Dedicated to MosquitoBite in the hopes that she'll stop trolling my threads, begging me to explain it to her.
Bwhahahaha!
The irony.
Oh the irony.
My sides hurt!
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
You started a thread for a strawman?
Originally Posted by thoughtomator
Well, if she wants to pretend she has questions, now she has something she can ask questions about. She won't, but that won't surprise anybody.
MB, in another thread:This should somewhat answer the first part of the question.Because the way I have always understood it is that a certain percentage of the population must be immune to a disease so that it limits the spread of a disease.
What good is a 95%+ vaccination rate if the vaccine being given doesn't actually prevent transmission to the more susceptible populations? (infants, chemo patients, immune-compromised, etc)E]
*ATTENTION* Angelatc is trying her damndest to make a point.
Here is the other side from a noted MD:
Forced Vaccinations, Government, and the Public Interest
By Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D.
December 2009
Those who are observant have noticed a dangerous trend in the United States, as well as worldwide, and that is the resorting of various governments at different levels to mandating forced vaccination upon the public at large. My State of Mississippi has one of the most-restrictive vaccine-exemption laws in the United States, where exemptions are allowed only upon medical recommendation. Ironically, this is only on paper, as many have had as many as three physicians, some experts in neurological damage caused by vaccines, provide written calls for exemption, only to be turned down by the State’s public-health officer.
Worse are the States, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland, where forced vaccinations have either been mandated by the courts, the state legislature, or have such legislation pending. All of such policies strongly resemble those policies found in National Socialist empires, Stalinist countries, or Communist China.
When public-health officers are asked for the legal justification for such draconian measures as forcing people to accept vaccines that they deem either a clear and present danger to themselves and their loved ones or have had personal experience with serious adverse reactions to such vaccines, they usually resort to the need to protect the public.
One quickly concludes that if the vaccines are as effective as being touted by the public-health officials, then why should one fear the unvaccinated? Obviously the vaccinated would have at least 95% protection. This question puts them in a very difficult position. Their usual response is that a “small” percentage of the vaccinated will not have sufficient protection and would still be at risk. Now, if they admit what the literature shows, that vaccine failure rates are much higher than the 5% they claim, they must face the next obvious question – then why should anyone take the vaccine if there is a significant chance it will not protect?
When pressed further, they then resort to their favorite justification, the Holy Grail of the vaccine proponents – herd immunity. This concept is based upon the idea that 95% (and some now say 100%) of the population must be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic. The percentages needing vaccination grows progressively. I pondered this question for some time before the answer hit me. Herd immunity is mostly a myth and applies only to natural immunity – that is, contracting the infection itself.
Is Herd Immunity Real?
In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.
Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done.
That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.
If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.
When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity. This is why vaccine defenders insist the vaccines have 95% effectiveness rates.
Without the mantra of herd immunity, these public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations. I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth.
The entire case for forced mass vaccination rest upon this myth and it is important that we demonstrate the falsity of this idea. Neil Z. Miller, in his latest book The Vaccine Information Manual, provides compelling evidence that herd immunity is a myth.
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
Those pushing mandatory vaccination for an ever-growing list of diseases are a mixed bag. Some are quite sincere and truly want to improve the health of the United States. They believe the vaccine-induced herd immunity myth and likewise believe that vaccines are basically safe and effective. They are not evil people.
A growing number are made of those with a collectivist worldview and see themselves as a core of elite wise men and women who should tell the rest of us what we should do in all aspects of our lives. They see us as ignorant cattle, who are unable to understand the virtues of their plan for America and the World. Like children, we must be made to take our medicine – since, in their view, we have no concept of the true benefit of the bad-tasting medicine we are to be fed.
I have also found that a small number of people in the regulatory agencies and public health departments would like to speak out but are so intimidated and threatened with dismissal or destruction of their careers, that they remain silent. As for the media, they are absolutely clueless.
I have found that “reporters” (we have few real journalists these days) rarely understand what they are reporting on and always trust and rely upon people in positions of official power, even if those people are unqualified to speak on the subject. Most of the time they run to the Centers for Disease Control or medical university to seek answers. I cannot count the number of times I have seen university department heads interviewed when it was obvious they had no clue as to the subject being discussed. Few such professors will pass up an opportunity to appear on camera or be quoted in a newspaper.
One must also appreciate that such reporters and editors are under an enormous economic strain, as vaccine manufacturers are major advertisers in all media outlets and for an obvious reason – it controls content. A number of excellent stories on such medical subjects are spiked every day. That means we will always be relegated to the “fringe media” as our media outlets are called. Despite the high quality of the journalism in many of the “fringe” outlets, they have a much smaller audience. And despite this we are having an enormous effect on the debate.
As the Public Awakens, the Collectivist Becomes Desperate
John Jewkes, in his book Ordeal by Planning, observed that as the British collectivists began to see opposition rise to their grandiose plans, they became more desperate and aggressive in their reaction. They then initiated a campaign of smearing their opponents and blaming every failure on the unwillingness of the people to accept the planner’s dictates without question. We certainly have seen this in this debate – opponents to forced vaccinations are referred to as fringe scientists, kooks, uneducated, confused, and enemies of public safety – reminiscent of Stalin’s favorite phrase, “enemy of the people.”
This desperation is based upon their fear that the public might soon catch on to the fact that the entire vaccine program is based upon nonsense, fear, and concocted fairy tales. One special fear of theirs is that the public might discover the fact that most vaccines are contaminated with a number of known and yet-to-be discovered viruses, bacteria, viral fragments, and DNA/RNA fragments. And, further, that our science demonstrates that these contaminants could lead to a number of slowly-developing degenerative diseases, including degenerative diseases of the brain. This is rarely discussed but is of major importance in this debate.
The idea that adults and their children would be forced to submit to being injected with dozens of these organisms and organic fragments is terrifying. No regulatory agency is tracking to see if chronic diseases are rising in the vaccinated, yet we have compelling evidence of a massive rise in all autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and certain cancers since the advent of a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines being mandated.
Of special concern is the finding that many of the contaminant organisms can pass from generation to generation. For example, new studies have found that SV-40, a major contaminant of the polio vaccine until 1963, not only existed as a latent virus for the lifetime of those exposed to the vaccine but was being passed on to the next generation, primarily by way of sperm, something called vertical transmission. This means that every generation from now on will be infected with this known carcinogenic virus. There is also compelling evidence that some polio vaccines manufactured after 1963 may contain SV-40 virus.
What makes the SV-40 contamination disaster of such concern is its association with so many cancers – including mesothelioma, medulloblastoma, ependymoma, meningioma, astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, pituitary adenoma, glioblastoma, osteosarcomas, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, papillary thyroid carcinomas, and anaplastic thyroid carcinomas.
The Federal government has gone to enormous lengths to cover up this association, despite the powerful scientific evidence that this vaccine infected at least a hundred million people worldwide with this carcinogenic virus. And, it took over 40 years just to get this far. Linking vaccine contaminations and immunoexcitotoxicity to the drastic rise in neurodegenerative diseases will probably take even longer because of the widespread growth of entrenched powers high in government and their control of the media, which is equally extensive. The fact that powerful, enormously wealthy foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Rockefeller series of foundations, are supporting forced vaccination greatly enhances the power of governments all over the World.
These foundations operate in the shadows, influencing legislation and government actions through the World Health Organization and individual governmental bodies. Behind every call for forced vaccinations, mandated quarantines, and home invasions, one can find one of these foundations providing the money as well as experts. Remember, the largest of the pharmaceutical-vaccine manufacturers are also providing much of the money for the foundations and serving on the boards of these foundations. The Rockefellers either owned outright or had controlling interest in all of the major pharmaceutical companies. This has given them absolute and extremely powerful access to the reins of power at all levels. Yet, they can be defeated by the truth.
Dr. Blaylock is a board-certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana and completed his internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. For the past 24 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice for 2 years. Retiring from his neurosurgical practice to devote full time to nutritional studies and research, Dr. Blaylock has written and illustrated three books (Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, and Natural Strategies for The Cancer Patient). In addition, he has written and illustrated three chapters in medical textbooks, written a booklet on nutritional protection against biological terrorism, has an e-booklet on radioprotection (Nuclear Sunrise), written and illustrated a booklet on multiple sclerosis, and written over 30 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals.
Other credits include Dr. Blaylock’s DVD Nutrition & Behavior, a CD-ROM on the Truth About Aspartame, and, for the past five years, a health newsletter The Blaylock Wellness Report, published by NewsMax. Since the publication of his first book, he has been a guest on over 100 syndicated radio and television programs and appeared on the 700 Club seven times. He lectures widely to both lay and professional medical audiences on a variety of nutritional subjects.
Dr. Blaylock is a visiting professor of biology at Belhaven College and serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association, the editorial staff of the Fluoride Journal and is on the editorial staff of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He is also a regular lecturer for the Fellowship for Anti-aging and Regenerative Medicine.
- See more at: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c....RUSnPkSl.dpuf
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
So, the scientific discovery that immunizations from vaccines didn't last a lifetime which resulted in updating the vaccine schedules is somehow an argument against herd immunity.
Of course that argument makes actually no sense, but of course that won't stop you from believing it or posting it.
Arguing with facts on your side can sometimes feel like a Sisyphean task, especially on the Internet. For the most part when I claim something on this blog I try to back it up with reputable information sources if I haven’t done the research myself and if I’m talking completely out my ass I try to make that known so you can take that information with the required grain of salt. However when people comment on here I feel obliged to reply to them, even if what they’re saying has no basis in any kind of fact or reality. This can feel like a form of asymmetric warfare at times as the amount of time taken to disprove something is usually an order of magnitude more than what it took to write it in the first place.
Now I don’t usually like to pick on people who make comments here, if you’ve taken the time to post here I feel it’s better to respond to you directly on the post, but some of them simply demand more attention than I’ve already given to them. The one I’m thinking of in particular is this comment where they claim that herd immunity has been debunked, something that’s never been brought forth in any research paper that I’ve been able to track down. As far as I can tell it all comes down to the opinion of a one Dr. Blaylock who’s opinions have always been radically different from the scientific norm. He’s not a scientific dissenter either as many of his claims have been thoroughly debunked by other research but the herd immunity claim seems to remain.
Whilst it would be all well and good for me to simply link to research papers which show case this fact quite well I thought it’d be better to point to something that demonstrates the point visually. The picture above is from this simulation tool which shows the results of what happens when a disease moves through a population. The first couple are interesting to get a feel for how an uncontrolled infection can spread even if only a single person is infected. The latter ones deal with some real life situations and demonstrate quite aptly why herd immunity works and why we’ve started to see small epidemics in isolated populations where they don’t vaccinated their children.
Probably the most shocking revelation I got from this simulation was the existence of Waldorf schools who’s official stance on vaccinations is “we have no official stance” but then immediately goes on to recommend parents don’t vaccinate their kids against a wide spectrum of diseases. Apart from the giant hypocrisy of saying one thing but then encouraging the other this kind of behaviour is inherently dangerous because it will mean there’s a cluster of unvaccinated people in constant contact with one another, a hot bed for a potential epidemic. It’s one thing to claim that but it’s already happened once and there was potential for another outbreak to occur due to the incredibly low vaccination rate. Considering that doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world where vaccination rates are above a certain threshold it’s a timely reminder that herd immunity is real and when its broken the consequences can be devastating.
I would go on but I think I’m preaching to the choir here as whilst the number of comments I get disagreeing with me out numbers those who do I know that if that reflected reality us humans would be in a far worse state, health wise, than we are today. The fact of the matter is that herd immunity is real and works beautifully for protecting those precious few who can not be vaccinated for one reason or another.
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2013/07/...accine-debate/..... a muddled explanation of herd immunity from Russell Blaylock, who claims (among other things) that natural immunity from infection is life-long (here’s just one example as a counter to that: a review of the published data on duration of immunity reveals estimates that infection-acquired immunity against pertussis disease wanes after 4-20 years and protective immunity after vaccination wanes after 4-12 years).
Blaylock and Arnold appear to believe that herd immunity can only be achieved by natural infection. For diseases with a high basic reproduction number such as measles or pertussis, around 90-95% must be immune to achieve herd immunity. Which means to get herd immunity against measles or pertussis naturally, 90-95% of the population would have to catch a disease which kills 1 in 5,000 (measles) or 1 in 1,000 (pertussis).
If 90% of the population of this country caught measles, with a mortality rate of 1 in 5,000 (as given in the HPA Green Book) we’d have to sacrifice 9,000 lives for the natural herd immunity that some of those who are anti-vaccination seem so keen on. For pertussis the figure would be 45,000. In reality, we would not see 90-95% of the population catching these diseases, and we would not see natural herd immunity.
If everybody in a population is vaccinated, the chances of contracting the disease is near zero. But the more people in a population who do not get vaccinated, the more the whole population is jeopardized. Imagine a robust individual who is not vaccinated and gets mumps. Before his parents keep him home from school he infects half his classmates, some have been vaccinated and are not affected. Some have not been vaccinated and they get the mumps. Most recover. Maybe one of the non-vaccinated dies. There may also be a child who was vaccinated but who is not very robust and she gets infected by several people, some of whom have been vaccinated and some who have not. Both can be carriers of the virus. The weak but vaccinated girl dies.
Does this mean the vaccine doesn't work? No. It means that if some people don't get vaccinated they can jeopardize those who do. On the other hand, if most people have been vaccinated, those in the population who haven't been vaccinated benefit from the actions of the others and get protection against the disease without being vaccinated. If too many people take this free-ride approach, the group suffers.
http://www.skepdic.com/antivaccination.html
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...ever-in-doubt/As to the science, his major contention is that herd immunity is a myth, and proceeds to make a series of calculations to prove that herd immunity is a myth. He combines all vaccines, each with different efficacies, as if they all have the same efficacy. There are several characteristics of anti-science/anti-vaccine writers: they do not like change, they do not like subtlety, and they like topics to be all or nothing.
His basic argument is that vaccine response has been discovered to fade with time.( Also, I might add, water is wet and fire is hot.) Since we do not have outbreaks of vaccine preventable illnesses in the population who have faded immunity, herd immunity is a myth.
He fails to take into account that fading antibody levels does necessarily not mean fading ability to respond to infection, since many who have been vaccinated will have an amnestic response and gear up antibody production after re-exposure to infection. There is also behavior, nutrition, hygiene and understanding of disease that has helped decrease spread of illness compared to the outbreaks. But like most anti-vaccinators (I so need a better term, term…. vaccinators…terminators? Been done and is probably copyrighted), either the vaccines are 100% or they are nothing.
Like many anti-vaxers, he fails to understand, or chooses not to consider, subtlety and nuance. Part of vaccination results in vector control. For example, vaccination of children with the conjugated pneumococcal vaccine has lead to a marked decrease in invasive pneumococcus in the adult and elderly population. So targeting disease in one population can prevent disease in another, non-immune, population. However, waning immunity is an issue with pertussis, and the reservoir for disease in children is vaccinated adults whose immunity has faded (but there is sufficient immunity to prevent whooping cough). Reality is always more complicated than the fantasy world of anti-vaxers.
The rest of his argument?
The fact that powerful, enormously wealthy foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Rockefeller series of foundations, are supporting forced vaccination greatly enhances the power of governments all over the World.The big irony from my perspective is the an important issue with vaccines is the ease with which people can get an exemption. I looked for statements from the above foundations to see if I would find recommendations for “forced” vaccinations. All I found were the statements of Dr. Blaylock, but of course, that is what the Gates and the Fords and the Rockefellers want me to write.
They are out to get us. I know this kind of argument appeals to some, but I don’t get it. It seems so fringe it should be on a surrey. Watch that fringe and see how it flutters.
- http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-hump....cAwehiyf.dpufNatural immunity is comprehensive and longer-lasting. Many vaccine enthusiasts like to invoke the term “herd immunity” to make the argument that the non-vaccinated pose a risk to the vaccinated. But the concept of herd immunity has no relevance to the vaccinated as it was coined in reference to natural immunity in populations and what level the least epidemics occurred. There is no evidence whatsoever that having an 85% or 95% vaccination rate protects from outbreaks. This theory has been disproved time and again in highly vaccinated populations.
◾The non-vaccinated spread disease. Actually it is the opposite. Live vaccines are known to spread to close contacts. Here is one recent example.
We also know that in pertussis (whooping cough) those who are vaccinated are more likely, due to original antigenic sin, to be carriers of the bacteria longer than the non-vaccinated, even when asymptomatic. Full text article available here. By 2004, James Cherry pointed out that adults, re-vaccinated against pertussis, don’t develop any antibacterial activity whatsoever. He went on to explain why. The current vaccines contains a few antigens, which create “original antigenic sin”, whereby the immune response to the vaccine is abnormal. That first-learned response then becomes the default position the immune system takes, on future booster shots. So in the case of the whooping cough vaccines there are key protein virulence factors which have not been included in the vaccines including ACT, TCF, TCT, as well as BrkA and DNT. Because the first three are not included, the default immune response, does not prevent colonization, and furthermore, Cherry stated that the “original antigenic sin” results in the vaccinated being unable to clear the bacteria from their lungs. The non-vaccinated have immunity to all the front line virulence factors and very quickly clear the bacteria on re-exposure. Mothers who have been vaccinated, may develop surrogate markers which can be measured in a laboratory, but these do not guarantee efficient immune responses after exposure to the natural disease, because their first “learned response” was incorrect. Furthermore, they are still not sure “what” the surrogate marker actually is for pertussis.
Last edited by donnay; 12-04-2013 at 04:37 PM.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
Dr Humpheries, you ignorant slut: We don't use live vaccines for precisely that reason.
"The Patriarch"
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
I don't get it. Are some of you honestly saying that you don't believe herd immunity is a real thing? To me, that seems like it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
No, it seems they have backed away from that claim and use the excuse that it only works if the population actually catches the disease, doesn't die from it and gets immunity the way. And that it doesn't apply to people that have been immunized via the vaccine. Its some crazy logic if you ask me.
I like angela's position, re: Darwinism at work.
Yes, I am honestly saying I don't buy the herd immunity theory.
“Herd Immunity.” The flawed science and failures of mass vaccination, Suzanne Humphries, MD
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...umphries-md-3/
The False Theory of Vaccine Derived - Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-t...-immunity.html
Vaccines: The Fallacy and Truth About "Herd Immunity"
http://journal.livingfood.us/2012/02...herd-immunity/
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
Um, no, it hasn't. Not for all vaccines. The problem is that some people like to paint with a wide brush.
Correlation does not equal causation. Isn't that the pro-vaxxers favorite argument?
For the record, contrary to angelatc's screechings, I am not anti-vax nor do I believe necessarily that vaccines cause autism. (I think they could be one component of it, but not for all of the rise in autism. I think there is a genetic component that, in some people, vaccines will trigger) But I do believe that people who profess to love liberty should allow others to have the leeway to make their own decisions for their own families without virulent hatred. Especially in regards to religious freedom.
Why hate the anti-vaxxers for supposedly spreading pertussis when the FDA just put out a press release that says those vaccinated with DTaP can still spread it as well? How can herd immunity be "for the greater good" if the immunity conferred does not actually include the ability to prevent transmission?
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
Um, no. That's not my position.
Boy the pro-vaxxers really can't stand to admit that the FDA's most recent press release says that a kid vaccinated against pertussis can actually still pick up the disease and spread it for six weeks...even to his newborn sister. I thought his vaccine was supposed to protect his newborn sister? How can it if he can still spread it, especially unknowingly?
From another thread:
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
./
Last edited by specsaregood; 05-17-2016 at 04:33 PM.
My problem with the whole herd immunity theory is that conditions have to be right for it to play any significant role in preventing infection. One needs to find a disease that most like spreads through aerosol, a patient can be a carrier and spreader without being sick (this way, he can still move around in the society) and it has to be an aggressive disease this way even those with immunity can fully infected to spread it.
This sort of thing works on paper and rarely they way it is described in real life. To me, herd immunity is the herd seeing that immunization works and they go out and get their own shots. This video is showing the best case scenario which mostly likely wouldn't happen in real life.
I don't post blogs. I posted one press release. The rest, in all these threads have been my own personal words.
As I asked angelatc in another thread...since the sibling will be asymptomatic, you will NEVER KNOW when he might be carrying the disease in his airways, and when he isn't. You have no way of knowing when that clock starts. While it's great that the vaccine will mean that he personally will not exhibit the awful symptoms, it is also a negative since he will at some point possibly be a contagious carrier and no one will ever be wise to it. It means at ANY point he could be contagious.
If my first interpretation had been correct, that the vaccine was the cause of the bacteria, then we'd all know that for 6weeks after a shot a child should be cautious around newborns and immunocompromised. (Like they currently tell chemo-treated cancer patients not to be around recently vaccinated children...for a reason). If the vaccine was the cause of the bacteria, then at least we'd know when full immunity was conferred. That is not what the most recent study found though.
Conversely, when my kids are sick, I do not let them around others and certainly not near babies. For the greater good
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
OMFG.
You are the only person who was upset by this press release. You posted it claiming that people who got the vaccine went around shedding the virus as a result of getting the vaccine. Brian got you all straightened out on that, but you're desperately clinging to the notion that scientists were previously ignorant of the asymptomatic carriers in the vaccinated population and that we are somehow upset by that "revelation."
And that we are supposedly upset because they discovered something they already knew, or something.
To answer your question - the more people who are vaccinated, the less people who will get the disease. That doesn't change. If you're trying to say that the herd immmunity is compromised by asymptomatic carriers, well duh. That's pretty much the reason it's an issue.
Which is why infants should be immunized ASAP. JFC - how anybody can take something so relatively simple and beat it into such a bloody complicated pulp is beyond me. As well as why they would choose to do that.As I asked angelatc in another thread...since the sibling will be asymptomatic, you will NEVER KNOW when he might be carrying the disease in his airways, and when he isn't. You have no way of knowing when that clock starts. While it's great that the vaccine will mean that he personally will not exhibit the awful symptoms, it is also a negative since he will at some point possibly be a contagious carrier and no one will ever be wise to it. It means at ANY point he could be contagious.
Last edited by angelatc; 12-04-2013 at 07:31 PM.
Why the press release and articles in the NYTimes this week if it was "old news"?
You see honey, the reason they announced it in a press release is because the study says ALL the vaccinated people can be asymptomatic carriers.
I'm not hanging onto $#@!, you are. I haven't once brought up shedding since "Bryan set me straight". You really are a piece of work woman.
It would be BETTER for your position if the vaccine was the cause of the introduction of the bacteria. At least then you'd KNOW when the clock starts. As it is currently, anybody, anytime can be carrying the disease and you'd NEVER know. BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW WHEN THE CLOCK STARTED! It would be better for the "herd" if they gave the shot and then actually did introduce the bacteria so they know that in six weeks the person would no longer be a carrier.
Right now the kid could pick it up a month later, a year later, two years later... ANYTIME. And then hold a baby.
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
You see, honey..... you can't out condescend me.
JFC - I have no idea why the NYT decided to make this news. Maybe Brian or James Madison can SHED some light into that.
And I know that you refuse to Google, so let me tell you how I did it. I googled : "Asymptomatic transmission pertussis vaccinated population" and got a shipload of results. Here's the first one, circa 2007:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm
Here are other studies that I copied from a science Mom blogger who wrote about this back in January:Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection.
[3]Jenkinson D. Duration of effectiveness of pertussis vaccine: evidence from 10-year community study. BMJ 1988;296:612-4.
[4] Christie CD, Marx ML, Marchant CD, Reising SF. The 1993 epidemic of pertussis in Cincinnati: resurgence of disease in a highly immunized population of children. N Engl J Med 1994;331:16-21.
[5] Rosenthal S, Strebel P, Cassiday P, Sanden G, Brusuelas K, Wharton M. Pertussis infection in young adults during the 1993 outbreak in Chicago. J Infect Dis 1995;171:1650-2.
[6] De Melker HE, Conyn Van Spaendonck MA, Rumke HC, van Wijngaarden JK, Mooi FR, Schellekens JF. Pertussis in the Netherlands: an outbreak despite high levels of immunization with whole-cell vaccine. Emerg Infect Dis 1997;3:175-8.
[7] Yaari E, Yafe-Zimerman Y, Scwartz SB, Slater PE, Shvartzman P, Andoren N, et al. Clinical manifestations of Bordetella pertussis infection in immunized children and young adults. Chest 1999;115:1254-8
SO GET THE GOODDAM BABY VACCINATED!
I'm not hanging onto $#@!, you are. I haven't once brought up shedding since "Bryan set me straight". You really are a piece of work woman.
It would be BETTER for your position if the vaccine was the cause of the introduction of the bacteria. At least then you'd KNOW when the clock starts. As it is currently, anybody, anytime can be carrying the disease and you'd NEVER know. BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW WHEN THE CLOCK STARTED! It would be better for the "herd" if they gave the shot and then actually did introduce the bacteria so they know that in six weeks the person would no longer be a carrier.
Right now the kid could pick it up a month later, a year later, two years later... ANYTIME. And then hold a baby.
Last edited by angelatc; 12-04-2013 at 08:04 PM.
And as a non-vaxxing parent that's always been my argument to you!!! Since you believe vaccinations work so well, you don't need to fear my non-vaccinated children.
And your side ALWAYS retorts with I'm an evil baby killer because I don't vaccinate. (Pertussis is always the big one used as the stick to beat with). I am supposed to vaccinate MY children to protect the weakest in the population, for the greater good. Even though DTaP does not prevent transmission. This is "old news" to you. So it isn't debatable, right? Yet here you are debating it all day with me!
So if you'd be kind enough to stop spreading THAT LIE, I'd be happy to end this discussion with you right now.
Otherwise, if you continue to believe and argue that I have no right to my religious beliefs because I'm supposed to care about other children more than my own we'll stay on this merry-go-round. Your choice! Liberty and all
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
There's no reason to fear your non-vaccinated children. On the other hand, misguided parents convincing other parents not to vaccinate based on falsehoods ...
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,--
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
On the other hand, using fear tactics and bullying to guilt others into it, is totally ok. Especially with the power of the state behind you.
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
And as a non-vaxxing parent that's always been my argument to you!!! Since you believe vaccinations work so well, you don't need to fear my non-vaccinated children.
And your side ALWAYS retorts with I'm an evil baby killer because I don't vaccinate. (Pertussis is always the big one used as the stick to beat with). I am supposed to vaccinate MY children to protect the weakest in the population, for the greater good. Even though DTaP does not prevent transmission. This is "old news" to you. So it isn't debatable, right? Yet here you are debating it all day with me!
So if you'd be kind enough to stop spreading THAT LIE, I'd be happy to end this discussion with you right now.
Otherwise, if you continue to believe and argue that I have no right to my religious beliefs because I'm supposed to care about other children more than my own we'll stay on this merry-go-round. Your choice! Liberty and all
Awww - you forgot to admit that I was right - that the asymptomatic carriers in the vaccinated populations wasn't a complete unknown. I'm sure it's hard for you. And instead of simply saying that you didn't know that, you're going to try to pretend that I'm an evil person because I refused let you live unchallenged in your fantasyland where unicorns keep children healthy while vaccines make them sick. Lies are truth, and truth is lies there, it seems.
But instead, you've somehow managed to pretend we were having a debate and that it was somehow my fault you were wrong for so long.
(For the record, until this conversation started I did not know that there were asymptomatic carriers in the vaccinated population. You threw it out there as a fact, and I fact checked you. Then I kept waiting for you to get wise and search, but you didn't. Thanks for that!)
Now you're crying because I helped you learn something you didn't know?
So instead, you'll fall back into protesting a bit too much again about how you're not a baby killer, right after you got through posting a study that clearly said none of the subjects who got the vaccine got sick as a result of their exposure to the disease.
We explained again and again and again why non-vaccinated children are indeed a threat to the vaccinated population. I know you can't admit it is true, but it is. There's no debate there, either.
Honey.
Last edited by angelatc; 12-04-2013 at 08:39 PM.
No crying here. Honey. Much love!
As to the bold, I don't think you even realize how much double speak you do.
First, you knew the results of the study were old news, waited for me to point it out to you, and then you had to do it for me?
Um, this whole debate started because I posted the FDA's press release about the DTaP not being reliable because it creates asymptomatic carriers. I "threw" it out there as a fact because that's what the damn study says! So in order for your bad self to "prove me wrong" you went and found that they already knew this back in 2007. Yet, funny, I don't remember a press release back then about it. Nope, for as long as I've had children it was the unvaccinated's fault that whooping cough is resurging. Yet, funnily enough, the FDA's press release doesn't blame me at all. Odd, huh?
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us