How Modern Vaccination Practices Are Destroying True “Herd Immunity”
Vaccines do not confer lifelong immunity.
Any doctor worth his salt will tell you this, because it is common medical knowledge.
Though the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) website will tell you that individuals receiving the MMR vaccine are “considered protected for life"...
...a simple click on their very own link to the vaccine package insert will tell you otherwise:
"Following vaccination, antibodies associated with protection can be measured by neutralization assays, HI, or ELISA (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay) tests. Neutralizing and ELISA antibodies to measles, mumps, and rubella viruses are still detectable in most individuals 11 to 13 years after primary vaccination."
(SOURCE)
If this still fails to convince some, I think it is helpful to look at the relatively recent measles outbreak in Anaheim, California, at Disney Land. Many of the cases were adults, and at least half of them were immunized. This is what the CDC considers “protected for life?”
Chickenpox.
Just for fun, scroll down to the “duration of protection” section of this CDC article on the VARIVAX chickenpox vaccine:
"It is not known how long a vaccinated person is protected against varicella. But, live vaccines in general provide long-lasting immunity."
Doesn’t sound very scientific, does it?
Now go ahead and read the actual science on the Varivax vaccine itself. 10 years. If you’re lucky.
Vaccine-conferred immunity is relatively short-lived. “Booster shots” attempt to mimic natural repeated exposure to viruses and disease, but fall short due to the removal of antigens from circulation, and the fact that the immunity they confer not life-long.
I quote Immunologist Suzanne Humphries, MD:
"Chicken pox vaccines are now being exposed for the failure they are, but vaccine profits are still climbing. After the members of the herd stopped transmitting natural immunity to each other because of the vaccine effect, shingles increased."
(SOURCE)
“Pro-vax” camps usually are quite vocal about the necessity of vaccines for the development and maintenance of herd immunity. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we see happening now is the adult population being systematically stripped of life-long, wild virus-conferred immunity during childhood because of vaccine interference, and made much more vulnerable to acquiring diseases such as chickenpox and measles later in life when the symptoms are markedly more dangerous.
We see this also—and perhaps even more worrisome--with infants. When a mother has had or been exposed to wild measles or varicella (chickenpox), this immunity and ability to defend from the disease is naturally passed on to the baby through breast milk. Because wild measles is now made out to be a horrible bogeyman by the WHO and CDC (World Health Organization and Center For Disease Control) scared people are running to vaccines to avoid getting sick. The WHO tends to lump in measles morbidity stats from impoverished and third world countries to make diseases seem much more deadly than they actually are in developed countries where adequate nutrition, sanitation, and healthcare are available.
The problem is that what is actually happening is that both individuals and the population as a whole are now being made more vulnerable to disease in the long run.
All this is not to mention the countless and underreported cases of direct vaccine damage, recompense for which can no longer be sought via legal avenues dealing directly with pharmaceutical companies and vaccine manufacturers. As of 1986 legislation, vaccine manufacturers are immune to lawsuit and a special compensation court has been set up which is paid for by excise vaccines.
Do you get it? They make you pay for the damage they do to your kids. If the CDC engages in wholly inhumane and abusive practices like this, why on earth would we think they wouldn’t be lying to us regarding the efficacy of vaccines? How useful to have a sick and immuno-compromised population for a class or sociopathic tyrants to rule. If you still doubt that there is any possibility of the CDC and pharmaceutical companies being at least partially corrupt and malevolent entities, and want to really be "red-pilled," go ahead and read about the "Tuskegee Experiment."
Stay aware, and Voluntary on, brothers and sisters!
(Another great resource from Doctor Suzanne Humphries on herd immunity: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/)
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
Of course the human species is getting weaker. By medicating and vaccinating we are going against natural selection. It is up to the medical profession to find further solutions.
Vaccination has saved millions of lives and has allowed populations to flourish. Whenever people stop vaccinating, the diseases start coming back. Only last week, there were major outbreaks of measles in Italy and Rumania.
The argument is between freedom and responsibility. My thought is that people should be responsible. The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.
This claim is impossible to substantiate absent adequate testing and pharmaceutical companies being willing to take responsibility for vaccine injury. Neither of these criteria are currently being met.
As per the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, vaccine makers are no longer legally liable their customers and cannot be sued for any injury or harm their products may cause.
In 1998, then Director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding stated on national television that vaccines can and do trigger "autism-like symptoms" in children with specific mitochondrial predispositions. Testing for these predispositions is not done prior to vaccination. This is, of course, a totally unscientific and dangerous approach to the issue.
Improvements in sanitation, diet, and quality of life in general have had a drastic effect in reducing disease mortality rates. Both measles and polio mortality rates were in steep decline well before the introduction of their respective vaccines. This is easily researchable and verified.
The idea that non-vaccinated individuals are somehow a threat to the vaccinated populace due to their non-vaccinated status is based on the fallacy which I have already addressed in this article: namely, that vaccines can confer lifelong immunity and thus "herd immunity." The vaccine package inserts themselves refute this claim.
The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.
"This claim is impossible to substantiate"
Are you joking? If populations aren't vaccinated people die. It's a simple cause and affect which is shown by statistics. It is one thing to say that there are problems with vaccination, but to claim it doesn't work is ridiculous.
"Improvements in sanitation, diet, and quality of life in general have had a drastic effect in reducing disease mortality rates. Both measles and polio mortality rates were in steep decline well before the introduction of their respective vaccines. This is easily researchable and verified."
This is, of course, is true. The stronger and more healthy a person is, the more likely they are to survive, BUT it is not just about mortality. Polio, measles, etc. can leave life-lasting effects. Rubella in a pregnant woman can be devastating for the unborn baby - miscarriage, stillbirth or birth defects, hearing loss, brain damage, etc.
Clearly, to evaluate whether the "benefits outweigh the risks" one must adequately and systematically assess both the benefits and the risks. This type scientific testing is not being done currently, even according to organizations like the CDC. You mention statistics. I would be glad to see how many children with mitochondrial disorders are pre-tested before receiving vaccines. It is common knowledge that they are especially at risk for vaccine injury. How can you do a risk/benefit analysis when the risks have not been fully investigated?
Yes, for new vaccines research has to be done weighing the advantages/disadvantages. When something is already accepted, though, and in use all over the world, it is up to you to show that the risks outweigh the benefits. Anyway, you seem to be trying to sidetrack me. :o)
Getting back onto the point I was making in my reply, with the example of polio. Polio has almost been eradicated from the face of the earth. Are you saying that this is not due to vaccination? Do you realize just how serious a disease this is?
What if new strains come along that somehow can't be vaccinated against?
Only a year or two ago there was a problem with the vaccination programme in Africa, I think, due to some 'entity' being to lax with vaccinations, and Polio came back.
No, I am not trying to sidetrack you, man.
You made a claim: the benefits outweigh the risks. The burden of proof is actually on you, technically, as I didn't make any such claim or its converse in this article. I just pointed out discrepancies that suggest quite clearly true herd immunity is not conferred by vaccines. I am still waiting for you to cite your studies and empirical data.
As for Polio being almost eradicated from the face of the earth, I would encourage you to look more deeply into Polio statistics in countries such as India and Africa. Many are actually contracting Polio from the oral vaccines.
The "eradication" we do see, and which I referenced earlier, is mostly due to better sanitation, nutrition, and overall quality of life in westernized countries. The numbers bear this out. For the second time, please look up morbidity data from US government databases and it can be seen that Polio and Measles morbidity rates were in steep decline before the introduction of their respective vaccines. This coincides with the introduction of public sewage systems, better healthcare practices, and less poverty.
For more info on why vaccination is actually harmful to infants and the elderly you should check out @canadian-coconut 's comment on this same thread.
Again, I say that it is not just about morbidity statistics - I haven't even looked at them.
"You made a claim: the benefits outweigh the risks. The burden of proof is actually on you, technically, as I didn't make any such claim or its converse in this article."
No - as I already said, according to the medical community, vaccines do work and have been been used for a very long time. When there are problems with a vaccination programme, the incidence of polio cases rises. When something is already accepted practice it is up to its opponents to provide the proof.
"I didn't make any such claim or its converse in this article."
So, if you are not in disagreement with me, why are you arguing, which suggests otherwise.
But you did say, "They make you pay for the damage they do to your kids."
My problem is that, you may be encouraging parents not to vaccinate their children. If you are such an expert, you should take your data and present it to the medical community.
Does one need to be a mechanic to advocate for Ford to test the brakes on cars before selling them? That is an absurd argument, that I must be in the medical profession to have an opinion, viewpoint, or stance.
Until you show me actual reports/data, I will be taking a break from this conversation. You say I am claiming vaccines "don't work," but I have not once made that claim. Words have exact meanings, and I think if you re-read this post, you will find that the arguments I am making are not the ones you say I am.
I am simply speaking. It is every parent's responsibility to research these things and protect their children, and if they choose not to vaccinate just because of something I wrote, and not because they researched it themselves, they are not acting as fit, responsible parents anyway.
I never attempt to control the lives of others, and expect the same in return.
Like I said, substantiate your argument with evidence (not just the claims you have been making which are logical fallacies anyway: "according to the medical community..." in and of itself is not an argument) and I'll be glad to continue this talk.
I see you downvoted this later post to try and hide it. Well here it is again. Why did you downvote it?
The post from later on in the thread that @kafkanarchy84 flagged:
"I haven't argued this. This post relates to herd immunity,"
You may remember that my very first reply agreed that this was true. However, I went on to say that vaccination is beneficial. You then wanted me to prove this and now you are claiming that I am the one who is going off topic. You should read my first reply again.
"A double-blind experiment with careful controls producing empirical data would be "subjective?" That's a first for me. That must be why such experiments are not being done, I guess. By that standard, the whole scientific community should call it quits, since by your standard, all science would be "subjective.""
I never mentioned a double-blind experiment. A double blind experiment concerning what exactly? Advantages/disadvantages of vaccination for individuals, for communities, for the human race?
The whole point of scientific experiments is that they are objective. They cannot discern whether loss of 'herd immunity', say, to give your example, is a worthwhile price to pay for the benefits of vaccination.
I have given you ample data to work with, with links. You, however, have only given the odd quote, which I have answered, and never answered my questions. So much research has gone into vaccines, but you only seem to be able to find an odd bit here and an odd bit there.
"If you are claiming that Polio doesn't affect healthy people...
When did I make this claim?"
You earlier cited that decreases contraction of diseases and in mortality correlated with with statistics on better living condition, etc, in the very least 'suggesting' that vaccinnes had nothing to do with it. As I pointed out, this is a red herring as, morbidity is also very important.
As I said, you have done very little answering. It is as if you are afraid to state your point of view. So,
Should people vaccinate their children?
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Apr 11. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $0.57 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Apr 11 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
For anyone interested in some general research into the safety of vaccines, you can take a look at this document:
https://www.aap.org/en-us/Documents/immunization_vaccine_studies.pdf
I think there's about 40 studies cited.
Right, so this article references the same institution that allowed back people to die of Syphilis while telling them it was "bad blood" until 1974, refusing them a cure, as if this institution is some type of authority. Take your snake oil garbage elsewhere.
Still waiting for actual numbers on risk/benefit analysis. It is a shame that no such info is offered.
There's a list there of over 40 studies. These studies use statistics. If you think I am going to argue individual statistic from the myriad that is available there, you must be joking. I mean, we may as well argue whether or not the moon landings are real. Do you have absolute proof that the moon landings are real?
I just can't see how you still don't grasp that to prove, as you have set out to do, that "benefits outweigh risks" as regarding specific vaccines, you must clearly and specifically define your terms, scope, and parameters.
All that aside, it's easy to see that the link bomb summary of studies you posted is untrustworthy. From the opening paragraphs:
No link between vaccines and fevers and seizures? This is an absurd claim, as the link has already been established by the vaccine companies themselves. Nearly every package insert verifies this link, and the reactions are not "rare," unless over 10 - 15 % of people having fevers is rare:
If studies in the link you provided didn't find any link even to something as common as vaccine-induced fever, and the scientists at the vaccine companies themselves have found, via testing, that this link exists and directly confirmed it, why would any thinking individual not take issue with this monumental contradiction?
"as regarding specific vaccines" I never said anything about specific vaccines - I have no reason to. I was saying in general.
"These studies do not show any link between autism and MMR vaccine, thimerosal, multiple vaccines given at once, fevers or seizures."
You misread this. It is a list of things which do not lead to autism. It is saying fevers or seizures caused by the vaccine do not lead to autism. I agree the sentence is confusing, but if you read it again, I think you will agree that this is what it means.
I assure you, the British Medical Association is a respected institution.
Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for correcting me there.
Unfortunately, the CDC maintains that vaccines, febrile seizure, etc., can and do trigger "autism-like symptoms" with no differentiation made between ASD and "ASD-like symptoms."
And once again "I can assure you" is not an argument.
Ok. I give up. I stand corrected. You are right. I am wrong. Those quacks from the British Medical Association and all those doctors and scientists who did all that research on vaccines should be locked up. That data they included in their research was all made up. I bet they didn’t actually do any research . They played video games instead. Doctors actually stuck a needle in me when I was a child, for no apparent reason, just for the fun of it. When I have time, I’ll sue them. All that money gone to waste on vaccinating the populations of the world. No wonder you are angry about it - it’s enough to make anyone angry. I’m seething myself. I’m frothing at the mouth. Wait a minute! Am I frothing at the mouth because of the vaccines? Yes, that must be it. Am I going to die a horrible death? You were right! You were right.! Please, please, you know everything. Tell me, what should I do? Don’t forget to include the proof that it works, though!
This is hopeless. I never once claimed all those 40 studies you listed were "wrong," or written by "quacks." I am simply pointing out discrepancies. This article here on Steem was about herd immunity and you're attempting to debate me using assertions about a point I wasn't even explicitly making.
Thanks for your time and for reading, and for the studies you cited. Cheers.
And, of course, another non reply to what the CDC claimed about a direct correlation back in 2008.
When you are ready to discuss ideas and make non-personal, cohesive arguments, I'll be here.
Can you provide a link to support this claim? If it's a false claim, then much of your argument here becomes a strawman.
What if vaccines do only last 10 years but we get enough human beings to get them to, within that 10 years, to eliminate completely whatever problem we're dealing with? Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?
I know antivaxxing is big in the unschooling community, but I also think there's some confirmation bias going on there (on both side, possibly). When "scientific papers" against vaccinations are shown to be less than scientific (or not papers at all), the response isn't an open, skeptical one but a defensive one. It's like the only evidence that matters is the evidence which already supports the biases in question.
I'm not singling you out, but I'm truly trying to know what is. My wife and I go back and forth on this topic also because she doesn't trust vaccinations either based on the things she's read. I hear strong scientific arguments on one side and on the other I often see claims which fall down under closer scrutiny. It makes it quite difficult to really know what is.
You said ...
This has not turned out to be the case. No disease has ever been considered eradicated besides Smallpox. Polio still exists, as do measles and everything else, even though this vaccine game has been going on an awful long time now. They now realize that they will never completely eradicate these. With our ease of world travel, these things will constantly be making their way into all of our countries.
The idea of using vaccinations for minor normal childhood illnesses like measles and rubella has proven to create a MUCH worse situation. Whereas natural exposure/immunity once provided TRUE Herd Immunity to the MOST vulnerable (babies, fetuses, elderly) that true herd immunity has now been removed. Those illnesses in children are almost always benign ... they get a fever and a rash and it's over. Death was EXTREMELY rare, unless the child was malnourished or living in filth. (And if that's the case let's do something about access to healthy food and sanitation.)
As you may know, Rubella is the most dangerous to an unborn child during pregnancy.
With REAL Herd Immunity, the mother had her own Rubella antibodies to pass along to the baby as protection, which also continued on for about 12 months after the birth, and even longer if she breastfed.
The gigantic problem that vaccination for Rubella has created is that the level of antibodies created from vaccination are simply NOT enough to pass along any immunity to the fetus in pregnancy. And certainly not enough to pass along to the newborn.
In the recent Disneyland measles outbreak, over 10% of the people who got measles were children under 1-year-old. In the past under REAL herd immunity, this would have NEVER happened. These children could have been exposed to measles/rubella/chickenpox/mumps over and over and never had it affect them -- because their mothers passed on real immunity.
Now we have created a situation where more and more adults have their childhood vaccinations worn off, and thus are getting these illnesses as adults when it is much harder on their bodies. AND they are exposing newborns and pregnant women who can not protect their babies.
We have made the situation MUCH MUCH WORSE.
Herd Immunity was once there to protect the MOST VULNERABLE.
Vaccination has now removed that and put people at more risk than ever before.
I am 46-years old and had measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox. I was very grateful that I could pass on REAL protection to my 3 children. I just hope that they have the chance to be exposed to those minor normal childhood illnesses while young so that they can pass along that REAL immunity to their own babies.
I have written more about this here below:
https://steemit.com/vaccines/@canadian-coconut/vaccination-is-not-immunization-immunity-is-long-term-vaccination-is-short-term
https://steemit.com/vaccines/@canadian-coconut/vaccinations-create-the-wrong-type-of-immune-response-th2-vs-th1-cells-and-achieving-immunostasis
https://steemit.com/health/@canadian-coconut/huge-increase-in-shingles-at-younger-ages-than-ever-before-as-chickenpox-has-decreased
https://steemit.com/vaccines/@canadian-coconut/more-mumps-outbreaks-the-vaccine-has-failed-yet-unvaccinated-still-get-the-blame
Thanks for this, @canadian-coconut.
I provided the link to the CDC website for the Varicella vaccine. All you have to do is check that out or go to the similar page for the measles vaccine. "...considered protected for life" is a direct quote from the CDC page. Not strawmanning anything, here. Just reading. Here's the link: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/hcp/about.html
Compare it with the actual scientific findings listed in the vaccine package insert.
Thanks. It gets confusing when we're talking about varicella, measles, and rubella all at once. It's possible they have different effectiveness with different claims. Also, "long-lasting" is, as you said, an unscientific term. Some may consider 10 years long lasting in which case there would be no contradiction if we kept it within that category. If we talk about the "considered protected for life" category, that's a different claim about a different disease which is based on different studies.
I think "considered protected for life" and 10 years, is quite a discrepancy. You may have missed the point. The same CDC article makes two mutually exclusive claims. This has nothing to do with bias. Just an observation.
Both claims refer to the measles vaccine.
I'm getting confused. Your post was about Varivax which didn't make the "for life" claim on the website or in the insert. The MMR post on the site says this:
I briefly looked at the inserts they linked to and didn't see a contradiction. Where is the 10 years claim made in regards to the measles vaccine?
My post is about both the Varivax and MMR vaccines. I referenced them separately. The link I just sent you for the measles vaccine page claims, verbatim, "considered protected for life." Follow that page's link to the FDA package insert which clearly says, as per my photo in the post, 11 ~ 14 years. Couple that with the common medical knowledge that fully vaccinated adults still contract measles.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. For some reason I was getting confused between the two. Sorry for being dense here. I was also reading the wrong insert (the patient one). Reading on from the point you highlight, I do see this:
Which suggests to me they may be talking about different strands of measles when discussing 10-14 years verses long-lasting. I agree with your conclusions that this is confusing when comparing the CDC comments to the FDA comments. Ultimately, empirical evidence based on long running studies should clear up the confusion.
The measles page says "protected for life" and the link for the measles vaccine (bottom of same page to FDA site) package insert says 10 years. This is blatant nonsense.
I feel like I'm being really stupid here. I don't see the 10 years on this document. What am I missing? If it is there and I'm missing it, I wonder if the FDA and CDC disagree or are looking at different studies to come to their conclusions? Maybe the FDA is using a safe number of 10 years even if the studies show longer effectiveness?
11 ~ 13 years is not lifetime protection. What's amusing is that this stuff isn't even controversial. They encourage boosters as well (which still don't confer wild-type immunity) and at the same time claim one vaccine likely confers immunity for life. The organization, from scientific standpoint, is ridiculous.
Bro, as an anarchist you know about lobbying and vested interest. I just wonder why you are so reticent to see it here in this multi-billion dollar industry.
Anarchist is just a label. I'm searching for evidence based truth which leads to increased human wellbeing. I've seen evidence which convinces me vaccines increase wellbeing. I want to see more evidence to refute that claim in order to change my position to a greater truth. I don't care if an industry is trillions of dollars if it provides a benefit to humanity and isn't being controlled via false monopoly because of government violence.
Well, I mean, I have just pointed out a direct discrepancy, and that is all I set out to do. When you can address that, I guess then we can go from there. Until then, what I have pointed out seems pretty direct and clear to me. Two mutually exclusive claims made by the same entity.
And to be fair, I didn't say or even imply it was untrustworthy because it was an industry involving large amounts of money. I referenced lobbying, specifically, and in this article made note of the 1986 legislative move that made it illegal to seek recompense directly from vaccines makers. This is a free market fail any way you slice it for an advocate of self-ownership and self-responsibility.
Should have said 11 - 13, as per my screenshot. The CDC page links directly to the FDA insert page.