Let's face it - the whooping cough vaccine is a flop - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 51 Old 09-09-2012, 01:55 PM
 
minerva23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: down by the riverside
Posts: 494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)

Oh I just learned that Bordetella parapertussis is not only hosted by humans but also sheep.


“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
―Socrates

minerva23 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 of 51 Old 09-09-2012, 02:18 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post

Oh I just learned that Bordetella parapertussis is not only hosted by humans but also sheep.


And here I am, sitting on my hands, trying not to type that contentious word that mashes the common names of the two affected species together.......

rachelsmama is offline  
#33 of 51 Old 09-09-2012, 07:27 PM
 
canadianhippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Hey CanadianHippie,

 

I found this online that might interest you:

http://www.oahpp.ca/resources/documents/presentations/2012aug10/Pertussis%20webinar%20-%2008.10.12%20Final.pdf

 

It looks like there are projected to be 6 cases of confirmed pertussis in Ontario this year per 100 000 population.  1 in 16 000.  Pg. 9.

It also looks like there was a change in 2009 to include probable cases in statistics.  Hmmmmm…..

 

This site says there were 277 cases of whooping cough last year.  12 million (population of Ontario) divided by 277 is about 1 in 43 000

 

1 in 16 000  to 1 in 43 000 is not nothing - but the way the media goes on, you would think pertussis was everywhere…...

 

good luck deciding,

 

kathy

Thanks Kathy! I didnt know it was that small


A Toronto born young mama blowkiss.giffreshly moved for a new adventure in ALBERTA! with Superdaddy superhero.gifand her intact and vax free, breastfed and babyworn Aug09 babenono02.gif attending college for early childhood educationwhale.gif   and being blessed with #2 just in time for Valentines Dayheartbeat.gif pos.gif

canadianhippie is offline  
#34 of 51 Old 09-10-2012, 08:18 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

It does make sense. While you are still not 100% protected against whooping cough, the vaccination will reduce the chance of you having bad (or any) case by a substantial amount (less than 100%, but enough to make it worth doing in my opinion). 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#35 of 51 Old 09-10-2012, 08:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It does make sense. While you are still not 100% protected against whooping cough, the vaccination will reduce the chance of you having bad (or any) case by a substantial amount (less than 100%, but enough to make it worth doing in my opinion). 

And increase your chances of passing it onto another, for example a young infant who's system is not yet mature enough to handle pertussis. Prosciencemum, do you understand the concept of Original Antigenic Sin in relation to pertussis vaccine? This explains why the vaccine does not work, ever.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#36 of 51 Old 09-11-2012, 06:09 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

And increase your chances of passing it onto another, for example a young infant who's system is not yet mature enough to handle pertussis. Prosciencemum, do you understand the concept of Original Antigenic Sin in relation to pertussis vaccine? This explains why the vaccine does not work, ever.

 

Why does being better protected from a disease increase your chances of passing it on? That makes no sense to me. By removing the bacteria more quickly from the system, having an immune system ready to react to pertussis will protect not only you but also reduce the chance of you passing on the disease.

 

This is the first time I have heard of "Original Antigenic Sin". Horrible name.... (OT). Wikipedia articles claims it's important in vaccinations, but does not include citations to those statements (except the original 1960s one) are given. Seems like an interesting idea, but it contradicts my understanding of the way the immune system works (doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I'm skeptical of it, particuarly when it's a 50 year old idea which appears to have been little used). 

 

 Vaccines demonstrably work in many cases (small pox for example) so in my opinion an argument which includes a statement that they never work is completely worthless.....  


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#37 of 51 Old 09-11-2012, 06:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Why does being better protected from a disease increase your chances of passing it on? That makes no sense to me. By removing the bacteria more quickly from the system, having an immune system ready to react to pertussis will protect not only you but also reduce the chance of you passing on the disease.

 

This is the first time I have heard of "Original Antigenic Sin". Horrible name.... (OT). Wikipedia articles claims it's important in vaccinations, but does not include citations to those statements (except the original 1960s one) are given. Seems like an interesting idea, but it contradicts my understanding of the way the immune system works (doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I'm skeptical of it, particuarly when it's a 50 year old idea which appears to have been little used). 

 

 Vaccines demonstrably work in many cases (small pox for example) so in my opinion an argument which includes a statement that they never work is completely worthless.....  

You are correct the Original Antigenic Sin isn't used much these days, they have given it a more PC name, its now called "linked epitope suppression".

 

Because of Original Antigenic Sin, the pertussis vaccine does not protect from whooping cough, therefore someone will not react to it in the same way as a natural infection and can be a silent carrier, and thus infect others. Now I will explain why. When an unvaccinated person is infected with pertussis bacteria, their body produces a toxin which stops the immune system from recognizing the bacteria immediately. It takes about two weeks for the body to realize this. The toxin is ACT (adenylate cyclase toxin) and it is the most important "antigen" in immunity process; the body produces very high levels of it. Next time a person comes into contact with pertussis, it goes into high gear and rapidly clears the bacteria from the system. ACT forms the whole basis of the initial immune response to pertussis and it is crucial in removing the bacteria during the healing phase. The vaccine does not contain it because ACT is made in the body, and it can't be made in a test tube, so in vaccination the process is missed out. When a vaccinated person is challenged with pertussis the bacteria is able to get a good hold it as has nothing stopping it. The immune system will not respond to ACT because the program was written by its encounter with the vaccine ingredients and not the natural bacteria.

 

What a shame Dr Offit didn't mention this in his vaccine course. 

 

That vaccines work is your opinion, as you can see from the above pertussis is very iffy. I am not even going to bother to go into the vaccine eradicated smallpox myth in this thread, it has been hashed to death elsewhere. 

 

 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#38 of 51 Old 09-11-2012, 06:58 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)

Here is a link from yesteryear with a lot of good links and discussion in it:

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1226677/pertussis-vaccine-does-it-prevent-transmission

 

As vaccines go, I think it is a flop.  

 

It has been nowhere near as successful as other vaccines in doing what it is intended to do.

 

Do I think it is worthless?

 

Not necessarily.

 

I am not a vaxxer, so this is not my call to make 

 

I imagine there is a point at which a vaccine is simply too ineffective, too dangerous, or requires too many boosters  to get the shot.  I think we might reach that tipping point for the pertussis vaccine.  I think a better vaccine is in order, and I am not sure why vaxxers do not demand one, as they are the ones taking the risks.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#39 of 51 Old 09-11-2012, 08:24 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Because of Original Antigenic Sin, the pertussis vaccine does not protect from whooping cough, therefore someone will not react to it in the same way as a natural infection and can be a silent carrier, and thus infect others. Now I will explain why. When an unvaccinated person is infected with pertussis bacteria, their body produces a toxin which stops the immune system from recognizing the bacteria immediately. It takes about two weeks for the body to realize this. The toxin is ACT (adenylate cyclase toxin) and it is the most important "antigen" in immunity process; the body produces very high levels of it. Next time a person comes into contact with pertussis, it goes into high gear and rapidly clears the bacteria from the system. ACT forms the whole basis of the initial immune response to pertussis and it is crucial in removing the bacteria during the healing phase. The vaccine does not contain it because ACT is made in the body, and it can't be made in a test tube, so in vaccination the process is missed out. When a vaccinated person is challenged with pertussis the bacteria is able to get a good hold it as has nothing stopping it. The immune system will not respond to ACT because the program was written by its encounter with the vaccine ingredients and not the natural bacteria.

Got a source for this? 

erigeron is offline  
#40 of 51 Old 09-11-2012, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

 

Got a source for this? 

 

You think I made this all up? Search this thread and the other recent threads on Whooping Cough, it is all in there. Also do a search on Dr James Cherry, he is the pertussis vaccine guru and he knows all about it.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#41 of 51 Old 09-11-2012, 08:49 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. 

erigeron is offline  
#42 of 51 Old 09-11-2012, 10:44 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

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


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#43 of 51 Old 09-15-2012, 05:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

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/

 

 

 

Quote:

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.

 

 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#44 of 51 Old 09-15-2012, 06:07 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. 

erigeron is offline  
#45 of 51 Old 09-15-2012, 06:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

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.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

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.

 

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#46 of 51 Old 09-17-2012, 11:50 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. :)

erigeron is offline  
#47 of 51 Old 09-17-2012, 12:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

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)


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#48 of 51 Old 09-18-2012, 05:01 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

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


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#49 of 51 Old 09-18-2012, 06:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

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. 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#50 of 51 Old 09-18-2012, 09:26 AM
 
AmandaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

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. 


lactivist.gifnovaxnocirc.gif Acd.gif'ing, winner.jpg,familybed1.gif,femalesling.GIFread.gif Momma to one DD 1/1/12 ribboncesarean.gif. Trying to goorganic.jpg and hoping for a hbac.gif next time!

AmandaT is offline  
#51 of 51 Old 09-18-2012, 11:25 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaT View Post

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.


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off