Vaccinating pregnant women “halves the risk of pertussis in infants’ first four months” ~ A critique by Dr Suzanne Humphries

The latest propaganda hitting the provaccine press today involves the results of a retrospective study conducted through channels at the University of Sydney, NSW Australia. Click to see the conference poster HERE.

The headlines in the press include “Whooping cough jabs for mum protect baby”, “Protecting babies against pertussis: pregnant moms and caretakers need the vaccine”, “Whooping cough vaccine advised for pregnant women”, “pertussis immunization before pregnancy halves risk.” The title of “halving risk” comes from a medical organization called the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases. They made a statement that is not in the poster by Dr Quinn, and stated:

    Importantly, 14% of case mothers and 26% of control mothers were vaccinated before delivery, most within 2 years but up to 6 years previously.

A most interesting statement given that such data is not mentioned in the cited poster, so it must be unpublished at present, and moreover that counting up to 6 years is irrational because vaccine stimulated immunity is known to wane rapidly even in children who have had 5 doses of acellular vaccine. If a child who has had numerous vaccines in succession does not have long lasting immunity, then what kind of response would a pregnant woman who has not seen a DTaP vaccine in over a decade or more, have—after six years? It is well accepted that protection against pertussis is less than optimal even with regular booster doses.[1][2][3]

In a more precise and well-designed study reported in 2013 by Heininger et al., where cord blood antibodies were measured they found no statisticially significant correlation between antibody levels and actual protection from the disease:

    Our analyses of anti-PT, anti-FHA, and anti-pertactin IgG serum antibody levels in cord blood specimens from infants who acquired pertussis in their first few months of life compared to those in control infants did not reveal statistically significant differences.[4]

Heinenger et al. also note another limitation of even their more scientific study and that is that pertussis exposure is not controlled or known to be equal between cases and controls:

    Assuming that serological correlates of protection do exist, antibody levels in some control infants may have been below that threshold and yet because of lack of exposure to B. pertussis they may not have acquired pertussis disease.

Heinenger et al. admit that little is known about what actually conveys immunity,and that it may not be relevant to antibody but cell-mediated immunity must come into play, but that measuring for it is a limited science:

Page 1 of 6 | Next page