Whooping Cough: Under-Diagnosed or Coming Back? Here Are the Facts.

We are constantly pressured, and sometimes even forced, to vaccinate our children. As the truth about whooping cough shows, that fear mongering is based on little more than lies.

by Heidi Stevenson

Doctors have avoided diagnosing whooping cough under the assumption that vaccinations prevent it. A study in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) documented that there was massive under-reporting of the disease. They also showed that the vast majority of children who come down with it are fully vaccinated.

The study’s authors went to GP’s offices and found 172 children, aged 5-16, with persistent coughs that had lasted at least 14 days. They were given blood tests to determine whether there was serological evidence of recent Bordetella pertussis (whooping cough) infection. They found that 64 of those children (37.2%) did, indeed, have whooping cough.  A full 55 of them (85.9%) had been fully immunized.⁽¹⁾

This is not truly news, as the study came out on 7 July 2006. It was clear that doctors were making the assumption that the vaccination works, so even if a cough was like whooping cough, it must not have been … because, well, because vaccinations work. Right?

Today, we’re hearing of more and more whooping cough outbreaks—but is this truly an increase? The fact is that doctors are now looking for it, and as a result, they find it. A few years ago, they expected not to find it. So, they didn’t.

Take a look at the following graph, taken from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website:

Note that the horizontal green line is not part of the original image. I added it to demonstrate a point.

Notice that the general trend was downward at the time the first pertussis (DTP) vaccine was given. The trend, though obviously cyclical, continued downward at about the same rate it was going before the vaccine.

Now, take a look at the time when the vaccine became common, sometime during the 60′s. The rate continued downward for a short time, just as it had been. Then, it appeared to level off, until recently—interestingly, around the time of the study showing that pertussis was underreported!—when it jumped significantly.

Now, take a look at the horizontal green line. Notice that the current rate of reporting appears to be much the same as it was before doctors stopped expecting to see pertussis.

This should make you highly suspicious of claims that the pertussis vaccine has accomplished anything positive.

But we aren’t done yet. It gets worse!

This graph shows the death rate, as opposed to the CDC’s focus on number of cases. This is a significantly more valid statistic, because it provides a better picture of a disease’s virulence. The time span is from 1867 to 1972. Notice that the same sort of cycling (up and down) in number of deaths exists in this graph as in the CDC’s, indicating the cyclic nature of the disease. Then, notice that the rate of decrease follows a pattern just like the CDC’s graph. Now, just take a quick look at how much effect can be attributed to the pertussis vaccination.

Not much, if any.

So, it’s obvious that the rate of disease has not been affected by the pertussis vaccine—certainly not to any degree that’s worth mentioning. Yet, fear campaigns are used to give an impression that you, or worse, your children, are going to die if you don’t get your vaccinations.

In the face of this utterly damning evidence showing that the pertussis vaccine provides little or no benefit, officials are ramping up both the hype and the vaccination schedule

At this time, the CDC says everyone should have the pertussis-diphtheria-tetanus vaccination combination at ages 2, 4, and 6 months, then again at 15 months, yet again at age 4 years, and yet another at age 11. That’s the same triple vaccine 6 times!

What is this very strong recommendation based upon? Obviously, nothing that makes any sense whatsoever!

No increase in the schedule has ever been shown to prevent pertussis, except by the use of cheap tricks, such as choosing a very narrow range of time that gives the impression of benefit. Such narrow views can mislead only too easily.

It’s blatantly obvious that such utterly misleading presentations cannot be intended for our benefit. It can only be done to serve the profits of Big Pharma and doctors. You can choose to wear blinders and put your children at risk for no possible benefit, or you can look at the facts and give your children—and yourself—the best chance for a healthy life.

Source:

• ⁽¹⁾Whooping cough in school age children with persistent cough: prospective cohort study in primary care doi/10.1136/bmj.38870.655405.AE
• CDC Graph, Pertussis Cases 1922-2011
• Whooping Cough: The Disease and the Vaccine
• Pertussis: Summary of Vaccine Recommendations

Tagged big pharma, cdc vaccine, cdc whooping cough, conventional medicine, evidence-based medicine, pertussis, pertussis cases, pertussis incidence, pertussis vaccine, pertussis vaccine ineffective, science, vaccine, vaccines, whooping cough, whooping cough cases, whooping cough incidence, whooping cough under reported, whooping cough vaccine