RE: How Modern Vaccination Practices Are Destroying True “Herd Immunity”
Though the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) website will tell you that individuals receiving the MMR vaccine are “considered protected for life"...
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.