, lied the anti-vax lobby. The end result is that, fortuitously, it appears a saliva test could be developed allowing for detection and antiviral therapy before the painful rash appears. All up with rare potential for transmission from about 5% of recipients of a vaccine that’s not widely used it was a non event.

With MMR the lack of viral shedding renders any risk of horizontal transmission in this manner null and void. If challenged with the claim of “vaccine shedding” specific to Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccination you’re being misled.

Peak shedding of Rotavirus occurs on “post-vaccination days 6 through 8″. Published in The Lancet Rotavirus vaccines: viral shedding and risk of transmission, notes:

Immunocompromised contacts should be advised to avoid contact with stool from the immunised child if possible, particularly after the first vaccine dose for at least 14 days. Since the risk of vaccine transmission and subsequent vaccine-derived disease with the current vaccines is much less than the risk of wild type rotavirus disease in immunocompromised contacts, vaccination should be encouraged.

The “vaccine shedding” bogeyman got a free kick with the FluMist LAIV vaccine. You may remember the hype. The spraying of “living influenza virus” straight into children’s brains was going to lead to mutation and death on an unprecedented scale. It would genetically revert to the wild type. Transmission would thus be uncontrolled. It would quickly prove useless against changing seasonal strains. ADR’s would rise…. and so on. Ultimately the cost proved to be a deterrent. Mayo Clinic have produced a welcome article on LAIV Myths.

In a comprehensive 2008 study with a sample aged 2 – 49 years, shedding “of short duration and at low titers” was detected in nasal swabs on days 1 – 11. LAIV recipients “should only avoid contact with severely immunocompromised persons for 7 days after vaccination”.

On Shedding and Transmission of Vaccine Viruses, in a larger piece on influenza vaccination of HCP, the CDC write:

One concern regarding use of LAIV among HCP has been the potential for transmitting vaccine virus from persons receiving vaccine to nonimmune patients at high risk. Available data indicate that children and adults vaccinated with LAIV can shed vaccine viruses for >2 days after vaccination, although in lower titers than typically occur with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses. Shedding should not be equated with person-to-person transmission of vaccine viruses, although transmission of shed vaccine viruses from vaccinated persons to nonvaccinated persons has been documented in rare instances among children in a day care center.

One study conducted in a child care center assessed transmissibility of vaccine viruses from 98 vaccinated persons to 99 unvaccinated controls aged 8–36 months; 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains (mean duration: 7.6 days). [....] The estimated probability of acquiring vaccine virus after close contact with a single LAIV recipient in this child care population was 0.6%–2.4%.

It was also documented that should HIV positive children be exposed to LAIV shedding, “… serious adverse outcomes would not be expected to occur frequently”. So the combination of live virus shedding and immune deficiency in the case of LAIV presents low risk. Certainly the overall risk associated with the rare transmission following shedding after LAIV is insignificant given the risk of regular influenza virus transmission.

We’re running out of dramatic scenarios for the antivaccination lobby to cling to. With polio the wild virus replicates in the intestine and is shed in stools for up to a month. Transmission in developed nations is thus faecal-oral like other stool shed viral components. It is of course so rare as to be unheard of. However, given that the IOM report into evidence and causality of vaccine adverse effects found a causal link between the oral polio vaccine (OPV) and vaccine associated paralytic polio (or Vaccine Derived Polio Virus), we should seriously consider shedding in areas where this is documented.

In fact the question has been asked if prolonged VDPV shedding could be a source of reintroduction following polio eradication. The more compromised the immune system the more likely the individual is to have problems with vaccine induced immunity. A study looking for VDPV shedding in immune deficient subjects in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire found no cases in a sample of 419, and therefore a “minimal risk of reintroduction [after eradication]“. In respect of general exposure to shedding in these environments transmission of the wild type polio virus eliminates any concern over post vaccination viral shedding. Crowding, sewerage, water quality etc all contribute to wild polio spread in ways that do not apply to the developed world.

Remembering that viral shedding is of paramount concern in the management of immune deficiency and immunocompromise, let’s revisit the Janet R. Serwint, MD of Vaccines in immunocompromised patients. Rather than warn against exposure to immunised children the recommendation is to ensure schedules are up to date and an annual inactivated influenza vaccine is on board. Pay attention to reference to MMR, varicella and rotavirus:

One strategy worth emphasizing is the immunization of household contacts, particularly other children and adolescents in the family. This procedure is essential to try to minimize exposure of the immunocompromised patient to household contacts who might contract vaccine-preventable illnesses. Pediatric health-care clinicians need to update and review the vaccine status of all siblings and pediatric-age household members. Annual influenza vaccination of all family members with inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended in addition to ensuring routine immunization of all other recommended vaccines.

MMR, varicella, and rotavirus vaccines, although live viral vaccines, are recommended for immunocompetent household contacts because transmission of the virus is rare. The lack of viral shedding with MMR eliminates concern regarding transmission. Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves. For the rotavirus vaccine, avoidance of contact with the stools by the immunocompromised patient and good hand hygiene measures by all family members for at least 1 week after vaccination should be implemented.

In conclusion it’s clear that “vaccine shedding” is a nonsense phrase. The lack of accounts of children transmitting viruses to younger siblings and friends after vaccination is a dead giveaway. Whilst viral shedding is a reality we can be confident that:

  • Viral shedding applies only to live virus vaccines and is significantly low, low risk
  • Post vaccination viral shedding of rotavirus and varicella is detected in the stools for 4-6 weeks respectively. It’s of such low risk as to be of cautionary interest regarding immunocompromised individuals
  • Genuine concern about viral shedding in these groups is managed with sound hygiene and avoiding contact with stools
  • In rare cases of post varicella immunisation vesicular rash shedding may occur. Transmission is still unlikely
  • The lack of viral shedding following MMR eliminates any concerns about transmission
  • Claims of DTaP shedding and transmission are bogus
  • Stories about whooping cough transmission from vaccine shedding are demonstrably false
  • Stories of polio infection being a risk due to shedding are designed to scare
  • Antivaccination lobbyists use false and incomplete information about shedding to create fear of vaccines/the vaccinated
  • Shedding of LAIV is at markedly low concentration, short duration and transmission is dwarfed by seasonal influenza transmission
  • Accurate information about the topic is drowned out by antivaccination sites and “mothering” forums making inaccurate claims
About these ads

About @advodiaboli
I'm not really a cast iron flying pig.

26 Responses to “Vaccine Shedding”: Time Up For Another Vaccine Myth

  1. “Accurate information about the topic is drowned out by antivaccination sites and “mothering” forums making inaccurate claims”
    Sadly true for all vaccination info.Janak’s a self-referential idiot: Ask her to back up her claims and she’ll refer you to half-a-dozen badly-written posts on her own blog, all of which merely repeat the same old nonsense ad nauseam.

    • Carol Wallace says:

      So funny that you would think shedding is not true. Go to both government sites and pharma sites to the actual information on the vaccine. In the literature PROVIDED BY THESE SITES, it states there is shedding of the live virus FROM THE VACCINATED INDIVIDUAL. The MMR vaccine from Merck states that “Excretion of small amounts of the live attenuated rubella virus from the nose or throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7 to 28 days after vaccination.” Therefore, you are saying the government and pharma are lying ? This is their actual documentation.

      • @advodiaboli says:

        As I highlight in the article the issue is transmission Carol. So, what’s the risk of transmission?

        This is where peddling misinformation from the anti-vaccine lobby, indicates the lengths some will go to. No wonder you didn’t provide the URL.

        Lets review the full paragraph from which you’ve selectively quoted.

        Firstly, it’s referring to patients infected with immunodeficiency viruses. Your sentence opens the paragraph. The bold is mine.

        Excretion of small amounts of the live attenuated rubella virus from the nose or throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7-28 days after vaccination. There is no confirmed evidence to indicate that such virus is transmitted to susceptible persons who are in contact with the vaccinated individuals. Consequently, transmission through close personal contact, while accepted as a theoretical possibility, is not regarded as a significant risk. However, transmission of the rubella vaccine virus to infants via breast milk has been documented (see Nursing Mothers).

        There are no reports of transmission of live attenuated measles virus from vaccinees to susceptible contacts.

        http://www.rxlist.com/m-r-vax-ii-drug/warnings-precautions.htm

        I’m glad you commented because whether through deception, confusion or monumental cognitive bias you could not be more in error.

      • It is not for me, or anyone else, to verify your claim; the burden is on you to prove it. However, it’s quite easy to show your information is false.

        The same vaccine is used worldwide.

        There is no mention of vaccine shedding for MMR on the CDC site. The NCIRS site specifically states the child is not infectious after vaccination http://www.ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/education/mmr-decision/faq-about.php, as does the NHS http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-vaccine.aspx

        Shall I continue, or will you apologise and retract your nonsense?

      • sullivanthepoop says:

        Why would Merck lie to their consumers and say a majority when it is 2% and the shedding i so miniscule in those people that they do not even warn you about immune compromised people? Not to mention it is only particles and not even the whole attenuated virus. No one is denying that viruses shed. Did you read the article?

  2. Laura Corby says:

    WOW – Really? Then explain this new article posted by Reuters:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/18/us-smallpox-boy-idUSN1744524120070518

    Toddler survives smallpox vaccine reaction
    By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
    WASHINGTON | Fri May 18, 2007 11:02am EDT

    (Reuters) – A two-year-old boy who developed a serious reaction to his father’s smallpox vaccination has recovered but disease detectives found infectious virus all over his house, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Thursday.

    The Indiana toddler developed a rare rash known as eczema vaccinatum after playing with his father, a soldier vaccinated for deployment in Iraq, reported Dr. John Marcinak of the University of Chicago and CDC experts.

    Experimental treatments helped the child, but the CDC said the incident showed that care must be taken by people who receive the smallpox vaccine.

    It was the first case of eczema vaccinatum reported in the United States since 1988, the CDC said. The child was hospitalized for 48 days but should suffer no long-term consequences other than possible scarring, said the report, published in the CDC’s weekly report on death and disease.

    Pox viruses can survive on inanimate objects so experts tested the family’s home.

    “Multiple swab samples obtained from the home (e.g., from a bathroom washcloth, a slipper, a toy drum, a night stand, a booster seat, and an ointment container) and from items brought to the child’s hospital room (e.g., an infant drinking cup and a car seat) were positive for vaccinia virus DNA,” the researchers wrote.

    They steam-cleaned the home and washed clothing and linens after an acid pre-treatment.

    The World Health Organization declared smallpox eradicated in 1979. The U.S. government reinstated smallpox vaccination for military personnel and selected healthcare workers because of fears the virus could be used in a biological attack.

    “The U.S. Department of Defense had vaccinated approximately 1.2 million persons as of March 2007,” the report reads.

    The smallpox vaccine uses a related and usually harmless virus called vaccinia. It is scratched into the skin and forms a pustule that scabs over and falls off.

    People with eczema and immune conditions can develop a serious reaction if they are vaccinated or come into contact with the blisters of a vaccinated person.

    The soldier received the vaccine even though he had a history of skin allergies.

    “His deployment was delayed, so he made an unplanned visit home to visit his family in Indiana,” the report reads. “His routine activities with his son included hugging, wrestling, sleeping, and bathing.”

    The child developed a rash and later severe illness. After a week of experimental treatments he began to get better.

    The treatments included an antiviral drug made by Siga Technologies Inc., vaccinia immune globulin and the antiviral drug cidofovir, made by Gilead Sciences Inc..

    The child’s mother also had a rash, which went away after she got immune globulin, a treatment made from the blood of vaccinated people.

    On Thursday a panel of FDA advisers recommended approval of a new smallpox vaccine made by Acambis Plc that is designed to be safer than the old vaccine.

    • Admin says:

      Excellent point Laura.

      This first case of EV (eczema vaccinatum) in 23 years and in the case of an immunocompromised (allergy prone) patient shows up how huge the myth is that “vaccine shedding” is supposedly, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”.
      I note the article’s author nor commenters don’t not use the term “vaccine shedding”.
      As I point out “Viral shedding itself is by no means ignored by the medical community. It’s of primary concern in the management of immune compromised patients, pregnant women and newborns.”
      Which is exactly the case here, underscoring how seriously conventional medicine takes viral shedding, and just how misguided the notion of passing on (in this case smallpox) a virus actually is.
      Note the dynamic contributing to viral passage:
      “His deployment was delayed, so he made an unplanned visit home to visit his family in Indiana,” the report reads. “His routine activities with his son included hugging, wrestling, sleeping, and bathing.”
      The article states:
      People with eczema and immune conditions can develop a serious reaction if they are vaccinated or come into contact with the blisters of a vaccinated person.
      And The soldier received the vaccine even though he had a history of skin allergies.

      That this is the first case in 23 years – only after gross negligence on the part of the soldier in visiting his family – highlights how rare post vaccination viral shedding actually is.
      Regrettably this chap received the vaccine despite a history of allergies (he should not have) then foolishly placed his child at risk.

      It also brings home how important vaccination is. If this were varicella and vaccination wasn’t available, 95% of unvaccinated people in a room with a chicken pox case would come down with the disease.
      Fortunately the mother received immune globulin negating any vaccinia effect. Saved by vaccine science.

      And:
      The child developed a rash and later severe illness. After a week of experimental treatments he began to get better.
      The treatments included an antiviral drug made by Siga Technologies Inc., vaccinia immune globulin and the antiviral drug cidofovir, made by Gilead Sciences Inc..
      Saved by vaccine science.
      So we have:

        No transmission of the condition vaccinated against as it is vaccinia not smallpox
        The first case in 23 years of EV and this required a unique chain of events
        A case of viral shedding occurring as expected in a soldier with a history of skin allergies
        The soldier arguably not disclosing his medical history
        The soldier ignoring post vaccination advice and coming into contact with a small baby
        Not a hint of “vaccine shedding” to be seen
        Immune globulin protecting the mother – “a treatment made from the blood of vaccinated people.”
        A text book case of what the medical community warns about with immunocompromised, pregnant women and small babies
        1.2 million persons vaccinated with vaccinia and only this obscure case – a triumph of vaccine success
        Nothing to support the myth of “vaccine shedding”
        Even less to support “vaccine shedding” as endangering children who don’t vaccinate.

      All up it is a tremendous reinforcement of how bizarre antivaccination arguments are that people recently vaccinated can “shed” a vaccine.

      Thanks for highlighting the madness of “vaccine shedding” myths.

      • naturalmamanz says:

        I’m confused, you emphatically state that vaccine shedding is a myth, but in the same breath admit to multiple cases of vaccine shedding in your post. The denial in you is strong. Also, measles vaccine shedding is very much true, as it is for the other live vaccines. You’re an absolute nut.

        Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients
        PAUL A. ROTA, et al. J CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, Sept. 1995, p. 2485–2488 Vol. 33, No. 9
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228449/pdf/332485.pdf
        Overall, measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period. In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after vaccination. Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination. This assay will enable continued studies of the shedding and transmission of measles virus and, it is hoped, will provide a rapid means to identify measles infection, especially in mild or asymptomatic cases.

      • @advodiaboli says:

        Except you refer to “Measles Virus RNA”, found in urine. I’m underscoring the fact that it is a nonsensical myth that when Person A is vaccinated for measles they can shed live measles virus and infect other (unvaccinated) people.

        Indeed you show this yourself by copy/pasting from the PDF:

        Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination. This assay will enable continued studies of the shedding and transmission of measles virus and, it is hoped, will provide a rapid means to identify measles infection, especially in mild or asymptomatic cases.

        Nothing there refers to the potential viral shedding as originating from MMR or measles monovalent vaccine. A nucleic acid specific to proteins in the measles virus has been found in urine. This doesn’t indicate shedding of the measles virus or transmission of the virus. As Janet R. Serwint, MD of Vaccines in immunocompromised patients. notes:

        The lack of viral shedding with MMR eliminates concern regarding transmission.

    • Admin says:

      I should also note Laura, you wrote – “WOW – Really? Then explain this new article posted by Reuters:”

      The article is 4 1/2 years old. May 18 2007.

      And you also published the date. Um…

    • Admin says:

      Excellent point Rachel.

      This first case of EV (eczema vaccinatum) in 23 years and in the case of an immunocompromised (allergy prone) patient shows up how huge the myth is that “vaccine shedding” is supposedly, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”.
      I note the article’s author nor commenters don’t not use the term “vaccine shedding”.
      As I point out “Viral shedding itself is by no means ignored by the medical community. It’s of primary concern in the management of immune compromised patients, pregnant women and newborns.”
      Which is exactly the case here, underscoring how seriously conventional medicine takes viral shedding, and just how misguided the notion of passing on (in this case smallpox) a virus actually is.
      Note the dynamic contributing to viral passage:
      “His deployment was delayed, so he made an unplanned visit home to visit his family in Indiana,” the report reads. “His routine activities with his son included hugging, wrestling, sleeping, and bathing.”
      The article states:
      People with eczema and immune conditions can develop a serious reaction if they are vaccinated or come into contact with the blisters of a vaccinated person.
      And The soldier received the vaccine even though he had a history of skin allergies.

      That this is the first case in 23 years – only after gross negligence on the part of the soldier in visiting his family – highlights how rare post vaccination viral shedding actually is.
      Regrettably this chap received the vaccine despite a history of allergies (he should not have) then foolishly placed his child at risk.

      It also brings home how important vaccination is. If this were varicella and vaccination wasn’t available, 95% of unvaccinated people in a room with a chicken pox case would come down with the disease.
      Fortunately the mother received immune globulin negating any vaccinia effect. Saved by vaccine science.

      And:
      The child developed a rash and later severe illness. After a week of experimental treatments he began to get better.
      The treatments included an antiviral drug made by Siga Technologies Inc., vaccinia immune globulin and the antiviral drug cidofovir, made by Gilead Sciences Inc..
      Saved by vaccine science.
      So we have:

        No transmission of the condition vaccinated against as it is vaccinia not smallpox
        The first case in 23 years of EV and this required a unique chain of events
        A case of viral shedding occurring as expected in a soldier with a history of skin allergies
        The soldier arguably not disclosing his medical history
        The soldier ignoring post vaccination advice and coming into contact with a small baby
        Not a hint of “vaccine shedding” to be seen
        Immune globulin protecting the mother – “a treatment made from the blood of vaccinated people.”
        A text book case of what the medical community warns about with immunocompromised, pregnant women and small babies
        1.2 million persons vaccinated with vaccinia and only this obscure case – a triumph of vaccine success
        Nothing to support the myth of “vaccine shedding”
        Even less to support “vaccine shedding” as endangering children who don’t vaccinate.

      All up it is a tremendous reinforcement of how bizarre antivaccination arguments are that people recently vaccinated can “shed” a vaccine.

      Thanks for highlighting the madness of “vaccine shedding” myths.

  3. Pingback: Link Dump: Snappy Answers to Stupid Vaccine Questions « Lstrblg

  4. David Harmon says:

    Thank you for this… I recently ran into this idea of “vaccine shedding” and everything online seems to give it credence. It sounded like just another attempt at someone trying to reinforce their unsubstantiated ideas. I prefer facts over scary stories.

  5. me says:

    I just want to point out that some people have lost their damn minds……. that is all.

  6. Dayna says:

    Perhaps you should read the following document (http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/trs/areas/vaccines/acellular_pertussis/WHO_TRS_878_A2.pdf) that states there is “an acceptable amount of active residual pertussis toxin” according to pertussis vaccine production standards. Active residual Toxin means its NOT a dead virus. This is the standard as set out by the WHO. It appears your rant is not very accurate.

    • @advodiaboli says:

      Hi Danya.

      Thanks for highlighting a regular anti-vaccination theme used in disinformation. The pertussis vaccine is made by inactivating various isolates of the pertussis toxin. Usually between three and five. The inactivated toxins are known as toxoids.

      When injected, the immune system recognises these toxoids just as if they were toxins. So the vaccine elicits an immune response suitable to manage future exposure to toxin following exposure only to inactivated (killed) variations.

      I’m disappointed that from pages and pages outlining the strict manufacturing guidelines, process and GMP you chose only 8 words presented out of context. Under Tests undertaken after detoxification/chemical treatment on page 64 we read:

      Residual Activity of pertussis toxin. “The amount of residual biologically active pertussis toxin in the individually or co-purified antigens should be estimated after detoxification by means of a sufficiently sensitive test, for example the CHO-cell test. When diluted to vaccine strength the total amount of residual pertussis toxin from all pertussis antigens should not exceed that found in vaccine lots shown to be safe in clinical trials and approved by the national control authority”.

      There is extensive consideration given to safety and purity of all compounds and reagents used in manufacture. The potential for changes in toxicity whilst in storage is met with strict guidelines demanding ongoing testing, meeting the criteria of each national control authority and that, “it is essential that research to identify immunological markers of protection against pertussis be actively supported and pursued and that there be rigorous post licensing monitoring of vaccines for safety and effectiveness”. [page 58]

      Section: 2.3.6. [page 66] again repeats:

      “Each final bulk of vaccine should be tested for the presence of active pertussis toxin using a sufficiently sensitive histamine sensitization test. The acceptable amount of active residual pertussis toxin in the final bulk when diluted to vaccine strength should meet the specification approved by the national control authority on the basis of vaccine lots shown to be safe in clinical trials”.

      Above in bold we have the source of your 8 words – albeit only 7 are correct. Nothing in that paper challenges my post and nor did it state – as you claim – “there is an acceptable amount…”. It clearly states that residual pertussis toxin is only acceptable if it meets approved national specifications, that are themselves derived from the demonstration of safety in clinical trials.

      You are in fact, in startling error.

      I appreciate the opportunity to highlight (or should that be “rant”) how disinformation is spread by what is the scurrilous abuse of existing material.

      Many thanks.

  7. Mariaeleana Perkins says:

    If you want real facts about vaccinations you need to read the manufacturer guidelines and specs. The CDC and AMA do n ot follow the guidelines set forth by the manufacturers.

    Also a point of interest in the vaccine debate. As your child is preparing to get a vaccine, you the parent are handed a flyer preprinted in bulk either by the dr. office or the local medical facility. It describes what the vaccine is and the possible side effects to the vaccine. The person administering the vax will ask if you have any questions. You ask about the possible reactions and are told it’s nothing really, you have nothing to worry about. The child receives the vaccine and as you leave the office you are told that is any unusual symptoms develop in the next 48-72 hrs to call the dr. office. 2 days later you call to say that your child just had a vaccine and is running a fever. You get into the office to see the dr. and the 1st thing you are told is that he/she doesn’t know what it is but it had nothing to do with the vaccine. Been there, done that. That’s how I know. And NEVER, EVER is a vaccine supposed to be administered on a child that has a sneeze, sniffle or low-grade fever. But I know for a fact that drs. do it anyway. My grandson was sick and got vaccines then he got worse. I told my son to wait a year before getting anymore vaccines because we don’t know if he got worse because he was sick to begin with or he got worse because he had a vaccine reaction. Stupid dr. She could have killed him.

    Lastly, ask around when you see people with a disable child. A good number will tell you that the child was perfectly normal til she/he got vaccines.

    • @advodiaboli says:

      Stunning burst of conspiratorial nonsense Marlaeleana.

      “Lastly, ask around when you see people with a disable (sic) child. A good number will tell you that the child was perfectly normal til she/he got vaccines.” Really? Having worked with disabled clients most of my life, I find that markedly in error. What is “a good number”?

      You’re quite right in (unwittingly) pointing out a simple child fever and nasal discharge is unrelated to vaccination. Your grandson “got worse” because the illness he already had progressed – not because he received a vaccine. Wait a year? And your son acquiesced to risking his child’s health based on your reasoning? Sure.

      You could have killed him – not the doctor.

      • Gissela says:

        You should not work with disable kids period. Read the CDC website about vaccine shedding and it totally contradicts your provaccine chanting. It would not surprice me if this site is paid by big pharma. What they are doing is genocide. Just greed.

    • Sullivanthepoop says:

      Your facts are not facts at all. First I was never given any preprinted flyer I was given a huge multifolded paper with a lot of information. Why would a doctor see you if you child just got a vaccine and then gets a fever. They would tell you that is common and to give tylenol and extra fluids. Also, most vaccine are not contraindicated for a child that is sick unless they are severely ill or have influenza because influenza leaves you immune compromised for the duration of the infection and some time after. If there is no fever over 101 C all vaccines can be given.

  8. Maddy says:

    With regards to “So, in Cynthia’s mind “vaccine shedding” is, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”. Wrong. And it’s true for whooping cough. Impossible. “, I’m somewhat surprised you haven’t pointed out that it’s impossible at the very least because whooping cough is not caused by a virus but by a bacterium.

  9. lee says:

    Rotavirus vaccines: viral shedding and risk of transmission.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18922486

    • @advodiaboli says:

      Thanks lee.

      From the Abstract you provide:

      Since the risk of vaccine transmission and subsequent vaccine-derived disease with the current vaccines is much less than the risk of wildtype rotavirus disease in immunocompromised contacts, vaccination should be encouraged.

      In short – get vaccinated.

  10. Pingback: Thanks for nothing, Gianelloni Family. | vaxplanations

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 250 other followers

%d bloggers like this: