I felt compelled to respond to C.A. Archibald’s letter in the April 12 edition.
The letter stated that “whooping cough infections are more common among children already vaccinated against whooping cough than unvaccinated children” and went on to say people should “do their own research” when it comes to vaccinations.
I agree that individuals should do their own research. However, interpreting data correctly is important.
Indeed, immunity to some illnesses via vaccination does wane over time. Tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) are two such illnesses. What was not stated in the letter is that in some cases, both natural and acquired immunity wane over time. Whether or not an illness is acquired by natural or medical means, the body’s immune system may naturally “forget” the illness and thus immunity wanes. Booster shots helps the body to “remember” the virus associated with the illness and thus provides continued protection.
In reference to the statement that “whooping cough infections are more common among children already vaccinated,” this is untrue.
If one were to call up the Reuters article referenced, one would read that the contributing physician does agree that the pertussis vaccination protection wanes over time, but there is no mention of the relationship of vaccination to infection.
The physician states that cases of pertussis have peaked in individuals in their pre-teens as this is when the immunity from the initial childhood vaccination wanes.
This is approximately the age of recommendation for the pertussis booster shot to provide continual immunity.
The letter writer wrote that Dr. Ward, from the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, tempers his advice to get vaccinated by quoting “it doesn’t provide lasting protection from whooping cough.” The full quote from the article states: “it’s still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn’t provide lasting protection from whooping cough. The disease has diminished markedly with the use of it. The benefit has been enormous.”
As a medical professional, I support vaccinations to help the population be safe and healthy. However, I understand the need for individuals to do their own research and make their own decisions. Interpreting the data correctly is important in order to make well-informed decisions.
Jody Vandusen, BSN student
Missed point about booster shots
Letter writer C.A. Archibald aims to set the public straight on vaccination. However there are good reasons to question the claims made in his letter.
To begin with, Mr. Archibald misreads, misinterprets, and misquotes a Reuter’s newspaper article reporting on a whooping cough study led by Dr. David Witt.
Mr. Archibald makes it sound like Dr. Witt’s study suggests we stop vaccinating for whooping cough, when in fact Dr. Witt is obviously pro-vaccination, suggesting that children get a booster for whooping cough even earlier than currently recommended.
Mr. Archibald also only partially quotes Dr. Joel Ward from the same Reuter’s article. Mr. Archibald quotes Dr. Ward as saying vaccination “doesn’t provide lasting protection from whooping cough.” However, Dr. Ward said “it’s still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn’t provide lasting protection from whooping cough. The disease has diminished markedly with the use of it. The benefit has been enormous.”
It’s unfortunate that the very two researchers that Mr. Archibald chose to try to support his arguments don’t agree at all with his unsubstantiated opinions.
Mr. Archibald ends his letter with advice to parents to “do their own research and make up their own minds about the pros and cons of vaccines.” My advice is similar, but with an important caveat – ensure that your research begins with sources that respect, understand and follow the methods of science, such as sciencebasedmedicine.org.
In doing so, all parents will discover that choosing to follow the proper vaccination schedules for themselves and their children is, indeed, a valuable public service.
Greg Payne, North Delta
