'BABY-KILLERS' - Nine Newspapers falsely claim unvaccinated people killed a baby by spreading whooping cough, drumming up fear and bigotry against the evidence
The leaky vaccines are spreading pertussis, but innocent people are blamed instead by a media that can't do a simple Google search or ask the right questions
When Bridget Green found out the Sydney Morning Herald had, without evidence, blamed unvaccinated people for killing a baby with whooping cough, a wave of anger rushed over her followed by frustration, loneliness and then despair.
Experts know that whooping cough is enjoying a resurgence precisely because the newer acellular injections do not stimulate the mucosal immunity needed to prevent bacterial colonisation and transmission.
It’s vaccinated people with mild symptoms, complacent and unaware, who are spreading Bordetella pertussis to vulnerable infants.
But Bridget knew her family would believe the newspaper and not her. Now they would see her as a scary threat to her treasured granddaughter, Pippa, born in 2025.
“See – it’s there in the newspapers,” said Ms Green, 67.
“I know they’re wrong - but of course they believe what’s in the paper. It’s ludicrous.”
Even before last week’s story came out, Bridget had a tough time.
Prior to covid she took all the recommended shots, but the AstraZeneca product injured her in 2021 so she didn’t want to get any more.
Her family put the pressure on for a pertussis booster, mistakenly believing it could protect their new baby girl.
“I thought I wouldn’t even be able to see my granddaughter,” the retired sub-editor said at Bondi on Wednesday.
“I took rubber gloves, a mask, I said I’d wash my hands before holding the baby every time – I was desperate as I thought I wouldn’t be allowed to see my granddaughter or hold her. It’s desolation - that feeling of loneliness. I’m so much on the outer.”
Bridget is no more of a risk to her granddaughter than anyone else.
Vaccinated people also spread whooping cough, because the vaccines do not stop transmission.
This is well-known to science, for example in peer-reviewed research published by the flagship journal of the US National Academy of Sciences, PNAS.
Frontiers in Immunology published a peer-reviewed paper in 2019 called Pertussis Prevention: Reasons for Resurgence, and Differences in the Current Acellular Pertussis Vaccines by more than 15 mainstream scientists that found the following:
“Finally, aPV pertussis vaccines do not prevent colonization. Consequently, they do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect. These findings at least partly explain the resurgence of pertussis.”
A pertussis vaccine can only protect the person who gets it from severe illness for five to 10 years. It does not prevent the spread or protect anyone else.
All the Sydney Morning Herald needed to do was a simple Google search: “Can pertussis vaccines prevent all transmission?” and they would have known.
The newspapers were wrong, but the damage was done.
Both The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald demonised unvaccinated people as baby-killing disease-spreaders, based on no evidence at all. Story here (paywalled), archived here.
A February 2 editorial then repeated the false claim and it was spread around social media by Australia’s most respected media royalty including ABC 730 journalist Quentin Dempster.
Whooping Cough is caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis.
Pertussis vaccines can reduce disease severity for between five and 10 years after which time boosters are given, as the Australian Immunisation Handbook shows.
The claim is sometimes made that pertussis vaccines can reduce transmission by reducing disease severity.
This is also false. Dangerously false.
When vaccinated people with a false sense of security experience mild symptoms they can pass the disease on to vulnerable newborns, unaware they are even infected.
New research from 2024 shows the vaccinated may even be increasing the spread of the disease by forming an asymptomatic bacterial reservoir.
By contrast, when unvaccinated people catch whooping cough they develop obvious symptoms, and stay away from newborns.
Once they recover they have durable and superior natural immunity that lasts 15 to 20 years before it wanes, double the length of vaccinal immunity. They also get mucosal immunity which injected vaccines cannot provide.
This makes those who have recovered from whooping cough less likely to pass on the disease than those who have only had a vaccine.
This is not an advertisement for children to catch whooping cough without a vaccine. It’s a nasty illness. But the Health Department and media outlets are supposed to report accurately on what products can and cannot do, not to push drugs and demonise people.
Australia’s Health Department is also guilty of creating the false impression that vaccination prevents the spread of whooping cough.
The Immunisation Handbook claims pertussis is “highly infectious in unvaccinated people” without mentioning it can also be passed on by vaccinated people.
It goes on to say “Older children and adults who have not received pertussis vaccination are at risk of infection, and are often the source of infection in infants” without stating that vaccinated people are also a source of infection.
It promotes “vaccination as scheduled” regardless of whether a person has recently had a lab-confirmed infection - despite knowing that such an infection confers 15 to 20 years of immunity, “because natural immunity does not provide lifelong protection”.
Australia’s Health Department thus spruiks an injection that gives five to 10 years of protection to people who are already protected for 15 to 20 years, because it’s not “lifelong”.
Let that sink in. It is just as stupid and absurd as it sounds.
Both the Health Department and Nine Newspapers ignored media requests for comment.
Letters From Australia reached out to Niroshini Kennedy, president of paediatrics and child health division at the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), who was quoted in the SMH story as expressing concern that “vaccine hesitancy” could lead to an increase in whooping cough numbers, among other illnesses.
She did not reply to emailed questions on whether she had made it clear to journalist Kayla Olaya that whooping cough vaccines cannot prevent transmission.
The RACP has a charity foundation through which it disburses grants to researchers and students, bringing influencers within its network.
The RACP Foundation says on its website that it partners with GSK, a major pertussis vaccine supplier.
GSK said in a media release that the partnership is to create a research fellowship to further medical research in respiratory medicine and “vaccine-preventable disease”, which supports the market for its products.
Just because GSK pays the RACP Foundation does not mean the RACP deliberately spruiks vaccines to journalists. But such gifts create cultural pressure within organisations through the norm of reciprocity.
Informed consent cannot be made under duress
The false “baby-killer” claims were made in the context of a Nine Newspapers investigation into parents bribing health practitioners to falsify vaccine records to avoid the jabs.
Perhaps the newspapers might investigate why the federal government is using coercive measures to force people to take medical interventions, which violate the rules of valid consent stated in its own Immunisation Handbook.
Medical coercion is deeply unethical whether it’s “no jab no play”, or “no jab no work”, or withholding family payments. A patient cannot give valid, informed consent to a vaccine if the decision is made under that kind of duress.
If Nine is looking for system rorters, look no further than Big Pharma: here is Sanofi’s pre-Budget submission, asking for hundreds of millions of dollars for provisionally approved medications and to cut regulations so their clinical trials don’t have to be so rigorous.
Nine Newspapers’ “baby-killer” claims have openly breached Australian Press Council principles of accuracy and balance. Complaints may be made here.
BILLION-DOLLAR BUSINESS
Australia’s pertussis (whooping cough) vaccines are money-spinners for global drug giants GSK, based in the UK, and Sanofi, based in France.
The most commonly used ones are Boostrix, Infanrix and Infanrix Hexa made by GSK; and Adacel or Tripacel made by Sanofi.
GSK’s turnover figures for calendar year 2023 show Boostrix earnt £614 million ($1.2 billion) while Infanrix/Pediarix earnt £554 million ($1.1 billion) worldwide. Pediarix is now superceded by Infanrix Hexa.
Sanofi doesn’t break out individual products, but its fourth quarter earnings report for 2024 reported global polio/pertussis/HiB and booster vaccine sales were €632 million ($1 billion), an increase of 10.8 percent on the previous year, driven by booster demand to re-vaccinate adolescents and adults.
Adult vaccines have been identified by the global drug industry as big future earners in Australia.
GSK launched a report at Parliament House, Canberra, in 2023, asking for more adult vaccines to go on the national immunisation program so your taxes can buy them in bulk, fast-tracked without delay.
Demonisation of adults who refuse vaccines is part of corporate fear-marketing strategy.
GSK launched a nasty multimedia campaign in 2015 for its whooping cough product showing a grandmother, like Bridget, as Little Red Riding Hood’s “big bad wolf” with sharp teeth ready to rip into a defenceless baby.
Media lack of skepticism about medical product claims can be seen in the marketing campaign for RSV - a disease never before regarded as a public health threat, as I documented here.
The drug companies use Australia’s media for free advertising. They scuff their feet all over our newspapers.
Because journalists lack medical expertise or the time needed to properly evaluate claims, it’s easy for cashed-up corporates to push their agenda past the gatekeepers, to be repackaged as “news”.
Loading up the schedule
Australia has followed America’s lead and loaded up its vaccination schedule with unnecessary products, such as Engerix B, a Hepatitis B shot given routinely to every baby in the first 24 hours of life.
What possible benefit does a four-hour-old baby have from a Hepatitis B shot that protects against a disease spread primarily by sharing needles and sexual contact?
You can see the Australian schedule here.
Australia has followed the example of the US since 1986 when the Reagan Administration passed a law exempting drug-makers from injury liability for any product on the childhood immunisation schedule, and instead setting up a taxpayer funded compensation scheme.
As a result, this provided a risk-free market for drug-makers who then pressured health bureaucrats to stuff the schedule with as many products as they could.
In 1984 before the legislation was passed, there were just eight diseases with vaccines on the US schedule: tuberculosis (BCG), diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella.
By 2024 there were 17 different diseases requiring multiple shots and boosters.
The US schedule is now being overhauled under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy jr.
As of January, six diseases have been dropped from the “routine universal use” recommendation. These are: Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, influenza, rotavirus, meningococcal, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
The recommendation has been changed to “shared clinical decision-making” which means patients can make an informed decision in consultation with their doctor, according to their individual needs – which is how medicine is supposed to be.
The Australian Government should follow suit, and stop publicly funding products of dubious value such as the flu vaccine.
In 2018 the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 52 clinical trials of flu vaccines and found only doubtful evidence that they do any good whatsoever.
AUSTRALIA’S WHOOPING COUGH VACCINES
Australia’s pertussis vaccines are all combination vaccines, with antigens against several diseases in the one injection.
The most commonly used are from GSK and Sanofi.
GSK sells the diptheria-tetanus-pertussis products Boostrix for adults, and Infanrix for infants.
GSK also sells Infanrix Hexa which combines Infanrix with hepatitis B, polio, and Haeomophilus Influenzae type B (HiB). The Health Department promotes this from six weeks of age on its childhood schedule.
All these GSK products have three pertussis antigens. The full ingredients for Infanrix Hexa can be seen here.
Sanofi sells Adacel for adults and children over 10, and Tripacel for babies.
Adacel contains diptheria and tetanus toxoids and five pertussis antigens, with the adjuvant aluminium phosphate, the Immunisation Handbook says.
Tripacel contains the same ingredients but at much higher doses, the Immunisation Handbook says even though it is given to babies under 12 months who have far smaller bodies.
Pertussis vaccines used to be made from a whole dead cell of the bacteria Bordetella pertussis.
These products caused injuries including severe neurological disorders, which led to a fall in vaccination rates, as the Cochrane Collaboration reports.
They were replaced by less effective acellular versions which contain only a few antigens instead of the whole bacterium, in an effort to reduce side-effects.
A 2014 Cochrane review looked at six safety trials and 52 efficacy trials for acellular products.
Cochrane evaluated the acellular vaccines against lab-confirmed whooping cough, both typical (21 or more consecutive days of severe coughing) and mild (7 or more consecutive days of cough).
The reviewers found acellular vaccines with three or more components (antigens) were 84-85 percent effective at preventing typical whooping cough and 71-78 percent effective in preventing mild whooping cough.
They found those with only one or two components were 59-78 percent effective against typical whooping cough and 41-58 percent effective against mild disease.
Airborne viruses and bacteria enter the body through the mucosa of your eyes, nose and mouth. Mucosal immunity is your body’s first line of defense. All of these products are delivered by intramuscular injection, which cannot provide mucosal immunity: instead they provoke blood-borne antibodies for systemic immunity.
Immunologists recognise that intramuscular injection is a dumb method of delivery due to this limitation and are working instead on products that are either inhaled, delivered by nasal spray, or swallowed.
To understand more about how the immune system works, see this excellent talk about mucosal immunity from Professor Emeritus Robert Clancy in conversation with Dr John Campbell.
This Substack is written free and in the public interest. Please do share everywhere and re-use but must give credit attribution, preferably linking back to this page.
Update: 4 February, 2026: turns out Catherine Hughes, the bereaved mother in the SMH story who blamed the unvaccinated for killing her baby with whooping cough, is a vaccine advocate who channeled her grief into activism, started the Immunisation Foundation of Australia which is funded by Sanofi ($170,000 in 2023 as per here) and GSK ($100,000 in 2025 as per here), and has been a spokeswoman for GSK, appearing in their press-releases for example here, where she promotes GSK’s RSV vaccine to seniors that don’t need it.
Having done two tours with the AVN Vaxxed Bus, I can confidently say that if anyone shared my experience, they would never let anyone near their child with a needle ever again. The damage being done is beyond shocking. In California where they seem to jab everything that moves, it is predicted that by 2030, if the enthusiasm for injections prevails, every second six year old boy will be on the autistic spectrum.
How typical of Harma and its moronic acolytes to spread such dangerous mis/disinformation, i.e. lies. All vaxxes are not merely useless, but harmful. And the Covid1984 vax is worse than all the others in history, combined. Germ theory and vaccination are spurious constructs of Harma and the even worse entities that own it. Their true purpose is to weaken and sicken the populace to facilitate control.