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

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.