Whooping Cough Vaccine Does Not Work – Says US FDA’s Research

CHS reports here on new research from the US Federal Drug Administration which the researchers claim confirms their hypothesis that whooping cough vaccine does not provide herd immunity and that the disease continues to be easily transmitted and flourishes.  CHS has previously reported that whooping cough [pertussis] vaccine does not work:

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”

Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working

Vaccine Programmes Failing Worldwide – Homer Simpson and The World of Vaccines

A newly published paper of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America makes the claim that the vaccine fails to prevent individuals getting the bacterial infection and fails also to prevent the disease being transmitted to other individuals:  Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model  doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314688110 PNAS November 25, 2013.

The authors suggest the previous “whole cell” vaccine did work and that the acellular vaccine does not.  However, the “whole cell” vaccine caused large numbers of serious adverse reactions in children and had to be abandoned.

What is notable about this is no claim is being made that the failure to achieve herd immunity and prevent the circulation of the disease is because of under-vaccination – as is claimed in the UK with measles cases in South Wales this year.  Here it is being admitted that use of a vaccine does not create herd immunity.  

Despite these findings what is particularly bizarre is that instead of the authors suggesting research is needed into developing effective treatments for whooping cough, a basic childhood disease, and despite this new paper demonstrating 40 years of failure of vaccines in addressing whooping cough, they say we need improved vaccines.  Well, the US FDA and the drug industry have had 40 years to prove themselves and this paper, if it can be believed, suggests they have failed.  It is clearly time for a new improved and safer approach and especially one which does not kill or injure some children as vaccines do. 

The paper is by authors from the Division of Bacterial, Parasitic and Allergenic Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration [“FDA”], Bethesda, MD, 20892.  However, it also states “Edited by Rino Rappuoli, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Srl, Siena, Italy, and approved October 22, 2013 (received for review August 5, 2013)”.  This illustrates the close relationship the US drug safety regulator, the FDA, has with the drug industry when as the safety regulator responsible for approving [or supposedly not approving] drug industry products it should have an “arms length” relationship to help maintain its independence.

The abstract of the paper states:

Baboons vaccinated with aP were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms but not from colonization, did not clear the infection faster than naïve animals, and readily transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts. Vaccination with wP induced a more rapid clearance compared with naïve and aP-vaccinated animals. By comparison, previously infected animals were not colonized upon secondary infection. Although all vaccinated and previously infected animals had robust serum antibody responses, we found key differences in T-cell immunity. Previously infected animals and wP-vaccinated animals possess strong B. pertussis-specific T helper 17 (Th17) memory and Th1 memory, whereas aP vaccination induced a Th1/Th2 response instead. The observation that aP, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis and suggests that optimal control of pertussis will require the development of improved vaccines.”

Advertisements

Help Fight Oppressive Health Laws and Censorship of Public Debate in Australia – Sign Petition

Please help fight for freedom of health information in Australia by signing this petition

On Wednesday morning I signed an Avaaz petition Do not give the NSW HCCC powers of censorship over public and individuals opposing moves to silence criticism of the New South Wales health department. New South Wales is the most populace state of Australia. Within minutes my moderate and reasoned political statement which I had reposted to Facebook was being blocked, deemed “offensive or unsuitable”. It read:

It is simply the end of liberal democracy when government bureaucrats decide what the truth is and enforce a policy based on it. If people think their health is (a) marginal issue – that there are other matters of more political substance – they are in error. You will find there are not only bigger and bigger areas on which you cannot decide for yourself there are bigger and bigger areas in which the state is no longer accountable and can do anything it wants.”

Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network tells me that her Facebook posts are often disrupted in this way or with the enigmatic message “It looks like you were misusing this feature by going to fast. You’ve been blocked from using it.”

It is quite obvious that if anyone was spreading false information about health matters in New South Wales there would already be legal sanction: the problem is saying things the government does not like…(continue reading)

Governments Fake Flu and Measles Death Estimates

How could the UK have an official ‘flu deaths “estimate” which is 360 times higher than actual deaths? 

You know how it is when you hear we are all going to die horribly according to government or World Health Organisation “estimates” of a disease never previously considered a major public health problem? 

Well nowadays when it comes to ‘flu, if an airplane falls out of the sky over the UK and 300 people die, officially they all died from ‘flu according to the UK’s Department of Health.  Yep folks, not politburo propaganda speak of a communist dictatorship but the UK.

You might think – how can that be that true? How can we suddenly have a big problem – at least – according to “latest” government anonymous uncheckable estimates“. [And by some “happy” coincidence it always seems to happen after the drug industry has some kind of drug claimed to treat the disease [if the drug trial data is to be believed]].  

The method of calculation of the UK’s official 12,000 annual deaths “estimate” was confirmed by the UK’s Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson in the British Medical Journal: [UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers.]  The true figures were no more than 33 Britons each year had died from flu over a 4 year period, despite the 12,000 annual officially “estimated” deaths claim. 

To get the estimate, if more people die than “estimated” the UK Department of Health use the excess death figure as their annual flu deaths figure.  So it does not matter what aircrash victims really die of – for official announcements in the press for the UK public – it was ‘flu.

So remember this when you hear claims like those of the US CDC that 36,000 Americans die annually from ‘flu or the UK Department of Health that 12,000 Britons die annually from ‘flu. 

More recently we noted on CHS that the US CDC claimed an estimate of 100 times more measles deaths than expected from published figures for another developed country [ie. UK] and were vastly higher than figures for reported cases from the World Health Organisation: [US Centers for Disease Control Caught Lying About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn]].

So what did Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum numerically challenged trolls do on a blog in a distant galaxy far far away and even further removed from reality?  First they claimed the difference was because of a 3 year difference in the figures: the US CDC figures were on a web page last reviewed in 2009 whereas the WHO figures were from 2012.

Hang on there guys.  A huge difference is because in 3 years the figures changed dramatically by orders of magnitude?

Well in fact no.  Additionally it seems Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls lied about the basis of their claim to a 3 year difference.  Well, Dr Goldacre does encourage the Forum’s trolls by saying pretty much anything goes [albeit he writes he “draws the line at kidnapping“]. 

The CDC web page [Overview of Measles Disease] provides no basis for a three year difference.  The US CDC webpage had been updated only one month earlier. 

Worse still, it looks like the claim to a three year difference was clearly and knowingly false when made. Whilst the US CDC webpage stated it was last reviewed in 2009 it stated clearly it had been updated on 12 September 2013:

Page last reviewed: August 31, 2009
Page last updated: September 12, 2013″

And that’s numberwang!

Dr Ben Goldacre’s whingeing BadScience Forum trolls headed up by James, a former unemployed barman and administrator [blogging as jdc325] also had some gripe about the figure of 1 in 25,000 as provided by the Department of Health for measles mortality rates.  So here again just for the record is the exact quote as provided by the UK Department of Health in a FOIA response:

Death after measles – 1 in 25000 to 1 in 5000 depending on age
Miller CL. Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83. British Medical Journal. 1985; 290:443-4.”

Here is the deal.  Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls jump up and down like excited three year olds as if this is all CHS’ fault. But what is really going on which they completely ignore is CHS writes an article about how government figures are faked, used to mislead and cannot be trusted, and with hard evidence demonstrating that: US Centers for Disease Control Caught Lying About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn].  The article includes an exact quote from the UK Department of Health.  Dr Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls do not agree with the exactly quoted figure from the UK Department of Health which they claim on their reckoning incorrect [kind of the point of the CHS article].  Having then gone off and done “research” at the University of Google [where they seem to have received their qualifications] they assert CHS should have done that too.  They do not at any time criticise the UK Department of Health for putting out incorrect information.

LOL.

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls do this kind of thing routinely.  They claimed previously that a news report should not have been published because it reported and quoted a doctor in the national leading Children’s hospital in Pakistan [which was also part of the national science institute for the country] reporting half the children from a large area of Pakistan who contracted measles had been vaccinated. 

Again, they did their University of Google research and claimed the story should not have been reported whereas it was quoting the doctor from this leading child health institution. Apparently for a news site to report that particular item of news was, according to the BadScience troll-spammers, “cherry-picking”. According to them that was because the reporter did not carry out an extensive review of all medical journal papers published on the topic.  Ha!

Can You Trust Known-to-be Corrupt Governments When They Also Push Useless Flu Vaccines – US Talk Radio Dr Michael Savage On The Savage Nation January 11, 2013

An excellent perspective on the webs of corruption in government and health industry to push useless pharmaceuticals and use health issues to try to exercise control over a population.

Dr. Michael Savage on The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013 on the dangers of and government lies involved with flu vaccines.

If you agree governments have lied about so much else, should you trust them with medical advice to take a ‘flu shot?

Why have US nurses rejected ‘flu vaccines and why do US labor unions oppose mandatory ‘flu shots?

Show starts 8 minutes into the mp3 recording which you can download here:

mp3 download – The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013

Or YouTube – The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013

US Centers for Disease Control Caught Misleading About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn]?

An astute reader has noticed the following seemingly grossly false claims by the US Centers for Disease Control [‘CDC’] – which looks a little like vastly exaggerating the threat measles as a disease poses?

According to the US CDC there are 100 times or 20 million more cases of measles than the WHO reports for the entire world.  And according to the US CDC there are 100 times more deaths from measles [or 162,000 more deaths] than would be expected if relying on figures for a developed country cited by other governments [like the UK Department of Health].

Is this credible? For examples of how governments fake disease statistics to be orders of magnitude higher than the real numbers see Numberwang! Governments Fake Flu and Measles Death Estimates

So how reliable are these figures?

US CDC Figures:

Worldwide, there are estimated to be 20 million cases and 164,000 deaths each year.”

Overview of Measles Disease

Or put another way, the US CDC are alleging the case fatality rate worldwide for measles is 1 person dies in every 122 unvaccinated individuals who catch the disease.

Compare World Health Organisation [WHO] Figures:

Total 2012 worldwide reported measles cases = 226,722.

SOURCE: WHO published Measles reported cases Last update: 20-Oct-2013 (data as of 16-Oct-2013).

Compare Measles Case Fatality Rates England 1960:

The UK Department of Health gave out these figures:

“Death after measles – 1 in 25000″ [sic] “to 1 in 5000 depending on age
Miller CL. Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83. British Medical Journal. 1985; 290:443-4.”

[And the Miller paper the UK’s DoH cites is based on 1960s figures – and case fatality rates have fallen dramatically since the 1960s]

Compare Case Fatality Rates England 1993-2008:

Data from the Health Protection Agency shows there have been 76,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 and no deaths in adults or healthy children from acute measles. There was one death in a 14 year old on immunosuppressant drugs for a lung condition and one in an immunocompromised child [according to the HPA] since 1992.  That gives a chance of nil deaths per annum in healthy children since 1992 over the entire population of England and Wales – which is roughly 55 million – give or take – such as for annual fluctuations etc.  Alternatively the measles case fatality rate is nil for healthy children or 1 in 38,000 when the seriously immunocompromised are included.

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.”

…….

“In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  “

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

According to the Office for National Statistics, the 2008 death is now doubted to have been a measles death.

So the point for anxious parents in the UK being brow-beaten to vaccinate their children is – the chance of their child developing an autistic condition is 1 in 60 and the chance of their child dying from measles if they catch measles if not vaccinated is nil for healthy children [or 1 in 38,000 if the relatively very few very very sick individuals are included].

But of course that is the measles case fatality rate – the rate in individuals who contract the infection.  A large proportion may not catch measles either because they are immune or because they just did not become infected.

The risk of mortality to all children who have not previously contracted measles is what parents need to know – that is the risk to every child and not just those who catch measles – and in developed nations that is far lower.  Only a proportion of the population contract the disease.  [So watch out for measles case fatality rates as they give a distorted idea of the true risk.]

People are extremely bad at assessing risk and overcompensate for negative outcomes.  And in the UK around 600,000 individuals die every year.  British children and adults are at risk from road and other accidents, all sorts of other illnesses, old age and many other causes.  With no deaths in healthy individuals from acute measles and three deaths in very sick individuals since 1992 in England or Wales, the risk of anyone in a year dying from measles has fallen to well below 1 in 55 million overall population figure.

Court Rulings Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link – But US Forbes Magazine’s “Scientist” Blogger Emily “Daisy May Fatty-Pants” Willingham Disagrees

You may decide to never ever trust anything written in the US Forbes magazine on anything [and not just autism] after reading this.

Emily Willingham writes a blog for Forbes magazine in the US claiming to be authoritative about “how science filters to consumers and how consumers make decisions about science“.  [Although how she claims to do that without qualifications or research to back up her claims to expertise in the area is another matter.]

Emily [or “Daisy May Fatty-Pants” as she called herself when starting out as a junior blogger in the little league], got pretty hot under the collar about an article in the Whiteout press entitled “Courts quietly confirm vaccines cause autism”.

So Emily “Fatty-Pants” wrote a piece for her Forbes blog “Court Rulings Don’t Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link” [9th September 2013].  In that blog post Emily makes claims which are untrue.  So CHS is setting the record straight to help Emily understand that writing biased blogs which mislead consumers aboutscience” whilst claiming to do the reverse is something of a “no-no“.

Forbes magazine has a track record of backing writers who claim vaccines simply do not and cannot cause autistic conditions whilst at the same time such writers will typically claim what causes them is a mystery [which is a wholly contradictory and illogical position to take].  If you claim not to know what causes autistic conditions then you might have some difficulty claiming you do know vaccines never do.

We only have to take one paragraph of Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham’s blog to show it makes numerous claims which are not true – so misleading the consumers she is claiming to be putting right on the facts about science:

The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article is the 2012 finding of a local Italian court that a child was diagnosed with autism a year after receiving an MMR. The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper and the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari, it seems, has written a book on how vaccines cause autism and peddles an autism “cure” that he’s devised.”

If we dealt with all the false claims in her entire Forbes blog this would be an extremely long CHS article.  The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article was not the Italian case but two US cases.  

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Omitted Articles Centerpieces – Two US Court Cases – Children Awarded US$ Millions

The Whiteout Press story centered on two US Court decisions where two US children who developed autistic conditions after receiving MMR vaccines were awarded millions of US dollars in compensation. So Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham’s consumer readers were very seriously misled.

The Whiteout Press centerpiece was not the claimed Italian Court decision about the little Italian boy Valentino Bocca who developed autism after receiving the same MMR vaccine given to children in the USA – Merck’s MMR II.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” False Claim – Italian Court “Relied Heavily” on Biased Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Physician

Emily “Fatty-Pants” made another completely untrue claim that “[t]he court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on ….. the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari …“.

The Court appointed its own independent expert to write an independent report for the Court.  The Court relied on the report of its own independent expert.  This was not an expert hired by Valentino Bocca’s attorney.  So again, Emily “Fatty-Pants” seriously misled her consumer readers at Forbes magazine on issues of science.

The Court appointed independent expert was also not anyone called “Massimo Montinari” or anything even close.  So again Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham seriously misled her consumer readers at Forbes magazine on issues of science.

What Did The Court Appointed Independent Expert Rely On?

In a wide-ranging review of the literature the independent expert cited a large number of medico-scientific papers and publications.  These included publications from the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GAVCS), World Health Organization, the US Institute of Medicine [2001 and 2004], Brent Taylor, Fombonne, Madsen and many more too numerous to list here.

So yet again Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham demonstrates how she very seriously misled her consumer readers on their decisions about science and bases her misinformation on invention from anonymously published blogs.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” False Claim – The Court Relied Heavily on Wakefield’s MMR Lancet Paper

Another outright falsehood by Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham was the claim “The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper“.  That is purely and simply invention which Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham appears to have quoted from a blog she linked to which is published anonymously.  Bit of a Big Oops there for Emily “Fatty-Pants”.

The Italian Court did not rely on the Wakefield paper “heavily” or at all.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Failed to Tell Her Consumer Readers The Italian Government Did Not Dispute Merck’s MMR II Vaccine Caused The Child’s Autism

Emily “Fatty-Pants” misled her consumer readers in making their decisions on issues of science in that the evidence in the Valentino Bocca case was sufficiently clear that the Italian Health Ministry did not contest that the MMR vaccine had caused little Valentino Bocca’s autism.  They instead contested his entitlement to compensation because the vaccination was not compulsory [but of course heavily promoted to Italian parents to make them feel guilty if they did not vaccinate their child].

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Did Not Even Read the News Article She Criticised on Forbes

Worse is whilst Emily “Fatty-Pants” linked to a blog she relied on as her source Emily “Fatty-Pants” failed completely to link to the news story she was writing about.  She did link to a different blog which did not carry the original Whiteout Press article but a reblogged different and clearly edited version.

And yet even worse still for Emily “Fatty-Pants” is that it seems she did not even read the article at all.  She cited it by an incorrect title – omitting the word “quietly“.  That is what the blog she cited as her source did – used that incorrect title – omitting the word “quietly“.  So it looks very much like Emily “Fatty-Pants” just read the anonymous blog she used as her source and not the article she claimed to criticise at all.

The blog Emily “Fatty-Pants” cited, SkepticalRaptor is one of the dime-a-dozen negative “skeptic” attack blogs pumping out misinformation about health issues, contributing nothing of value to human knowledge, whilst claiming things like “hunting pseudoscience in the internet jungle“.  And like a bird-of-a-feather Emily “Fatty-Pants” claims to write about “how science filters to consumers and how consumers make decisions about science” with no proper sources to back it up – but plenty of invention and hot air.

And it gets worse.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Missed Mentioning Another of the Article’s Centerpieces

A centerpiece was also this – which Emily failed to mention at all – and which led directly to the article being published:

It was a regular reader named Kathleen that brought this ongoing story to our attention here at Whiteout Press. When asked what her connection to the vaccine-autism battle was, the young reader replied, “I just researched it for a school project a while back and then I stayed on top of it, until I couldn’t stand it anymore. I’m not a parent, nor do I belong to any organization – a mere outside observer.

This reader isn’t alone. The news that vaccines cause autism has spread across the US despite a coordinated media black-out. She takes her concerns one step further explaining, “All I want is to see this information where the public can access it. I’ve looked everywhere, and no one gives this dire Wakefield situation even ONE small mention.” She goes on to give us another motivation for her activism, “In Washington State, where I’m from, vaccines have become mandatory for school children, which is very frightening!

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Calls Wakefield’s Paper Fraudulent But Fails to Mention it is Just An Allegation And Is Being Contested in the Texas State Court

Emily “Fatty-Pants” use of “fraudulent” is subject to defamation proceedings in the Texas State Court against the British Medical Journal.  She failed to mention that at all which is a bit of an oversight and is misleading to your consumer readers when making their decisions about science.  If any of them get into trouble with the law later for repeating that can they sue Emily for misleading them whilst claiming to be an authority on science and how consumers made decisions about science?

We thought we ought to mention that “fraudulent” appears to be an allegation made by the BMJ which may have been made without looking too carefully at the facts first.  The BMJ’s Texas “Anti-SLAPP” statute counter suit, predicted by the blogosphere to put an end to the case instantly as baseless, appears to have vanished and been dropped by the BMJ.  That seems to add some credence to the possibility that “fraudulent” is a less than appropriate description.  Maybe Emily you might care to mention that as a matter of accuracy?  But then it is Forbes magazine you write for and if we go by your blog then, who knows, maybe accuracy is not Forbes strong suit?

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Defames An Italian Doctor Too

Defamation seems to be a bit habit forming for Emily.  It appears there is an Italian doctor Massimo Montinari who has helped hundreds of children and families with treatments which have been working for many doctors in the US, UK and around the world: Vaccine and autism, alarm or psychosis? October 22, 2012 L’Unità