Featured

Whooping Cough Outbreaks Are 10 Times More Deadly Because of the Vaccine

August 4, 2012 by admin in Featured, Politics, Vaccines with 6 Comments
Print Friendly

The CDC and NIH keep pushing the pertussis vaccine, in spite of info that it’s causing the new whooping cough epidemic that is 10 times more deadly than the old whooping cough.

CDC and NIH in Blood with Syringe

In light of the coverage of whooping cough outbreaks, which almost invariably and falsely blame the unvaccinated, this article that explains what’s happening needs to be seen again. The outbreaks are caused by the vaccine!

by Heidi Stevenson

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would prefer that you remain unaware of a couple of highly significant facts about the whooping cough resurgence. It is most likely caused by the pertussis vaccine and it’s ten times more deadly than the original variety.

To top it all off, they are blaming the unvaccinated for the new more lethal strain of whooping cough, and they are pushing people ever harder to be vaccinated with the same vaccine that’s almost certainly responsible for it!

More than one new strain of Bordetella pertussis has been found. However, the one that seems to consistently pop up in different countries is called ptxP3.

Medical Journal Discussions of ptxP3

In BioMed Central’s 2008 report by Audrey J. King, et al, several changes in B. pertussis were noted. Significantly, the article discusses a divergence from the vaccine strains and the new types, stating:

In the Netherlands this divergence between vaccine and circulating strains has played a role in the reemergence of pertussis.(1)

The August 2009 issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases published research by Frits R. Mooi, et al, entitled “Bordetella pertussis Strains with Increased Toxin Production Associated with Pertussis Resurgence”. This paper’s introduction states:

We present evidence that in the Netherlands the dramatic increase in pertussis is temporally associated with the emergence of Bordetella pertussis strains carrying a novel allele for the pertussis toxin promoter, which confers increased pertussis toxin (ptx) production. Epidemiologic data suggest that these strains are more virulent in humans.(2)

The Mooi report focuses on the virulence of the new whooping cough strain and makes a direct association with the vaccine. It points out that the strain was first isolated in the United States in 1984, and that the virulent ptxP3 strains have been replacing the vaccines’ ptxP1 strains. They also note that the greater prevalence of whooping cough in older age groups (that is, adolescents and adults) is directly related to the new ptxP3 strains.

The ptxP3′s greater virulence is shown in a table of increases in illness and death in The Netherlands between the years 1981-1992 and 1993-2004. The salient points are reproduced here:

Parameter Deaths/100,000
1981-1992 0.00057
1993-2004 0.00582
Increase 10.21 times greater

 

In November 2010, BMC Genomics published “Comparative genomics of prevaccination and modern Bordetella pertussis strains” by Marieke J Bart, et al. This paper focuses on “how B. pertussis has adapted to vaccination”(3). That leaves little room for question about the issue. The new strains of B. pertussis have developed in response to vaccinations for whooping cough.

Lest there be any doubt that the CDC is fully aware that a new strain of B. pertussis is causing the new epidemic of whooping cough, refer to Bordetella pertussis Strains with Increased Toxin Production Associated with Pertussis Resurgence*, which includes a graph created for the Mooi article quoted above.

Vaccination Insanity

There can be no doubt that the agencies responsible for tracking disease and our vaccination programs are fully aware of the fact that the unvaccinated cannot be held responsible for the outbreaks of whooping cough. They also know that the new strains are more than ten times deadlier, and that the reason is adaptations to existing vaccines.

Yet, what is their strong recommendation to the general public? It’s to vaccinate even more! As discussed in the prior article, Whooping Cough Outbreaks in Vaccinated Children Become More and More Frequent, the B. pertussis vaccine carries grave risks.

So, they’re advising ever more vaccinations with the vaccine that’s creating a far more virulent form of whooping cough, cannot protect against the disease it’s creating—and and carries severe risks of death and lifelong disability!

Not only are these agencies not telling us the truth about the whooping cough outbreaks, but they are also misleading us. They have told us nothing about the ten-fold increased rate of death. They have told us nothing of its cause. They have blamed those who cannot possibly have been the cause of the new disease. And they push us to get vaccinated with the cause of the new deadlier strains!

Is there any reason to doubt that the CDC, the NIH, and other agencies are beholden to Big Pharma? Is there any reason to trust anything that they suggest?

This article is with deep appreciation to the anonymous reader who provided a reference of the reality of the new strains of whooping cough. Thank you!

Sources:

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • Guest

    Thank you for your information.  Until we all realize that medical and government need more oversight and quit trusting companies that are to make billions, we will continue to have significant outbreaks and damage to our children.  So many issues to resolve with Gluten, allergies, mental and emotional issues, weak immune systems, (don’t dare mention shhh…(Autism).  How many shots did YOUR baby leave the hospital with?  Maybe you don’t want to say…

  • rational

    The Mooi article you cited is interesting and highlights the challenges of controlling whooping cough.  The authors conclude their report with:

    “Pertussis among recently 
    vaccinated children is rare, indicating that pathogen adaptation does not play a role unless immunity has waned. Thus, 
    we propose that waning immunity and pathogen adaptation 
    have contributed to the resurgence of pertussis, although 
    other factors such as increased awareness and improved diagnostics have also played a role.
    The effect of pathogen adaptation on disease impact 
    may depend on factors such as vaccine coverage and the 
    quality of the vaccine used, which may differ between 
    countries. A relatively weak vaccine used in the Netherlands may have exacerbated the effect of the emergence of 
    ptxP3 strains on disease impact (3). Our results underline 
    the important role of Ptx in the transmission of B. pertussis
    and suggest that an effective way to control pertussis is the 
    improvement of current vaccines to induce Ptx-neutralizing antibodies which persist longer. An important question 
    is whether other childhood vaccines also select for pathogens that are more efficiently transmitted by primed hosts, 
    resulting in increased virulence.”

    Examination of the recent pertussis experience in California further highlights the current vaccine’s weakness of waning immunity several years after immunization:

    J Pediatr. 2012 Jul 20. [Epub ahead of print]California Pertussis Epidemic, 2010.Winter K,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22819634 

    A rational response, as is proposed by the authors of both of these thorough reports, is to search for ways to improve the current vaccine, or change the vaccine schedule (most obviously by administering a booster vaccine around the age of 10 when immunity starts to wane from the original series).

    An irrational approach would be to abandon pertussis vaccination all together.  An approach that would certainly lead to the deaths of thousands of infants annually.  

    Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  

  • rational

    And if anyone would care to discuss this issue further, in the interest of having an informed discussion rather than an emotional blatherfest, I would suggest they read the information kindly collected and analysed by the CDC when they made the most recent recommendation to add a DTaP booster at age 11-12 to the recommended schedule of vaccinations for children in the US:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5503a1.htm 

    And I don’t work for the government or pharma

    • HeidiStevenson

      You may not work for them, but you clearly accept their propaganda at face value. 

      In your previous comment, you quoted the conclusion of the study referenced in the article – but you completely evade that the authors have clearly ignored the results of their own study in their statement, “An irrational approach would be to abandon pertussis vaccination all together.  An approach that would certainly lead to the deaths of thousands of infants annually.” It’s clear that such a statement, which has no basis, exists merely to help assure that their study gets past the peer review process. They offer no support for that statement.

      Taking such comments at face value is foolish – and nothing better than “an emotional blabberfest”.

      • rational

        You state the authors of the Mooi report “have clearly ignored the results of their own study”.  That is false.  They have drawn different conclusions than you.  

        You say my statement that abandoning Pertussis vaccination would lead to the deaths of thousands of infants has no basis.  Apparently your researching capacity is impaired*.  Let me help:

        Pertussis cases in England and Wales over the last century: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3381681/figure/F-2-1/

        Pertussis cases in US: http://www.cdc.gov/media/Pertussis%20Cases_1922_2011_accessed%20July%205%202012[1].pdf

        Global pertussis cases graphed against vaccination coverage: http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/Pertussis_coverage.gif

        Very interesting paper with breakouts of pertussis rates in various countries vs vaccination coverage.  http://www.fcs.uga.edu/cfd/cdl/docs/vaccines_exemptions.pdf

        *Its not impaired, I’m sure.  Ms Stevenson has blinders on.  She cherry picks studies and sifts data and twists it to find data that supports her conclusions and ignores the overwhelming amount of quality scientific research that show that vaccination saves countless lives.  She has no personal experience with the deadly and devastating illnesses that are prevented by vaccination, and she dismisses the arguments from those that do as “propaganda”.  I have treated children with whopping cough.  Bordetella pertussis kills infants.  If we stop vaccinating our children, it will kill once again.  Clearly it is not a perfect vaccine.  Immunity is not as durable as we would like.  The bacteria have evolved in response to the vaccine.   The appropriate and rational response is to improve the vaccine, not to chuck it out the window.  It is pure fantasy to pretend we were better off before the introduction of the pertussis and other childhood vaccinations. 

        More aggressive vaccine coverage in California was instituted after 10 infant pertussis deaths in 2009.  Take a look at the results: 
        http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR12-005.aspx 
        Imagine what might have happened if vaccinations were stopped.

        Read this post quickly, take a screen shot.  It will be removed.   Ms Heidi gets uneasy when her beliefs are threatened by facts and rational arguments. 

        Rational 

        • HeidiStevenson

          They drew conclusions that were contrary to their own results. That was my point, and nothing you’ve said alters that fact. It is not uncommon in modern medical studies for authors to draw conclusions contrary to their results. They know where the research money comes from.

          You make assumptions about my knowledge of these diseases based on what you want to believe. You are entirely wrong about that – and have no business making such accusations.

          The fact is that the whooping cough going around now is far more dangerous than the one the vaccine is for. That’s not really open to argument. It’s a fact – supported by several studies, including the one discussed above. No amount of fear mongering about the dangers of these diseases changes the fact that the vaccine for B. pertussis  has resulted in a more virulent whooping cough. And none of the links that you’ve cherry-picked changes it. 

          Your first link (the NIH one) uses a completely misleading graph. If you include data from before 1940 – which is not included, in spite of the title stating that it is – then the true story is told. The drop in pertussis before 1940 was far more dramatic than any of it after 1940. In point of fact, if you look at the rate of pertussis from about 1980 to 1982 on the graph, you’ll see a very sharp rise in the disease following a very sharp rise in the rate of vaccination. Your link does not demonstrate any sort of cause-and-effect between pertussis vaccine and disease rate. Instead, it shows a sharp jump in the rate of disease from the time of the introduction of a second vaccine about 1975, which continued for the next 15 years, until the ongoing rate of decline returned to its previous level. I’m not going to waste time reviewing your other links, when your first so clearly failed to show what you claim it does.

          Your assumption that your post will be removed is based on wishful thinking.

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software