Which child is spreading Whooping Cough?
If exposed to pertussis (whooping cough), a vaccine-free child will develop symptoms that alert parents to keep the child home and away from newborn siblings or the immune-compromised.
On the other hand, if exposed to pertussis, a vaccinated child might develop the full disease, alerting a parent, or the child may develop reduced or no symptoms at all yet still be contagious for around 42 days. Parents won’t know to keep the child home from school, or away from the immune-compromised, and doctors don’t recognize the symptoms because of the child’s vaccination status.
So which child poses the most risk in a classroom? To the community? Studies show pertussis is being spread in and among fully vaccinated children and adults.
Informed Choice WA petitioned the WA State Board of Health to remove the DTaP and Tdap from daycare and school requirement because of the failure of the pertussis portion of the vaccine to protect public health. Use of state power to compel uptake of this flawed product is unethical–the medical decision should be left to parents.
Complicating matters is the bundling of two other vaccines–tetanus and diphtheria–with the pertussis vaccine. Bundling of products increases sales for vaccine makers, and reduces the number of shots a child might be injected with, but does not allow for the flexibility needed to remove flawed products, or space each vaccine according to its own length of effectiveness, leading to the over-vaccination with some products, and the continued administration of flawed products. Safe, effective, single antigen vaccines should be made available as choices for consumers who choose to vaccinate.
The Board of Health declined our petition. Our appeal was filed with the Governor’s Office. The text of the appeal is below. It includes a fully cited scientific analysis of the acellular pertussis vaccine, as well as information about the tetanus and diphtheria vaccines.
The appeal was denied by the Governor, and the letter said:
“Your arguments supporting your assertion are outweighed by current science”
But the Governor provided no science more current than what we had supplied. In fact, we had supplied the Governor with the most current science available. When asked to produce the science on which the denial was based, the Governor’s office said they’d have to ask for it.
What?
They denied our appeal based on “current science” but they had to ask for it? Didn’t they have it handy? They’d used it to deny our appeal. They said they had to ask the Department of Health (DOH) to supply it. A bit later, the DOH supplied links to four websites with general information, but no science that supports the denial.
Our request for a meeting was ignored.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab
