herd immunity - science and philosophy of. - Page 4

[freestylemama]

Just replying to the OP:

I took an Epidemiology class in graduate school and we watched this really cool (old) video from the BBC about Bangladesh's small pox vaccination campaign. They hired community health workers to go out to specific communities and vaccinate as many people as they could.  Surveillance was key because there was no way that every person could be vaccinated- when they found a case, they vaccinated "rings" to create a herd.  They showed how this created a "ring" of immunity.  Their efforts were successful, of course. 

I wish this was an easily accessible video.  It was a really clear introduction to the concept of herd immunity.  I'm pretty sure the Prof had it on VHS so I doubt that it's easily available. 

So, yes, I absolutely think that the science behind herd immunity is valid.  There are many other examples of vaccines being introduced in similar ways and seeing major declines in disease incidence. 

I think in this discussion, there are some issues with some people coming to the table with varied knowledge about certain diseases and vaccines.  Not all diseases have vaccines and vaccines aren't totally effective.  These facts don't negate the salience of vaccinations. 

Edited by freestylemama - 7/12/11 at 1:37pm

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

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.

I don't share what I feel is a simplistic and idealistic view about scientific research. I disagree with the bolded. There have been many scientists and researchers that have provided proof that challenege the scientific consensus. The proof is categorically denied or worse yet buried or surpressed. Only then can the establishment go about trying to discredit them, label them quacks, pull their funding ect. Take Dr. Bernice Eddy for example. IMO It's all about what's at stake, politically and financially. JMHO - let me put my tinfoil hat back on now.....

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

I don't share what I feel is a simplistic and idealistic view about scientific research. I disagree with the bolded. There have been many scientists and researchers that have provided proof that challenege the scientific consensus. The proof is categorically denied or worse yet buried or surpressed. Only then can the establishment go about trying to discredit them, label them quacks, pull their funding ect. Take Dr. Bernice Eddy for example. IMO It's all about what's at stake, politically and financially. JMHO - let me put my tinfoil hat back on now.....

I'm okay with disagreeing.  :)  But to clarify, my point is that IMO Russell Blaylock is not someone who has provided evidence or even conducted research in the field, afaik.  I presume that he's not suggesting that he has evidence that the government is trying to prevent him from releasing?

[kama'aina mama]

Originally Posted by miriam 

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?  

This multi quote feature got me all messed up! 

I can't find anywhere that says 3000+ reactions to MMR in the first quarter of 2011.  I keep seeing the number 698.  Would you mind linking me to where you got that number? 

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

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.

When kept in its intended context, "his" statement (he was the lead author of the paper, not the sole author) is not so sensational. They were specifically referring to a child's ability to mount an immune response to multiple vaccines.  

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by Jugs 

When kept in its intended context, "his" statement (he was the lead author of the paper, not the sole author) is not so sensational. They were specifically referring to a child's ability to mount an immune response to multiple vaccines.  

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full

Yes, the assumption is based on a theoretical mathematical formula, with no actual experiments to back it up (which god forbid I never want to see them study this). Plus, it makes me wonder.... If an infant's immune system is THAT strong and capable of responding to 10,000 vaccines at one time, especially considering vaccines also include adjuvants/toxins along with the viruses, then why are vaccines necessary at all then? Damn....if infants can handle all of that, they can surely handle just about anything then, right? They must be super babies!  It just doesn't make any logical medical sense no matter how scientific and mathematical it all seems. 

(i don't want to get off track from the OP.  I guess Offit may require a thread of his own!)

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 7/12/11 at 7:33pm

[Jugs]

Nevertheless, the theoretical mathematical formula wasn't pulled out of thin air; it was based on actual evidence, as referenced in the footnotes. But hey, what do immunologists know, anyway?

[amnesiac]

Please be careful not to post defamatory comments about people. Any posts calling someone a fraud or a quack or anything of the like will need to be edited to remove those defamatory statements.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

I'm okay with disagreeing.  :)  But to clarify, my point is that IMO Russell Blaylock is not someone who has provided evidence or even conducted research in the field, afaik.  I presume that he's not suggesting that he has evidence that the government is trying to prevent him from releasing?

Not that I know of. That was more of a general comment pertaining to historical events (Bernice Eddy). Im ok with disagreeing too and didn't expect us too agree really . Ive read Dr. Blaylocks books - I respect him and feel he has alot of valid concerns (which I happen to share) and points about certain food additives/chemicals that are neurotoxic. He does provide references for what it's worth.

[Lovemy3girls]

We need perspectives like Dr. Blaylock because the brain is such an important part of the body. It's our biological computer and plays such a large role in immunity, as does the gut immune system. We need to look at the whole, not the parts, especially since everything is so intrically interconnected and complex. We have to look at how vaccines affect the whole biological system put together. I'm all for safe vaccines, but I'm not convinced we have the technology to achieve that at present (or if we ever will, but who knows?) What happens to your computer if or when it gets infected by a virus? I'm sure most of us have experience with this. Well, putting this example into context, what happens to the computer-brain when multiple viruses are introduced into the biological system via the unnatural route of injection? Not to mention all of the other ingredients and especially adjuvants. They have a powerful impact on the developing myelin in the brain and the central nervous system (motherboard) of the body. Then there's the intestinal immunity to consider as well because of the antibiotics such as neomycin and streptomycin which compromise the beneficial bacteria in the gut. I have no doubt that immunologists know a lot. They have to, right? Why can't the contributions of fields such as neuroscience and gastroenterology be included as well? The male-dominated left-brain approach to modern medicine and science could use some feminine right-brain integration to function better and bring things more into balance. Look at the state of peoples' health the state of the ecology of the planet. It only takes half a brain to see what I'm talking about.    

[BeckyBird]

Smart thinking, Lovemy3girls! I agree with your whole post!

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3girls 

It only takes half a brain to see what I'm talking about.    

LOL!  I must have less than half a brain, then, because I don't get the computer analogy at all, and I also don't get how a neurosurgeon is meant to provide a more holistic perspective than a pediatrician.  :) 

[littlest birds]

I believe herd immunity works.  (With variations among different diseases.) 

But until vaccine problems are taken more seriously and discussed openly by all I cannot trust the judgment of those advising about or delivering vaccines.  The trade off is not what it appears, as the success is overstated and the harm understated.

I believe that we barely see the tip of the iceberg in terms of the harmful effects of vaccines on our bodies.  There is so much in our brains and our immune system that we cannot see or measure.  I personally believe that over 90% of the harmful effects and 90% of reactions are invisible to us.  We only notice when the effects are very dramatic and obvious.  What about the ones with no visible symptoms?  When it comes to something that alters infant brains, how much can we even observe?  We can see a seizure.  What about just a tiny bit of brain damage that causes no change in behavior?  Can we see that? 

Logic suggests to me that anything causing a small number of provable deaths (plus unproven ones) and a smallish number of proven major reactions would statistically also be causing a larger number of middle-sized harmful effects and small ones.  How can we tell, when we don't really even seem to know what is going on when vaccines cause harm, what part of what we don't understand and cannot even diagnose clearly and can apparently hardly even observe at all qualifies as minor or "inconsequential" when we are talking about brain damage?  How can we say that statistically all of this is worth it when we have such obviously poor abilities to identify and measure harm?

I know I have gotten off topic...  All I'm saying is that while I believe in some herd immunity, at least that to some degree vaxes do work and to some degree if there are clusters in a population that contain more immune people then disease will travel less in that area, I believe herd immunity has its limitations and we are dramatically underestimating what we are paying for it.  The risks are greater than we are led to believe as there is a lot more harm occurring than we can observe and identify as being vaccine-related.  While I am offended when people think negatively of my choice as selfish because we are all supposed to make a selfless trade for herd immunity, I know they don't see what I see.  Herd immunity may exist but I don't think it is all it's cracked up to be.  I have a strong feeling that a century from now (or sooner) we will look back on this period of vaccination as sadly mistaken, and I hope that we will have moved on to much better ideas.

[Gismobabe]

I do not have much to say regarding herd immunity except that after the death of my son (after a round of childhood vaccines) I have been told that the government rather has one dead child and 999 that they believe are protected. Since the dead child was mine, I have paid the highest price possible for herd immunity. Will I vaccinate my other boys, hoping that this time I am in the group of the 999 to promote herd immunity? No, because I believe this would make me the worst mother ever!

And however many theories and studies we cite and how many scare tactics are used on us in the end we have to look our own child (in my case I can only look at myself) and be able to say: I did what I believed was the best for YOU (not for 999 other children).

[BeckyBird]

Gismobabe, thank you for standing up for your son, and for sharing this painful story with us. I am so very sorry for what you have been through.

  With his memory, you might be able to help others. You are doing a great service. Thank you.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Gismobabe 

I have been told that the government rather has one dead child and 999 that they believe are protected.

Gently, whoever told you this is absolutely wrong.  The government is not out to create herd immunity at any cost.  Its goal is to create herd immunity if it will save lives.  And the risk/benefit analysis shows that it does.

Of course I am very sorry for the loss of your son.  And of course I support your right to decide to forgo future vaccinations for your other children.  But, in a discussion about the risks and benefits of vaccines, I think one must bear in mind that VPDs are also a risk to children.  So of course, you do what you believe is best for your child.  Of course.  But it's not as simple as doing what is best for your child versus what is best for others, because what is best for others could also save your child's life.  And unfortunately as parents we have no way of knowing ahead of time whether our individual children will have a bad vaccine reaction or a bad case of a VPD. 

[Lovemy3girls]

Originally Posted by Gismobabe 

Since the dead child was mine, I have paid the highest price possible for herd immunity.

I am truly sorry for your tragic loss...I almost lost a child to vaccines and there but for the grace of God I could have been in your shoes. I think the statistics the authorities rattle off about adverse reactions, including near death and death are not accurate, that in fact they are much more common than they are admitting to.