To VAX or not to VAX—part 2

I did a bit more research on the Whooping Cough vaccine (yes, I know, I should do that sort of thing before writing the previous post!). This was going to be a comment on the previous thread, but was so huge, it deserved to be a post on its own.

It was the death of a baby (Riley) due to whooping cough recently that started this mandatory vaccination campaign that we have at the moment (and the government “blackmail” for mandatory vaccinations). My assumption is that, the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and “acellular” pertussis) is particulary risky, and a bit of a crap shoot, and seems to have some bearing.


This post, written by a female doctor, Dr Brogan, focuses on the immunity myth, particularly with DTaP, and specifically the notion of vaccinations of pregnant women. She has researched the concept of vax recommendations for pregnant women, and found the peer (and CDC) information somewhat underwhelming.

She continues with the backstory on the childhood immunisation programme:

Pertussis incidence was waning on its own until a 1980 mandate to vaccinate in 42 states. Since this time, and since the introduction of the seemingly “less dangerous” acellular pertussis vaccine (the whole cell vaccine was so clearly toxic that seizure activity and fevers drove parents away from vaccination, and it still took almost 50 years to change the product)

The earlier version was the ‘whole cell’ pertussis, called DPT, the current version is called DTaP. (my emphasis)

Despite egregious efforts on the part of the media, and even medical authors […] to blame the unvaccinated population, the truth is finally too obvious to ignore. After known outbreaks in Idaho, Cincinnati, California, and North Carolina where the majority to 100% of the infected population was vaccinated (no room for finger pointing there), we, just this week, have the crowning achievement appearing in the NY Times, of all places, stating:

“But scientists say the problem of surging whooping cough cases has more to do with flaws in the current vaccines than with parents’ resistance. The new finding suggests yet another weakness of the vaccine — that even people recently vaccinated may be continuing to spread the infection without getting sick.”

In other words, these vaccinations could well be causing a form of Typhoid Maryism, a significant number of the vaccinated, but are asymptomatic carriers (more about that below).

She goes on to say that “[t]hey appear to be advocating for use of the old whole cell vaccine”, which becomes worrying, because the amount of death and damage done to babies was the reason parents turned away from the vaccine! She then concludes with some of the questionable ingredients present in most vaccines, and then advises that maybe it is not really a good idea for pregnant women. Mark my words, compulsory vaccination programmes (for children) WILL come in eventually as compulsory for pregnant women, resulting pregnant women being accused with “harming their unborn child” and “being irresponsible”. Of course these accusations and mandatory vaccinations for pregnant women will most likely be done by the ‘foetal protection’ laws that are gaining in popularity (the entire purpos of those laws by the way, is to control or punish women, don’t be fooled otherwise).

A vaccine-questioning website has published emails of parents’ experience with ‘bad’ reaction following children’s vaccination with the (supposedly safer) DTaP.

Although the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and “acellular” pertussis) vaccine replaced the DPT (diphtheria, tetanus, and “whole-cell” pertussis) vaccine a few years ago (because some authorities believed it to be safer), recent emails by concerned parents indicate that this newer version of the triple shot may also be dangerous to your child. Correlations between the pertussis vaccine and SIDS are also documented on this website.

The parents’ accounts show remarkably similar symptoms in the children, the symptoms showing from a few hours to three days after vaccination. It is the similarity of the symptoms (and timing) that lends credibility to the DTaP vax as the culprit. Actually, in reading those accounts, this sounds like the post-vaccination episode that affected myself as a baby (and due to the timeframe, it would have been the DPT version). My mother’s description was: high fever, shaking/convulsions, turning blue (the latter most likely from lack of oxygen). Yet there are a significant number of babies suffering the same ‘side effects’, even with the supposedly safer DTaP today. Fortunately for most, the babies did eventually make full recovery, but unfortunately, some were damaged for life, some quite severely. This is the risk factor that is being swept under the rug by the pro-vax lobby, and I find that totally unacceptable and completely dishonest. Although I do not have any reliable numbers, the choice seems to be—vax to eliminate a fairly small risk of illness/death (it is not always fatal), but have a slightly higher risk of serious adverse reaction to permanent damage.

Now onto the beloved ‘herd’ immunity. With Pertussis particularly, there is not life-long immunity, but interestingly (from Reuters, my emphasis):

Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease.

“We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That’s what started catching our attention,” said Witt.


Of the 132 patients under age 18, 81 percent were up to date on recommended whooping cough shots and eight percent had never been vaccinated. The other 11 percent had received at least one shot, but not the complete series.

Note that in the above outbreak, the smallest percentage were the unvaccinated, the absolute highest percentage were the ‘fully vaccinated’. This can of course be in part that the fully vaccinated make up the majority anyway, but it does show that outbreaks of this kind are not due to the unvaccinated. And it does show, that without a doubt, if you are for the mandatory vaccinations of children and subscribe to the ‘herd’ immunity, then constant mandatory vaccinations are required for the entire population, including adults, for LIFE (try mandating compulsory medical intervention for men!). However, in the case of Pertussis, it still might not stop you getting it; might increase your chance of getting it; and fairly likely, becoming an asymptomatic carrier (no tests were done on the vaccinated who did not go onto the illness to ascertain whether they were asymptomatic carriers—a huge flaw in the plan to ascertain the ‘herd’ immunity!)

Back to Dr Brogan:

The wisdom of the immune system is such that infection educates the body in ways that we do not completely understand (it’s more than just antibody production!), and then passive exposure from infected individuals in the community, serves to continually reeducate and “boost” the potential response that keeps reinfection at bay.

Vaccines don’t do this, have never done this, and will never do this. DTaP is a perfect example.

In the case of infants, they would inherit natural antibodies and then pass them onto their newborns for years of protection – by evolutionary design. The assumption that vaccine-induced antibodies that pass through the placenta would pass for protection has never been demonstrated, and, in fact, is just that – an assumption. We have also seen shifts of the burden of disease to more vulnerable populations, and in many cases, this population is the newborn, exactly who we were intending to protect.

She goes on:

Here’s why the pertussis vaccine doesn’t work:

  • It commits original antigenic sin. This means that the vaccine triggers an immune response to bacteria, but not to a toxin through which the bacteria does its damage, called ACT. Because of this, the body may “mislearn” how to respond, rendering the vaccinated 4-15 times more vulnerable to future infection than they would have been originally.
  • The vaccinated are also colonized with and vulnerable to parapertussis, a related infection.

So the case of DTaP, very shakey indeed.

Given that the Pertussis vaccination programme possibly makes it more likely to future infection than otherwise, it seems to be a false prophecy. From other site, this article (I think he may be wrong in some aspects of the actual mechanisms, but is correct in one key point):

Whooping cough vaccines keep whooping cough in circulation! The vaccines cause the very disease they claim to treat, so the more kids get vaccinated, the more outbreaks occur! This then results in more people calling for more vaccines, which causes even more whooping cough outbreaks to occur, and this sick profiteering cycle of vaccine quackery repeats itself over and over until children are pumped full of useless vaccines while the drug companies bank on record profits and all the parents are living in fear.

Earlier, he makes three key points:

  • The whooping cough vaccines have NEVER been tested for long-term efficacy.
  • Doctors openly admit the vaccine “doesn’t provide lasting protection” against the disease.
  • But doctors and government authorities mindlessly push the vaccine anyway?!

Particularly the first point, if the government/CDC etc were really serious about the ‘herd’ immunity thing, then you know, long-term follow-up would be a key element of this (not done!). And where they know that a particular vaccination is relatively short-acting or requires ‘boosters’ (4-6 vaccinations of DTaP are recommended for children), then an attempt to eradicate a disease comes back to mandatory vaccinations for the entire population for life (I probably should not give BigPharma any ideas, but they probably are figuring ways to make this happen).

Of course, the big deal in all this, given the ‘fully vaccinated’ make the majority of Pertussis cases, and no one has yet ruled out asymptomatic carriers (particularly among the vaccinated), this entire vaccination programme is highly questionable to say the least.

With the MMR (or MMRV programme), one of the main issues parents have is that the programme is combined, and not available in separate innoculations. Again, the governments go out of their way to prevent choice in the matter.

From the reading I did a few days ago (and have since forgotten the links), it seems the main issue with MMR is not the vaccination itself (de-activated versions of the viruses), but the preservatives and other agents that come with this multi-vaccine (some agents are specifically required only because it is a multi-vaccine, hence single doses generally would not contain these, or at least the degree of these substances).

Reading the CDC website on one agent, Thimerosal, which is used mainly in Flu vaccinations (particularly multi-strains) but not used in MMR, there are a number of questionable/contradictory details (extracts from the page):

What is thimerosal? Is it the same as mercury?

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound and has been used for decades in the United States and other countries. It’s use as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes.

Mercury is a metal found naturally in the environment and affects the human body differently than thimerosal.

What is the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury? How are they different?

When learning about thimerosal and mercury it is important to understand the difference between two different compounds that contain mercury: ethylmercury and methylmercury. They are totally different materials.

  • Methylmercury is formed in the environment when mercury metal is present. If this material is found in the body, it is usually the result of eating some types of fish or other food. High amounts of methylmercury can harm the nervous system. This has been found in studies of some populations that have long-term exposure to methylmercury in foods at levels that are far higher than the U.S. population. In the United States, federal guidelines keep as much methylmercury as possible out of the environment and food, but over a lifetime, everyone is exposed to some methylmercury.
  • Ethylmercury is formed when the body breaks down thimerosal. The body uses ethylmercury differently than methylmercury; ethylmercury is broken down and clears out of the blood more quickly. Low-level ethylmercury exposures from vaccines are very different from long-term methylmercury exposures, since the ethylmercury does not stay in the body.

Is thimerosal safe for people?

Yes. Thimerosal has been used safely in vaccines for a long time (since the 1930s) and has a proven track record of being safe. A variety of scientists have been studying the use of vaccines that have thimerosal in them for many years. They haven’t found any actual evidence that thimerosal causes harm.

Why was thimerosal removed from vaccines given to children?

  • Although no evidence suggests that there are safety concerns with thimerosal, vaccine manufacturers have stopped using it as a precautionary measure.The only vaccine that still includes thimerosal as a preservative is the multi-dose inactivated influenza vaccine. There are other formulations of flu vaccine that do not include thimerosal.
  • In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was required by law to assess the amount of mercury in all the products the agency oversees, not just vaccines. The U.S. Public Health Service decided that as much mercury as possible should be removed from vaccines, and thimerosal was the only source of mercury in vaccines.
  • The decision to remove it was a made as a precautionary measure to decrease overall exposure to mercury among young infants.

The TL;DR version: So totally different, but remarkably similar. Totally safe, but we removed it (as much as possible) “as a precaution”.

The logical argument would be, if it was “totally safe”, then why remove it, “as a precaution”? The authorities usually say this when they know damned well it is potentially harmful, or suspected of being harmful, but they will hush it up and remove it “as a precaution”. Medico double-speak.

Although the link between the MMR and autism may not have been proven absolutely (but is suspected by some), and any adverse effects are more likely to be due to the gunk they put in the multi-vax rather than the de-activated viruses themselves, there are potentially other complications/risks as well, even though pro-vaxxers insist all these vaccinations are totally 100% safe. Scroll down and read the section on febrile seizures on the MMR page. So not totally safe then.

It is the one big issue I have with the pro-vax stance, denial of risk exposure. Nor are parents routinely informed at the time of vaccinations about those risks, however minor, like for all other drugs. This flies in the face of parental concerns, because the parents are concerned for their children’s welfare, yet are unknowingly exposing them to risk.

This comes back down to Informed Consent (the lack thereof) and the undisclosed risks of any mandatory or psuedo-mandatory vaccination programme. Programmes such as fluoride in the water supply are also questionable and leading to later health or cosmetic dental issues. Those programmes are also not informed consent, and rolled out by the government authorities, like it or not. Basically, their track record is not that flash, and frequently contains a degree of “acceptable losses”. It is a patriarichical/military mindset. Fine I guess if you are not the one affected, but “tough shit” if you are. Therefore mandatory or psuedo-mandatory immunisation programmes, with undisclosed risk, are really a form of russian roulette played out on the population at large.


19 thoughts on “To VAX or not to VAX—part 2

  1. I did read your “About” page, so I realize this comment will be unlikely to be published. That’s fine. It’s a subject important enough to me to present some information, even if no one will read it but you.

    I work as a medical assistant and imaging tech. I have worked previously in a variety of hospitals (big and small), family practices, and currently an Urgent Care clinic. I do not have as many years of health care education as a doctor, but I do have as much as a Registered Nurse, four years. Like all health care professionals in the US, we also have to take course work every year to remain qualified to renew our various licenses. That’s my level of expertise. I’m not allowed to “opine” above or outside the scope of practice of my own licenses.

    I’m completely supportive of informed consent, regarding any medical procedure or treatment. Unfortunately, using search engines and reading web sites cannot provide anything remotely close to the same quality of unbiased information you get from taking courses at a University, and performing internships under the supervision of doctors. No one is regulating the Internet, or preventing people with agendas from lying on web sites. If you want to actually BE informed, you have no alternative but to seek information from real people whose expertise you decide to trust because they have concrete qualifications. Either that, or you accept the self-delusion that you will have the time and resources to become expert in all areas of knowledge yourself.

    This is a source of increasing frustration for those of us who work diligently to serve patients. People come in sick or injured, the doctors recommend simple, proven solutions, and every few days we still get a patient who responds with (in effect) “Let me check the Internet first.” It makes us wonder why we ever bothered to get the education!

    I don’t wish to waste either of our time getting into a conflict over what my “links” say compared to yours, and it’s pointless to try and convince someone who questions the very intent of those of us who spend our lives trying to heal the sick. So I’ll just put my position out there simply. Vaccines have risks. All treatments have risks. We decide whether or not to use them NOT because they are risk-free, but because on a risk vs. benefit basis, they are safer and more effective than doing nothing, or doing something that has no proven efficacy against disease, like taking nutritional supplements, homeopathics, prayer or what-have-you. The diseases are real, they hurt people, and the bugs don’t care how good your diet is.

    I did write a post on combating misinformation about vaccines that contains information addressing many of the questions in your two posts, if you are interested:

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, even though you are male, I have let this comment through, mainly for the respectful tone. Firstly, the part I really do agree with, and the big part missing from pro-vax:

      Vaccines have risks. All treatments have risks. We decide whether or not to use them NOT because they are risk-free, but because on a risk vs. benefit basis, they are safer and more effective than doing nothing

      Until the pro-vax (and medical profession, and BigPharma) can be a lot more honest about the risk, instead of sweeping it under the rug, I will continue to view it with suspicion. After all, this was the same ‘learned’ medical profession that insisted leeches and frontal labotomies were the way forward, not that long ago.Track record, not so hot. Certainly the medical profession did get better in the 20th century (after a lot of hideous experimentation on people I might add), but they are still far from perfect, and probably the reason there is the motivation is a financial one in many (not all) cases, ie attracting the wrong kind of people into the profession.

      I am coming at this from the logical argument perspective primarily. I think that each vaccine course should be examined individually (I have not done much research on MMR, and unlikely to at the moment, given IRL priorities). However, the DTaP is the most questionable of the bunch, from a variety of perspectives, and also has the most compelling connections with adverse reactions. Not enough research has been done into asymptomatic carriers (rendering the ‘herd’ immunity fairly moot). If the governments/health authorities were serious about eradication, then they would mandate every citizen continues with boosters up until old age (but they don’t, and again, asymptomatic carriers still makes this a losing proposition). Multi-vaccines are questionable for children (and the multi’s have to have some kind of preservative in them, so if multi’s were eliminated, then any risk from preseveratives is removed).

      And pro-vaxxers need to stop with their cult mantra of ‘herd’ immunity. They sound like dickheads, when clearly, even in a highly vaccinated population cases are occuring among the vaccinated (and always blamed on the unvaccinated).

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Thank you for taking the time to research this a bit. It’s a contentious subject and anti-vaxxers get name-called a lot, which leaves me suspicious.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. They removed the mercury preservative because of lobbying and public pressure. It sounds bad but its harmless.


  4. Thank you for undertaking very extensive research on the contentious issue of ‘to vaccinate or not to vaccinate.’ As usual issue is far more complex than what our male political masters claim.

    Who benefits from all these vaccination programmes? No guesses it is Big Pharma who are financially profiting. Likewise we must remain sceptical of central government propaganda which claims ‘if you don’t vaccinate your child you endanger other children!’

    The central issue is ‘informed consent’ but as usual male dominated central governments claim they are the experts or rather they commonly rely upon their so-called ‘Big Pharma experts’ who tell them ‘yes this vaccine is safe so you can demand citizens must vaccinate because if they do not then x,y z will happen and it will be their fault!’

    Knowledge is power which is why we must continue to be sceptical of Big Pharma’s claims and recognise that even those so-called independent agencies such as the FDA are not ‘independent or objective’ as they claim.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Hi! I’ve been a lurker for a few months; I found your blog via Gender Trender, although I haven’t subscribed through my WordPress account. I’m here to read about feminism, and wasn’t expecting an article on vaccines, but I also have a BSc in microbiology and am pretty well-qualified to address some of the questions that you raise. I’ve seen a lot of good research + fact-checking in your previous posts, and from the radfem community in general, but research into vaccination is complicated in that a lot of the info out there is objectively false, but presented in a scientific-sounding way so as to trick people into believing it. I have no financial or corporate interest in vaccines (currently doing unrelated publicly-funded cell biology research for a PhD), and no interest in insulting people who are anti-vaccination.

    I’ll wait for your say-so to do this, but your comments and last 2 posts say things like “the pro-vaxxers never address this”, etc., and I’m happy to address those points. I think that a lack of clarity on these points is largely due to atrocious science reporting in the media, and not a sign that those points/issues have never been addressed. It’s difficult for most people to find the relevant information, unless they have a degree in a related field, and obviously not everyone has the time/money/interest to become a scientist.

    For now, I’ll just say that while I understand that you want to rely on female experts, Dr. Brogan is definitely not an expert or a reliable source. She’s been called out as a quack and a shill by immunologist Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris, here: Although Dr. Brogan is an MD, she practices “integrative holistic medicine” (a New Age thing) and psychiatry; she has no qualifications in epidemiology or immunology. Dr. Brogan has basically just made up most of her claims; I can clarify and cite in further detail if you are interested. As you say, informed consent is important for vaccination, but it only counts as informed consent if you are given legitimate information about the risks and benefits.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “In a society that not only perceived women as childlike, irrational and sexually unstable…”
      Thank you Davina for sharing and researching!

      It’s amazing to think our entire medical profession is still based around this so called “knowledge”, because “man knows best”. Though, what he’s naming within woman is his own self. As there’s a reason why we call him “manchild”, single minded, thus making him irrational and he’s the one known for being the rapist, not woman.
      We’ve got the crazies running the asylum…

      Liked by 1 person

  6. i have an autoimmune disease and cannot get most vaccines, so i really really really appreciate these posts. didn’t even realize i had these questions and concerns til you brought em up! thanks a ton. the hpv vaccine is pure human (female) experimentation and torture, no doubt about it. just prep girls for piv and never tell boys and men to stop doing that to us. utterly shameful.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks for your comment, endlessleeper, welcome.

      There is a lot of questionable stuff going on with many of the vaccines, and Gardasil, yes indeed, one of the most questionable. I have not checked recently, but when it came out, only covered two of the HPV strains, and was trialled on teen girls only, not boys, sometimes with horrendous results. See the link I posted below. A significant number of whistleblowers coming forward (yeah, the usual, female first, everyone ignores them, but someone with a penis says it, suddenly it gets noticed! Magic Penis!)

      My official position is to be ‘vax questioning’ – to investigate thoroughly, each and every one, before lining up your kids for it. Gardasil is so very dodgy, and I would advise if you had daughters, stress condoms if they are going to have PIV (nuns ‘mysteriously’ don’t get cervical cancer, so PIV, particularly multiple partners, is the key). But so true, the reasoning behind Gardasil, is purely PIV-compliant ones. It is time that women woke up to the dangers in the ‘sexual revolution’ (aka, male entitlement to PIV). Girls are steered away from either masturbation, or lesbian sex, and funneled into PIV with males (and accidental pregnancies, that have life long consequences). Time to change that, encourage girls’ masturbation (or lesbian sex) – because far more reliable for sexual satisfaction, than PIV with porn-soaked males.

      Liked by 1 person

      • i have no children, never had piv and no plans to do either, so that definitely takes care of a huge part of the equation. the willful blindness about piv is incredible. how many horrific conditions are caused DIRECTLY by it? how much of medical “care” for women is about forcing them into it and charging them to mitigate the effects of it? no piv=no bodily harm, period. i was in school when the piv vaccine–oops, sorry, gardasil–got trialled and it was terrifying seeing so many of my FEMALE classmates get it. of course men aren’t the problem. girls and women just mysteriously get pregnant, stds, fatal diseases etc from themselves.
        genuinely scary. i have a doctor’s appointment i’m REALLY not looking forward to tomorrow so i really appreciate this post. medicine is 90% quackery. it’s genuinely astonishing.

        Liked by 4 people

      • I thought it was Cervarix which only covered 2 strains. You are so right about alternatives to PIV, people like Laci Green are a big problem in normalizing anal sex for girls and piv and only giving harm reduction tips as if its inevitable. Perhaps a lot of “asexuals” are just anti-piv women. Its actually not known if condoms protect against HPV but they are still obvs a good idea, carrageenan (a seaweed) has been shown to prevent herpies transmission when applied topically and I think HPV too but I can’t remember. You can get it in some lubes, idk if it actually has enough as was used in the study to reduce transmission though.


  7. I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s not meant to treat cervical cancer, its meant to prevent the strains of HPV that are most likely to lead to cervical cancer. A new Gardasil was released in the US recently that covers more strains. Its a 9 strain vac.


  8. endlesssleepers comments are good. There is nothing in the sex ed that really addresses the pressure for piv. Not having it would be the best idea but though morbid to consider if you get raped and have had the vac at least you’d be less likely to get certain HPV strains. Best choice for female health is simply not to have piv.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.