Spacing Out Vaccines: MDs Know It's Wrong But They Do It Anyway

[angelatc]

http://time.com/3726887/doctors-space-out-vaccines/

t’s an eye-opening survey, to say the least, and its findings are clear: Nearly all — 93% — primary care doctors and pediatricians surveyed say that in a typical month, parents ask them to deviate from the recommended childhood immunization schedule and instead give the shots over a longer period of time, according to a report published Monday in the journal Pediatrics. And while nearly 90% thought that such spacing out of the immunizations would put the children, and the community at risk of spreading infectious diseases like measles, 37% said they agreed to do so often or always. That was a 131% increase since the last survey, conducted in 2009, when only 16% said they agreed to changing the recommended vaccine schedule.

“Doctors are feeling really conflicted because they overwhelmingly think this is the wrong thing to do, and is putting children at risk, but at the same time, they want to build trust with their patients and meet people halfway,” says Dr. Allison Kempe, professor of pediatrics at University of Colorado and Children’s Hospital Colorado, who is the lead author of the study.

Propoganda victory for the anti-science crowd.

[106459]

I'm sorry, I don't have kids so I'm not particularly vested/well-researched in the vaccine debate. However, one way to really piss me off is to tell me what to do with me and my family's life, particularly with lethal force (aka government).

So, people say that you get vaccinated and that you're protected against the disease. Vaccines work. But it seems the crown jewel is 'herd immunity'. That if not everyone gets vaccinated then everyone gets sick. Well, which is it? Do vaccines protect you? Why do I need to have something forcibly injected into my body? Do you have the right to force other people to do things? In normal society, don't people usually live their lives with constant risks, and if they don't like them they can take their own measures to protect themselves but not subjugate others? Where does it end?

So, here's the thing. I remember reading somewhere there was a study once where cardiologists were asked to review the things they learned 10 years ago and compare it to knowledge today. Half of it turned out to be wrong. That's some pretty serious $#@!, and it's interesting how science seems as blindly trusted as religion - "oh, but SCIENCE says". One of my previous dentists had an anecdote, kind of laughed about cavities near the gum line, they'd do some kind of gold filling. "Haha...little did we know we were tapping our way right to a root canal three years later".

So, what happens when the science is wrong? Who takes responsibility for the adverse affects? Right now it's no one, I'm pretty dang sure. So $#@! that. That's why you end up with people who say $#@! you (to the adamantly pro vaxxer crowd).

[Bryan]

http://time.com/3726887/doctors-space-out-vaccines/



Propoganda victory for the anti-science crowd.

Can you clarify your statement, please? Thanks.

[Dr.3D]

If a physician is smart, he will learn to work with his patients.

The know-it-all physician is one thing I won't put up with and will drop him like a hot potato.

It's something called 'Bedside Manner' and it seems many of them were sleeping during that class.

[The Northbreather]

My doctor didn't even know there were other forms of the vaccines that are aluminum free.

She was reading her checklist off an iPad.

[donnay]

If a physician is smart, he will learn to work with his patients.

The know-it-all physician is one thing I won't put up with and will drop him like a hot potato.

It's something called 'Bedside Manner' and it seems many of them were sleeping during that class.

I agree. A smart physician will keep up with the times and keep educating him or herself. Most of this so-called science is rolled out with Big pHARMa's hand on them like the symbol of the Italian mafia.

There are plenty of smart physicians out there-- Ty Bolinger put out a documentary (Truth about Vaccines) with a good amount of them.

Here is one smart doctor:

[Dr.3D]

[Created4]

So, what happens when the science is wrong?

It is never wrong when it comes to vaccines. Zippy and Angela have assured all of us the "science is settled", and to question this belief they have is to be "anti-science."

[Created4]

I agree. A smart physician will keep up with the times and keep educating him or herself. Most of this so-called science is rolled out with Big pHARMa's hand on them like the symbol of the Italian mafia.

There are plenty of smart physicians out there-- Ty Bolinger put out a documentary (Truth about Vaccines) with a good amount of them.

Here is one smart doctor:

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

[specsaregood]

So, people say that you get vaccinated and that you're protected against the disease. Vaccines work. But it seems the crown jewel is 'herd immunity'. That if not everyone gets vaccinated then everyone gets sick. Well, which is it?

That isn't what "herd immunity" means. Perhaps you should read up on it rather than continuing to be misinformed. There is a wiki page on the term, that would be a good enough start.

[Created4]

That isn't what "herd immunity" means. Perhaps you should read up on it rather than continuing to be misinformed. There is a wiki page on the term, that would be a good enough start.

Herd Immunity Theory Has Been Repeatedly Disproven

by Marco Cáceres
The Vaccine Reaction

Several years ago I wrote about the theory of “herd immunity” and explained why it is a myth when applied to a vaccinated population. The herd immunity theory was formulated based on observations during the early 20th century of how an infectious disease appeared to lose its capacity to infect and spread after more than half of the people in a community had been infected with the disease and developed natural, life-long immunity to that disease. [1]

The theory of herd immunity was never meant to be applied to a vaccinated population, but rather was co-opted later in the 20th century to help justify mass, mandatory vaccination campaigns to eliminate infectious diseases for the so-called “greater good.”

Its validity was grounded on the underlying assumption that the herd was protected because a significant portion of that herd had become stronger as a result of the natural process of contracting and surviving an infection.

The more members of the herd (community), who were exposed to an infectious disease and developed natural immunity to it the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).

This same concept does not work in a highly vaccinated population for one simple reason: Vaccination stimulates an artificial, temporary immunity that does not last as long as naturally acquired immunity. Sometimes vaccination does not prevent infection at all but allows infection with few or no symptoms in the vaccinated person, who is still able to transmit the infection to others, which is the case with B. pertussis (whooping cough). [2] At best, it may stave off infections in some vaccinated people for a limited period of time.

Consequently, a vaccinated herd is never really protected. There is an illusion of protection in such a scenario because those who have been vaccinated remain vulnerable to infection and, thus, so does the herd—vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

Last year, in an article titled “This Herd Mentality is for the Birds,” I wrote:

The theory of herd immunity may have been valid under the old paradigm of natural immunity—the idea that if you contracted an infectious disease like pertussis or measles or chickenpox, then you would be immune to that disease for the rest of your life. However, the theory is not valid under the current paradigm of vaccine-induced immunity because that sort of “immunity” is temporary, at best—it doesn’t provide life-long protection from disease. Surprise! [3]
Imagine a group of 42 college students. Forty of the students each get vaccinated with two doses of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. Two of the students decline the vaccinations.

Theoretically, the forty students are protected from getting measles, mumps, and rubella. Theoretically, the two unvaccinated students are also protected because 95 percent of the group has been vaccinated and, thus, according to mainstream vaccine science, herd immunity has been achieved.

Voilà, the herd is protected thanks to the 40 vaccinated students.

But are they really protected? No. It’s an illusion.

During the first half of 2016, more than 40 students at Harvard University contracted mumps. Each of the students had received the required two doses of the MMR vaccine and were, theoretically, immune to measles, mumps, and rubella. The vaccine didn’t protect them. There was no herd immunity, and there can be none with vaccines because they do not provide the same kind of true immunity that is provided by a natural infection.

There were similar mumps outbreaks among vaccinated students in college campuses throughout the United States last year, including the University of Missouri, Pennsylvania State University, Boston University, MIT, Sacred Heart University, and others. [4, 5, 6, 7]

Nearly every year, there are outbreaks of infectious diseases in the U.S. in which the communities involved were highly vaccinated and, thus, supposedly immune. In each of those situations there was an illusion of protection. It wasn’t real. There was no herd immunity.

This has certainly been true for pertussis. Numerous outbreaks of pertussis have occurred in the U.S. in recent years in communities where 80 to 90 percent of those infected had been vaccinated. [8] The theory of herd immunity, as it relates to vaccinated populations, has been repeatedly shown to be false.

In science, when a theory is disproven, the scientific thing to do is to put it aside and develop a new theory for explaining something. That is not what doctors, public health officials, legislators, and the media are doing. Instead, they are clinging to a disproven theory and using it to justify mandating vaccination for everyone and shaming those who choose to exercise their informed consent rights and reconsider this medical intervention.

It’s like they keep trying to pound a square peg through a round hole. But it just doesn’t fit.

Read the full article at TVR.org.

References

1 Cáceres M. The Misunderstood Theory of Herd Immunity. The Vaccine Reaction June 20,2015.
2 Fisher BL. Pertussis Microbe Outsmarts the Vaccines As Experts Argue About Why. NVIC Newsletter Mar. 27, 2016.
3 Cáceres M. This Herd Mentality is for the Birds. The Vaccine Reaction Sept. 1, 2016.
4 Cáceres M. Infectious Disease Outbreaks: Are the Vaccines to Blame? The Vaccine Reaction Sept. 1, 2016.
5 Mercola J. Mumps Being Spread by and Among Vaccinated People. Mercola.com May 10, 2016.
6 Schive K. MIT responds to mumps outbreak at Boston-area schools. MIT Medical Mar. 21, 2016.
7 AP. 8 Mumps Cases Confirmed At Sacred Heart University. CBS Apr. 28, 2016.
8 Cáceres M. Pertussis in Reno County: Another Outbreak Among the Vaccinated? The Vaccine Reaction July 28,2015.

[donnay]

By many doctors and scientists.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Created4 again.

[phill4paul]

It is never wrong when it comes to vaccines. Zippy and Angela have assured all of us the "science is settled", and to question this belief they have is to be "anti-science."

And the "science is settled" with regard to global warming too. We should all listen to the wisdom of scientists.

[specsaregood]

Several years ago I wrote about the theory of “herd immunity” and explained why it is a myth when applied to a vaccinated population. The herd immunity theory was formulated based on observations during the early 20th century of how an infectious disease appeared to lose its capacity to infect and spread after more than half of the people in a community had been infected with the disease and developed natural, life-long immunity to that disease. [1]

Good, thanks for helping 106459 out in learning what the term really means.

[angelatc]

Can you clarify your statement, please? Thanks.

I mean there's no medical evidence to support the "too much, too soon" theory, but that doesn't stop people from selling books about it.

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence to support the "Simply put, if you're not vaccinated, you're more likely to get sick" theory.

But the fact that more and more people are asking about the former speaks to the success of the internet helping people make choices based on misinformed consent.

[angelatc]

I
So, people say that you get vaccinated and that you're protected against the disease. Vaccines work. But it seems the crown jewel is 'herd immunity'. That if not everyone gets vaccinated then everyone gets sick..

Uh, that's not true. You're the type of person that Created4 is targeting with his income-producing websites though. Here's how it actually works:

[angelatc]

It is never wrong when it comes to vaccines. Zippy and Angela have assured all of us the "science is settled", and to question this belief they have is to be "anti-science."

Science is never settled. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from over 100 years of research by scientists from across the entire world from all governments, academia, manufacturers and laypeople to support my position.

You have no evidence to support whatever lunacy it is you're here to promote.

[angelatc]

I'm sorry, I don't have kids so I'm not particularly vested/well-researched in the vaccine debate. However, one way to really piss me off is to tell me what to do with me and my family's life, particularly with lethal force (aka government).

So, people say that you get vaccinated and that you're protected against the disease. Vaccines work. But it seems the crown jewel is 'herd immunity'. That if not everyone gets vaccinated then everyone gets sick. Well, which is it? Do vaccines protect you? Why do I need to have something forcibly injected into my body? Do you have the right to force other people to do things? In normal society, don't people usually live their lives with constant risks, and if they don't like them they can take their own measures to protect themselves but not subjugate others? Where does it end?

So, here's the thing. I remember reading somewhere there was a study once where cardiologists were asked to review the things they learned 10 years ago and compare it to knowledge today. Half of it turned out to be wrong. That's some pretty serious $#@!, and it's interesting how science seems as blindly trusted as religion - "oh, but SCIENCE says". One of my previous dentists had an anecdote, kind of laughed about cavities near the gum line, they'd do some kind of gold filling. "Haha...little did we know we were tapping our way right to a root canal three years later".

So, what happens when the science is wrong? Who takes responsibility for the adverse affects? Right now it's no one, I'm pretty dang sure. So $#@! that. That's why you end up with people who say $#@! you (to the adamantly pro vaxxer crowd).

The problem is that the anti-vax crowd simply lies. There's no doubt that science and medicine changes. But this statement from Created4 is just wrong. It's been corrected probably 20 times over the past 10 years, but here he is - posting it again.

Vaccination stimulates an artificial, temporary immunity that does not last as long as naturally acquired immunity.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

[angelatc]

If a physician is smart, he will learn to work with his patients.

The know-it-all physician is one thing I won't put up with and will drop him like a hot potato.

It's something called 'Bedside Manner' and it seems many of them were sleeping during that class.

I used to think that way. About 20 years ago, I started to get some weird symptoms. Went to my family doctor, a super nice guy. ALways took my calls, always could squeeze me in. Had me go for test after test, dragged on for months. Finally i was so weak I could not walk any more. Went to the ER, where I went into the ICU.


After 3 days there, I was on the verge of being put into a medically induced coma because my body was attacking my organs. I had a team of 8 MDs, all asking questions, coming in almost 24 hours a day trying to sort it out. Finally, the MD who is in charge of the entire hospital came in to see what the hell was wrong with the $#@!s under him.

Those were his words. He never talked to me, ignored most of my questions, told me flat out he didn't have time to answer any questions. Looked at my chart. looked at my throat, felt my spleen, looked at my legs, and made a diagnosis.

I was out of the hospital 2 days later.

Gets better. A week later I went back, having developed meningitis. He came in, ignored me, looked at my chart, called my primary care physician and said "She's allergic to NSAIDs, too."

Long story long - I'll happily take a conceited prick with a brilliant medical mind over a nice guy who makes me feel important.

[euphemia]

Of course the crusade is all about you.

[Created4]

The problem is that the anti-vax crowd simply lies. There's no doubt that science and medicine changes. But this statement from Created4 is just wrong. It's been corrected probably 20 times over the past 10 years, but here he is - posting it again.

Vaccination stimulates an artificial, temporary immunity that does not last as long as naturally acquired immunity.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Show one proven lie I have posted. First, the quote you gave is not something I wrote (you did not reference it). Second, you are accusing me of profiting from my position on vaccines with absolutely no proof. Third, you have been caught in your own lies, such as stating that:

There are no MDs who suggest spacing vaccines out over 9 years. None. Zero. Zip.

which was easily shown to not be true.

You have made it very clear that you cannot simply debate the issues, but you have to resort to personal attacks against people who disagree with you, and those attacks lack any evidence or are downright lies.

You have also made it very clear that you are anti-liberty when it comes to vaccines.

[fisharmor]

The problem is that the anti-vax crowd simply lies.

You said this directly after posting this:

You have no evidence to support whatever lunacy it is you're here to promote.

So which is it: do you not know what it is any antivaxxers are saying (as you outright claimed in your first post) or do you know enough about it to know it's purposely deceitful?

From where I'm sitting, you come of - again - as being a cheerleader for vaccines who is completely uninterested in anything that isn't a pom-pom.

[fisharmor]

Also, I'd like to point out what I found out the last time Angela showed up to complain about vaccine choice.
The ultimate case of Herd Immunity I've read about is the one where polio was a very rare disease prior to the 20th century.
The reason it spiked is because until then, mankind didn't practice very good sanitation anywhere on the globe. Bad sanitation created exposure to poliovirus at a very young age, and at those ages, humans are much more likely too develop immunity.
But if exposure is prevented until the child is older, it's much more likely to develop into the disease.

If herd immunity is really the tits, and we have to base all our decisions on it, then we really have to revert back to 18th century sanitation systems in order to get herd immunity to polio.

[angelatc]

You said this directly after posting this:



So which is it: do you not know what it is any antivaxxers are saying (as you outright claimed in your first post) or do you know enough about it to know it's purposely deceitful?

.

The second post was intended to be inclusive of all the nonsense they spew, making it clear that there's basically no truth in anything they promote.

[GunnyFreedom]

Chiropteran guano loco. Some people just worship vaccines and pharma like religious idols. SMDH.

[angelatc]

Also, I'd like to point out what I found out the last time Angela showed up to complain about vaccine choice.
The ultimate case of Herd Immunity I've read about is the one where polio was a very rare disease prior to the 20th century.
The reason it spiked is because until then, mankind didn't practice very good sanitation anywhere on the globe. Bad sanitation created exposure to poliovirus at a very young age, and at those ages, humans are much more likely too develop immunity.
But if exposure is prevented until the child is older, it's much more likely to develop into the disease.

If herd immunity is really the tits, and we have to base all our decisions on it, then we really have to revert back to 18th century sanitation systems in order to get herd immunity to polio.

The only way to get the immunity at a young age is if your mother had already been exposed to the disease.

https://www.nextnature.net/2014/01/h...gave-us-polio/

For most of history, poliomyelitis was a relatively unremarkable disease – it caused paralysis and occasionally death, but only in a tiny fraction of those infected. It was essentially unknown in infants and adults, and usually only caused mild symptoms in children. This all changed in the early 1900s, when the disease mysteriously transformed into an epidemic, killing many and maiming many more, even among the supposedly ‘protected’ populations of adults and babies.

Deadly recurrences of polio became a fact of life in developed countries, particularly in cities during the summer. Movie theaters, beaches and swimming pools were closed; families fled to the countryside when the weather got warm. Clearly something had changed, but what could cause a mild disease to turn into a killer all but overnight? The secret lies, paradoxically, in our better understanding of sanitation.

In babies, polio can be mistaken for a mild cold – if there are symptoms at all – because they still have protective antibodies left over from their mothers. This early exposure was enough to make the infant immune to that particular serotype of the disease for the rest of his or her life. It’s only when children grow older and lose those maternal antibodies that a polio infection can present in its devastating, paralytic form. Clearly there was something new to prevent the early exposure of infants to the polio virus. One major clue was the fact that the disease primarily affected white, wealthy families. The cleaner your surroundings were, the more likely you were to get the worst form of polio. Perhaps there was something in the water?

We now know that polio is spread through a fecal-oral contact route, and almost always through contaminated water. The adoption of modern plumbing, sewer systems and water treatment facilities in the late 1800s and early 1900s meant that infants were far less likely to be exposed to polio during the early ‘safe’ phase. Without that immunity gained in infancy, a chance infection later in life could be deadly. If your mother had herself never been exposed to polio, you didn’t even have the blessing of a safe period in infancy. You, and your young immune system, were just as much at risk as older children and adults.

[angelatc]

. First, the quote you gave is not something I wrote (you did not reference it). .

Oh FFS - its in the wall of text you posted earlier in this same thread.

[angelatc]

which was easily shown to not be true.

And I immediately said I was mistaken. Remember that part? Apparently not.

The big difference between you and I is that now that you showed me I was wrong about that, I will never make that statement again.

[angelatc]

[Iic-method.jpg&sp=e75fe5dfab269240ebf85ab1c2e5296f[/IMG]

Nobody except Pelosi ever said science was settled. That's a strawman in a cartoon. Dude.....

[euphemia]

And your medical degree is from where?