Reply to: kafkanarchy84 article on "Unvaxxed": It is full of holes
This is a reply hat has (again) grown too big to be simply put in the comment.
Please read the original post and keep it open for easier comparison:
Answer to headline: Yes. It is a risk to others.
some individuals are genetically predisposed to adverse reactions and thus could not be held as culpable for not being vaccinated as others without said predispositions
And that is one of the reasons why those who can be vaccinated should be - to protect those who cannot.
A boost in antibody levels
What this means is that the researchers are not sure whether some of the longer protection they observed was due to the vaccine or exposure to wild-type chickenpox
No. Not at all. Read again. They say that the observed increase in antibodies may explain the long term protection.
The question is not if the vaccine is effective, the question is about what is the reason for long-term effectivness.
The vaccine works, we just are not sure why it works for such a long time – that is written there.
The second source also does not say that the vaccine does not work. What it does make is a statistical statement: We cannot be sure how many people have antibodies because of A) the vaccine or b) because (former) unrecognized infections.
adequate testing of these vaccines regarding duration has not been done
Well, I can’t say about adequate, but from the text parts you presented it is clear they made tests that showed effectiveness. “continued protection up to 10 years”
vaccine-induced immunity has only been shown to last around ten years, then this whole definition (see screenshot above), their definition, is untenable
No again! The definition is, by definition, right ;)
If you mean that there cannot be herd immunity because there are only 20% vaccinated and not 80%, then this is not right, too.
As you wrote yourself, it is not clear border how many people you need to prevent an epidemic and it is different from illness to illness and often even from strand to strand of virus/bacteria. But the important point to keep in mind here is:
A) the weakest often get sick (and much worse)
B) which is the reason why health care etc. workers vaccinate, since they are the most likely sources.
Arbitrary example: I you want to prevent swine flu to jump to humans, you don’t need to vaccinate the Microsoft office clerk. You need to vaccinate the farmers and vets, less then 5% of the population.
most deadly diseases were in steep decline prior to the introduction of routine vaccination programs worldwide due to cleanliness, sanitation, and better nutrition, in this video.
Korrelation is not causation. And your “most” is proof that those things are not causation. Because if there was causation it would be “all”.
Also there is no reliable way to say if the death numbers of measles would have dropped to todays low levels with the hospitals, hygiene etc. in place but without the vaccine.
What you can do is compare the levels in e.g. a war area which had a high level of both before (like Syria) and the after-war-infections.
If you do this, then if vaccines would not work, the rate of infections should go up more then they do in the reality. Easy example is Polio, because the bacteria of this are literally everywhere. Still Syria has no outbreak of a Polio epidemic (or at least I have not heard of it).
11 deaths have included measles written as a cause of death
listing 81 reported deaths in association with measles vaccines
Comparing those two numbers against each other without context is also Bullshit. As you have written yourself “in association” is not cause of death. I don’t know the rules for this database, but it might very well just mean someone dies who recently got the vaccine.
The vaccine might have” fired” itself, but it is in this case far more likely that the death was caused by a different infection (often unknown at the time of vaccination), which might – or might not – have made this infection deadly because the immune system fought against 2 enemies.
And then there is the question of “how many people got vaccinated” compared to “how many people could have been infected by measles”.
You could – I would say rightfully – interpret these lines as:
Only 11 people have died, while 81 were injured, because of vaccine.
If could very well have been:
8100 people have died because only 11 were injured by vaccines (because less people used the vaccine).
unkown man before
and after vaccination
most adults are no longer vaccine-immune to the viruses and diseases they were vaccinated for
Even if it is true that they are not immune then this does not mean that they have not a hightened resistance
It is a medical fact that even if there are not antibodies left, some information on the virus still is in the body, as the production of new antibodies at a second infect is faster then at the first time.
Amazing. Very useful for health. Thanks @lennstar
I read a quarter in and you have already misquoted me. Grossly. Not wasting my time with the rest. Cheers.