Evidence of Increase in Mortality After DPT
Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?
Peter Aaby
Søren Wengel Mogensen
Amabelia Rodrigues1 and 
Christine S. Benn- 1Bandim Health Project, Indepth Network, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau
- 2Research Centre for Vitamins and Vaccines (CVIVA), Bandim Health Project, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
- 3OPEN, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Background: Whole-cell diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were introduced to children in Guinea-Bissau in 1981. We previously reported that DTP in the target age group from 3 to 5 months of age was associated with higher overall mortality. DTP and OPV were also given to older children and in this study we tested the effect on mortality in children aged 6–35 months.
Methods: In the 1980s, the suburb Bandim in the capital of Guinea-Bissau was followed with demographic surveillance and tri-monthly weighing sessions for children under 3 years of age. From June 1981, routine vaccinations were offered at the weighing sessions. We calculated mortality hazard ratio (HR) for DTP-vaccinated and DTP-unvaccinated children aged 6–35 months using Cox proportional hazard models. Including this study, the introduction of DTP vaccine and child mortality has been studied in three studies; we made a meta-estimate of these studies.
Results: At the first weighing session after the introduction of vaccines, 6–35-month-old children who received DTP vaccination had better weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ) than children who did not receive DTP; one unit increase in WAZ was associated with an odds ratio of 1.32 (95% CI = 1.13–1.55) for receiving DTP vaccination. Though lower mortality compared with not being DTP-vaccinated was, therefore, expected, DTP vaccination was associated with a non-significant trend in the opposite direction, the HR being 2.22 (0.82–6.04) adjusted for WAZ. In a sensitivity analysis, including all children weighed at least once before the vaccination program started, DTP (±OPV) as the most recent vaccination compared with live vaccines or no vaccine was associated with a HR of 1.89 (1.00–3.55). In the three studies of the introduction of DTP in rural and urban Guinea-Bissau, DTP-vaccinated children had an HR of 2.14 (1.42–3.23) compared to DTP-unvaccinated children; this effect was separately significant for girls [HR = 2.60 (1.57–4.32)], but not for boys [HR = 1.71 (0.99–2.93)] (test for interaction p = 0.27).
Conclusion: Although having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.
The full article can be read here.
Pam;
I stayed up till three in the morning watching this and am only up to number six.
I got things that must be done in the morning and days -for crying out loud!
Still I have enjoyed it a great deal and thanks for posting.
Posted by: Benedetta | April 15, 2018 at 12:39 PM
One of my favorite articles...
An Interview with Dr Archie Kalokerinos, MD
https://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/an-interview-with-dr-archie-kalokerinos-md/
Posted by: Pam | April 13, 2018 at 10:09 PM
I love Dr. Peter Aaby. A real scientist, ever curious and willing to go where the evidence leads. I love his Senegal study, which found that even in Africa, where in some areas one in ten children dies if they get measles, among the nine out of ten who get it and recover, there is ONE-FIFTH the mortality in the subsequent five years compared to those who did NOT get natural measles. And they did much better than those who got the measles vaccine, who, in turn, did better than those who did not get either the vaccine or natural measles. The overall savings in lives is better with the vaccine, but for the 90% who get natural measles and recover from it, the lifetime dividends are huge. They ought to routinely give vitamin A to parents to give to children with measles, as it saves the lives of so many.
Aaby Low mortality after mild measles infection compared in uninfected children in rural West Africa, Vaccine 2002; 21 (1-2) 120-6.
Posted by: cia parker | April 13, 2018 at 09:40 PM
Another recent publication: https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/science-confirms-again-pervasive-developmental-disorder-mirrors-mercury-poisoning/?utm_source=mailchimp
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | April 13, 2018 at 06:25 PM
Thank you John Stone for the name.
Thank you Tim for the link.
By the way, the obituary never mentions vaccines, just that the kids were suffering from mild forms of scurvy. This put him on the out and out with the medical profession. LOL, yeah, he embarrassed them all that every second child of the Aboriginals was dying from the lack of vitamin C; and not a mention anywhere of they died after they were vaccinated.
Not mentioning the rest of the story.
I see that Archie Kalokerinos was into mining opals.
Which once again puts Archie right back into the cross hairs of the medical profession cause maybe opals is the cure for too much aluminum in the vaccines. Opal is a form of a hydrated amorphous form of silica.
So many lies, half truths, not finishing the rest of the story that I am just all confused now a days.
Posted by: Benedetta | April 13, 2018 at 02:26 PM
Of course, a program that truly aims to "save lives" would be at this point aggressively looking at the mortality and morbidity risk of related vaccines like DtaP, all killed vaccines, maybe even a non-vaccine pharmaceutical with similar components and exposure route, like some aluminum containing vit. K shots, against the not-yet-and-possibly-preferably-never exposed, maybe even feel the need to make sure live viral vaccines aren't coming with a greater cost than benefit. Maybe such a program would progressively move further even without all the above ideally complete and be looking into what happens when we take resources and man-hours devoted to vaccinating and transfer that into making nutritional interventions, clean water, improved sanitation resources and training available?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | April 13, 2018 at 12:29 PM
Tim
You can get the the book hear:
http://soilandhealth.org/copyrighted-book/every-second-child/
Posted by: Francis Weibel | April 13, 2018 at 11:39 AM
@benedetta Hilary Butler has an obituary for Archie at http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/hilarys-desk/archie_kalokerinos_-_this_is_your_life
Unfortunately his book
Every Second Child
doesn't seem to be available for download, but is excellent. Maybe buy it and resell it... but the cheapest copy I found is $130, sigh...But there is a free download at the end of Hilary's article about shaken-baby syndrome, also excellent.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | April 13, 2018 at 11:26 AM
Benedetta
Archie Kalokerinos
Posted by: John Stone | April 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM
Bob Moffit -
I think the reference to nutrition is saying that children who received the vaccine were observed by body weight as being better nourished than those who did not receive it, and yet they had higher mortality despite that advantage.
Posted by: Science is pure. People are corrupt. | April 13, 2018 at 10:49 AM
There was some doctor over in Australia; some one please mention his name. He noticed that a lot of aboriginal children were dying soon after vaccination, DPT probably. Some one that remembers the doctor's name can see if it was that vaccine.
HE said that all they needed was a bit more vitamin C.
So thus this study is addressing something as simple as, well all we have to do is add some more vitamins. The people doing this study might be more aware of stuff than we think.
Posted by: Benedetta | April 13, 2018 at 10:10 AM
I think it is very interesting that in this culture, both nurses and mothers appear to feel that vaccines are risky for sick or underweight babies and children and that the researchers respected this health concept. This gives their result more power because in most studies done in third world countries, with children of poor families, we always have to hear that the children who died would have died anyway, because they were malnourished. This cannot be said for this study. Hats off to these researchers who respected native health concepts and there is a tone that they are standing their ground against possible accusations that their research was not properly done.
And by the way, after all the song and dance of health checks and vaccines, there is a hint that what this population really needs is not vaccines, but methods for preventing deaths from diarrhea ( Oral rehydration and IV solutions). Diarrhea seems to be a primary concern of the parents - not diptheria, pertussis and tetanus.
Posted by: cherry Misra | April 13, 2018 at 10:08 AM
Bob, maybe they left the part about nutrition in so they can twist it and come back later, saying "Stay away from that nutritious food, it's dangerous !"
Posted by: Susan | April 13, 2018 at 08:45 AM
I am sure this will be declared "debunked" soon just like the CDC whistleblower has been "debunked"
then it will be censored because it is "anti-vaccine", "anti-science" fake news.
Posted by: pharmster | April 13, 2018 at 07:51 AM
Its probably just me .. but .. consider the conclusion of this study:
"Conclusion: Although having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality."
Upon what scientific basis is conclusion that children vaccinated with the DTP .. "have better nutritional status" because they were vaccinated? After all .. nutritional status of 6 to 35 month old child would depend on many other sources .. such as .. family economics and whether the family has easy access to nutritional sources of food .. to name just two?
The ONLY conclusion that really matters is the "introduction of DTP has found increased overall mortality" .. who cares if those infants that die after DTP vaccination had "better nutritional status"?
After all, the DTP is supposed to improve the infant's "health survival status" .. not improve the infant's "nutritional status".
Posted by: bob moffit | April 13, 2018 at 06:32 AM