This Vaccination Makes You 10 Times More Likely To Get the Disease It’s Supposed to Prevent_Featured_, Vaccines Monday, July 30th, 2012
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
“The U.S. is on course for a record year for whooping cough, health officials said this week. And while vaccinating kids is clearly the most important defense, health experts say adults may not realize they’re supposed to be getting regular shots, too.”
The article goes on to hype what are actually predictable pertussis (whooping cough) increases and promote the ineffective pertussis vaccine—basically giving the media their marching orders for this fall’s propaganda campaign, which centers on blaming increases in pertussis on parents who file non-medical exemptions for their kids, which is pure nonsense.
Surprise! Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly through Vaccinated Populations
In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years occurred in California. Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in the California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials and national media, targeting people opting out of receiving pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the outbreak.
In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated.
“This first detailed analysis of a recent North American pertussis outbreak found widespread disease among fully vaccinated older children. Starting approximately three years after prior vaccine dose, attack rates markedly increased, suggesting inadequate protection or durability from the acellular vaccine.” [Emphasis mine]
The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is included as a component in “combination” shots that include tetanus and diphtheria (DPT, DTaP, Tdap) and may also include polio, hepatitis B, and/or Haemophilus Influenza B (Hib). CDC data shows 84 percent of children under the age of three have received at least FOUR DTaP shots—which is the acellular pertussis vaccine that was approved in the United States in 1996—yet, despite this high vaccination rate, whooping cough still keeps circulating among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
So, as clearly evidenced in this study, the vaccine likely provides very little, if any, protection from the disease. In fact, the research suggests those who are fully vaccinated may in fact be more likely to get the disease than unvaccinated populations.
Why Do Pertussis Vaccines Fail Despite Claimed Efficacy?
Interestingly in a recent article published in the journal Pediatrics , author James D. Cherry, MD, reveals that estimates for pertussis vaccine efficacy have been significantly inflated due to the case definitions adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1991, which required laboratory confirmation and 21 days or more of paroxysmal cough. All less severe cases were excluded. He states:
“I was a member of the WHO committee and disagreed with the primary case definition because it was clear at that time that this definition would eliminate a substantial number of cases and therefore inflate reported efficacy values. Nevertheless, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration accepted this definition, and package inserts of the US-licensed DTaP vaccines reflect this
….For example, Infanrix… and Daptacel… have stated efficacies of 84% and 85% respectively. When less severe cough illness is included, however, the efficacies of these 2 vaccines decrease to 71% and 78% respectively. In addition, even these latter efficacies are likely inflated owing to investigator or parental compliance with the study protocol (observer bias).”
Dr. Cherry lists eight potential reasons for why the efficacy of pertussis vaccines are overestimated:
- Overexpectation of efficacy because of case definition.
- Inflated estimates of efficacy because of observer bias.
- Other Bordetella sp are the cause of similar cough illnesses.
- Lack of initial potency.
- Decay in antibody over time.
- Incomplete antigen package.
- Incorrect balance of antigens in the vaccine.
- Genetic changes in B pertussis
Whooping Cough is Cyclical Disease
B. pertussis whooping cough is a cyclical disease with natural increases that tend to occur every 4-5 years, no matter how high the vaccination rate is in a population using DPT/DTaP or Tdap vaccines on a widespread basis. Whole cell DPT vaccines used in the U.S. from the 1950’s until the late 1990’s were estimated to be 63 to 94 percent effective and studies showed that vaccine-acquired immunity fell to about 40 percent after seven years.
With this shockingly low rate of DTaP vaccine effectiveness, the questionable solution public health officials have come up with is to declare that everybody has to get three primary shots and three follow-up booster shots in order to get long-lasting protection —and that’s provided the vaccine gives you any protection at all!
Why “Cocooning” Vaccines Does Not Work
Additionally, in a futile effort to address the outbreak, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) started directing physicians, particularly pediatricians, to offer Tdap vaccine to parents and close family members of babies under age 2 months, who are too young to receive a pertussis-containing vaccine themselves. In a recent study on this topic the researchers concluded:
“… the parental cocoon program is inefficient and resource intensive for the prevention of serious outcomes in early infancy.”
“Cocooning,” is a controversial practice and is being promoted by the AAP and government health officials as a way of protecting babies from whooping cough and other infectious diseases like influenza by vaccinating their parents and other adult caregivers. However, there is little evidence to show that this works. In fact, research from Canada has demonstrated just the opposite. Published last year, this Canadian study investigated how many parents would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent infant hospitalizations and deaths from pertussis using the cocoon strategy , and the results were dismal. They found the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for parental immunization was at least one million to prevent ONE infant death; approximately 100,000 for ICU admission; and >10,000 for hospitalization.
Also Confirmed: U.S. Varicella Vaccination Program is a Total Flop
- Not proven to be cost-effective
- Increased the incidence of shingles
- Failed to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets―chicken pox―and
- Is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population before the vaccine
Here, vaccine efficacy is again questioned as the efficacy of the varicella vaccine was found to have declined well below 80 percent by of 2002. The information was gathered from a review of chicken pox and shingles statistics in the years since the vaccine was introduced. The researchers point out that although statistics showed shingles rates increased after the vaccine, “CDC authorities still claimed” that no increase had occurred.
The authors also state that the CDC not only ignored the natural boost in immunity to the community that occurred with wild chickenpox, as opposed to the vaccine, but also ignored the “rare serious events following varicella vaccination” as well as the increasing rates of shingles among adults:
“In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased herpes zoster [shingles] morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.” [Emphasis mine]
Ridiculous Claims about Herd Immunity Achieved by HPV Vaccine
According to a report in the journal Pediatrics , which has been praised in major media like Discover Magazine , the quadravalent vaccine for HPV, Gardasil, appears to be protecting young people that haven’t even been vaccinated with it. Not only that, Gardasil has accomplished this amazing feat in just four years―long before most vaccines begin to show any sign of what’s known as “herd immunity.”
The study looked at rates of HPV infection in a small group of teens and young women at two primary care clinics, and found that infections from the cancer-causing HPV strain had declined. Apparently, they also observed that infections in women, who had not been vaccinated, had also declined. The team concluded the overall decline in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated must have been due to the vaccine! As per Discover Magazine, if the news pans out to be true in further research, it will be “pretty exciting.” Indeed, if this is true it would be an outright miracle, considering the fact that this theory is beyond ludicrous.
Consider that claim in light of these facts:
- In the study, 59 percent of participants at two primary care clinics received the HPV vaccine
- According to 2008 survey statistics, an estimated 25 percent of American adolescents 13 to 17 years old had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine, and a mere 11 percent had received all 3 doses
- By 2010 the vaccine uptake estimates had nearly doubled, with 48 percent of girls between the ages of 13 and 17 having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine
It is typically taught that the vaccine acquired herd immunity threshold is anywhere between 80-95 percent of the population, depending on the disease. So, HOW could the HPV vaccine confer herd immunity when, on a nationwide basis, less than half of teens and young women have received the vaccine (and the vast majority of those have only received one-third of the recommended number of doses)?
Whenever an outbreak of disease occurs, government health officials are always quick to point the finger at those who are unvaccinated, stating that it’s because of them that vaccine induced herd immunity was not achieved, thereby allowing the disease to flourish (although they rarely if ever offer an explanation for why so many vaccinated people get sick when they should theoretically be immune). For most diseases, vaccine-induced herd immunity cannot be achieved unless 80-95 percent of the population is vaccinated against the disease in question. So truly, for the HPV vaccine to suddenly confer herd immunity at less than 50 percent coverage would be nothing short of a miracle.
This “study” is nothing but marketing masquerading as science.
Discover magazine also didn’t mention the fact that at least five individuals on the seven-member team making these over-the-top claims are paid speakers and consultants for Merck, or have received research funds from Merck to develop this vaccine―meaning this wasn’t exactly an independent, outside group with no conflicting interests in the outcome. Please also note that the president of the Merck Vaccine Division, Julie Gerberding, is the former head of the CDC.
Discover also didn’t mention that the rates of the rates of sexual activity—the primary way HPV is spread—had also declined during the years of the study period, which could indicate that the reason HPV infection rates went down was not “herd” immunity acquired from the vaccine, but rather that fewer young people were having sex.
What You Need to Know about “Herd Immunity”
“When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as “community immunity.”
The problem is that there is in fact such a thing as natural herd immunity. But what they’ve done is they’ve taken this natural phenomenon and assumed that vaccines will work the same way. However, vaccines do not confer the same kind of immunity as experiencing the natural disease, and the science clearly shows that there’s a big difference between naturally acquired herd immunity and vaccine-induced herd immunity. To learn more, I urge you to listen to the following video, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity.
“The original concept of herd immunity is that when a population experiences the natural disease… natural immunity would be achieved – a robust, qualitatively superior natural herd immunity within the population, which would then protect other people from getting the disease in other age groups. It’s the way infectious diseases work…
The vaccinologists have adopted this idea of vaccine induced herd immunity. The problem with it is that all vaccines only confer temporary protection… Pertussis vaccine is one the best examples… Pertussis vaccines have been used for about 50 to 60 years, and the organism has started to evolve to become vaccine resistant. I think this is not something that’s really understood generally by the public: Vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that natural exposure to the disease does.”
Vaccine professionals would like you to believe they are the same, but they’re qualitatively two entirely different types of immune responses.
“In most cases natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting, more robust, qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity,” Barbara explains. “Humoral is the antibody production. The way you measure vaccine-induced immunity is by how high the antibody titers are. (How many antibodies you have, basically.)
But the problem is, the cell mediated immunity is very important as well. Most vaccines evade cell mediated immunity and go straight for the antibodies, which is only one part of immunity. That’s been the big problem with the production of vaccines.”
Vaccines are designed to trick your body’s immune system into producing protective antibodies needed to resist any future infection. However, your body is smarter than that. The artificial stimulation of your immune system produced by lab altered bacteria and viruses simply does not replicate the exact response that your immune system mounts when naturally encountering the infectious microorganism.
According to Barbara:
“The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body’s natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind’s biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.
… [I]s it better to protect children against infectious disease early in life through temporary immunity from a vaccine, or are they better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood and attaining permanent immunity? Do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? These questions essentially pit trust in human intervention against trust in nature and the natural order, which existed long before vaccines were created by man.”