This 2006 publication by two researchers from the University of Padua is interesting, "Antibodies to tetanus toxin in workers exposed to risk"
"The aim of the work was to verify the need for the ten-year recall, evaluating the antibody titer, in subjects professionally exposed to risk, in relation to age, sex, number of doses and the time interval elapsed since last dose "
Doubts about the ten-year recalls arise from the evidence (EVIDENCE) that in case of antibody titer at protective levels, a vaccination reinforcement could cause serious side effects (4).
The results show that, after the primary cycle, the antibody titer remains elevated for a period certainly greater than 10 years and that it is influenced by age, but not by gender, by the number of doses or by the interval since the last dose.
In conclusion, we agree that (10) despite the supposed decline of the antibody titer with age, subjects appear to be protected for life. Each recall increases the probability of sensitization to further doses and of serious adverse reactions. INCREASES THE PROBABILITY OF SERIOUS ADVERSE REACTIONS.
To reduce the risk of hyperimmunization, the application of rapid diagnostic tests to assess the subject's immune status should be encouraged. "
Therefore, in this study, clear reference is made (because it is an objective acquired data) to the probability of hyperimmunization from tetanus anatoxin, and also serious reactions deriving from it. This is talking about healthy adults, workers at risk. There is some doubt that systematically revaccinating (even when speaking of categories considered at risk!) Is not a good health strategy. For workers at risk, therefore, an antibody assessment is recommended before proceeding with unnecessary and dangerous recalls.
And for children?
For children no. For children who have already undergone an entire primary cycle of tetanus vaccination, the Ministry of Health has decided, a priori, that to comply with the obligation of vaccination for diphtheria and pertussis, the entire basic cycle of tetanus must be repeated. .
The anti-tetanus vaccination is indifferent to today from the anti-dipteric and anti-peroxide, since the pharmaceutical companies do not produce individual anti-dipteric and anti-pertussis vaccines.
So, to deal with this problem, the pharmaceutical companies were asked to ... ah no, sorry, they forced the children to face further unnecessary and probably harmful cycles of tetanus!
The pharmaceutical companies obviously have their production problems, it is not convenient for them to develop single vaccines, to do research in this sense is probably outside their interest ... therefore the Ministry of Health, to protect the health ... ah no sorry , to get this "problem" out of the way, he has well thought to cheerfully overlook the possible (and probable) consequences on the health of the children and force them to undergo up to 6 injections of tetanus in place of the 3 foreseen.
In fact, within the indications for the recovery of defective children, we find, in the table dedicated to partially vaccinated, the following:
- Already immunized for: Tetanus
- SE older than 7 years: Vaccinate as per table 1 as if the subject had not been vaccinated
- IF less than 7 years: Vaccinate as per table 1 as if the subject had not been vaccinated
NOTES: It is necessary to repeat the anti-tetanus vaccination because there are no suitable formulations without the tetanic component.
I got it? it is necessary because there are no other formulations ...
These are also the effects of a retroactive law that did not take into account any of the complications deriving from bringing those who had benefited from a "free" vaccination calendar into order.
In Veneto, many families had taken advantage of the possibility of administering only the single tetanus vaccine in place of the DTPa. And therefore there are many families who by law they would now be forced to put the health of their children at risk (a concrete risk of which we have scientific literature, not a novax idea, but real scientific evidence).
We therefore ask: are you really thinking about protecting people's health, or are you simply complying with a bureaucratic obligation by passing over the scientific evaluation of a risk-benefit relationship?
Where does the concept of "evidence-based" so dear to the well-known trumpeters of television truths go?
And there's more!
As far as the health of children is particularly dear to us - also in relation to the fact that, to date, they are the only ones who are uniformly obliged to undergo health treatment - we must consider that the absence of diphtheria and pertussis vaccines in single solution it also exposes adults to unnecessary calls for tetanus: the vaccination calendar foreseen by the PNPV 2017/2019 in fact provides for the decennial default recall with this trivalent formulation (dTpa - Diphtheria - Tetanus - Acellular pertussis). In spite of any precautionary principle, the health of individuals is put at risk, in the name of sacred "group immunity".
But ... is group immunity a concept applicable to DTPa (or dTpa) vaccination?
- Tetanus is a non-contagious infectious disease: no flock effect or group immunity.
- Vaccination antidifterica is made with the attenuated toxin, which protects the vaccinated from the intrinsic toxicity of the toxin itself but does not stop the spread of the germ: IT DOES NOT PROVIDE "raw effect" (the antidipteric vaccination is done with the inactivated toxin and is used to prevent complications, not to fight the spread of the disease)
- For pertussis vaccination, primate studies have shown that acellular vaccines (those currently in use) do not prevent airway colonization or disease transmission. This is also evidenced by the reality of the facts, with the example of Germany which sees an average of 2014 cases of pertussis per year from 2017 to 11.000, with DTP1 vaccination coverage (first dose of diphritis-tetanus-pertussis vaccine) over 99% and 3% DTP95 (third dose of the same vaccine).
ERGO: someone should explain, scientific evidence in hand, why we prefer to resort to indiscriminate mass vaccination rather than evaluating the individual case and individual subject. Are we talking about health? Or are we now in another field of interest? To you the conclusions.