or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › herd immunity - science and philosophy of.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

herd immunity - science and philosophy of. - Page 3

post #41 of 77


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

 

 

So, why would "vaccinating the herd" according to the herd theory not work for the immunocompromised cancer patient?  

 

The oncologist said and the sign said NO RECENTLY VACCINATED CHILDREN. Speaks for itself.  

 

Maybe the oncologists think people are too stupid to figure out which vaccines transmit or spread disease, so they just say all vaccines. 

 

Again why wouldn't the herd immunity in these countries protect the unprotected who visit?  The UN and Peace Corps REQUIRE yellow fever vaccination. Have had many acquaintances do this duty, unless it was changed, but I doubt that.  If you looked at the WHO website you would see that it is REQUIRED.

 

No.  Measles is still here.  I never said it was rare. It is rarely diagnosed, so I guess it does not exist? I said the intern could not properly diagnose a case of measles right in front of her.  How many times has that happened?  I clearly said a couple of times that the disease is not diagnosed nor reported to the health authorities.  

 

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound?

 

As for Mexico, I was specifically talking about the turista, a disease that Native Mexicans have immunity to, but visitors do not. Why doesn't the native herd immunity to the turista protect the tourists?  That is a natural immunity also, not vaccine acquired. Why does the  not work?  

 

 

 

I will agree to disagree with you here.  I WILL blame the vaccine for the measles illnesses because that is the more likely scenario.  Most children are/were vaccinated against measles and other diseases - 95%.  The odds of coming into contact with an unvaxed child is less likely.  Maybe I can go for Las Vegas odds there.

 

Where is the herd immunity in this upscale neighborhood?  http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/long_island&id=8203711

 



Herd immunity does protect the cancer patient.  It reduces the cancer patient's chances of being exposed to some diseases including pretty much eliminating the chance of being exposed to a few that were once common diseases. 

 

I don't think the oncologist meant to imply that people were stupid, but I do think there is some simplifying going on.  Flu shots, IPV, dtap, and others do not shed and people vaccinated with them are not a risk, but they fall under the "recently vaccinated" umbrella.  This makes sense as it can be confusing to keep straight which vaccines are okay and which are a slight risk without having to look it up all the time, and if they did specify by disease, they'd have to contact everyone to update them when the vaccine schedule changed such as when they added the chickenpox vaccine. 

 

Peace Corp also requires its volunteers to have certain education/experience, be willing to eat the local food, and follow all sorts of rules.  It is not a governing body, and its rules don't apply to the general traveler, just their own volunteers.  As for the WHO, you linked to the main page of a very large site, one I've visited previously and used as a source but never seen what you are talking about.  Please link to a specific page listing WHO requirements for yellow fever vaccination beyond requirements individual countries have set for entrance with the goal of keeping yellow fever out.

 

As for yellow fever, I already explained that, but to sum up: in the case of yellow fever, the herd is not limited to humans but also contains other primates and mosquitoes, and we don't vaccinate them.  

 

Sorry, I had never heard traveler's diarrhea called that before and thought you just meant diseases tourists needed protection from.  

 

Measles is still a common disease, but yet so rare that your child couldn't possibly have been exposed to the wild virus (despite likely having had it in a time when there were fairly large outbreaks, before adding the second shot to the schedule) and must have gotten it from a child shedding vaccine measles?  I don't understand.  I also still don't understand why in the late sixties and seventies, even doctors who had been practicing for decades mostly forgot how to diagnose measles, and the public just accepted this because apparently all the parent and grandparents who had seen measles and had them themselves suddenly forgot what it looked like too.  

 

I'm also confused as to why people who have had flumist being told to stay away from cancer patients and travelers needing yellow fever vaccines is supposed to be some smoking gun in the face of herd immunity.  Confused enough that I'm starting to wonder if we are talking about the same thing.  I know you don't believe herd immunity works, but just to make sure that we are on the same page, can you explain your view of what herd immunity is and how it is supposed to work, even if it doesn't?

 

 

 

 

post #42 of 77

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

All vaccines give different lengths of immunity, and lumping them together under the leas of three year is ridiculous.  


Okay, school me then.   (I actually lumped vaccines between immunity of 3 to 10 years. How is that ridiculous?)

 

I know they all have different lengths of immmunity (which is why I gave that range), so, if the range I gave of between 3 and 10 years for all vaccines is ridiculous, what is the length of time of immunity per vaccine and is there evidence of immunity lasting more than 10 years from vaccines? (Not interested in smallpox here....talking about the diseases we vax for currently.)


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 7/7/11 at 5:11am
post #43 of 77


Edited by member234098 - 6/2/12 at 12:56pm
post #44 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

 

 

Then why are doctors vaccinating pregnant women with DTaP, high school students with DTaP in California, and every one else that they can get their hands on as grandparents of newborns?  The vaccine actually can help to transmit the disease, so I do not know what they are trying to accomplish in CA. 

 

There seems to be a cacophony of which diseases and vaccines impart herd immunity  and which do not.  Interesting.

 

Herd immunity either works or it does not.   I am taking my chances with disease.  It has worked for me all of my life. 


Doctors vaccinate people in contact with newborns to because many people let their immunity wane and newborns need to be protected from pertussis.  High school students need a booster also to prevent their immunity from waning.

 ...

 

As pers so eloquently stated, herd immunity works for certain diseases and vaccinations and not for others...it is not an either/or situation.

 


Edited by goldenratio - 7/9/11 at 4:28am
post #45 of 77



broc1.gif    Sorry, I just got on the computer and noticed the warning. Baby was up until 4am this morning.....whew, what a night!


Edited by BeckyBird - 7/9/11 at 10:35am
post #46 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post




It means you are being rude.

 


It is unnecessarily disrespectful to address another member in this manner. Please treat one other with respect and courtesy at all times. Please edit your post, BeckyBird.
post #47 of 77

Has anyone else read this article about herb immunity? I thought it was really interesting.

 

The Herd Immunity Pseudo Science Fraud

 

 

 

post #48 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devaskyla View Post

Has anyone else read this article about herb immunity? I thought it was really interesting.

 

The Herd Immunity Pseudo Science Fraud

 

 

 



Russell Blaylock is widely regarded as a quack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=russell+blaylock+quack

 

 

post #49 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood View Post





Russell Blaylock is widely regarded as a quack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=russell+blaylock+quack

 

 


"Quackery" is IMO in the eye of the beholder.

 


Edited by Mirzam - 7/13/11 at 7:34am
post #50 of 77

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post


"Quackery" is IMO in the eye of the beholder.



thumb.gif Couldn't agree with you more!


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 7/13/11 at 7:20am
post #51 of 77

I'm sorry, I'm not psychic, but I knew that someone would slander Blaylock as soon as I saw his name. And there you have it!  Last time I mentioned Blaylock, I got the same response.

He's a quack, as reported by Wikipedia. So, not all doctors are the same? We should only listen to the doctors that like vaccines, like Offit? 

 

Both vaxxers and nonvaxxers pick and choose which doctors to believe, it's as simple as that. You can find legitimate doctors on both sides. Since the nonvaxxers are the minority, we have to spend  all our time defending our decisions. At least there are a few legitimate doctors who are speaking out against vaccines. You are only going to see more and more of this, as folks realize they are right.

post #52 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

At least there are a few legitimate doctors who are speaking out against vaccines. You are only going to see more and more of this, as folks realize they are right.



nod.gif

 

post #53 of 77



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood View Post





Russell Blaylock is widely regarded as a quack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=russell+blaylock+quack

 

 



No, he is regarded as a quack by the allopathic medical community because they don't like the he endorses views that are inconsistent with the scientific consensus and what they don't like in particular is that he has the cahones to speak publically about it. I mean it's one thing to express the opinion that MSG, Aspartame and aluminum cookware are toxic - I mean that's CRAZY, but to suggest that vaccines may carry more risk than benefit, well that's pure QUACKERY.

 

This man had a successful career as a neurosurgeon from 1977 - 2006. He's taught at medical schools and been on the editorial board of medical journals. Funny how he was not seen as a quack until he started rocking the boat.

post #54 of 77



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

I'm sorry, I'm not psychic, but I knew that someone would slander Blaylock as soon as I saw his name. And there you have it!  Last time I mentioned Blaylock, I got the same response.

He's a quack, as reported by Wikipedia. So, not all doctors are the same? We should only listen to the doctors that like vaccines, like Offit? 

 

Both vaxxers and nonvaxxers pick and choose which doctors to believe, it's as simple as that. You can find legitimate doctors on both sides. Since the nonvaxxers are the minority, we have to spend  all our time defending our decisions. At least there are a few legitimate doctors who are speaking out against vaccines. You are only going to see more and more of this, as folks realize they are right.



 I'm not so sure about that since as soon as a "legitimate" doctor expresses concern or speaks out publically about vaccines (or questions any mainstream medical view)- they are no longer legitimate in the eyes of the mainstream medical community. They automatically get a ticket to quackville and their opinions and views are not taken seriously.(at least by some)  Why do you think there are not MORE doctors expressing concern about various things (including vaccines). It's not that they don't have concerns, they just don't have the guts to make them public because they are afraid. Afraid for their career and their reputation. I can't say that I blame them. I wouldn't be too eager to be the next "quack" the be pubically flogged either. It takes a special kind of person to stand up and do what's right, regardless of the effect that it may have on their personal or professional life.

post #55 of 77

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

I'm sorry, I'm not psychic, but I knew that someone would slander Blaylock as soon as I saw his name. And there you have it!  Last time I mentioned Blaylock, I got the same response.

He's a quack, as reported by Wikipedia. So, not all doctors are the same? We should only listen to the doctors that like vaccines, like Offit? 

 

Both vaxxers and nonvaxxers pick and choose which doctors to believe, it's as simple as that. You can find legitimate doctors on both sides. Since the nonvaxxers are the minority, we have to spend  all our time defending our decisions. At least there are a few legitimate doctors who are speaking out against vaccines. You are only going to see more and more of this, as folks realize they are right.


 

I think you can find members of any profession who disagree with each other.  Most of the time they respectfully disagree, and you can bet that it's because both sides have reasonable ideas and at least some evidence to support their ideas.  But when you find someone whose ideas have been absolutely rejected and even ridiculed by the vast majority of other members of his or her profession, that strikes me as somewhat different. 
 

And relying on that person's opinion seems like a big risk IMO. 

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he a retired neurosurgeon???  Nothing against neurosurgeons, but vaccines are far from their area of expertise.  Whatever you may think of him, Paul Offit is at least an expert in vaccines; he has been studying them his whole career. 

post #56 of 77

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post

Nothing against neurosurgeons, but vaccines are far from their area of expertise.  Whatever you may think of him, Paul Offit is at least an expert in vaccines; he has been studying them his whole career. 


I mentioned this somewhat on the INV forum but if Offit is an expert in vaccines shouldn't he know that children can have a severe reaction (and even death) to just one vaccine? Especially since he said a baby can handle 10,000 (actually wasn't it originally 100,000 or vice versa?) I mean, that's common sense right there.  Plus, where is the science behind his comments?  To just ramble off random things like that with no evidence is just so unprofessional and disturbing IMO.  His comments are so awfully degrading to those parents who have children that experienced severe reactions to a single vaccine that I can't even bear to hear whatever else he has to say.  If Offit is the vaccine expert, I'd gladly stick with the neurosurgeon.

post #57 of 77



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post

 


 

I think you can find members of any profession who disagree with each other.  Most of the time they respectfully disagree, and you can bet that it's because both sides have reasonable ideas and at least some evidence to support their ideas.  But when you find someone whose ideas have been absolutely rejected and even ridiculed by the vast majority of other members of his or her profession, that strikes me as somewhat different. 
 

And relying on that person's opinion seems like a big risk IMO. 

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he a retired neurosurgeon???  Nothing against neurosurgeons, but vaccines are far from their area of expertise.  Whatever you may think of him, Paul Offit is at least an expert in vaccines; he has been studying them his whole career. 



 

 This strikes me as odd. It is a well established fact that vaccines can potentially cause neurological problems. There is plenty written about certain vaccine excipients and adjuvants that establish them as neurotoxic, so as someone that is a expert in brains/nervous systems, I would think that he would be partiularly qualified to examine the effects of these things on the brain/nervous system.

Paul Offit is not a immunologist, yet he confidently rermarks that a baby's immune system can handle 10,000 vaccines at once. Paul Offit is a pediatrician who specilizes in infectious diseases, although I know he fancies himself as an expert in several things, including autism.


Edited by Marnica - 7/12/11 at 8:38am
post #58 of 77

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

I mentioned this somewhat on the INV forum but if Offit is an expert in vaccines shouldn't he know that children can have a severe reaction (and even death) to just one vaccine? Especially since he said a baby can handle 10,000 (actually wasn't it originally 100,000 or vice versa?) I mean, that's common sense right there.  Plus, where is the science behind his comments?  To just ramble off random things like that with no evidence is just so unprofessional and disturbing IMO.  His comments are so awfully degrading to those parents who have children that experienced severe reactions to a single vaccine that I can't even bear to hear whatever else he has to say.  If Offit is the vaccine expert, I'd gladly stick with the neurosurgeon.


Sure, he should know that kids can have reactions to vaccines, and I'd assume that he does know that unless I had some evidence to the contrary.  I don't follow everything he says by any means, so perhaps he said something stupid at one point, or perhaps he says stupid thing regularly; I don't know.  As for the science, I'd expect him to provide his sources, at least for written comments, and if he doesn't I'd fault him for that, certainly.  And if, as you say, he makes degrading comments (toward anyone) I'd certainly fault him for that as well.  Still, when deciding whose opinion to trust in the area of vaccines, I'd go with a rude expert over someone charismatic, friendly, and inexpert.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 This strikes me as odd. It is a well established fact that vaccines can potentially cause neurological problems. There is plenty written about certain vaccine excipients and adjuvants that establish them as neurotoxic, so as someone that is a expert in brains/nervous systems, I would think that he would be partiularly qualified to examine the effects of these things on the brain/nervous system.

Paul Offit is not a immunologist, yet he confidently rermarks that a baby's immune system can handle 10,000 vaccines at once. Paul Offit is a pediatrician who specilizes in infectious diseases, although I know he fancies himself as an expert in several things, including autism.


 

I don't think of neurosurgeons as experts on the brain.  I think of them as experts on brain surgery.  Sure, sometimes surgery is helpful in extreme cases of seizure disorders, and sure, seizures can sometimes be caused by vaccines, but that's as far as it goes.  Now, if he was a neurosurgeon who had done research into the origins of seizures and their link to vaccines and had spent his career on that subject, I would call him an expert in that limited area. 

 

On the other hand, Paul Offit is an immunologist.  His residency was in pediatrics, which is perfectly appropriate for someone beginning a career studying the effects of vaccines on children.  Pathology might have been a better choice on paper, but it would have afforded much less of a chance for him to learn about child development.  And he has made vaccines his specialty through extensive research in that area. 

post #59 of 77

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

[H]e endorses views that are inconsistent with the scientific consensus[.]

 

Here's the thing:  The scientific consensus is constantly changing.  The way it changes is that people come up with hypotheses, test them, and learn from the results.  Part of that is questioning the consensus, and the people who question it and then provide evidence showing that it is wrong are celebrated in the scientific community.  They're not ridiculed for the questioning, or for the testing, or for the proving.  They're ridiculed for endorsing views that are inconsistent with the scientific consensus without a solid evidentiary basis for doing so.

post #60 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post


 

Yes, I am old enough to have had measles and known of contemporaries who had complications. I repeat:  "The CDC claims that there were 118 reported cases of measles in the first four months of this year most of them fully vaccinated and no deaths or serious complications, yet there were 3000+ reactions to the MMR reported to VAERS, that is 25x as many complications as confirmed illnesses.  Is that progress?   It is still safer  to get the disease and have lifelong immunity.  Why bother with possible complications that can be debilitating when a course of the disease in an otherwise healthy person ?  Why are vaccine complications preferable socially? 

 

Obviously the cohort that contains 95% of the population will have a higher number of incidences of everything!  I bet more people who were vaccinated got pregnant too.  And died in car accidents.  And got promoted at their jobs. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › herd immunity - science and philosophy of.