Another herd immunity thread - Page 6

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Ophelia

This?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

There's also this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1030143318.htm

In the 1970s, measles infections were observed to cause regression of pre-existing cancer tumors in children. This information was noted, but nothing was done to study this phenomenon until the late 1990s, when under the direction of Stephen Russell, M.D., Ph.D., Mayo Clinic Cancer Center's Molecular Medicine Program began looking into it, resulting in the current study and other related projects

[mamakay]

And this:

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...ck=1&cset=true

IN the 1890s, a New York surgeon named William Coley tested a radical cancer treatment. He took a hypodermic needle teeming with bacteria and plunged it into the flesh of patients.
After suffering through weeks of chills and fevers, many showed significant regression of their tumors, but even Coley himself could not explain the phenomenon.

His experiments were sparked by the observation that certain cancer patients improved after contracting infections. One patient experienced regression in a tumor in her arm after developing Saint Anthony's fire, a streptococcus skin infection.

None of this is really an argument against vaccination in general, but simply a signal that perhaps we are specifically adapted to our environment, and any radical changes to this environment should be undertaken with a certain amount of caution.

[mamakay]

Natural is not always better. Botulism toxin is natural, but if there's an argument that preventing foodborn botulism has some secret "hidden cost", I've never heard it.
But on the flipside, when the use of formula became widespread in the US, no one had any idea about what we were losing. There were hidden costs there, and that's one of those cases where natural IS better.

So...you just never know. I believe in progress, but in also proceeding with caution.

[Deborah]

If we call progress "change" then we'll have a better sense of how it actually plays out.

England in the late 18th and early 19th century underwent a phenomena called the industrial revolution. One part of this was that millions of people moved from villages in the countryside into cities, where they lived in unbelievably horrid slums. Infectious disease epidemics killed huge numbers of people.

Did these people die because they didn't have vaccines? Did they die because they were living in filthy, overcrowded conditions? Did they die because they were malnourished and overworked? Did they die because they had grown up in isolated villages where they had limited exposure to infectious illnesses?

The industrial revolution was progress. It also had a lot of problems. Change is risky.

My concern with vaccines, looking at the big picture, is the insane optimism with which vaccines are added to the schedule. Possible problems and unforseen results are not considered.

Mumps is a perfect example of insane optimism. The death rate from mumps is so low as to be almost impossible to calculate. One article I saw projected millions of cases and 11 deaths. Unless a vaccine is totally risk free, this doesn't make sense, honest!

Or the shingles/chickenpox problem.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Ophelia

This?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What do you mean by it?

Freshly prepared food made from organic mineral rich food. Little to no processed sugar. Whole foods. Baked and steamed foods.

It probably depends how you ask the question. People still feed their children junk even though they have been told the harm it does. I don't see that they would necessarily behave differently. Also, the issue is complicated and a lot of people are not going to want to bother. I've put quite a few hours into this, and I'm in no position to make an informed judgement.

I've put more than a year every day and I am nowhere near making an informed decision. It would be much easier if you didn't need to ferrit the information out of mountains of information that doesn't really mean anything.

By waning immunity, do you mean something todo with people who are immune because they caught the virus in the wild are more immune than people who have been vaccinated, hence waning immunity as fewer and fewer people encounter it. Or, do you mean something else? In my ignorance I am unsure.

No. Waning immunity as in the vaccinated person's immunity disappears. Although immunity might not be the right word. Antibody titres disappear.

As for not all vaccines being considered capable of herd immunity. Presumably that is an accepted fact that even the WHO would fully support.

I understand that this is not an idea you are comfortable with. At the risk of completley derailing the thread, I would recommend you do some reading yourself to look into just which vaccines can theoretically contribute to herd immunity and which can't. No, it is not common knowledge. That does not make it less accurate.

That is a totally different kind of herd immunity. In that herd immunity you have continuously circulating illnesses and epidemics.

What makes you think vaccination can stop the disease circulating?

Which is true, but I have yet to be convinced that it is only children that you know are sick who are at risk.

I hope you can find the information that will convince you either way.

Viruses are like vaccines in this respect. In either case there is a very small risk of something bad happening.

I am not sure we agree here. I think we know a lot more about just how risky the virus can be and not a whole lot on just how risky the vaccine can be. I would not choose to compare them when it comes to taking a risk.

It will always be the case that that bad thing happened for a reason, whether it is a Mitochondrial problem, or malnutrition. The question is whether these things are identifiable ahead of time.

Of course. Again, we know more about how to predict who is at risk for the disease than we know how to predict who is at risk for the vaccine.

Every single measles death that there has ever been is because the person who died was weaker in some respect than others who lived, unless you are able to identify these people ahead of time that does you no good.

What makes you think you cannot identify these people ahead of time?

The number of people who would get infected if you stopped vaccinating is so huge that you are bound to find people who are weak in some respect without anybody knowing. What you need to do it quantify it.

I do not think anyone seriously would propose stopping vaccinating overnight. Of course the segments of the population who are risk would need to be identifiable. I think they have been identified. Again, this is all very theoretical.
This made me think of a project in South Africa where Australian gum trees were brought in to dry up swamps. But then the gum trees starting to take over the indiginous vegetation and it just created a mess. Until 'they' discovered another use for them - that they hold together eroding soil, preventing donga's (mini ravines). But they did have to import a type of wasp that prevented fertilization of the gum trees, which caused it's own problems, I can't remember what.
I'm am writing this down, as I think it has relevance when assessing the vaccine induced immunity. We do not know what we are introducing and we do not know what the long term effects will be. We very well could end up with unforeseen problems and a bit of a mess.

Anything less than lifelong immunity has the effect of reducing the percentage of people in the population who are immune. If that number is reduced past the percentage you need for herd immunity, it's a problem and you need a booster, if not it's not a problem.

Very simple. But why would I want boosters when I can do without them? (and all the extras that come with each shot - extras that they have no idea what the safe amount is and have never done any real studies to determine just what they do in the body). And who in the adult population is up to date with their boosters (outside hospital staff?)

But many people on the forum seem to reject herd immunity out of hand. Have they considered it and found different reasons for every vaccine, is there really no general argument against herd immunity?

The most compelling argument that I know of is the life long immunity one. And that not all vaccines create herd immunity.

Do we all agree that herd immunity for some stuff we vaccinate for works and is a good thing?

In the case of measles I think it could work, but I am not sure. I do not think it is a good thing, because of shifting epidemiology. And not knowing just how this will all pan out. We do not know what we do not know.

Must we discuss every disease that we vaccinate against in order to discuss herd immunity?

In order to establish if there is any merit to the argument the vaccine does indeed contribute to herd immunity, yes. It is a gross assumption to believe all vaccines create herd immunity.

As for all people being unique, sure we are unique, but on a bell curve. There is a lot we have in common, a lot that we can say in general and bounds on our uniqueness.

Are you not curious about what unique factors you have that would make you safer or more at risk for the disease and the vaccine? Or am I missing something.

[ParisApril]

Originally Posted by Deborah

If we call progress "change" then we'll have a better sense of how it actually plays out.

England in the late 18th and early 19th century underwent a phenomena called the industrial revolution. One part of this was that millions of people moved from villages in the countryside into cities, where they lived in unbelievably horrid slums. Infectious disease epidemics killed huge numbers of people.

Did these people die because they didn't have vaccines? Did they die because they were living in filthy, overcrowded conditions? Did they die because they were malnourished and overworked? Did they die because they had grown up in isolated villages where they had limited exposure to infectious illnesses?

The industrial revolution was progress. It also had a lot of problems. Change is risky.

My concern with vaccines, looking at the big picture, is the insane optimism with which vaccines are added to the schedule. Possible problems and unforseen results are not considered.

Mumps is a perfect example of insane optimism. The death rate from mumps is so low as to be almost impossible to calculate. One article I saw projected millions of cases and 11 deaths. Unless a vaccine is totally risk free, this doesn't make sense, honest!

Or the shingles/chickenpox problem.

I think that this is a great post that needs to be repeated!

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Deborah

If we call progress "change" then we'll have a better sense of how it actually plays out.

England in the late 18th and early 19th century underwent a phenomena called the industrial revolution. One part of this was that millions of people moved from villages in the countryside into cities, where they lived in unbelievably horrid slums. Infectious disease epidemics killed huge numbers of people.

Did these people die because they didn't have vaccines? Did they die because they were living in filthy, overcrowded conditions? Did they die because they were malnourished and overworked? Did they die because they had grown up in isolated villages where they had limited exposure to infectious illnesses?

The industrial revolution was progress. It also had a lot of problems. Change is risky.

My concern with vaccines, looking at the big picture, is the insane optimism with which vaccines are added to the schedule. Possible problems and unforseen results are not considered.

Mumps is a perfect example of insane optimism. The death rate from mumps is so low as to be almost impossible to calculate. One article I saw projected millions of cases and 11 deaths. Unless a vaccine is totally risk free, this doesn't make sense, honest!

Or the shingles/chickenpox problem.

:

[Proverbs31]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What do you mean by it?
Viruses are like vaccines in this respect. In either case there is a very small risk of something bad happening.

Perhaps in the short-term, but the long-term effects of vaccination are not yet known (or are at least kept on the quite). Shoot, look at SV40!

[Deborah]

I think vaccination is a wonderful example of the wrong solution to the wrong problem way too late.

Childhood epidemics used to kill a lot of babies and children. High infant mortality was a huge problem. By the time vaccines had been developed and came into common use, in developed countries, infant and child mortality had gone down by a huge amount. I won't say that vaccines had no effect at all, but the effect was marginal. I'm going to leave polio out of this discussion for the moment, because there are factors in this case that make it a poor fit for the general concept.

The problem was no longer a large number of deaths. Some diseases had almost vanished. Other diseases were still common, but fatalities had dropped to the point where death was a rare consequence of the illness. The question was not: "will we save many thousands of lives by vaccinating", but "will we reduce or eliminate this particular childhood illness by vaccinating."

At that point, the wrong question was asked. The question which should have been addressed was why did some children have terrible complications and die of what was generally a minor childhood rite of passage. This would have been an immensely helpful path of research and would have boosted the general health of the population enormously.

But instead they went the route of trying to eliminate some of the childhood illnesses. So far, not a single one has been eliminated. Smallpox was never limited to childhood, so it doesn't really enter into this debate.

Anyway, that is my take on the problem, for what it is worth.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Deborah

At that point, the wrong question was asked. The question which should have been addressed was why did some children have terrible complications and die of what was generally a minor childhood rite of passage. This would have been an immensely helpful path of research and would have boosted the general health of the population enormously.

But instead they went the route of trying to eliminate some of the childhood illnesses. So far, not a single one has been eliminated. Smallpox was never limited to childhood, so it doesn't really enter into this debate.

Anyway, that is my take on the problem, for what it is worth.

Yup. This makes lots of sense to me.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I don't know about your school, but the college I went to required an MMR booster if you had only had one dose or had no vaccination record.

So the lifetime immunity assumptions is based on 2 doses?

I just found my childhood vax record and I have to say it makes NO sense to me.

I was born in July of 1972. I had a series of DTP in 1973 Another in August of 1976 and another in July of 1986
I had the Polio vax series (3 in all) in 1973. Then another in August of 1976

The MMR I didn't have at all until 1989 for the first time??? and then again in 1991 when enetring college?
WTH???
Oh something else very interesting is that the lot numbers, manufacterer columns etc are blank...what a suprise!

[ema-adama]

I've been thinking about this. I had understood herd immunity to be a % of the overall population that has to be immune in order to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

ShuttIt has defined it as a fire break that becomes more effective with a higher number of people being immune. That it is about local groups and their level of immunity (through vaccination or exposure to illness)

Can you have herd immunity without the threshhold percentage? Is the threshold percentage the percentage needed to remove the illness from circulation altogether?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what threshhold % has to do with the fire break effect.

Perhaps I am overly confusing myself

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I've been thinking about this. I had understood herd immunity to be a % of the overall population that has to be immune in order to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

ShuttIt has defined it as a fire break that becomes more effective with a higher number of people being immune. That it is about local groups and their level of immunity (through vaccination or exposure to illness)

Can you have herd immunity without the threshhold percentage? Is the threshold percentage the percentage needed to remove the illness from circulation altogether?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what threshhold % has to do with the fire break effect.

Perhaps I am overly confusing myself

I hope I didn't confuse things. A lot of what I posted was me thinking out loud. Perhaps I should clarify my current thinking.....

As I understand it, you need a population of a couple of hundred thousand, plus or minus a bit, depending on the disease and the specifics of the population to allow for continuous circulation within the population. To take an extreme case, if nobody in Manhattan vaccinated, it doesn't matter that New York state might be above the herd immunity threshold, you will still have continuously circulating disease in New York State. Conversely, you could have herd immunity within Manhattan, but not for New York State as a whole, infectious diseases would circulate continuously within the state, but not the Manhattan.

All the herd immunity threshold tells you is that IF immunity is uniformly distributed through the population then all outbreaks, given sufficient time, will die out. Lower levels of immunity will, I assume, just slow down the rate at which the outbreak spreads.

As for whether you can have herd immunity while being below the herd immunity threshold. Technically, probably not. Having said that, any population less than a couple of hundred thousand people is too small to have continuously circulating infectious disease.

In the context of local groups of less than 200,000 people, all outbreaks will come from outside the group (or from vaccines). Herd immunity, as I understand it, in this context will dictate the rate at which a given outbreak will die out.

Another point is that herd immunity thresholds are based on assumptions about the infectiousness of a given disease. That is hugely impacted by living conditions. If you live in a big city you will probably have the opportunity to infect many more people than if you live on a farm and your neighbour lives a mile away. I would have thought that this would act to reduce the herd immunity threshold that you need to cause all outbreaks to die out.

Finally, as to whether the threshold percentage is percentage needed to remove the illness from circulation altogether, I would say NO. It is the level of immunity required to guarantee any given outbreak will come to an end. In the manhattan/New York State example, you will continually be getting new infections coming in from outside. Vaccination also complicated things as, as we all know, vaccines can in and of themselves cause new outbreaks.

Remember though, I'm making this up as I go. The above is just a bunch of stuff that seems plausible to me.