What is the purpose of mass vaccination programmes?

[ema-adama]

My understanding is that the medical establishment hopes to eradicate diseases through the use of mass vaccination programmes.And protect individuals health. Are there any other opinions on this?

[applejuice]

Yes.

After WWII, the medical establishment wanted to eradicate all childhood diseases within one generation. There was propaganda and quarantines all over. Vaccinations were "required" by law for school admission.

This is nothing new.

Did it work? No. I got every childhood disease when I went to school in 1960 because I was finally exposed to all of the diseases and passed them on to my younger siblings. In the 1970s, I knew of adults who were only children who got the childhood diseases from their own children because they either were not exposed as children as a result of quarantines or their immunity wore off.

It is not nice to fool Mother Nature.

[Deborah]

Here is a cute article about the fantasy of eradicating measles in one year: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...d-of-the-herd/

great title, great poster

What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by applejuice

Yes.

After WWII, the medical establishment wanted to eradicate all childhood diseases within one generation. There was propaganda and quarantines all over. Vaccinations were "required" by law for school admission.

Hmmm... I wonder if this was somehow connected to Operation Paperclip?

[Sileree]

I think a major part of it is to save money. Whenever you read articles in medical journals or whatever you read "spending x dollars on vaccines saves y in the long-term."

[plunky]

It worked for smallpox and polio.

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by plunky

It worked for smallpox and polio.

We don't know how many were adversely affected by these vaccines so you can't say that for sure.

[Mrsboyko]

My understanding of Polio is that they never actually figured out IF it was a bacteria/ virus, what that bacteria/ virus was, therefor no true vaccine was ever made. Yes, they tried and did stick many, many people, but the coincidence of the vaccine and the decrease of polio can be attributed to a number of other changes made during that time. Intro of a vaccine + that disease decreasing in prevalence (does not)= vaccine worked. The predominant theory if what polio was/ is claims that is is actually an environmental toxin. Polio as a diagnosis is gone, but the same symptoms are now categorized under a slew of other ailments.

[ema-adama]

I keep thinking that the original goal has kind of been lost.
When looking at promoting health and preventing serious complications in normally healthy individuals, I know that there are other options. Less invasive ones.

Not looking at the serious problems that are associate with vaccination like:

serotype replacement,
ingredients in the vaccines,
safety studies done on vaccines (well, lack there of),
waning immunity and shifting epidemiology

I have to wonder where a society that relies on vaccination for preventative medicine is heading.
Of course these could all be completely irrelevant details, but the more I read, the less I think so. I also wonder where the development of more and more vaccines is taking us?

How well have the goals been met in terms of irradicating disease and protecting the individual? This seems to be the million dollar question. Are vaccines meeting their expectations?

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

It worked for smallpox and polio.

This is not personal. I have understood that smallpox could be eradicated with quarantine due to the nature of the illness. It is only infectious after the pox are visable, unlike other VPD which are infectious before you see any obvious symptoms. However, from what I have read, vaccination very well could have played a role. Just not the only role.

Polio is a very interesting story. In fact facinating. I was sure that I would vax my child for this disease until I understood a bit more about it. And some of the controversy surrounding the development of the Salk and then Sabine vaccine and the redefining of the diagnosis of polio, as well as the numbers of people who are infected and do not even know it. When I started to look at what Acute Flaccid Paralyis is and what can cause it, it is truley mind boggling. For people who want to understand more about the polio epididemic of the 40's-50's there are many threads here in the archives to use as a springboard.

I would not use either of these examples as a success story for vaccination, although for different reasons.

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I keep thinking that the original goal has kind of been lost.

I agree. The original intent was to help people, eradicate childhood illness, etc. I don't think these goals are even possible any more because vaccination has become a religion - it has been put so high on a pedestal that the medical community has lost objectivity! When you make something a sacred cow it changes the way you are able to think about it.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I would not use either of these examples as a success story for vaccination, although for different reasons.

I would and did. I've read the stories about how it may have been from other things or could have been possible from some other way, but it is a huge example of Monday Morning Quarterback-ing IMO. The only observable fact is that the various countries of the world banded together and used vaccines to get these things done. And they succeeded.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

I would and did. I've read the stories about how it may have been from other things or could have been possible from some other way, but it is a huge example of Monday Morning Quarterback-ing IMO. The only observable fact is that the various countries of the world banded together and used vaccines to get these things done. And they succeeded.

Sorry, I do not know what that means, but I get that it is not something favourable.
I'm not really interested in changing your opinion on smallpox and polio. It is neither here nor there to be honest. Irrespective of the success or failure of these vaccines, are you of the opinion that the present vaccination schedule is meeting the goal of erradicating disease from society and protecting the individual?

[plunky]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Sorry, I do not know what that means, but I get that it is not something favourable.
I'm not really interested in changing your opinion on smallpox and polio. It is neither here nor there to be honest. Irrespective of the success or failure of these vaccines, are you of the opinion that the present vaccination schedule is meeting the goal of erradicating disease from society and protecting the individual?

Forgot you were not from the US. It means second guessing someone. The quarterback is the person who throws the ball and calls the plays in an American football game. As in: hey it was great that they eradicated smallpox, but wouldn't it have been better if they did it MY way?

[Super Glue Mommy]

Depends what you mean by worked.

Polio facts:
first, a look at the life of the polio epidemic before and after the vaccine, see the polio graph:
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html

When national immunization campaigns were initiated in the
1950s, the number of reported cases of polio following mass in-
oculations with the killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater
than before mass inoculations, and may have more than doubled in
the U.S. as a whole. ***For example, Vermont reported 15 cases of
polio during the one-year report period ending August 30, 1954
(before mass inoculations), compared to 55 cases of polio during
the one-year period ending August 30, 1955 (after mass inocula-
tions)Ca 266% increase. Rhode Island reported 22 cases during
the before inoculations period as compared to 122 cases during the
after inoculations periodCa 454% increase. In New Hampshire the
figures increased from 38 to 129; in Connecticut they rose from
144 to 276; and in Massachusetts they swelled from 273 to
2027Ca whopping 642% increase***
READ: LESS cases of polio BEFORE vaccine then after*

Polio - 95
percent of everyone who is exposed to the natural polio virus
won’t exhibit any symptoms, even under epidemic conditions.
About 5 percent of infected people will experience mild
symptoms, such as a sore throat, stiff neck, headache, and fever—
often diagnosed as a cold or flu. Muscular paralysis has been
estimated to occur in about one of every 1,000 people who con-
tract the disease. This has lead some scientific researchers to
conclude that the small percentage of people who do develop paralytic polio may be anatomically susceptible to the disease. The
vast remainder of the population may be naturally immune to the
polio virus.

A 1992 study, published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases,
validated earlier findings. Children who received DPT (diphtheria,
tetanus, and pertussis) injections were significantly more likely
than controls to suffer paralytic poliomyelitis within the next 30
days In 1995, the New England Journal of Medicine published a
study showing that children who received a single injection within
one month after receiving a polio vaccine were 8 times more likely
to contract polio than children who received no injections. The risk
jumped 27-fold when children received up to nine injections
within one month after receiving the polio vaccine. And with ten
or more injections, the likelihood of developing polio was 182
times greater than expected Nutritional deficiencies: A poor diet has also been shown to
increase susceptibility to polio. In 1948, during the height of
the polio epidemics, Dr. Benjamin Sandler, a nutritional expert at
the Oteen Veterans’ Hospital, documented a relationship between
polio and an excessive use of sugars and starches. He compiled
records showing that countries with the highest per capita con-
sumption of sugar, such as the United States, Britain, Australia,
Canada, and Sweden (with over 100 pounds per person per year)
had the greatest incidence of polio . In contrast, polio was
practically unheard of in China (with its sugar use of only 3
pounds per person per year) .
Dr. Sandler claimed that sugars and starches lower blood sugar
levels causing hypoglycemia, and that phosphoric acid in soft
drinks strips the nerves of proper nourishment. Such foods dehy-
drate the cells and leech calcium from the body. A serious calcium
deficiency precedes polio.

Researchers have always known that polio strikes with its
greatest intensity during the hot summer months. Dr. Sandler ob-
served that children consume greater amounts of ice cream, soft
drinks, and artificially sweetened products in hot weather. In 1949,
before the polio season began, he warned the residents of North
Carolina, through the newspapers and radio, to decrease their con-
sumption of these products. That summer, North Carolinians re-
duced their intake of sugar by 90 percentCand polio decreased by
the same amount!

In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used
in the 1950s, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost exlusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the “prin-
cipal if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since
1961.

Read: The creator of the first vaccine testified AGAINST his vaccine.

Sabin: In 1963, Sabin’s oral vaccine quickly replaced Salk’s injectable
shot. It is cheaper to make, easier to take, and appears to provide
greater protection, including “herd immunity” in unvaccinated
people. However, it cannot be given to people with compromised
immune systems [1,35]. Plus, it is capable of causing polio in
some recipients of the vaccine, and in individuals with compro-
mised immune systems who come into close contact with recently
vaccinated children [1,35-38]. As a result, in January 2000, the
CDC “updated” its polio vaccine recommendations, reverting back
to policies first implemented during the 1950s: Children should only be given the killed-virus shot. The oral polio vaccine should
only be used in “special circumstances"

Today, fact sheets on polio published by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, warn parents that the inactivated
polio vaccine (IPV) can cause “serious problems or even death...
” The company that manufactures the current inactivated po-
lio vaccine warns that Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a debilitating
ailment characterized by muscular incapacitation and nervous sys-
tem damage, “has been temporally related to administration of
another inactivated poliovirus vaccine

Polio is virtually nonexistent in the United States today. How-
ever, according to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, medical investigator
and pediatrician, there is no credible scientific evidence that the
vaccine caused polio to disappear . From 1923 to 1953, before
the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate
in the United States and England had already declined on its own
by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Statis-
tics show a similar decline in other European countries as well
. And when the vaccine did become available, many European
countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to systematically
inoculate their citizens. Yet, polio epidemics also ended in these
countries

I would redo the research if someone wants, but the last time I provided information for someone it just got blown off and I was told myself and the professional were wrong, and the other person was right even though they had no supporting information and couldnt remember anything from their previous education on the matter... *shrug*

if there is anyone sincerely interested though and wants the information for personal use please feel free to PM me so the opportunity to share that info with someone ligitimately interested is not overlooked on my part.

[Super Glue Mommy]

its okay Ema I am from the Us and didnt get that statement either. I'm not a sports person, when I have spare time I prefer research to sports

[RebeccaWo]

Super Glue Mommy, with all respect, vaccinationdebate.com is a very biased, anti-vaccination source of information. There's also some heavy handed disinformation going on...

In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used in the 1950s, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost exlusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the “principal if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since 1961.

Read: The creator of the first vaccine testified AGAINST his vaccine.

Jonas Salk is the creator of the killed-virus polio vaccine. Albert Sabine is the creator of the live-virus oral polio vaccine. Salk said Sabine's vaccine was the "principal if not the sole cause of the 140 vaccine cases reported in the U.S. since 1961. At the present time the risk of acquiring polio from the live virus vaccine is greater than from naturally occurring viruses." So, no, the creator of the first vaccine did not testify against his vaccine.

Editing to add that I'm here doing my own research on vaccinations as my DD is almost 3 months (. I just am getting aggravated at all the disinformation on both sides of the fence.

[carriebft]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

My understanding is that the medical establishment hopes to eradicate diseases through the use of mass vaccination programmes.And protect individuals health. Are there any other opinions on this?

Commonly they talk about the economic side. You see tons of studies on the 'hours saved' and all that. So I would say you have to throw that reason in there. The thinking is usually: vaccine = less disease = less time away from work/ less health care dollars spent on recovery/etc.

[Super Glue Mommy]

Originally Posted by Sileree

I think a major part of it is to save money. Whenever you read articles in medical journals or whatever you read "spending x dollars on vaccines saves y in the long-term."

saves who money in the long term? just curious, since vaccines cost $$ too. unless the treatment for disease is free and the vaccines are free, then it would be saving them money from THEIR pocked. So, I assume this statement means they are trying to do "us" a favor and save us money?

[Super Glue Mommy]

oops rebecca you are right! that was a mistake on my part! (I have no problem admitting fault)

as for the sources, you will notice 90% of the time I source pro-vaccine sources, this time however I did not as this was the most readily available chart I had. just looking at the numbers seperately for polio, my opinion stands that vaccines are taking credit where credit is not due. I also have a ton of other information in that post.