What would happened if no one got vaccinated?

[Lollicup]

What do you think would happen as a society if no one got vaccinated?

Your opinion.

[MamatoPeach]

Natural Selection.

We would have less chronic disease.

[Dmitrizmom]

Gotta agree with MamatoPeach...

I think we would see a relatively brief resurgence of some "VPD". Real immunity would be developed by the herd, cyclical re-exposure to the disease would increase the numbers with immunity and serve as boosters for those with wanning immunity - the way true herd immunity works. Moms would have immunity to pass to their babies via breastmilk, thus decreasing the likelihood of an infant contracting one of those diseases while most vulnerable. Children would get the diseases as children and have appropriate development of their immune systems. We would see a decrease in allergies, asthma, autism, and neurologically related behavioral disorders.

There will always be some portion of the population that has negative outcomes from exposure to the diseases. Given that our medical knowledge and sanitation have improved considerably from when vaccination began, I would expect to see far fewer problems in the long run. Initially, there will probably be a negative impact in the community of immunocompromised/suppressed individuals.

[Super Glue Mommy]

http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html

see scarlet fever and typhoid fever. no vaccination for those.

people would also probably take better care of their bodies.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Dmitrizmom

Gotta agree with MamatoPeach...

I think we would see a relatively brief resurgence of some "VPD". Real immunity would be developed by the herd, cyclical re-exposure to the disease would increase the numbers with immunity and serve as boosters for those with wanning immunity - the way true herd immunity works. Moms would have immunity to pass to their babies via breastmilk, thus decreasing the likelihood of an infant contracting one of those diseases while most vulnerable. Children would get the diseases as children and have appropriate development of their immune systems. We would see a decrease in allergies, asthma, autism, and neurologically related behavioral disorders.

There will always be some portion of the population that has negative outcomes from exposure to the diseases. Given that our medical knowledge and sanitation have improved considerably from when vaccination began, I would expect to see far fewer problems in the long run. Initially, there will probably be a negative impact in the community of immunocompromised/suppressed individuals.

:

[melissabb]

Originally Posted by MamatoPeach

Natural Selection.

We would have less chronic disease.

Yep, natural selection is right. I totally agree.

[Theoretica]

Originally Posted by MamatoPeach

Natural Selection.

We would have less chronic disease.

:

[grandmaofthree]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html

see scarlet fever and typhoid fever. no vaccination for those.

people would also probably take better care of their bodies.

I ALREADY TAKE GREAT CARE OF MY BODY

Nice graphs. In 1940 people started treating scarlet fever with penicillin. i bet that's why you see that drop in deaths around that time. and apparently there was a vaccine introduced around the time of one of the big drops (~1925) in deaths but penicillin replaced the vaccine. i don't know how long it was used for or what the story is with it but look, a woman helped invent it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_Henry_Dick

a typhoid fever vaccine was developed around 1909 according to wikipedia. it's suspicious to me that that's where the graph begins. i wonder what the data looked like before that date. the graphs should have been done using the same X-axis, imo. the graph includes the words "no widespread vaccination occurred" but supposedly the entire army was vaccinated. so it was the combination of that vaccine, better hygeine and sanitation and the introduction of the use antibiotics in the 1940s most likely that account for the decline in death that is shown in the graph.

[grandmaofthree]

oops double post. i'm new to this.

[Ophelia]

I agree with Dmitrizmom.

[kiara7]

Thanks for posting the graphs. We don't vax for typhoid fever and scarlet fever today - but there are no epidemics of these diseases in US and Canada anyway.

Since we're supposed to be good students of history, where does that leave us in regards to the claim that ALL deadly scary diseases are going to come back if we stop vax'ing?

[Super Glue Mommy]

Originally Posted by kiara7

Thanks for posting the graphs. We don't vax for typhoid fever and scarlet fever today - but there are no epidemics of these diseases in US and Canada anyway.

Since we're supposed to be good students of history, where does that leave us in regards to the claim that ALL deadly scary diseases are going to come back if we stop vax'ing?

exactly.

[rightkindofme]

Has anyone read Guns, Germs, and Steel? If we completely did away with vaccinations there would probably be a large upsurge of VPD because as vaccinations wear off there would be huge sections of the population who are vulnerable to infection. There would be more deaths. Would there be a huge number of deaths? Probably not, but there would be more than there are now.

[runes]

Kids would no longer have vaccine reactions.

[Super Glue Mommy]

but there would be less vaccine related deaths - which we can't even accurately determine what those are, because many don't get reported.

what about the diseases that they can't identify that take place because of the strains of the diseases changing while trying to resist vaccination? are we creating super bugs? which is worse? would it be better to find a way to treat these diseases and have people take better care of themselves and gain natural immunity, or would it be better to give the vaccine, and then worry about creating a new vaccine when a new disease comse about because of this, killing many before that new vaccine is found. and then the cycle continues.

the way the give credit to less disease to using vaccines, if SIDS decreased and Autism decreased, etc, would that get credit to STOPPING vaccinations? the reality is vaccines havent been PROVEN to be safe yet. we are just supposed to assume they are because they havent been proven to be safe yet. Vaccines arent people (innocent until proven guilty) they are drugs, and should be held to the same standards (prove its safe)

[grandmaofthree]

Originally Posted by kiara7

Thanks for posting the graphs. We don't vax for typhoid fever and scarlet fever today - but there are no epidemics of these diseases in US and Canada anyway.

Since we're supposed to be good students of history, where does that leave us in regards to the claim that ALL deadly scary diseases are going to come back if we stop vax'ing?

typhoid fever is transmitted by the ingestion of food or water contaminated with feces from an infected person. i'm very grateful that that isn't a problem here in the US.

there were still 10,000 reported cases of scarlet fever in the last ten years in th US (probably under-reported since reporting this to the CDC is not mandatory), but the fact that symptoms start 1-5 days after exposure and you can only spread the disease for up to 24 hours after treatment with antibiotics has probably reduced the number of cases dramatically. i wouldn't try to claim typhoid fever and scarlet fever outbreaks have decreased because we've evolved genetically or anything like that, if that's what anyone here is suggesting (i dont think that's what you mean, but maybe it is what someone here is trying to say).

what can we learn? i don't think we can make broad generalizations about all diseases based on these two without considering things like how the disease is spread, how it is treated or if there is treatment for the disease at all, and how long people are contagious. what other factors do you think would be important to consider besides these?

[Super Glue Mommy]

2007: The CDC admits to Congress that their "studies" were inaccurate, misleading and didn't vindicate vaccines after all.

Why are vaccines immune from this scrutiny, when every single vaccine package insert states plainly that vaccines have not been evaluated for their potential to cause cancer, infertility or genetic mutations.

When a vaccine is in the clinical trial stage a true placebo is not used; instead the vaccine is compared to another vaccine to assess safety. I can understand using that model for an efficacy trial… but for a safety trial?

No other pharmaceutical product is considered “harmless until proven otherwise” so why are vaccines held to a lesser standard, especially considering the history of vaccines that were found to harmful AFTER they were introduced to the public?

Think about this: If 80% of people are vaccinated, and 75% have immunity for only 5-8 years from one or more vaccines, what happens in the consequent years? Now, let’s say they get boosters after 7 years and then have immunity for a total of 14 years. What about the remaining 70 some years?

When did you get your Hepatitis B vaccine or an MMR vaccine? If it has not been in the last within the last 5-7 years, you are not a part of ‘herd immunity’. At least 90% of the population would have to be current on their vaccinations at all times. That is something that will and never has been, at any time, anywhere.

Who are the primary spreaders of whooping cough? They are the people who are vaccinated, naturally immune, or not immune, who just pass it along.

Polio case in Minnesota? The oral polio viruses had circulated at least 2 years before the isolates were picked up in unimmunized children who never had clinical illness. Who had circulated the polio viruses? The vaccinated. How did herd immunity help the unvaccinated Amish children? It didn’t. They didn’t get the disease so right there you have proof that the theory of “herd immunity” is a lie.

"They testified that the rate of autism was 27 times higher in the group that received thimerosal-containing vaccines. "
http://www.mothering.com/guest_edito...place/125.html

27 times is a nice way of saying a 2700% increase.

[Super Glue Mommy]

An outbreak of measles occurred in a high school with a documented vaccination level of 98 per cent. Nineteen (70 per cent) of the cases were students who had histories of measles vaccination at 12 months of age or older.

Outbreaks among school-age persons ranged in size from 5 to 363 cases (median, 25); ***a median of 60 percent of the cases occurred in VACCINATED persons***, and a median of only 27 percent of the cases were "preventable".

early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity (physician diagnosed measles, receipt of live measles vaccine on or after the first birthday, or serologic evidence of immunity) due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986.

Atlanta - Between October 3 and November 23, 1990, clinical mumps developed in 54 students (attack rate, 18%), 53 of whom had been vaccinated.

*Note: Highly vaccinated means a population in which more than 95% have been vaccinated.*

From the 1970s through early into the recent measles epidemic, the majority of measles cases were in highly vaccinated, school-age children.

there is more on my facebook debate:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/no...id=58965762362

[kiara7]

Originally Posted by grandmaofthree

typhoid fever is transmitted by the ingestion of food or water contaminated with feces from an infected person. i'm very grateful that that isn't a problem here in the US.

there were still 10,000 reported cases of scarlet fever in the last ten years in th US

10,000 cases? Where's the vax? I'm surprised. Big pharma is letting us down.

[Super Glue Mommy]

"for whatever reason, toddlers rarely catch scarlett fever"

for whatever reason? might be a good reason to know one would think... but lets just find some dead animal cells to inject instead. this is just the overall approach of the vaccine industry unfortunately.