top of page

Vaccines Work! But What Does That Mean?

Updated: Apr 8, 2022

Chapter 3: Article 2

If clinical testing shows a vaccine produces antibodies, it's deemed "Effective!"

What’s lacking in that study though is a measurement of duration. How long does the body retain that vaccine induced antibody level? Duration is one pretty critical factor in determining how effective a vaccine might be, so why is duration never studied?

Most clinical trials only measure the antibody levels of participating individuals for a few weeks, or months following vaccination. For many vaccinated individuals who have had their antibody titers tested later in life, they’ve discovered that their titer markers declined significantly or disappeared completely, within 2-10 years.

Those facts mean that vaccine effectiveness has been grossly exaggerated. Today, when people say "Vaccines work!" they believe that statement means "Vaccines create Immunity!" (or Herd immunity! etc). All those phrases have been used so often, interchangeably, and the phrase interchange has been showcased by the highest levels of government. One example can be witnessed during education provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). During a webinar on measles, the nurse educator repeatedly states that prior receipt of "two measles vaccines," is "evidence of immunity."

In contrast, to scientifically establish causation, that vaccines cause and create immunity, clinical trials would have to be designed accordingly, carefully testing and measuring unvaccinated and vaccinated people. The data would have to demonstrate the vaccinated people became immune against an illness, meaning not getting infected (whether asymptomatic or symptomatic), after having been directly exposed to that illness. The data for the unvaccinated control group would have to show a different outcome. Such study has never been done. Nearly all vaccine clinical trials focused their targeted measurement solely on antibody production, with the assumption that antibodies later produce immunity against the illness. It's not scientific to rely upon assumptions. To be able to scientifically say that something causes something else, required first a proper study being conducted, testing, measuring and proving that outcome. Such study of immunity for the all the childhood vaccines on the market in the United States and Canada has never been done. 

Let's look at vaccine messaging, from sources that the public has come to trust completely, starting with statements made by CDC about whooping cough vaccination. The CDC website states:

Whooping cough vaccines are effective, but unfortunately the protection they provide is not long lasting.

What that means is whooping cough vaccines do produce antibodies against whooping cough, but the immunity researchers believe is be produced by those antibodies, is not long lasting.

We regularly hear that 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated to maintain herd immunity. Nova, of PBS, lists figures on their website from research published in 1993, research that provided "immunity thresholds." The immunity threshold, or vaccination coverage believed required to protect against whooping cough, is listed as 92-94%.

According to the CDC document titled Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine Preventable Illness, from the appendix document titled Vaccination Coverage Levels, between 1962 and 1985, vaccination coverage ranged between 63.6% and 77.9%, and yet there wasn’t mass hysteria over illness outbreaks or low vaccination rates during that time. I link you to the 8th Edition, published in 2005 , as you can access this document for free and view an older version of the of the table in Appendix A. Same with the 9th Edition where you can download a pdf. This publication is updated ocassionally and the most recent publication, the 14th Edition, was published in 2021. The 14th Edition is also free, however this edition seems to have omitted providing this table of Vaccination Coverage Levels. If they are no longer updating this table I find that unfortunate because this table provided really useful information. With the statistics I quote next, I gathered those a few years back, from the same table, but in the 13th Edition (Appendix E) published in 2015. This document isn't accessible online for free, but it can be purchased on Amazon. Back then I saved the pdfs directly from the CDC website, and I provide you what I saved here:

Download PDF • 118KB

I believe when I viewed this pdf on the CDC website, and saved it, the CDC must have provided an updated table online, because that 13th edition was published in 2015, but as you can see on the bottom right of the pdf page, it shows a date of March 2018, which doesn't make sense. It’s unfortunate the 13th Edition pdfs are no longer easily accessible online, and that the dates don’t seem to make sense (which is why I’ve provided an explanation of all this). Because I find this table as critical information to review, I hope providing you the pdf I saved (with links to the 11th Edition where you see the same table but not as current data), it will help you confirm the truth of what I’m saying here.

So, to get back to it, whooping cough vaccination coverage for the latest two decades of information 1996-2016, shows coveraged ranged between 93.7-96.2%, which means that PBS’ immunity threshold has been maintained for the entire last two decades. So PBS' immunity threshold has been maintained for the entire last two decades. That data was for infants receiving 3 doses of vaccine. Looking at the data on children who have received a 4th dose of vaccine, we have never ever hit a 95% coverage rate. Coverage ranges between 81.1% and 85.7%. The last two decades of data available (1996 - 2016) show we've maintained the highest rates of vaccination coverage in history, with 13 of those years achieving 95% coverage or better, for children receiving 3 doses of vaccine.

So despite having reached the highest vaccination rates in history, it's only now that we have mass hysteria over outbreaks and our current "meager" vaccination coverage. Why was there no hysteria in decades past, when coverage was substantially less?

report prepared by the CDC, which evaluated the percentage of kindergarteners who were appropriately vaccinated based on the Government recommended vaccination schedule of 2013, shows that:

  • A median rate of 95% of kindergarteners had received the DTaP vaccine, which protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough); (range = 80.9% in Colorado to ≥99.7% in Mississippi)

Now then, if you reflect on media reporting of any given day, and if you reflect on the data provided by the health authority, you realize that their statements actually all completely contradict each other. I'll spell it out for you.

We've been vaccinating against whooping cough for over 70 years, and it's only been in the last 2+ decades that infant vaccination rates have reached historical highs, hitting 95% coverage for many of those years. The CDC's reporting shows that vaccination coverage is also high in the kindergartener population (likely also hitting historical highs). But media regularly reports that the number of anti-vax parents are higher than ever before.

One of the reports has to be false.

Another incredibly important contradiction - the CDC has informed us that whooping cough vaccine protection "is not long lasting." Yet, it wasn't until 2006 that an adolescent and adult dose of whooping cough vaccine was added to the schedule. Prior to 2006, the final dose of whooping cough vaccine was given to the population between the ages 4-6 years. We know that only a fraction of the adult population stays current on their shots.  So the adults, which constitutes 77.7% of the population - well - they can't be considered immune, because few have received it and of the few who have received it, the vaccine "is not long lasting." Therefore, that means it's currently IMPOSSIBLE that 92-94% of the population is immune, thanks to the vaccine.

Media always states that 95% of the population needs to be immune, otherwise massive outbreaks will occur resulting in a massive numbers of fatalities. They point to pre-vaccine era data as proof. The CDC website states:

Before pertussis vaccines became widely available in the 1940s, about 200,000 children got sick with it each year in the United States and about 9,000 died as a result of the infection.

If you look at the US Vital Statistics from 1900-1940, you see that deaths from whooping cough were often less than 9000. The peak mortality was witnessed in 1923, with 9269 deaths. So it appears that the historical figures the CDC uses are selectively chosen to hype up the fear of death from this illness.

In 2012, after nearly a decade of the highest vaccination levels ever reached, the US experienced the worst whooping cough outbreak since the 1950s, with about 50,000 cases of illness (pre-vaccine era outbreaks ranged between 103,000 to 265,000 cases). That large 2012 outbreak resulted in 20 deaths. If that 2012 outbreak had been comparable in size to outbreaks of the past, that likely would have translated into 40-120 deaths in 2012. So 40-120 deaths in 2012, compared to 9000 deaths in the pre-vaccine era. That's quite a change in lethality.

To add to those figures, let's look at a different study published in 2006. This study is quoted as saying (emphasis mine):

Pertussis is the only vaccine-preventable disease on the rise in the United States, with increasing incidence in adolescents and adults related to waning immunity.

... pertussis was predominantly an infection of children aged 1 to 5 years, with maternal immunity providing passive protection during an infant’s first year of life. At that time, an average of 175,000 US cases were reported per year (incidence of approximately 150 cases per 100,000 population).

...Increased incidence [today] of pertussis in adolescents and adults relates to waning immunity and, likely, to a combination of previous underreporting and recent improvements in reporting processes. The longer the duration since vaccination, the higher the attack rate.

...Among adults with cough illness, the incidence of confirmed pertussis has been estimated at 170 to 630 cases per 100,000. The rates among adolescents were almost 2-fold higher. Data from a prospective acellular pertussis vaccine efficacy trial (APERT) extrapolate the burden of pertussis to be nearly 1 million US cases annually in persons ≥15 years old.

The paper explains that whooping cough today is severely under-reported because the illness presentation has changed as a result of use of the vaccine. The paper explains that in the pre-vaccine era, the illness was experienced predominantly by children aged one to five years, and in this population, the "whoop" within the cough is obvious. Today however, the illness looks, sounds and appears differently because the stereotypical "whoop" is often missing. The populations who don't whoop are infants, adolescents, adults, and the vaccinated, and these groups are the populations who are more likely to experience this illness today. 

Remember in the previous-vaccine era, infants were not the predominant group that experienced this illness, because maternal immunity was passed through the placenta to the fetus, and that protection lasted for the infant's first year of life. Today the same cannot be said, as infants are not provided maternal immunity as happened before.

Despite widespread use of a vaccine for three full generations now, whooping cough continues to occur in 1,000,000 Americans annually. Despite high illness rates, death rates have fallen dramatically, to nearly zero, and that steady decline began long before a vaccine was ever available.

But how could this be? How could there be so much whooping cough today when we have the highest vaccination coverage in history?

You were told that vaccine-induced antibodies render a person immune to whooping cough. Turns out they don't. Scientific testing on baboons, completed by the FDA in 2013, discovered that the vaccinated baboon population still become infected with the illness, after exposure to whooping cough bacteria. Following exposure, many of the infected animals had no symptoms at all, which sounds like a great thing, except, it isn't. When researchers housed the asymptomatic vaccinated/exposed baboons with unvaccinated/unexposed baboons, the vaccinated animals silently transmitted whooping cough to the unvaccinated ones. 

Baboons experience the illness in similar ways to humans, so we can draw conclusions from this study to explain what is happening in the human population. Because the vaccinated population becomes infected with whooping cough upon exposure, and their symptoms are mild, different or lacking, they go out in public, they go to school, they go to work, they meet up with friends, they visit new babies, and they transmit the illness to anyone they are in contact with - unvaccinated and vaccinated (because remember baboon study shows us the vaccinated still become infected and transmit the illness). Despite being vaccinated, that group remains infectious for 42 days. In contrast, people who weren't vaccinated and never exposed to the illness prior, upon exposure, they become sick, they know they are sick, and so they stay home because they feel crappy and have an obvious cough. As a result, they don't spread the illness as much despite being infectious for 38 days. Furthermore, after the unvaccinated experience the illness, they become immune to the illness and if exposed to the illness again, they don't become infected and spread it further. That immunity following illness convalescence lasts for 2-3 decades. Today, increased rates of whooping cough illness are the result of the vaccinated population because vaccine induced anti-bodies don't create immunity.

Vaccines Work

So to conclude this article, I'd like to explain exactly what is meant, scientifically, when it is stated that "Vaccines work!" The ONLY question asked in effectiveness testing is "Does the vaccine generate an antibody response?" If the vaccine does, then it worked, if it doesn't, then it didn't work. Beyond that, we can't claim with any amount of certainty what that anti-body production is doing, because immunity against illness after vaccination has never been carefully controlled and tested. In addition, we can't even be certain how long a vaccine works for (at inducing antibodies), because duration of antibodies has NEVER been studied.

Remember what David Graham explained in his interview (emphasis mine):

...the FDA has never assessed the benefit of any drug that it's ever approved. It works on what's called efficacy. Does the drug work or not? Does it lower your blood pressure or does it lower your blood sugar? Not: Does it prolong your life? Does it prevent you from having a heart attack? Those are benefits. All they focus on is efficacy.

What are the purported benefits of vaccines? Those are end points like immunity created, illness prevented, lives saved, etc. The media and health authority imply that those benefits are actually the vaccine's tested and measured effect and action. They aren't. 

So, when you hear the media or your doctor explain the statement "vaccines work," by saying anything like:

Vaccines prevent...

Vaccines reduce...

Vaccines eradicate...

Vaccines eliminate...

Vaccines save...

Their statements are implying causation - that causation was proven through carefully controlled testing and measurement of that endpoint.

Not only has causation NEVER been established, those endpoints have actually never been carefully tested or measured, ever. Instead, the "benefits" of vaccines are PRESUMED to exist because of population studies. Population studies cannot prove causation. Population studies show correlations.

Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

Currently, correlation is worthy of spotlight attention, and is viewed as "concrete evidence," but ONLY when those correlations support vaccination. There are numerous correlations relied upon by both sides, correlations which oppose each other. At present, open public discussion and debate of the vaccine unfavourable correlations has not be allowed.

CONTINUE to the next article: Ch3: Article 3

Article Sources

  • Nova - Immunity Thresholds Here

  • CDC - Vaccination Coverage Levels 1962-2016: From Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine Preventable Illness 13th Edition Purchase Here View PDF below

Download PDF • 118KB

  • CDC - Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine Preventable Illness 8th Edition Here Same Table visible on pages 333-334

  • CDC - Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine Preventable Illness 9th Edition Here Same Table visible on page 476 of the pdf

  • CDC - Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine Preventable Illness 14th Edition Here

  • CDC - Vaccination Coverage in US Kindergarteners (2013-2014 School Year) Here

  • CDC - Past Vaccination Schedules Here

  • CDC - Whooping Cough Vaccine Here

  • CDC provides historical rate of death from whooping cough at 9000 annually Here

  • Research explains whooping cough death rate peaked at 9269 deaths in 1923 Here

  • United States Public Health Services Vital Statistics Rates in the US 1900-1940 Here

  • CDC Number of Annual Whooping Cough Cases Since 1922 Here

  • CDC - Deaths from 2012 Whooping Cough Outbreak Here

  • FDA - whooping cough study in baboons - the vaccinated become infected and transmit the illness Here

  • Mainstream Media Reports Whooping Cough Cases Increasing Here

  • United States Census Bureau - Breakdown of US population Here

  • Research - whooping cough rate has increased from 150 cases per 100,000 population in the pre-vaccine era, to 170-630 cases per 100,000 today Here

  • Interview with David Graham the FDA Whistleblower Here

146 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Measles: Contradictory Government Statistics

Chapter 3: Article 3 It is a common belief that robust life lasting immunity results from antibodies, antibodies derived from either the vaccine or illness convalescence. But what if antibodies aren't

Waning Vaccine Immunity - Measles & Mumps

Chapter 3: Article 4 Today, when people say "Vaccines work!" they believe that means "Vaccines create Immunity!" or herd immunity, etc. Those phrases have been used so often, interchangeably, and the 


bottom of page