Perhaps this Australian documentary should have been labelled...
Totally missing the point. Or .. A bunch of Lies. Take your pick.
The Australian 60 Minutes journalist who had the responsibility for doing the research for this programme, is professionally incompetent.
You will not understand this blog unless you take the time to download all the full text medical articles, tables, graphs etc in this blog, and study for yourself what a 60 minutes journalist refused to look at. Or .... chose not to.
The increase in pertussis has nothing to do with the unvaccinated at all. It's all happening because doctors in Australia have finally woken up to the fact that pertussis can happen in vaccinated people and are testing for it.
The reason all the old studies over-estimated pertussis vaccine efficacy was, as Cherry said in a 1998 medical article, that doctors believe that vaccinated people never got pertussis, so they never diagnosed it. SIMPLE. Pertussis after a vaccine was coincidence and something else.According to Dempsey 2009, that situation still exists in USA today.
As to the Australian whole cell whooping cough vaccine, it was implemented solely on the basis of trust, because as CDI admitted in 1994, there were NEVER any efficacy tests done on it, and there were no "serological correlates" or tests to prove immunity, for them to use as a basis of discussion anyway.
Wonder what the Australian public would have said back then, if some doc had said, "We don't know if this works, because we don't know how to test for immunity to pertussis, but we assume this bright idea is a good one."
The Australian CDI went one further in 1997, and admitted that they ALSO... didn't collect data on the vaccination status of whooping cough cases either.
Had the 60 minutes journalist, read the CDI's 1998 article on history of pertussis in Australia, she might have asked a question like, "If in 1989, only 55% of one year olds had had 3 shots of pertussis vaccine, how come there were no deaths or cases reported?"
Of course we can tell her the answer. Doctors who assume that vaccines are safe, and prevent disease, would look at kid with whooping cough, study their card which said they were vaccinated, and say, "Oh that's not pertussis, that's a coincidental cough!"
One of the most common diagnoses of the time for pertussis was... wait for it... "asthma"!!!! And "Pseudo-whooping cough" or "Must-be-a-virus". Our unvaccinated children were diagnosed with pertussis, after catching it from vaccination children who had a "bronchial virus". Any old waste basket sufficed, so long as the parent had something to hang on to. And most often these kids were sent to school, to spread their cough to everyone else. But, whatever the doctor said, must be right, because he went to medical school and whatever the doctor says, is science.
It's only recently that someone slapped their forehead and intoned..., "Oh dear, if we put garbage diagnoses in, we get garbage science out."But how often do you hear that admitted in the media?
So in New Zealand for instance, the premier paediatrician wrote a medical article on whooping cough in 2010 espousing the usual "more-vaccines-will-do-the-job-better" mantra. I was reading along, and them came across the ludicrous box in Figure 2 which showed "Pertussis immunisation available 1945":
The really interesting point about this statement is that maximum uptake of this vaccine was 9%, before it was stopped in 1954 because of the polio epidemic, and not resumed until 1961.We mustn't let facts spoil the unsaid insinuation that the existence of a vaccine, which wasn't used, had something to do with the graph after that. (Another article he co-wrote in 2007, is also of interest).
And Grant continues to argue for more and more vaccination, with the emphasis on more timely vaccination and vaccinating everyone else... in spite of the fact that he's known since 2004, that the current Pertussis vaccine has about a 33% "effective vaccination" rate.
60 Minutes "Getting to the Point", exemplifies everything that is medically myopic about the problem of whooping cough.
Doctor's don't even have any ideas as to how to treat whooping cough correctly, which leaves parents to learn about that elsewhere. Many years ago, when the discussion about altitude treatment was raised by a doctor no less, in South Island newspapers, Grant intoned that altitude treatment sounded like, "a myth from old wives", not realising that it was right there, in his own medical literature, and remains standard practice in the UK military to this day, because it works.
Most doctors continue to prescribe antibiotics not realising that their own medical literature shows that using antibiotics can actually make whooping cough worse.
Even medical doctors who wrote about whooping cough in the past, had to find a place for the sacred cow of vaccine. McLean, in his very interesting 1964 book considered that the reduction in mortality was primarily due to improved living conditions, but felt the need to add in that vaccines might have had an impact.
The rise in reported cases of pertussis is happening everywhere as doctors realise it is now okay to diagnose whooping cough in vaccinated - so long as you blame the unvaccinated.... USA, Australia, Europe and New Zealand are all talking about it...
However, it was the Netherlands which first discussed the fact in 1998 that the whooping cough vaccine was driving bacterial mutations and in 2009, the same team talked about the greater toxicity of these new strains. In 2005, Finland found the same pattern, followed by Russia in 2007.
Debate about new strains is also raging in USA. In 2009, UK also discussed it, though their study was a waffle. It's now recognised that the same problem has hit Australia with the Daily Telegraph admitting in February 2010 that this was the case.
How did that nasty little fact, escape 60 Minutes?
By accident?
How did it escape the attention of 60 Minutes that fully vaccinated Australian doctors were also coming down with whooping cough? How could they not ask the question, "Why are fully vaccinated medical staff getting and spreading these diseases in hospitals?"
Are the unvaccinated the scapegoats to divert the provaccine parents from looking at real facts about a vaccine which is a monumental flop?
Is the only reason that this was not exposed on the documentary, medical observer bias and media complicity? What role have the vaccine manufacturers played in this continued complicity of silence?
But there is a bigger problem that parents need to understand.
There are TWO organisms which medical literature states can cause whooping cough-like symptoms. Pertussis and parapertussis. If many doctors still can not see pertussis when it sits in a chair in front of them, and spreads in their waiting rooms...., would they know parapertussis if they saw it?
Given that Long 2010 shows that vaccinating against pertussis increases the chance of getting parapertussis infections 40-fold,
How do we know whether the increase we are seeing is pertussis, or parapertussis being caused by the pertussis vaccine? The two infections can be equally as serious.
But back to Australia.
To understand what is going on a bit better, it might have been nice to have been shown the CDI table of Australian notified whooping cough cases from 1991 to 2011, don't you think?
Then maybe they could have shown the age range in 2010, as well.
*****The age range is of most interest, because it shows the LEAST whooping cough amongst the age groups MOST exposed to whooping cough outbreaks in the years shown in the graph from 1991 to 2011.*****
You could argue that the best vaccine against pertussis is actually the infection itself!
Which is pretty much what Cherry inferred in his 2004 article on original sin. Funny how 60 Minutes never thought about that.
Perhaps 60 Minutes might have asked the Australian CDI if they had got around to collecting the vaccination status of all the cases up to 2011...., which they had thought so important in 1998. Their answer might have been very interesting.
Then too, 60 Minutes could have shown us the CDI vaccination rates for 2011, which are the highest ever in history though the rates have been above 90% since 2005.... Yet these high rates appear to be doing nothing. And no-one in 60 Minutes even thought to ask why?
Instead we hear more about "protective cocooning"? We are told we must vaccinate grandmas, grandpas, parents, aunties, friends, enemies, pastors, nurses again, and again... ... in fact, anyone who might come into contact with that baby. And the dustman if need be.
Yet, ... if the vaccine doesn't work as it's used now, what would make any competent journalist think that vaccinating every grandparent, parent of a young child would work better? Because the doctor says so?
Shouldn't journalists be thinking seriously about the fact that so far, everything the doctors are saying to this point is worth as much as monopoly money? What about the "facts" behind cocooning? Proof please? Oh, you don't have any? So why are you suggesting it? Oh? You don't have any better of an idea? Well how do you know your next idea is any good?
Actually....there is one seriously big problem with cocooning.
The first is that most of these people would have had their first experience of whooping cough via a needle, which in 2004 according to the eminent expert, Cherry.. results in what is called "original sin". I'll not bore you with that whole tedious story of original sin in this blog, because it's in another blog here. A more complete discussion is ,,,, chapter 82 in our second book.
As you can see, "original sin" is a somewhat major detail, and a serious omission in this discussion of revaccinating the multiply revaccinated..... a person responds to a pathogen the same way as their body was taught the first time, and the whooping cough vaccines prime the immune system incorrectly with a major functional flaw.
Because there have been no large studies proving the effectiveness of cocooning, no-one will be any the wiser about "original sin", because ..... it's easier to blame all the unvaccinated!
Wouldn't it have been really interesting if 60 Minutes had put up this graph, ....and asked the experts why it's impossible for them to see the herd of elephants in their own tea-room?
But then, to do that they would have had to have seen the herd of elephants for themselves.
