the concept of herd immunity....the proverbial thorn in the nonvaxxer's side?

[heartandhands]

I really hope the experts here can advise me on this issue.  I am commonly confronted with arguments from vaxing parents and society at large regarding herd immunity and how my unvaxed children are endangering the common good.  I feel there has been a big push out there from the medical community in this area bc they know it appeals strongly to vaxing parents and puts a lot of pressure on nonvaxxing parents. 

What types or arguments can I make in my defense?  I know there is so much rhetoric out there and so much of the medical "evidence" for vaccination is flimsy but it's a moot point during these debates about herd immunity.  I need some scientific information and / or some resources.

Thank you

[Chloebelle]

I look forward to the answers too.

I think the best thing to do is not tell people you don't vax if you don't want a debate. I'm fortunate in that many of the people around me who know I don't vax understand my reasoning and don't question it. If ever I've been faced with the question about my unvaxed kids exposing vaxed kids, my answer is simply "Why on earth would you inject your children with all those vaccines (and toxins) if you don't believe they would protect them against exposure to a VPD?" I would also bring to their attention that there are millions of us over 40 who do not have most of the vaccines that kids are injected with today. Are we not part of this so called "herd"? 

[zinemama]

I used to be a nonvaxer. I had no argument for herd immunity. In fact, one of the things that made me feel more comfortable as a nonvaxer was the very fact that my kids were less likely to get VPDs precisely because of herd immunity. So I was never in the position to "defend" myself against these arguments. (Actually, I never got into them in the first place because I keep family medical information to myself.)

However, I made the decision not to vaccinate my kids back then for reasons that I felt were best for our individual family. That has changed and I don't mind them now being part of the "herd" protecting other nonvaxers. OP, I really don't think there is anything you can or should say in your defense except that these are private medical decisions that you prefer not to discuss.

[alex111]

There is a new book out, but its a lot to read, I found a blog that summarizes a lot of the reasons NOT to vax from it tho.  

http://thirteenmonthsapart.blogspot.com/2011/04/vaccines-you-wouldnt-want-your-child-to.html

[peainthepod]

Ask the person if they're up to date on all of their boosters plus every vaccine on the current childhood schedule. Since pretty much no adult is, this is a fairly effective rebuttal. Herd immunity theory doesn't just apply to the children in a population. Adults who want you to give your healthy child powerful pharmaceutical drugs that have known, irreversible side effects up to and including death, need to be willing to put their money where their mouth is. Point them in the direction of the nearest clinic and watch them squirm. 

[SilverMoon010]

Herd immunity is really all a myth that they want us all to follow.  Herd immunity was never a factor for my decision to vaccinate or not.  I do what I feel is best for my child.  If that makes me a horrible citizen, well, so be it. We all know vaccines are not one-size-fits-all and I am certainly not going to just follow the "herd" when I don't believe in it.  Of course people can argue how wonderful science is and how far we have come; however, science has proven to have way too many flaws with vaccinations to make me want to jump on board.  Until they can prove science is foolproof and children will stop being harmed by vaccinations, you won't be seeing me in the midst of the "herd."

This explains a bit about the myth around herd immunity.

http://gdsajj.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/the-herd-immunity-fraud/ 

[chaoticzenmom]

I don't think that herd immunity is a myth, but I do think that each individual person's immunity plays a big part in whether they will get sick, not just whether they're exposed to germs.  This, to me, is a real argument.  It's not strong enough for me to vaccinate though.  The reason why is because I don't believe that vaccines are safe and that people who manufacture vaccines are concerned with safety as their number one priority.  Also, I think that there are too many corporate/political conflicts of interest.  If everything possible were being done to make sure that vaccines are safe, then I would feel that herd immunity is a very important reason to get vaccinated (for some things).  Part of the whole "social contract" issue is being able to trust that the vaccines are as safe as possible.  That's just not the case. 

Doctors get p4p benefits which will push them financially to push vaccines.  Vaccine manufacturers are allowed to give undisclosed amounts of money to the CDC and various health associations.  They give heavily to the American Academy of Pediatrics.  The AAP often sends representatives to speak on behalf of vaccine legislation.  Drug and vaccine manufacturers are allowed to pay professors in medical schools (even Harvard) and they're allowed to write textbooks for medical students (clear conflicts of interest there).  There are more conflicts of interest, but these are the few that come immediately to mind when I hear about the "social contract" that we're supposed to uphold. 

I think that herd immunity is real, but vaccines are not safe.   If the conflicts of interest were corrected, I'd feel more comfortable putting myself and my children at risk.  Then, it would be a real social contract instead of feeling like my children's bodies are a product to be bought and sold.

[CallMeMommy]

Most of the vaccines they like to push for herd immunity (IPV, whooping cough, etc - the "dead virus" vaccines) don't actually prevent transmission.  So there goes that theory.

[Ldavis24]

I guess my biggest beef with the herd immunity theory is the fact that most adults are not up to date on ANYTHING...So maybe they get the bug but their immune system is strong enough to fight it and they pass it on to a kid who actually gets sick...That had nothing to do with unvaxxed children....When the "herd" is primarily composed of adults who aren't up to date, how could it possibly work?

[member234098]

.

Edited by member234098 - 6/8/12 at 8:10am

[alex111]

oh yeah good point! (referring to cancer patients and kids with recent vaccines)

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by alex111 

oh yeah good point! (referring to cancer patients and kids with recent vaccines)

not just cancer patients...my mom has RA and takes powerful drugs that inhibit her immune system. She complains that I don't vax DD but then runs out and gets her flu vax.

She insists that I am endangering her half the time because of DD, no matter the fact that I repeatedly tell her that if DD was vaxxed I would have to avoid her for a while due to shedding.

[alex111]

the people catching the diseases are the vaxed and mid vaxed not the unvaxed. Diseases were practically obsolete before they introduced vaccines, anytime there is an outbreak it seems to coincide when vaccines come out with new versions or new vaccines. For the vaccines to be tested, the placebo is just the old version of the vaccine (not a saline solution) and they only look for an absence of serious (life threatening) injuries to approve it, and the FDA is not the one testing it, the pharma companies are. most of the real testing is done on our kids called post marketing surveillance. my kid is not a guinea pig.  also im giving him higher chances of NOT catching anything by NOT giving him the vaccines.  I hope that gave you some info to educate your mom and help her relax.  Its all cited and researched in the "Vaccine Epidemic" book so you can show her.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by alex111 

the people catching the diseases are the vaxed and mid vaxed not the unvaxed. Diseases were practically obsolete before they introduced vaccines, anytime there is an outbreak it seems to coincide when vaccines come out with new versions or new vaccines. For the vaccines to be tested, the placebo is just the old version of the vaccine (not a saline solution) and they only look for an absence of serious (life threatening) injuries to approve it, and the FDA is not the one testing it, the pharma companies are. most of the real testing is done on our kids called post marketing surveillance. my kid is not a guinea pig.  also im giving him higher chances of NOT catching anything by NOT giving him the vaccines.  I hope that gave you some info to educate your mom and help her relax.  Its all cited and researched in the "Vaccine Epidemic" book so you can show her.

While I agree with you on most of what you've said here - I don't think to say that diseases were practically obsolete before the introduction of vaccination is accurate either. Certain diseases were rampant. That's not to say that I think a particular vaccine can be credited for reducing or eliminating said disease. In some cases I think the vaccine has been quite effective (measles) but has had some unintended, undesireable consequences
 

[member234098]

."

Edited by member234098 - 6/8/12 at 8:42am

[alex111]

[Ldavis24]

I don't really understand what the graphs are trying to disprove or prove? Am I stupid?

Why is Scarlett Fever even mentioned, it's not like there is a vaccine for that anyway?

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by Ldavis24 

I don't really understand what the graphs are trying to disprove or prove? Am I stupid?

Why is Scarlett Fever even mentioned, it's not like there is a vaccine for that anyway? 

I think it's best if Alex111 comes back and provides her own thoughts on the graphs but I think the idea of the graphs is to show the decline in the diseases prior to vaccination. The scarlet fever graph is showing the natural decline without vaccination, as well as typhoid fever (not widespread vaccination).  The graphs are showing that the vaccines were not introduced until after the diseases were already on the decline.

I can't make out the year but looking at the polio graph, I noticed there is an increase after the vaccine was introduced.  I'm wondering if this is from the OPV. Tough to say without the ability to see the years.

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 4/21/11 at 4:48pm

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

I think it's best if Alex111 comes back and provides her own thoughts on the graphs but I think the idea of the graphs is to show the decline in the diseases prior to vaccination. The scarlet fever graph is showing the natural decline without vaccination, as well as typhoid fever (not widespread vaccination).  The graphs are showing that the vaccines were not introduced until after the diseases were already on the decline.

I can't make out the year but looking at the polio graph, I noticed there is an increase after the vaccine was introduced.  I'm wondering if this is from the OPV. Tough to say without the ability to see the years.

Ok...I was feeling really stupid and even more lame because even when I magnified the page I could barely see it

[alex111]

exactly what silver moon said : )  It was my response to the earlier comment that said "While I agree with you on most of what you've said here - I don't think to say that diseases were practically obsolete before the introduction of vaccination is accurate either."  As said by silver moon, they were on the decline and the ones that did not have vaccines became non existent without the help of vaccines.  I won't be able to respond anymore but it was nice talking to calm educated people and I wish you all the best no matter your choices : )