"1 in 100 who get pertussis will die" - Page 2

[nukuspot]

I did not vaccinate 2 of my 3 children.  If there was a severe outbreak of pertussis that co-incided with a newborn period, I would cocoon (check my titres, and vax myself if necessary)  and the babe would stay close to home.  I am blessed that I can do this.  If I had to work and the babe had to go to daycare, ride public transport, etc…I would vaccinate the baby in the event of a severe outbreak.  1/100 is too scary for me.

Even though as I mentioned the stat is not 1/100 in this day and age, there is still enough morbidity and mortality associated with infantile pertussis that I totally agree with Kathy.  I did not vaccinate my toddler and will not be vaccinating my newborn (coming in a few months) but that is because I will be cocooning (modified) and will be able to do so.  If I had to put her in daycare, or I lived in a large urban area, or had other risk factors for pertussis exposure, I truly feel that in this case the risks of the vax would not outweigh the benefits and I would do the vaccine, flawed as it may be.  I am privileged that I am able to feel comfortable with the decision (and what I see to be a reasonably low risk for our family) to not vaccinate a newborn for pertussis during an epidemic.

[Louisw]

"Of all the vaccines which have been routinely used by children in the past century, the brain damaging effects of the pertussis (whooping cough) portion of DPT vaccine is among the most well documented in the scientific literature.Created in 1912, the crude pertussis vaccine basically consisted of B. pertussis bacteria killed with heat, preserved with formaldehyde, and injected into children. In the early 1940's, aluminum was added as an adjuvant and later the mercury preservative, thimerosal, was added when pertussis was combined with diphtheria and tetanus vaccines to create DPT. Pertussis vaccine was never studied in large clinical trials before being given to children in the first half of the 20th century or after it was combined into DPT and recommended for mass use by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1947."  Barbara Loe Fisher

The wonderful "Pertussis Vaccine"

It is documented as brain damaging

It is strongly immunosupressive

It spreads pertussis

It shifts pertussis from healthy people who can effectively fight it to babies who cannot

It has never been clinically tested

It has been combined into a toxic "vaccine" soup so it cannot be effectively examined (as if anyone would)

About 85% of those who catch pertussis have received the "pertussis vaccine"

So please tell me again, why are we injecting this poison into our precious flesh and blood?

[nukuspot]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

Rachel you are forgetting the "pertussis vaccine" the mother got did not confer long term immunity from pertussis on her it kept her from contracting the wild pertussis and thus developing immunity to pertussis. What ever "immunity" the mother got was GONE in less than five years. She had NOTHING to pass on.

The brother had the pertussis vaccine which he delivered to his baby sister. Most "vaccines" give you a weak form of the disease. Baby sis could not fight it.

I can't believe I am taking the "pro vax" stance here but as per the CDC MMWR (And I do believe in many things the CDC says as credible, public health based and not in the interest of the individual, true, but credible) natural immunity from having wild pertussis and passive immunity from vaccination for pertussis wear off in the same amount of time.  It is not life long such as other natural immunity is (for example parvovirus, rubella, etc.)  There is not a "one size fits all' approach to disease, each disease needs to be looked at individually.  For a disease like chicken pox, yes, I would take natural immunity over passive any day.  But with pertussis it seems like our immunity slowly wears off over time no matter if it is passive or actively gotten.  And (hold on to your hats) for some diseases (like tetanus) the passive immunity from the vaccine (good for about 10 years) is actually preferable to getting a case of tetanus, which offers one no ongoing immunity afterwards.  And if anyone is interested, I also researched why this is the case for the tetanus vaccine, but I think it's not really relevant to explain the whole thing here.

[nukuspot]

Louis, the DPT is not used in the USA anymore.  It gets on my nerves when people (not only you, but many, many anti-vaxxers) quote all these stats from the DPT vaccine and somehow think it transfers to the DTaP.

No-one denies that the DPT was very, very reactive.  That is why the powers that be reluctantly changed it for the (less effective but much less reactive) DTaP.

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

So please tell me again, why are we injecting this poison into our precious flesh and blood?

The "pertussis vaccine" is extremely immunosupressive; it brings down your immune system. Our wonderful "health authorities" are recommending we get close to a dozen doses over our lifetimes.  The "pertussis vaccine" was developed just before WWI and the famous Pandemic of 1918 where immunosupression was a BIG issue. They have plans for a LOT more of this poison going into your body.

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by nukuspot 

No-one denies that the DPT was very, very reactive.  That is why the powers that be reluctantly changed it for the (less effective but much less reactive) DTaP.

So what does the P in DTaP stand for if I may ask.

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by nukuspot 

But with pertussis it seems like our immunity slowly wears off over time no matter if it is passive or actively gotten.

There is NO long term  immunity from the "pertussis vaccine". There are antibodies which help to some extent in fighting pertussis short term but these antibodies are GONE in three years.

Why do we get "booster shot" after "booster shot" of one of the worst immunosupressive garbages on the MARKET..

[purplerose]

pertussis...

[nukuspot]

Are you seriously questioning my intelligence?  I think you know this, if not, I am very, very worried about your website/credibility. 

DTP=contained whole cell pertussis (very reactive, caused many neurological side effects in children)

DTaP=contains acellular pertussis ( A non whole cell formulation of pertussis, broken cell walls, much less reactive, much less effective as far as immunity)

*NOT THE SAME THING*

[nukuspot]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

There is NO long term  immunity from the "pertussis vaccine". There are antibodies which help to some extent in fighting pertussis short term but these antibodies are GONE in three years.

Why do we get "booster shot" after "booster shot" of one of the worst immunosupressive garbage on the MARKET..

Yes, we at last agree on something.  3 years is what it seems like for each dose of DTaP or Tdap to last (for the pertussis component).  For natural immunity to pertussis it is about 5-10 years, which was the same as the old whole cell pertussis form (DTP) that is no longer used in the USA.

[nukuspot]

Sorry, DPT not DTP. 

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by nukuspot 

So please, anyone who reads this now, or in the future, please do not think that all non-vaxxers are on some high and mighty head trip and we think our kids are somehow superior because we made this choice. 

Sorry perhaps I over spoke. I'll try to downplay the histrionics.

Can I say histrionics?

LOL

[Louisw]

Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak

Background Despite widespread childhood vaccination against Bordetella pertussis, disease remains prevalent. It has been suggested that acellular vaccine may be less effective than previously believed. During a large outbreak, we examined the incidence of pertussis and effectiveness of vaccination in a well-vaccinated, well-defined community.

Conclusions Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from age 8 through 12, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine. Stable rates of testing ruled out selection bias. The possibility of earlier or more numerous booster doses of acellular pertussis vaccine either as part of routine immunization or for outbreak control should be entertained.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/cid.cis287

So here comes the pitch for injecting us ALL with more of the proven worthless pertussis poison.

My guess is they want to bring back "the more effective pertussis vaccine" you know the one developed by the Rockefeller clan for the 1918 pandemic. They will probably settle for more injections into our pincushion kids and any one else foolish to take their poison needle.

Funny they do not mention that 85% of those coming down with pertussis have received the "pertussis vaccine". Oh well you cannot notice everything.

[littlec]

I can't even remember the original poster's point, but regarding pertussis, I found this website the other day. Reading all these articles back to back, I don't know, it really seems that the vaccine is pretty ineffective.

http://www.dailypaul.com/167931/a-collection-of-mainstream-news-reports-and-studies-exploding-the-whooping-cough-vaccine-myth

*i don't know anything about the dailypaul site, I'm just posting because of the articles it linked.

[Louisw]

When 85% of us who get pertussis have been "vaccinated" for it why get MORE. MOTHERS put your foot down.
 

"There are only a handful of deaths attributed to whooping cough in the United States each year, and most of those are infants––some of whom are too young to get the vaccine. So why is the CDC now pushing for every person to be immunized [sic.] in infancy and then receive five more booster vaccinations as they advance into adulthood and old age? You have almost no chance of getting whooping cough as an infant, and you have even less chance as an adult.”     Doctor William Douglass MD, Note This quote was from before the "pertussis vaccine" shifted about 22% of the cases to the less defended more at risk infants. MANY studies have shown this "vaccine" is near worthless LONG TERM at preventing the disease in the US and MANY countries have banned it. IMO what the CDC et al are doing is suppressing the immune systems of our helpless infants and the rest of us too, pure and simple

"In 1986 there were 1300 cases of pertussis in Kansas and 90 % of these cases occurred in children who had been adequately vaccinated. Similar vaccine failures have been reported from Nova Scotia where pertussis continues to be occurring despite universal vaccination. Pertussis remains endemic[4] in the Netherlands where for more than 20 years 96 % of children have received 3 pertussis shots by age 12 months."  Why-you-should-avoid-taking-vaccines

"Furthermore, we should be skeptical about the "outbreaks" that are reported to have occurred. Pertussis, or "whooping cough," is actually rather difficult to diagnose conclusively, as it requires special cultures or antibody tests that many laboratories cannot perform and that many doctors, in the presence of suggestive symptoms, rarely take the trouble to order. Conversely, there are other cases of pertussis with typical signs and symptoms but negative cultures and no detectable antibodies. In other words, whooping cough as a clinical syndrome need not be associated with the organism Bordetella pertussis, against which the vaccine is prepared, or indeed with any microorganism whatsoever.”     Doctor Richard Moskowitz, MD

“CDC data shows 84 percent of children under the age of 3 have received at least FOUR DTaP shots—which is the acellular pertussis vaccine that was approved in the United States in 1996—yet, despite this high vaccination rate, whooping cough still keeps circulating among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. More likely than not, the vaccine provides very little if any protection, and this was evidenced very clearly in a study published in Clinical Infectious Disease.”    81 Percent of Whooping Cough Cases Occurred in People Who Were Fully Vaccinated

Why is the answer to EVERY problem MORE "vaccination". I will present a far better answer tomorrow.

[ma2two]

This isn't the first time the CDC has made a stupid mistake with decimals/percentages on their website.

Should they update the Pink Book, which shows a 1 in 1,000 death rate from REPORTED cases of pertussis "A total of 27,550 pertussis cases and 27 pertussis-related deaths were reported in 2010." http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/pert.html#secular or should they correct this page? http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Pertussis/ 

A few years ago, one of their webpages said that vaccines with "trace" amounts of mercury contained 3 mcg mercury instead of 0.3 (in case you're wondering about the first sentence in my post).

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

"Actually it is interesting that one of their conclusions is that vaccination alone doesn't seem to be helping babies under 4 months old who were increasingly likely over the period 1980-1990 to catch pertususs ..."

Before we started "vaccinating" for pertussis babies under six months were 3% of those who caught pertussis. Now it is about 25% of the cases. So this wonderful "pertussis vaccine" has transferred it from those to whom it is little threat to those to whom it is the BIGGEST threat.

A little more "progress" like this and we are finished.
 

The fractions changed because vaccinated adults and older children are less likely to get it  - so you're left predominantly with young babies pre vaccine getting it. That's what it shows. 

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

The fractions changed because vaccinated adults and older children are less likely to get it  - so you're left predominantly with young babies pre vaccine getting it. That's what it shows. 

This ignores some important facts.

Pertussis has mutated.

The vaccine does not prevent transmission of pertussis from fully vaccinated people.

Links on these have been posted several times.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by nukuspot 

Even though as I mentioned the stat is not 1/100 in this day and age, there is still enough morbidity and mortality associated with infantile pertussis that I totally agree with Kathy.  I did not vaccinate my toddler and will not be vaccinating my newborn (coming in a few months) but that is because I will be cocooning (modified) and will be able to do so.  If I had to put her in daycare, or I lived in a large urban area, or had other risk factors for pertussis exposure, I truly feel that in this case the risks of the vax would not outweigh the benefits and I would do the vaccine, flawed as it may be.  I am privileged that I am able to feel comfortable with the decision (and what I see to be a reasonably low risk for our family) to not vaccinate a newborn for pertussis during an epidemic.

I would consider 1/100 from statistics collected in the 1990s (for the link see my previous post in this thread) to be considered quite relevant. I suppose it's 10-20 years ago now, but I think "not in this day and age" implies something from a much longer time ago.

[prosciencemum]

Also from that study I posted (with the 1% death rate for infants in the 1990s): "Irrespective of age, infants with pertussis who received fewer DTP vaccinations were significantly more likely to be hospitalized" (again in the 1990s). 

Here's the link: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=290&issue=22&page=2968 (it's free to read).

I agree that pertussis appears to be evolving, and that people who have been immunized can transmit it (although they are less likely to than those who haven't been immunized because it's more likely their immune system will quickly recognise the pertussis and eliminate it). 

I'm not sure of the link between these facts, and claiming they invalidate my statement about the reason that proportionally more infants get whooping cough now than historically is that adults/older children are less likely to get it because they've been immunized against it.