It is sad that the intelligence of the average person is now so low that we must use dumbed down cartoons to communicate with them.

Since the anti vax campaigns where fewer people are being vaccinated there have been several measles outbreaks in the USA. What does THAT lead you to believe?
Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc. While you may well be correct, this specific argument is fallacious and can not lead to a valid conclusion.

Dr. Watt obviously knew the number of unvaccinated cases. Thus his ability to claim a "significant" number. In science, "significance" usually means statistical significance. So where the heck are the statistics showing the significance? The lack of such references leads me to believe that in fact specific statistics do not strengthen his case. i.e. that there was also a "significant" number of cases among the "immune herd".
 
Last edited:
It is sad that the intelligence of the average person is now so low that we must use dumbed down cartoons to communicate with them.

Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc. While you may well be correct, this specific argument is fallacious and can not lead to a valid conclusion.
No, if you said "We know that this caused that" you'd be committing Post Hoc.

Asking "What does THAT lead you to believe?" in light of all the other circumstances,
is a perfectly reasonable question. Essentially: "What is most probable, given all we know?"

Also, I have no problem with communicating data to people via cartoons, if that makes them more likely to read it.

To say that the existence of alternative modes of info means that we can determine anything negative about the
"intelligence of the average person" is, of course, grossly fallacious. :p
 
Last edited:
You don't actually KNOW that he didn't go on to give an entire statistical breakdown. You only Know that the paper didn't print one.
While you and I would both have preferred a complete statistical breakdown, it may be that either Dr Watt or the paper didn't think it would be helpful or obvious to the average reader.
Maybe Dr Watt didn't have all the figures exactly to hand at the time the reporter asked him, or maybe the numbers didn't fit the point he was trying to make.

I have no axe to grind so I will not jump to any conclusions, but I might well start digging to see if there ARE any actual figures to be had anywhere. What I have found so far is not very helpful.
 
That is one of the claims I addressed earlier in the thread. Although SV40 has been found to induce cancers in animal models both in vivo and in vitro, a link between human cancers and SV40 has yet to be established and the CDC has not been able to attribute any increase in cancer incidence rates to the contaminated batches of polio vaccine
The CDC is not able to provide an objective assessment. Expecting them to admit to anything would be akin to first warning a six year old that if they stole cookies from the cookie jar that they will be spanked very very hard, and then asking them whether they did. The government, like the six year old, is backed into a corner and will almost invariably issue a denial.

The government is afraid of being spanked. It is therefore not a reliable source of information on SV-40.

There are quite a few solid links between SV-40 and human cancer. Here is an article on a few of them:
External Quote:
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Rogue-virus-in-the-vaccine-Early-polio-vaccine-2899957.php
First discovery, 1988

In Boston, two researchers stumbled onto something disturbing.

Dr. Robert Garcea and his assistant, Dr. John Bergsagel, were using a powerful new tool called polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, to look for a pair of common human viruses in children's brain tumors.

But a different DNA footprint kept popping up in more than half the tumors. They finally realized they were seeing SV40.

For more than a decade, scientists had reported sporadic findings of SV40- like proteins in human tumors. But the earlier tests were primitive and the results suspect. PCR, however, is capable of amplifying infinitesimal fragments of DNA, which makes detections far more credible.

The findings were troubling. The researchers noted in their published report that the children were too young to have received the contaminated vaccine. But somehow the virus had infected them and embedded itself in their tumors.

Mesothelioma, 1988

That same year, Dr. Michele Carbone was surprised to find a milky, rindlike tumor in a laboratory hamster at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

The animal was one of a group given an SV40 injection directly into their hearts. Sixty percent of those hamsters developed the fatal cancer called mesothelioma.

Carbone, a postdoctoral fellow at the institute, knew that SV40 caused tumors in hamsters but only in specific locations where large doses of virus were injected. Here the mesothelial membrane lining the lungs apparently became cancerous from minuscule amounts of SV40 shed by the tip of the needle on the way to the hamsters' hearts.

So he tried another experiment, this time injecting SV40 directly into the thin mesothelial walls of another group of hamsters. Within six months, every animal developed mesothelioma.

Carbone was puzzled. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer. Few human cases were reported before the 1950s, but its incidence had been increasing steadily, reaching several thousand cases a year in the United States by 1988.

Studies had linked mesothelioma to asbestos exposure - with tumors usually appearing many decades later. Yet 20 percent of victims had no asbestos exposure.

Carbone decided to use PCR to test 48 human mesotheliomas stored at the NIH.

He was stunned: 28 of them contained SV40.

More cancers, 1996

PCR unleashed a wave of SV40 discoveries.

By the end of 1996, dozens of scientists reported finding SV40 in a variety of bone cancers and a wide range of brain cancers, which had risen 30 percent over the previous 20 years.

Then, Italian researchers reported finding SV40 in 45 percent of the seminal fluid samples and 23 percent of the blood samples they had taken from healthy donors.

That meant SV40 could have been spreading through sexual activity, from mother to child, or by other means, which could explain how those never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, such as the Boston children, were being infected.
Also, the National Library of Medicine confirms that SV-40 causes cancer in human cells:
External Quote:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2009/MB_cgi?mode=&index=12997&view=concept
“A species of POLYOMAVIRUS originally isolated from Rhesus monkey kidney tissue. It produces malignancy in human and newborn hamster kidney cell cultures.
 
Last edited:
I thought pro-vaxers prided themselves on science... So where the heck are the statistics showing the significance?
The science is already in. It's really quite simple: If you don't vaccinate, you run a higher risk of falling ill.
External Quote:
Health Consequences of Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From Immunization Laws
Individual and Societal Risk of Measles
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190649

Results On average, exemptors were 35 times more likely to contract measles than were vaccinated persons (95% confidence interval, 34-37).

 
Last edited:
It is sad that the intelligence of the average person is now so low that we must use dumbed down cartoons to communicate with them.

Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc. While you may well be correct, this specific argument is fallacious and can not lead to a valid conclusion.

Dr. Watt obviously knew the number of unvaccinated cases. Thus his ability to claim a "significant" number. In science, "significance" usually means statistical significance. So where the heck are the statistics showing the significance? The lack of such references leads me to believe that in fact specific statistics do not strengthen his case. i.e. that there was also a "significant" number of cases among the "immune herd".
i'm sure they will update as more info comes in. we're still missing data on 17 people.

External Quote:

From December 28, 2014, through January 21, 2015, 51 confirmed cases of measles linked to this outbreak have been reported to CDC, 42 from California and 9 from six other states (3 in UT, 2 in WA, 1 in OR, 1 in CO, 1 in NE, and 1 in AZ). In addition to the U.S. cases, one case was reported from Mexico in an unvaccinated child who visited Disneyland Resort Theme Parks on December 17 and December 20, 2014. At this time, no source case for the outbreak has been identified, but it is likely that a traveler (or more than one traveler) who was infected with measles overseas visited one or both of the Disney parks in December during their infectious period.

For cases with age reported, the age of case-patients range from 10 months to 57 years (median = 16.5 years). To date, 8 (15%) case-patients were hospitalized.

Of the 52 outbreak-associated cases, 28 (55%) were unvaccinated, 17 (31%) had unknown vaccination status, and 6 (12%) were vaccinated. Of the 6 cases vaccinated, 2 had received 1 dose and 4 had received 2 or more doses. Among the 28 unvaccinated cases, 5 were under age for vaccination.
http://emergency.cdc.gov/HAN/han00376.asp

add:
External Quote:
From January 1 to January 30, 2015, 102 people from 14 states were reported to have measles*. Most of these cases are part of a large, ongoing multi-stateoutbreak linked to an amusement park in California.

* CDC will update this data weekly on Mondays.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
 
Last edited:
More important than the number of cases is the ratio of unvaccinated cases to vaccinated cases

Those numbers are known. As of Jan 21, 2015, 59 California residents contracted measles. 34 have vaccination records. Of the 34 that have vaccination records, 28 were not vaccinated.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR15-008.aspx

and how that ratio compares to the broader ratio of unvaccinated people relative to vaccinated people attending the park.

Short of forcing people to fill out a questionnaire or present vaccination records before entering the park, how could anyone possibly know the number of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people attending the park? I think you could reasonable assume that attendees represent a cross-section of the population.
 
Last edited:
The government is afraid of being spanked. It is therefore not a reliable source of information on SV-40.

There are quite a few solid links between SV-40 and human cancer. Here is an article on a few of them:

You can't just say "The government says it therefore it is wrong." The CDC's statements are backed up by science. There is no concrete link between human cancers and SV40 on an epidemiological level. Performing PCR on people and finding SV40 DNA does not mean that it is causing cancer nor that the virus is necessarily active. There are conflicting views in the scientific community in regards to how much SV40 could contribute to certain cancers, but when it comes to the SV40 contaminated polio vaccine batch it does not seem to have caused noticeable changes in cancer trends.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2004/sv40
External Quote:
In conclusion, although SV40 causes cancer in laboratory animals, substantial epidemiological evidence has accumulated to indicate that SV40 likely does not cause cancer in humans.
The epidemiological data suggests that the SV40 contamination, which is no longer present, did not cause cancers.

Also, the National Library of Medicine confirms that SV-40 causes cancer in human cells:

It can transform cells in the lab, but the dish is different than the body. Not all people with SV40-associated tumors are infected with SV40. Not all people with SV40 develop tumors. There is a correlation and on a molecular level it is certainly possible, but that does not mean that it is a likely event. It has to infect the right cells, avoid the immune system, and successfully transform a cell without killing it. As far as recent science goes, this particular study demonstrates that certain markers for malignant mesothelioma occurred independent of SV40 in a sample of patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25162674
External Quote:

Notably, the chemokine RANTES measured the highest serum level showing an increased gradient of concentration from healthy subjects to Asb-workers and MM patients (p<0.001), independently of SV40 infection.

CONCLUSION:
This study shows that, in subjects from an hyperendemic area for MM, the C-C chemokine RANTES is associated with the exposure to asbestos fibres. If validated in larger samples, this factor could have the potential to be a critical biomarker for MM prognosis as recently reported for breast tumor.
Either way, the SV40 is no longer a contaminant in any vaccine, so there is no reason to worry about it when it comes to vaccination.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone speak to the so called "Vaccine Court"? I keep running into the argument that the "vaccine courts" have paid out over $3B in damages to those adversely affected by vaccines. The only thing I could find outside of conspiracy links was an LA Times article which reported on the court denying the link to Autism. It had a quick excerpt but didn't give much.

External Quote:
The vaccine court was established in 1986 because vaccine manufacturers were facing many liability suits that threatened their ability to continue manufacturing the medicines. The court holds no-fault hearings to determine whether a child has been harmed by a vaccine. Compensation comes from a $2.5-billion fund based on a 75-cent surcharge on each dose of vaccine.
Is there any good links/information out there about this?
 
Here's the wiki article on it -

the burden of proof does not require scientific "certainty" for any link:

External Quote:

Petitioner’s Burden of Proof
A petitioner seeking to establish causation-in-fact must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that but for her vaccination she would not have been injured, and that the vaccination was a substantial factor in bringing about her injury. Shyface, 165 F.3d at 1352. Mere temporal association is not sufficient to prove causation in fact; a petitioner must present a medical theory that is supported either by medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. Grant v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Proof of actual causation must be supported by a sound and reliable “medical or scientific explanation that pertains specifically to the petitioner’s case, although the explanation need only be ‘legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.’
It has awarded a lot of money:

External Quote:
From 1988 until 8 January 2008, 5,263 claims relating to autism, and 2,865 non-autism claims, were made to the VICP. 925 of these claims, one autism-related (see previous rulings), were compensated, with 1,158 non-autism and 350 autism claims dismissed; awards (including attorney's fees) totaled $847 million.[6] The VICP also applies to claims for injuries suffered before 1988; there were 4,264 of these claims of which 1,189 were compensated with awards totaling $903 million.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court#cite_note-NVICP-stats-6
 
Ok so a total of 2114 compensated.

I've also been trying to find the number of shots actually given in the history of the US to try to rationalize this. Not an easy number to nail down!
 
Had an Ozzy friend of mine txt this link to me just a short time ago with YAY!!!! Keep in mind she's very anti-government for the most part but she does agree with vaccinations and sees this as a good thing, but doesnt like the fact that the government had to get involved to get it done:

External Quote:


Doctors will be given incentive payments so that parents stick to their children’s vaccination schedule, and the one religious exemption to vaccinations will end, as part of a push by the federal government to boost the immunisation rate.

Social services minister Scott Morrison on Sunday announced that the only religious group currently able to claim religious exemptions for vaccinations, Christian Scientists, will no longer be able to do so.

Morrison said the exemption, in place since 1998, “is no longer current or necessary and will therefore be removed”.

“Having resolved this outstanding matter, the government will not be receiving nor authorising any further vaccination exemption applications from religious organisations,” he said.

Families will still be able to claim exemptions to vaccinations on medical grounds. “This will remain the sole ground for exemption under the Coalition government,” Morrison said.

Calls to representatives of Christian Science were not returned.

The tightening of the rules around exemptions is part of the government’s $26m package on boosting immunisation rates, which was due to be announced in detail on Sunday.

The package will include a public awareness campaign to sell the benefits of vaccinations to parents, the incentive payments for medical providers, and improved public vaccination records.

News Ltd reports that the current $6 incentive payment offered to medical professionals, which are designed to encourage GPs to contact families to remind them that their children are due for jabs, will be doubled to $12.

On Monday, the government announced that it would tighten up welfare eligibility for parents who fail to immunise their children. Families could lose out on the childcare benefit and rebate, and the Family Tax Benefit part A supplement.

“I believe most parents have genuine concerns about those who deliberately choose not to vaccinate their children and put the wider community at risk,” the health minister, Sussan Ley, said.

“However, it’s important parents also understand complacency presents as a much of a threat to immunisation rates and the safety of our children as conscientious objections do.”

A national immunisation register is reportedly also being proposed to keep track of vaccines given through school-based programs.

Labor has thrown its support behind the changes. “In many cases missed vaccinations are due to oversight rather than a specific objection,” a joint statement from opposition leader Bill Shorten, opposition families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin and opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said.

“The establishment of a national immunisation register of school-based vaccinations will assist all parents to do the right thing by their children.”

“Labor also supports moves to explore a national immunisation register to enable adults to keep their vaccinations up to date.”

The Queensland health minister, Cameron Dick, welcomed Sunday’s announcements but told the ABC he was concerned that the issue of vaccine shortages, raised at the council of Australian governments meeting on Friday, had not been mentioned.

“If we are going to incentivise the system now, going to be giving doctors money to provide more immunisations, more vaccinations, then I want to be assured the vaccinations are there,” Dick told ABC News 24.

“In one sense, a good announcement but disappointing no consultation with the states and territories but let’s hope that can be sorted out, we can secure supply including domestic manufacture if need be to ensure all Australians are vaccinated.”

Ley estimates that there are currently 39,000 conscientious objectors, and at least 166,000 children who are two months or more overdue for their immunisations.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...stralia-announces-end-to-religious-exemptions
 
Ok so a total of 2114 compensated.

I've also been trying to find the number of shots actually given in the history of the US to try to rationalize this. Not an easy number to nail down!
Influenza alone is typically over 150 million. This year was on the "low" side with 147.8 million doses. That's the biggest group, but new parents, children under 1, children over 1, and the elderly all account for upwards of 10 million each. Even the small groups (emergency rabies and tetanus vaccines) are on the order of millions a year, those are the ones doctors really over prescribe*. The total is well in excess of 200 million doses per year.

*-actual rabies cases in the US are on the order of 2-4 per year, but because the survival rate is nearly zero once symptoms show, chances are simply not taken with the disease.



Every year, about 30,000 VAERS reports are filed, with most being coincidental and not vaccine caused. About 1700 of the 30,000 are considered serious, but most of them are also coincidental (hence why in 20 years the number actual compensated is much lower than the number reported). The most common vaccine related report is pain, swelling, or rash at the injection site, which is a common side effect of many vaccines, but is also a side effect of a poorly delivered saline injection, making it a particularly difficult one to actually pin down cause. Most doctors don't particularly care, but some hospitals and clinics do track this to try and catch nurses being sloppy with needles (it means discomfort with a shot, but the same mistake could mean serious infiltration with an IV and even worse injury with a central line catheter).
 
Last edited:
claims big pharma is killing off alternative vax therapist


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/3-alternative-health-doctors-dead-run-ins-feds/

In the past several weeks, a number of controversial natural health doctors have died under mysterious circumstances. Some of them have even had recent encounters with federal agents and bureaucracies.

Two weeks ago, the string of mysterious deaths began when Dr. Jeff Bradstreet MD was found in a river with a gunshot wound to his chest. The police claim that the gunshot wound was self-inflicted and that the death was a suicide, however, Broadstreet’s family suspects foul play.


further claims

http://www.healthnutnews.com/famous...inflicted-gunshot-wound-and-found-in-a-river/

Famous Autism researcher and Doctor, Jeff Bradstreet MD died of alleged “self inflicted gunshot wound” to chest and found in a river

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-autism-therapy-found-dead-family-cries-foul/

James Jeffrey Bradstreet’s life was full of controversy. To thousands of supporters, he was a savior: a physician who claimed vaccines caused autism and promoted radical procedures to treat those afflicted, including his own son.

To many others, however, he was a crackpot: a man who, despite his medical license, ignored science and championed dangerous, discredited and occasionally deadly treatments.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that Bradstreet’s death is proving equally divisive.
 
Last edited:
First death due to measles in USA for 12 years.

Person seems to have caught it while in hospital in a weakened state -

External Quote:

She was hospitalised for several health conditions in the spring at a facility in Clallam County, Mr Moyer said.

"She was there at the same time as a person who later developed a rash and was contagious for measles," he added.
 
one seem to have died naturally aged 67 other by gun shot suicide after a FDA raid the last murdered by an unknown attacker
probably should be a seperate thread. lots of CT sites rehashing the same article.

Plus so far i havent found anything yet about Hedendal being anti-vax. or Dr. Sievers. Not really fair to include them in an anti vax thread if they weren't anti vax. their families are going to go through enough hell because of this CT nonsense as it is.

A blog (i wont link at this time) that includes quite a few comments from Dr. Hedendals family members and acquaintences doesnt sound like anyone is thinking 'foul play'.
 
In an interesting case of conspiracy bleed, I think I've just found the replacement for Mercury in the Anti-Vaxxers toolkit:

External Quote:
“Pharmaceutical companies make a Frankenstein genetically-modified virus and put into your babies.”
The above quote comes from a speaker at an Australian Anti-Vax conference that was covered by a report from, of all things, the Australian Womans Weekly.

http://www.aww.com.au/latest-news/health/vaccination-debate-at-forum-21125
 
In an interesting case of conspiracy bleed, I think I've just found the replacement for Mercury in the Anti-Vaxxers toolkit:

External Quote:
“Pharmaceutical companies make a Frankenstein genetically-modified virus and put into your babies.”

"Frankenstein genetically-modified virus" is such a disappointing way to talk about it. All the genetic modification does is weaken or inactivate the pathogen so that, like all vaccines, you can't actually contract the diseases itself. This way the virus is just a sitting duck for your immune system to come in and process the most immuno-dominant proteins (antigens) and start to build a defense.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097326
External Quote:
GMO vaccines are composed of inactivated or weakened viral or bacterial organisms that have had genetic material added, deleted, or otherwise modified.
 
Every year, about 30,000 VAERS reports are filed, with most being coincidental and not vaccine caused. About 1700 of the 30,000 are considered serious, but most of them are also coincidental (hence why in 20 years the number actual compensated is much lower than the number reported)....
Is there any available evidence that speaks to the number of VAERS reports filed vs the actual number of VAE's? I.E. How many adverse cases are currently estimated to be unreported, and by whom?
 
Is there any available evidence that speaks to the number of VAERS reports filed vs the actual number of VAE's? I.E. How many adverse cases are currently estimated to be unreported, and by whom?
External Quote:
"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.



https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index


this old (1999) but: FDA testimony
External Quote:
The extent of under-reporting of events occurring after vaccination is unknown, and the number of individuals in subgroups of interest (for example, infants) receiving the vaccine during specific time intervals is not known, so that incidence rates cannot be calculated. In addition, because VAERS accepts and encourages reports of all temporal associations, regardless of the rationale for the vaccine being the cause of the outcome reported, there is also "over-reporting" since many events reported, and entered in the database, are most likely not attributable to vaccination. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115058.htm
the CDC (perhaps you can research the source links and let us know)
External Quote:

Reporting sensitivity
Like all passive surveillance systems, VAERS is subject to varying degrees of underreporting. The sensitivity of VAERS is affected by the likelihood that parents and/or vaccinees detect an AE, parents and/or vaccinees bring the event to the attention of their health-care provider(s), parents and/or healthcare providers suspect an event is related to prior vaccination, parents and/or healthcare providers are aware of VAERS, and that parents and/or health-care providers report the event. The completeness of reporting of AE associated with certain vaccines varies according to the severity of the event and the specificity of the clinical syndrome to the vaccine.[25,26]Stimulated reporting also occurs due to media attention on specific AE.

Table 3shows the reporting efficiency to VAERS for various AE from two studies published in 1995 and 2001. The reporting efficiency is the proportion of occurrences of an event after administration of a particular vaccine that are reported to VAERS.[27]For example, the reporting efficiency for paralytic poliomyelitis following oral polio vaccine (severe event, very specific vaccine association, and very rare) was 68%; the reporting efficiency for rash following MMR vaccine was <1% (mild event, many causes).

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt21-surv-adverse-events.html
from an anti vax site
External Quote:

  • Underreporting.Because the reports are submitted voluntarily, many patients and doctors do not report vaccine reactions. Different estimates exist for the amount of underreporting and range from a factor of10to as much as a factor of100(meaning that the true number of vaccine reactions is between 10 and 100 times higher than what is reported to VAERS).
which sounds plausible to me. i certainly wouldnt report manageable fever or mild soreness etc. But i assume you mean "underreporting of severe side effects" ?

btw, i cant remember... what is the Canadian version of VAERs?
 
Last edited:
probably should be a seperate thread. lots of CT sites rehashing the same article.

Plus so far i havent found anything yet about Hedendal being anti-vax. or Dr. Sievers. Not really fair to include them in an anti vax thread if they weren't anti vax. their families are going to go through enough hell because of this CT nonsense as it is.

Started one HERE.
 
External Quote:
"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS.
I had a tdap vaccine last week and am still dealing with the symptoms of a really bad flu, much worse than how it usually hits me. I'm told it's unusual to be that affected (assuming it wasn't a coincidence) but on pregnancy forums there's quite a few reports of people being hit hard for a week or so after their pertussis shots, so it's probably more common than officially acknowledged and I imagine it's under-reporting that leads to it being thought of as unusual.
 
Sorry if this is covered, but I just encountered a person who says that the concept of "herd immunity" is a "myth" and I found some links to similar opinions via Google. Not an area of expertise for me. Anybody care to fill me in?
 
Sorry if this is covered, but I just encountered a person who says that the concept of "herd immunity" is a "myth" and I found some links to similar opinions via Google. Not an area of expertise for me. Anybody care to fill me in?

Do they give any evidence? Because herd immunity seems pretty well established, and isn't that hard to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
 
This makes no sense at all. Immunity is immunity.
Well, many forms of natural immunity require individuals to become infected at some point to gain immunity, meaning herd immunity is difficult to establish and virtually impossible maintain, because when your immunity rate gets high, the disease recedes and immunity rates drop.

Vaccine herd immunity can be achieved and maintained in the complete absence of the disease.
 
I suspect they are confusing their terms, and thinking that herd immunity is when people get sick, spread it though the herd, and make them sick, and the survivors are then immune.

When really it's the fact that when most of a herd is immune, then it's very hard for the disease to spread between the small fraction of people who are not immune.
 
Herd immunity seems like something that is easy to misunderstand/misconstrue. It's not about making any one unvaccinated person immune, it's about having enough immune people to control transmission. If you block off enough transmission vectors you can contain an outbreak.

Think of it like a road network where police have randomly blocked off intersections. As the number of blocked intersections increases, the chances of you getting to work decrease, even if you can get a few block. At some point that chance of arriving becomes negligible. For herd immunity that's somewhere around 90%.
 
Here's a list of stuff somebody came up with. I haven't reviewed it at all.

External Quote:
"Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children"
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/ne...ses-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/

"The 2013 Measles Outbreak: A Failing Vaccine, Not A Failure To Vaccinate"
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/2013-measles-outbreak-failing-vaccine-not-failure-vaccinate1

"“Herd Immunity.” The flawed science and failures of mass vaccination, Suzanne Humphries, MD"
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...s-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/"Vaccinated Children Five Times More Prone To Disease Than Unvaccinated Children"http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/vaccinated-children-five-times-more-prone-to-disease "The False Theory of Vaccine Derived - Herd Immunity"http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived---herd-immunity.html
 
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...s-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/
External Quote:
Before vaccines, outbreaks of measles were observed in 2 to 3 year cycles, and 95% of the population developed immunity by the age of fifteen.
This article is so ill-researched. Earlier in the page they claim that "vaccinators" always talk about how small pox and polio were eradicated by vaccines while polio is certainly not eradicated. Anyway, with what they say about measles, it's completely false. Measles has a history of devastating populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles#History
External Quote:

Measles is an endemic disease, meaning it has been continually present in a community, and many people develop resistance. In populations not exposed to measles, exposure to the new disease can be devastating. In 1529, a measles outbreak in Cuba killed two-thirds of those natives who had previously survived smallpox. Two years later, measles was responsible for the deaths of half the population of Honduras, and it had ravaged Mexico, Central America, and the Inca civilization.[77]

Between roughly 1855 and 2005, measles has been estimated to have killed about 200 million people worldwide.[78] Measles killed 20 percent of Hawaii's population in the 1850s.[79] In 1875, measles killed over 40,000 Fijians, approximately one-third of the population.[80] In the 19th century, the disease killed 50% of the Andamanese population.[81] Seven to eight million children are thought to have died from measles each year before the vaccine was introduced.[11]
The numbers don't lie. Before widespread use of measles vaccines in America, there would be over 200,000 cases in one year. With vaccines, that number went to less than 100 in 2005. Now, with so many people not vaccinating, that number has risen to almost 20,000 in 2014. The idea that "natural immunity is better" does not work. If you simply allow a virus like measles to circulate it will inevitably kill. Sure, those who survive will probably have some good immunity against it, but so will someone who gets vaccinated because the process of building immunity is no different in the two cases. A circulating virus will also never infect an entire population, it will always have new hosts to infect, spread from, and potentially kill. Why obtain some immunity at the expense of children when most of a population can be vaccinated and gain immunity at virtually no expense?
 
Well, it's certainly true that many modern vaccines don't provide life-long immunity. For example, older pertussis vaccines contained whole bacterial cells and were very effective, providing (probably) life-long immunity, but they had more side effects and in some cases caused serious and scary adverse reactions. The newer pertussis vaccine only contains a tiny part of the bacterium, and is a lot safer, adverse reactions are very rare, but the immunity provided by it doesn't last very long. So yes, it is true that these vaccinations should in principle be repeated every few years, and if that doesn't happen then herd immunity will not be there. But that doesn't make the principle of herd immunity flawed; in fact it just confirms it.
 
Well, it's certainly true that many modern vaccines don't provide life-long immunity. For example, older pertussis vaccines contained whole bacterial cells and were very effective, providing (probably) life-long immunity, but they had more side effects and in some cases caused serious and scary adverse reactions. The newer pertussis vaccine only contains a tiny part of the bacterium, and is a lot safer, adverse reactions are very rare, but the immunity provided by it doesn't last very long. So yes, it is true that these vaccinations should in principle be repeated every few years, and if that doesn't happen then herd immunity will not be there. But that doesn't make the principle of herd immunity flawed; in fact it just confirms it.
I asked the original guy I was talking to what his reasoning was on the issue. He just called me a "Troll" and refused to answer.
 
The newer pertussis vaccine only contains a tiny part of the bacterium, and is a lot safer, adverse reactions are very rare, but the immunity provided by it doesn't last very long.

Yes, a vaccine can't always contain a whole weakened organism or, in the case of particle vaccines, can't always have the most immunodominant antigens from the pathogen. This could come from problems in manufacturing or isolating the antigen or the issue could lie in safety. Each vaccine is different and some still contain whole attenuated cell/virus.
 
This might be a callous and sad (and possibly off-topic) thing to say, but I think the only thing that would change anti-vaxxers' minds is if one of their children caught pertussis or diphtheria. Then again, maybe it wouldn't.
 
Back
Top