Let's face it - the whooping cough vaccine is a flop - Page 3

[erigeron]

If you're going to make an assertion, Mirzam, you need to back it up. I'm not going to read every pertussis thread on the board searching for something (I did read this thread.) I did search a little online, in fact, and everything remotely scientific that I'm seeing including a paper by James Cherry (which is on a website we're not allowed to link to, so it's interesting that you opted not to include any links in your posts) notes that ACT is produced by the pertussis bacteria, not by the human body, which has been my understanding as well. This is counter to what you said and means that the principle you're describing couldn't be true. If you've got different information saying something different, please share. 

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

If you're going to make an assertion, Mirzam, you need to back it up. I'm not going to read every pertussis thread on the board searching for something (I did read this thread.) I did search a little online, in fact, and everything remotely scientific that I'm seeing including a paper by James Cherry (which is on a website we're not allowed to link to, so it's interesting that you opted not to include any links in your posts) notes that ACT is produced by the pertussis bacteria, not by the human body, which has been my understanding as well. This is counter to what you said and means that the principle you're describing couldn't be true. If you've got different information saying something different, please share. 

There is a link in this thread to the information, which provides additional links to Cherry's work. The fact you found something on whale.to is not the reason I didn't post links. The reason is I have already posted them. One of the recent whooping cough threads links directly to Cherry's research. If you don't like this information, you are free to disregard.

#inconvenienttruth

[Mirzam]

Here is another link with the information on Original Antigenic Sin and ACT. The article also goes into more depth on how to treat Whooping Cough with Vitamin C, so it is well worth reading.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/09/07/vitamin-c-for-whooping-cough-updated-edition-suzanne-humphries-md/

It is well known that pertussis-convalesced children, who have never been vaccinated, develop important antibodies that the vaccinated do not [9]. The vaccinationists have exploited this natural phenomenon to support the need for designing vaccines with multiple antigens. The point they miss is that it is only natural complex cellular and bronchial responses, which give the full protection. It has been shown that response to pertussis toxin [10] and adenylate cyclase toxin [11] is far more intense in the unvaccinated, than the vaccinated. Because of this, the naturally immune will clear bacteria upon re-exposure far more rapidly than the vaccinated. There is an enormous difference between broad, long-lasting immunity from the normal disease, and limited antibody development and short-term pseudo-immunity from the vaccine.

 

[erigeron]

So that article is saying that vaccination only develops the body's ability to respond to the antigens contained in the vaccine. Which makes sense for a toxoid vaccine. I think I'd still rather have the vaccine for my kid, though, as it gives the ability to respond to at least some of what is produced by the bacteria. Versus not getting the vaccine, where she wouldn't have any preparation. If it's a question of having the infection vs having the vaccine, it's not too surprising that having the infection produces a better lasting immunity. But if infection>vaccine in that respect, vaccine>neither infection or vaccine, by the same token. 

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

So that article is saying that vaccination only develops the body's ability to respond to the antigens contained in the vaccine. Which makes sense for a toxoid vaccine. I think I'd still rather have the vaccine for my kid, though, as it gives the ability to respond to at least some of what is produced by the bacteria. Versus not getting the vaccine, where she wouldn't have any preparation. If it's a question of having the infection vs having the vaccine, it's not too surprising that having the infection produces a better lasting immunity. But if infection>vaccine in that respect, vaccine>neither infection or vaccine, by the same token. 

That is your prerogative to choose to use a defective vaccine on you and your children. Personally, I would rather go with the disease and 30 years of immunity than 3 years of inferior protection from a vaccine that can also cause neurological damage. FWIW, my two unvaccinated children did get whooping cough at 8 and 6 years old, and it was a minor annoyance which has given them real immunity and will also mean they won't be passing it on to infants.

Here is another quote in case you didn't plough through the long article, most of which is spent on Vitamin C.

The reason the vaccinated can spread the disease by virtue of taking them much longer to clear the bacteria, is due to an immune system that has been misprogrammed by a vaccine. Vaccinated babies, children, and adults are not able to mount the comprehensive bronchial and cellular immunity [7] – which an unvaccinated person naturally develops in the course of the disease. The vaccine only primes the body to fight pertussis toxin and sometimes a couple of other cell antigens, in the blood, not the lung. It does this by stimulating an unnatural balance in immune cell populations. This incorrect immunity “learned” from the vaccine (referred to by DR JAMES CHERRY as “original antigenic sin”) [8], is then the same way the body then responds to a subsequent infection. If the first stimulation was to vaccine antigens, then upon the exposure to the disease, the vaccinated person will mount an inferior response, compared to a child who has convalesced from a natural infection.

 

[erigeron]

It's not defective. It does what it was designed to do. Limited efficacy? Sure. If vaccination means my child won't mount as good of an immune response versus someone who had the disease, but a better response than if she hadn't had the vaccine at all, I'll take that limited efficacy. Not that I wouldn't also be in favor of the development of a vaccine that was more efficacious without increased side effects, mind. :)

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

It's not defective. It does what it was designed to do. Limited efficacy? Sure. If vaccination means my child won't mount as good of an immune response versus someone who had the disease, but a better response than if she hadn't had the vaccine at all, I'll take that limited efficacy. Not that I wouldn't also be in favor of the development of a vaccine that was more efficacious without increased side effects, mind. :)

Well, imo it is defective because it allows a vaccinated person to be a harbinger of pertussis and therefore a risk to suscepitible people, not to mention it is harmful and can actually shut off the immune system. A person who has never had the vaccine at least has the opportunity to mount an effective immune response. Are you aware that a significant proportion of unvaccinated children are infected with Bordella pertussis by age 10 and that many of these cases are atypical, asymptomatic or so mild they are forgotten infections? It has been estimated that 25% of pertussis infections (in the unvaccinated) are asymptomatic. (Linneman 1979)

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Well, imo it is defective because it allows a vaccinated person to be a harbinger of pertussis and therefore a risk to suscepitible people

Why the pertussis vaccine cannot cause pertussis - explained in the below: 

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-pertussis-outbreak-and-vaccine-misinformation

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Well, imo it is defective because it allows a vaccinated person to be a harbinger of pertussis and therefore a risk to suscepitible people

Why the pertussis vaccine cannot cause pertussis - explained in the below: 

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-pertussis-outbreak-and-vaccine-misinformation

You are not getting it. I am not saying that the injected pertussis vaccine will cause the disease in others. Read the above quotes. As I have told you before, it is all about Original Antigenic Sin. 

[AmandaT]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Why the pertussis vaccine cannot cause pertussis - explained in the below: 

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-pertussis-outbreak-and-vaccine-misinformation

Here is my (simplified) way of understanding it:

The pertussis vaccine in no way prevents pertussis. It is supposed to give you a less severe case of pertussis. While this is "good" for the vaccinated person (it appears to be a lesser sickness, in some, for a lesser immunity, for all) it also makes that person much more likely to be out in public spreading the illness. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by AmandaT 

Here is my (simplified) way of understanding it:

The pertussis vaccine in no way prevents pertussis. It is supposed to give you a less severe case of pertussis. While this is "good" for the vaccinated person (it appears to be a lesser sickness, in some, for a lesser immunity, for all) it also makes that person much more likely to be out in public spreading the illness. 

 bingo.

They may have milder symptoms, or no symptoms at all. They are far more likely to be out hacking all over everyone in public thinking Oh I just have a little cough - no reason to cancel that playdate or not go to work or keep little becky home from school. They certainly wouldnt go see their doctor and if they did, the doc would most certainly not suspect pertussis and would not swab for it.