Déjà vu all over again: The whooping cough vaccine fiasco
Now where have I seen this before?
In an article from a couple of weeks ago, I informed you thusly - Part 2, I discussed the astounding admission by recently-retired NIAID director and Chief COVID Catastrophist, Dr Anthony S. (for Science™?) Fauci, in a peer-reviewed article, that existing vaccines for respiratory diseases such as flu and COVID don't work, and can't work, because they don't stimulate mucosal immunity.
To summarise the lengthy and well-referenced argument that Fauci and his two coauthors made in that article, vaccines that are injected make their way into the circulatory system, where they stimulate the production of antibodies that are confined to the circulatory system, such as serum immunoglobulin (Ig)A and IgG.
However, respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2, influenza and RSV replicate predominantly in the mucosal tissue of the upper respiratory tract, and don't enter the circulatory system where they could be neutralised by these serum antibodies. The mucosal immune system naturally produces secretory IgA (sIgA) to control their replication, but vaccines don't induce production of sIgA.
Here's the money quote:
"Many studies in humans and experimental animals, some before sIgA had been recognized,22,58,79,80,81 indicate that secretory mucosal immunity is generally more effective than systemic immunity in controlling mucosal respiratory viruses18,79,82 and that tissue-resident memory T cells can be effective in rapidly responding to mucosal infection.83 ... Nasal sIgA is the best correlate of protection in RSV challenge studies,18 even in the absence of systemic IgA-producing B cells. Similar results are seen with other viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.87,88,89,90"
Especially for those who lost jobs, friends and even marriages over their refusal to take the experimental COVID-19 transfection agents marketed as 'vaccines', the most galling sentence in the Fauci & Friends paper is this one:
"Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines."
In other words, the 'experts' knew, from the get-go, that there was little to no chance that the COVID injections would 'end the pandemic', because there has never been a successful vaccine developed for any other respiratory virus with a similar pattern of infection and replication.
But it's not just vaccines for viral respiratory diseases that are admitted by insiders, writing in journals that are not intended to be read by the general public which is the target of so-called 'public health' measures such as vaccination programs, to be abject failures.
The vaccine for pertussis, or whooping cough, that is used in developed countries is also acknowledged to be useless at preventing infection with, or transmission of, Bordetella pertussis, the bacteria associated with this common respiratory illness.
You know, the pertussis vaccine that your child is mandated to receive in Australia if you want to receive the family assistance payments (Child Care Benefit, the Child Care Rebate and the Family Tax Benefit Part A) that you fund by paying your taxes.
The pertussis vaccine that your child has to have if you wish to enrol him or her in child care services (including long day care, kindergarten, family day care or occasional care) in most states.
That would be the pertussis vaccine that your child has to take because otherwise he or she would be a nasty pertussis-spreading disease vector, endangering the lives of all the kiddos whose parents complied with government diktat (and their grannies).
Except it doesn't stop them from catching or spreading pertussis.
Don't believe me? Here it is, straight from a report by the World Association of Infectious Diseases and Immunological Disorders (WAidid) and the Vaccine Study Group of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (EVASG):
"aPV [acellular pertussis vaccine, the type used in Australia] pertussis vaccines do not prevent colonization. Consequently, they do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect."
Go back and read that quote one more time, out loud, so you can really take in its significance. The whooping cough vaccine that all Australian children are exhorted to receive five doses of within their first five years of life, with compliance enforced through substantial financial penalties and (for many) the threat of exclusion from the benefits of preschool education,
Does not prevent colonisation of the child's airways with Bordetella pertussis;
Does not prevent a vaccinated child from passing B. pertussis to any other individual; and
Does not have any community benefit in the form of herd immunity.
The only benefit that it offers is reduced risk of developing the clinical manifestation of B. pertussis colonisation, which is pertussis, or whooping cough. This is a selfish benefit in the sense that it only offers advantages to the vaccine recipient, rather than to the community.
In fact, if - as vaccine advocates claim - acellular pertussis vaccines prevent recipients from developing clinical manifestations of infection (at least for a limited time), then vaccinated children pose a greater hazard to the community because they could become 'silent spreaders', whereas unvaccinated children's symptoms alert their parents to seek medical attention (including diagnostic tests), and to keep their sick kids isolated at home until they're no longer infectious.
Nonetheless, parents who opt for other methods of protecting their children against serious pertussis illness besides vaccination are punished for their choices, even though those choices have no consequences for the health of others given that both unvaccinated and vaccinated children can contract and spread B. pertussis.
Why doesn't the acellular pertussis vaccine prevent infection with, or spread of, B. pertussis? It's our old friend, mucosal immunity:
"Studies that have compared immune responses after natural B. pertussis infection and the administration of both wPVs [whole-cell pertussis vaccines, which have been replaced by acellular pertussis vaccines in the developed world but are still used in developing countries - more on that later] and aPVs have clearly shown that the immune stimulation evoked by aPVs is different from that due to natural infection and wPVs (49–51). Natural infection evokes both mucosal and systemic immune responses, while aPVs induce only a systemic immune response. As B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen and only exceptionally causes infection outside the respiratory tract, this difference is of particular importance in pertussis control. Mucosal immunity is essential to prevent colonization and transmission of B. pertussis organisms. Consequently, preventive measures such as aPVs that do not induce a valid mucosal response can prevent disease but cannot avoid infection and transmission. Animal studies have shown that natural infection is associated with a strong secretory IgA response in both the upper and lower airways and induction of resident memory T cells (TRM) (52, 53)... Natural infection was associated with the most persistent protection against nasal colonization and this correlated with potent induction of nasal tissue TRM cells. These animal data suggest that the lack of mucosal immune response after aPV administration might explain its lower efficacy when compared to wPVs and the shorter duration of protection compared to both wPV vaccination and natural infection." [emphasis added]
Hmmm, are you feeling that déjà vu-ey kind of feeling?
Natural immunity vs vaccine-induced immunity
Infection with B. pertussis generates protection against another episode of whooping cough which can last for more than 30 years in some people, although 10 per cent of individuals lose protection within 10 years after infection. Importantly, natural immunity acquired from infection also prevents colonisation with, and transmission of, the bacteria to other people.
Whole-cell pertussis vaccines provide similar or slightly reduced duration of protection against clinical disease, and also against colonisation and transmission.
But acellular pertussis vaccines - again, this is the only type of pertussis vaccine used in Australia - protect against pertussis disease for a relatively brief period and as noted previously, do not prevent colonisation or transmission. Furthermore, the lousy performance of acellular pertussis vaccines isn't improved by tweaking the composition of the vaccine, altering the timing between shots, or adding booster doses:
"The duration of immunity after immunization with aPVs appears to be shorter [than either natural immunity or whole-cell pertussis vaccine-induced immunity], independent of the schedule used, the numbers, and concentrations of antigens included in each vaccine and the methods used to prepare the vaccines. Reports also suggested that pertussis occurred significantly earlier in subjects fully vaccinated with aPV than in those given wPV (41–43). Clark et al. (41) in 2012 reported that children who were fully immunized during infancy with an aPV had pertussis more often in the first years of school, while those given a wPV were at higher risk later, mainly during adolescence. Similar differences were demonstrated by Vickers et al. (43), who found that children who had received an aPV during infancy were already at risk of pertussis within the first 4 years of life, whereas those vaccinated with wPV did not contract pertussis until 5–9 years. Finally, Klein et al. (44) demonstrated that most of the pertussis cases diagnosed in adolescents during an outbreak were seen in individuals fully immunized during infancy with an aPV, rather than in those who had received wPV. Individuals receiving only aPV had five times higher odds of pertussis disease than those receiving wPV (OR 5.63, 95% CI 2.55–12.46). When aPV effectiveness (VE) was measured over time, its effectiveness was lower than that expected after wPV or natural infection (44). Early waning of immunity was reported regardless of the schedule used for immunization (44).
The addition of booster doses of aPV to prolong protection was also assessed. Although there was transient protection afforded by additional booster doses, the protection waned rapidly. A meta-analysis of 11 studies (45) that measured long-term immunity to pertussis after three or five doses of diphtheria-tetanus-aP (DTaP), according to the schedules used in many European countries and in the USA, respectively, did not reveal a significant difference between the annual odds of pertussis for the three or five dose regimens."
In fact, booster doses may backfire by inducing an increase in the production of IgG4 antibodies, which induce tolerance to B. pertussis rather than an appropriate immune system response, especially in children who received a primary course of acellular rather than whole-cell pertussis vaccine in infancy:
"The administration of aPV booster doses at 4 and 9 years of age was associated with an increase in the production of IgG4, regardless of the type of vaccine used for priming, but was significantly higher in aPV-primed children (66). IgG4 antibodies are unable to activate the complement system and lead to a suboptimal inflammatory response with impaired phagocytosis and antimicrobial defense, another potential mechanism for the lower efficacy of aPVs compared to wPVs (67). Moreover, the evidence that production of IgG4 after immunization with aPV increases with each dose seems to indicate that the protection offered by aPVs tends to be as shorter with each subsequent boosters (68, 69)."
Hang on a minute, what's that funny feeling I'm getting?
Haven't we heard about IgG4 antibodies recently, in connection with a certain novel ‘vaccine’ for a viral respiratory disease? Why, yes we have, in this paper published in Science Immunology in December 2022, which found that IgG4 antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein progressively rose after the second injection of a COVID mRNA transfection agent, while a third, 'booster' dose induced a 48,075% increase in the relative concentration of IgG4 antibodies. Just as with acellular pertussis vaccines, this shift from IgG1 and IgG3 to IgG4 antibodies hobbled the immune system's response to the pathogen:
"This class switch was associated with a reduced capacity of the spike-specific antibodies to mediate antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis and complement deposition."
(The outstanding Substacker Jessica Rose wrote an excellent summary of this paper which I highly recommend that you read.)
In a nutshell, not only do acellular pertussis vaccines offer limited personal benefit - protection against whooping cough - and zero community benefit - protection against infection and transmission - but they may even be a net harm in both cases, in that they permanently alter the immune response to Bordetella pertussis through the IgG4 class switching mechanism, and turn vaccinated people into potential silent spreaders, increasing the circulation of the bacteria in the general population:
"Lack of mucosal immune responses after aPV administration favor infection, persistent colonization, and transmission of the pathogen."
Why don't we go back to using the whole-cell pertussis vaccine?
Good question. If it's nearly as good as natural immunity at preventing reinfection, albeit with a reduced duration of protection, and that benefit comes with a reduced risk of suffering pertussis disease, isn't that the best of both worlds?
If only life were that simple.
The reason that rich countries like Australia replaced whole-cell pertussis vaccines with acellular vaccines is that although pertussis case rates dropped after the whole-cell pertussis vaccines were added to the paediatric schedule, these vaccines were associated with a high rate of serious side effects, including:
Protracted crying and screaming (often described by parents as "inconsolable");
Shock or shock-like state, collapse, and hypotonic, hyporesponsive episodes (HHE); and
Many parents reported onset of seizure disorders, developmental delays and death of their infants in close temporal proximity to them receiving the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Vaccine manufacturers faced such an onslaught of lawsuits that many stopped producing the vaccine.
Widespread parent refusal of the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, while frustrating to public health authorities with their single-minded focus on disease elimination, was perfectly understandable: the death rate from pertussis had already declined by 90 per cent in wealthy, industrialised countries before mass vaccination campaigns began in the 1940s, due to increasing natural resistance, better living standards and the advent of antibiotic treatment of pertussis-associated pneumonia and bronchitis, and effective treatments for maintaining fluid balance in very young infants.
With whooping cough's incidence having long since decoupled from its mortality, as awareness of the dangers of the whole-cell pertussis vaccine mushroomed, many parents were no longer willing to subject their healthy children to a vaccine which had even a remote chance of severely injuring or killing them, in order to prevent a disease which, although distressing (especially in very young infants), was now highly treatable and rarely deadly.
But public health policymakers, concerned that whooping cough incidence would rebound if vaccine refusal continued to grow, pushed for the development of "a less reactive vaccine... based on isolated B. pertussis components that induced protective immune responses with fewer local and systemic reactions." These so-called acellular vaccines demonstrated "comparable short-term protection to the most effective wPVs with fewer local and systemic reactions" in clinical trials, and began supplanting whole-cell pertussis vaccines in most industrialised countries from the late 1980s (although Japan had already replaced the whole-cell pertussis vaccine with its home-grown acellular pertussis vaccine in 1981).
For a few years, it looked like the ideal solution to the pertussis problem had been found: a new class of vaccines that seemed to work as well as the old ones at taming whooping cough, but without the public-confidence-destroying side-effects. However, the triumph was short-lived:
"After over a decade of use, a rise in pertussis incidence was demonstrated in several industrialized countries, including Australia and the United States (18–22)."
And that's how we got to where we are today: pertussis remains the second most frequently notified vaccine preventable disease in Australia despite 95 per cent compliance with the childhood vaccination schedule, and frank admission by 'the experts' (in the privacy of their academic journals) that even if we repeatedly vaccinated every man, woman and child in this country, we cannot, and will not, eradicate whooping cough with the vaccines we're using.
Meanwhile, in developing countries, whole-cell pertussis vaccines continue to be used because they are considerably cheaper than the acellular versions. According to extensive research led by Drs Peter Aaby and Christine Stabell-Benn, their use (in the form of the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, or DPT vaccine) is associated with more than double the risk of death in children in the small and desperately poor African country of Guinea-Bissau, with girls being particularly at risk. Their conclusion is chilling:
"Although having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality." [emphasis mine]
So no, returning to the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccines is definitely not the answer.
The vaccine true believers hold fast to the notion that all we have to do to solve these problems is to develop better acellular pertussis vaccines. (Of course they do. Check out the Conflict of Interest notice on the WAidid/EVASG report:)
But, to quote that great Australian sage, Darryl Kerrigan, they're dreaming.
The dance between humans and pathogens has been going on since our species emerged, with the resultant "biological arms race" shaping the evolution of both we humans, and the microbes that seek to colonise us.
It is the height of hubris to believe that whooping cough, or any other infectious disease, can be conquered with more and better vaccines. As the pertussis vaccine saga has amply demonstrated, every move the vaccine developers make is met with a counter-move; it's fair to say that our ancient, wily adversary, Bordetella pertussis, now has them in checkmate.
But we don't have to play this no-win game. The dramatic decline in infectious disease mortality that preceded the introduction of vaccines not just for whooping cough, but for all other infectious diseases, occurred because of dramatic changes in human living conditions that improved overall health.
Instead of myopically focusing on 'fighting disease'; we need to build health, through human-appropriate nutrition; adequate physical activity, rest and sleep; meaningful and nurturing relationships; time spent outdoors, in nature; and a sense of purpose in life. None of these building-blocks of health turn a profit for Big Pharma or provide a paycheck for a so-called healthcare worker, but they're the most important investments you can make in yourself and your family.
Another excellent article Robyn. Thank you. Have you written about the HPV vaccine before? We have been holding out on letting them inject our daughter with it. Prior to the terrible COVID vaccines, the HPV vaccines seemed to have the greatest amount of side effects of any of the mass produced vaccines in the U.S. I have also read that efficacy is down to 50% and not very impressive.
Superb, thankyou. I feel like I do the most good in the world when I share links to 'Empowered' pieces like this.