RE: How Modern Vaccination Practices Are Destroying True “Herd Immunity”
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.
'"according to the medical community..." in and of itself is not an argument'
Oh, I can assure you it is a very good argument. Too many people are coming to harm because of things they read off the Internet. It's all very well taking one statistic here and one statistic there, but its the whole that matters, and the medical community is that whole.
You don't seem to understand what an argument is.
Let me present a challenge to help out.
An argument would be your claim that the medical community agrees, supported by empirical data which demonstrates (for any specific vaccine) that the risk of complication/vaccine injury is less than the risk of acquiring the disease against which the vaccine is purported to protect.
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?