Janet writes:
Dear Dr. Griffin,
from CIDRAP:
The question is, what about the pertussis vaccine which was included in the DPT booster? I think you said that it actually wanes before the 10 years is up.
as ever,
Janet
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Jessica writes:
Hi Dr. Griffin,
What is the ideal timing of vaccines in the third trimester of pregnancy?
I’m currently pregnant with my first child, due in late October.
1. Tdap: My OB typically gives the Tdap vaccine at 28 weeks, which would be in early August for me. They also recommend that all caretakers (such as the baby’s father and grandparents) receive a Tdap booster. Does it matter when they get it as long as it’s at least 2 weeks before interacting with the baby (to allow time for antibodies to form)?
2. RSV: My OB says the RSV vaccine can only be given between 32-36 weeks, from October through February. At the beginning of October, I will be just beyond 36 weeks, so I might just barely not be eligible. However, if I have the choice, am I better off getting the RSV vaccine and transferring maternal antibodies to the baby, or waiting until the baby is born and giving them Nirsevimab?
3. COVID: I’d like to get Novavax this fall, but I’m not sure if I’ll be allowed to under the new rules, since I have no underlying conditions other than pregnancy. (I got Novavax last year, and it was much better than the week-long reaction that I get from Pfizer or Moderna.) If I’m allowed to get Novavax, what would be the recommended timing? Should I wait until a new booster formulation comes out?
4: Flu: Should I wait to get the flu shot until October to maximize protection for both myself and the baby? Or should I get it earlier in case the baby is born early? (As I understand, it takes 2 weeks for me to develop antibodies and pass them to the baby.)
If I’m eligible for all four vaccines (Tdap, RSV, COVID, flu), do any of them need to be spaced out from each other for effectiveness?
Thanks,
Jessica
Eric writes:
Dear Doctor Griffin:
During last week’s episode, you discussed a lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy filed by six organizations and a pregnant doctor who is at risk of being unable to get a COVID-19 booster based on new vaccine recommendations Secretary Kennedy has unilaterally made. As a longtime listener who had his professional and personal queries about infectious diseases answered on-air by Dr. Griffin on three separate occasions, I was delighted for the opportunity to return the favor in some small way when he sought advice from any listeners who are attorneys like myself to help explain the potential outcomes of the suit.
The lawsuit filed in the Federal District Court for Massachusetts, is civil in nature and seeks to vacate (i.e., overrule) the actions by the Secretary and several other senior health officials that removed the COVID-19 vaccine from the CDC immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women. If the plaintiffs prevail, the Court would find that the actions by the named officials were arbitrary and capricious and therefore unlawful, thereby leaving the previous CDC vaccine schedule in place which recommends boosters for healthy children and pregnant women.
———-
Off-air notes as background
Link to the suit itself as the source for the above analysis:
https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/FiledSuit.pdf
FYI-Analysis of the topic of perjury that was also briefly discussed
Perjury before Congress would be a criminal charge and would typically involve a referral by a member of Congress or committee of Congress to the U.S. Justice Department. Referrals are non-binding recommendations to the Justice Department to look into the matter, which DOJ can choose to take up or ignore since Congress has no power to prosecute or act outside their legislative capacity.
The Justice Department would then have to decide to take up the matter and seek a criminal indictment of the official by a federal grand jury. In order to successfully prosecute someone based about previous testimony they gave regarding their future intentions to not change policy, one would presumably need contemporaneous evidence of their intent to provide false testimony before Congress at the time they delivered it. This might take the form of written evidence of their intent to deceive or witness testimony corroborating an admission of their intent to deceive since their state of mind at the time is an element of the crime of perjury rather than whether the policy or their perspective changed after the testimony was delivered.
The listener is both a former state prosecutor and former federal employee working on justice and pandemic influenza matters under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Tony writes:
I have greatly appreciated all the useful information provided over the last several years during these “challenging” times.
I felt the need to provide a correction to the recent discussion of the possibility that the adjuvant used for the Shingrix shingles vaccine and the Arexvy RSV vaccine. Both use the AS01 adjuvant which does not contain Alum/Aluminum. In fact, AS01 is a lipid mixture forming micelles/lipid nanoparticles that have intrinsic innate immunity stimulating properties that enhance the effectiveness of the protein antigens in these vaccines.
I appreciate that RFK, Jr. has made a big stink about Al in vaccines being a great hazard despite the decades of evidence to the contrary. Although he should not be able to use that track, I have no doubt that he could up with another crackpot hypothesis that would similarly attack such lipid adjuvants using his Dunning-Krueger genius.
In addition, these are two more of the many “single antigen” vaccines that have proven to be effective despite this other trope of his.
I might also add that there is an adjuvanted flu vaccine used in the US, at least for geezers like me (77 yr). That has been the vaccine I have gotten the last three years.
Tony
Point Richmond, CA
David writes:
Dear Dr. Grifiin,
In the “attack on science” section of TWiV 1230, you mentioned a citation by a dubious June 24-25 ACIP presenter, Lyn Redwood, who referenced a thimerosal study by Dr. Robert F. Berman. She implied Berman’s study found “long-term consequences in the brain” from thimerosal. A simple online search reveals what a gross misrepresentation – as you pointed out – this was. Dr. Berman, in Toxicological Sciences, Vol. 101, Issue 2, February 2008, is co-author of, ” Low-level Neonatal Thimerosal Exposure: Further Evaluation of Altered Neurotoxic Potential in SJL Mice.”
The last sentence of the article’s abstract says it all: ” … the present results do not indicate pervasive developmental neurotoxicity following vaccine-level thimerosal injections in SJL mice, and provide little if any support for the hypothesis that thimerosal exposure contributes to the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders.” (See link below.)
I’m deeply disturbed by the cruel arrogance and ignorance that has hijacked our government, institutions and media. I’m grateful that you and Dr. Racaniello are doing what you can to fend off the attacks on medical science. I hope to live long enough to see truth regain its predominance in our national conscience.
“Every time we tell a lie, the thing we fear grows stronger.” – Author Tad Williams.
Let us be the ones growing stronger.
Sincerely,
David, Portland, Oregon
https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-abstract/101/2/294/1639725