by Rhoda Wilson, Expose News:
Yesterday, British multimedia company National World reported that whooping cough infections have risen across the UK in the first quarter of 2024.
National World is not the only media outlet to begin a fear campaign about whooping cough. At the time of writing, a quick internet search for “whooping cough” returned 27 corporate media reports and a press release from the UK government in the last week alone. In total, Ground News has aggregated 255 news stories that have been published about Whooping Cough in the past 3 months.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The reason for the campaign can be summed up in one sentence. “The best way to prevent the 100 day cough,” National World said, “is to be fully vaccinated.”
However, as Dr. Vernon Coleman points out, the story of the whooping cough vaccine provides a remarkable example of dishonesty and deceit in medicine.
Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, I was a passionate critic of a number of vaccines – most notably the whooping cough vaccine.
The story of the whooping cough vaccine provides us with a remarkable example of dishonesty and deceit in medicine.
There has been controversy about the whooping cough vaccine for many years but in the UK, the Department of Health and Social Security has consistently managed to convince the majority of medical and nursing staff to support the official line that the vaccine is both safe and effective. The official line has for years paid little attention to the facts. Put bluntly, successive governments have consistently lied about the risks and problems associated with the whooping cough vaccine.
I will explain exactly why I think that governments have lied to their employers (the public) a little later. For the time being I would like to concentrate on the history.
The first point that should be made is that although official spokesmen claim otherwise, I don’t believe the whooping cough vaccine has ever had a significant influence on the number of children dying from whooping cough. The dramatic fall in the number of deaths caused by the disease came well before the vaccine was widely available and was, historians agree, the result of improved public health measures and the use of antibiotics.
It was in 1957 that the whooping cough vaccine was first introduced nationally in Britain – although the vaccine was tried out in the late 1940s and the early 1950s. But the incidence of whooping cough, and the number of children dying from the disease, had both fallen very considerably well before 1957. So, for example, while doctors reported 170,000 cases of whooping cough in 1950, they reported only about 80,000 cases in 1955. The introduction of the vaccine really didn’t make very much, if any, difference to the fall in the incidence of the disease. Thirty years after the introduction of the vaccine, whooping cough cases were still running at about 1,000 a week in Britain.
Similarly, the figures show that the introduction of the vaccine had no effect on the number of children dying from whooping cough. The mortality rate associated with the disease had been falling appreciably since the early part of the 20th century and rapidly since the 1930s and 1940s – showing a particularly steep decline after the introduction of the sulphonamide drugs. Whooping cough is undoubtedly an extremely unpleasant disease but it has not been a major killer for many years. Successive governments have frequently forecast fresh whooping cough epidemics but none of the forecast epidemics has produced the devastation predicted.
My second point is that the whooping cough vaccine is neither very efficient nor is it safe. The efficiency of the vaccine is of subsidiary interest – although thousands of children who have been vaccinated do still get the disease – for the greatest controversy surrounds the safety of the vaccine. The DHSS has always claimed that serious adverse reactions to the whooping cough vaccine are extremely rare and the official suggestion has been that the risk of a child being brain-damaged by the vaccine is no higher than one in 100,000. Leaving aside the fact that I find a risk of one in 100,000 unacceptable, it is interesting to examine this figure a little more closely, for after a little research work it becomes clear that the figure of one in 100,000 is a guess.
