Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Let's face it - the whooping cough vaccine is a flop Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
09-18-2012 10:25 AM
Marnica
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.

09-18-2012 08:26 AM
AmandaT
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. 

09-18-2012 05:29 AM
Mirzam
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. 

09-18-2012 04:01 AM
prosciencemum
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

09-17-2012 11:03 AM
Mirzam
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)

09-17-2012 10:50 AM
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. :)

09-15-2012 05:23 PM
Mirzam
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.

 
09-15-2012 05:07 PM
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. 

09-15-2012 04:48 PM
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/

 

 

 

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.

 

 

09-11-2012 09:44 AM
Mirzam
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

09-11-2012 07:49 AM
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. 

09-11-2012 07:30 AM
Mirzam
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.

09-11-2012 07:24 AM
erigeron
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? 

09-11-2012 05:58 AM
kathymuggle

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.

09-11-2012 05:52 AM
Mirzam
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. 

 

 

09-11-2012 05:09 AM
prosciencemum
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.....  

09-10-2012 07:45 AM
Mirzam
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.

09-10-2012 07:18 AM
prosciencemum

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). 

09-09-2012 06:27 PM
canadianhippie
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

09-09-2012 01:18 PM
rachelsmama
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.......

09-09-2012 12:55 PM
minerva23

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

09-09-2012 12:11 PM
minerva23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

I love this:

 

"Both students were up-to-date on immunizations.

County health officials urge all parents to get their children vaccinated."

 

Makes total sense.


Makes sense when you want to contract whooping cough

09-09-2012 09:41 AM
Bokonon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post

http://www.cbs8.com/story/19479083/2-whooping-cough-cases-reported-at-san-diego-county-schools

 

 

I find it interesting that one of the commentors wants to vaccinate everybody each year with the whooping cough vaccine. But isn't it always combined with TD? So I am just wondering what the result of overvaccinating esp. for Tetanus would be? Any input here please

 

I love this:

 

"Both students were up-to-date on immunizations.

County health officials urge all parents to get their children vaccinated."

 

Makes total sense.

09-09-2012 09:38 AM
minerva23

http://www.cbs8.com/story/19479083/2-whooping-cough-cases-reported-at-san-diego-county-schools

 

 

I find it interesting that one of the commentors wants to vaccinate everybody each year with the whooping cough vaccine. But isn't it always combined with TD? So I am just wondering what the result of overvaccinating esp. for Tetanus would be? Any input here please

08-25-2012 02:49 PM
kathymuggle

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

08-25-2012 01:49 PM
canadianhippie

This is what I've been thinking! 

 

I have a newborn on the way and a 3 yr old, and thought oh gosh, theres pertussis outbreaks all over Canada right now....I know how i feel about vaccines, but should I? 

 

Then I saw the link on the mothering page for the pertussis video (the link didnt work) however i was googling a bit, and thought the same thing

 

Well, if the vaccine works, why is there an outbreak? Because of all us "crazy jenny mccarthy reading nuts" dont vaccinate? I know we got some numbers behind us, but theres not that many of us 

 

I notice when we watch American channels (like cbs, etc) there are SO many vaccine and med advertisements, it is not like that on regular canadian tv at all. I saw one for the chicken pox today, with this old guy saying how painful shingles can be, its like an Apple iphone ads

 

"There's a vaccine for that"

 

I would never ever trust pharmaceutical companies for reliability, safety or truth

08-19-2012 10:15 AM
Mirzam

Whooping cough and chameleons

 

 

 

Quote:
I can tell you now and so can whole generations who had whooping cough naturally..., that natural immunity to whooping cough lasts a WHOLE lot longer than immunity from EITHER the whole cell or acellular vaccine does. There are many medical articles which confirm that.  I can also tell you now, that the majority of carriers are VACCINATED people whose immunity to whooping cough is dysfunctional, because of “original antigenic sin” – a situation where the doctor-induced immunity doesn’t prevent either carriage or reinfection. 
 
08-18-2012 05:34 AM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

One vax begets another. 

 

It reminds me when one takes a medication, and sometimes has to take a few others to deal with the side effects of the first one - granted there's usually a need for the first one. 

 

For a given vax, sometimes the issue is not only of safety but also of its necessity.  

 

As an aside, for Hib, aren't there 6 distinct types and the vax is only for type b? I wonder how the different types interact, if at all - could something similar happen, or not?  Also, Gardasil - it targets only some types of HPV, doesn't it?

yes gardasil only covers 4 strains

08-17-2012 04:20 AM
minerva23

So we all know what is going to happen should big pharma produce a vaccine containing both B. pertussis and B. parapertussis. Instead of these two another maybe more serious pathogen will colonize the vaccated space. Nature is bound to do so. So with all these vaccines we are just going to make matters worth and not any better. But humans just have to be so stubborn. Observe and learn and do not try to fit it in with your own theory. (see Pasteur, Koch etc.)
 

08-16-2012 07:29 PM
MamaMunchkin

 

One vax begets another. 

 

It reminds me when one takes a medication, and sometimes has to take a few others to deal with the side effects of the first one - granted there's usually a need for the first one. 

 

For a given vax, sometimes the issue is not only of safety but also of its necessity.  

 

As an aside, for Hib, aren't there 6 distinct types and the vax is only for type b? I wonder how the different types interact, if at all - could something similar happen, or not?  Also, Gardasil - it targets only some types of HPV, doesn't it?

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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