Vaccines and “herd immunity” nonsense
0 2014-11-14 by axolotl_peyotl
Hail to the group! The group is all!
The concept of herd immunity (protection for the population) is often used by vaccine addicts as a way to push guilt at people who don’t line up, with their children, like robots for their shots.
From the point of view of protecting people who are already vaccinated, herd immunity is flat-out absurd.
Little Jimmy, whose parents have decided not to vaccinate him, will pass diseases on to kids who are already vaccinated? Oh, you mean those immunized kids aren’t really safe? Then why did you vaccinate them in the first place?
From another point of view, herd immunity is the idea that people who “can’t be” vaccinated (for example, those who are obviously allergic to elements contained in vaccines) will gain a measure of protection, if larger and larger numbers of others are vaccinated.
The vaccinated protecting the unvaccinated.
This is foolish, because what actually protects people against disease is the strength of their immune systems, and that strength has nothing to do with vaccination.
If a person has a weak immune system, he will get dangerously sick, and it doesn’t matter how many people around him are vaccinated against how many diseases.
So even if one accepts the (false) premise that vaccines are effective and safe, the premise of herd immunity is ludicrous.
Vaccination is, in fact, a cover story used to conceal the fact that the health of populations has everything to do with good nutrition, adequate sanitation, and an absence of toxic elements in the environment.
There are many doctors who know this, but they refuse to speak out, because they know they’ll suffer consequences.
Vaccination, as a propaganda strategy, is used to medicalize the population—to assert that good health is fundamentally a medical matter.
It isn’t.
If tomorrow, two things happened, they would change the face of health in any industrialized country:
One, millions more people buying healthy food and/or growing their own food, in yards; and in inner cities, growing food in community gardens;
And two, the courts delivering justice in the form of billion-dollar fines and long, long prison sentences to corporate employees (including CEOs) for severe and real pollution.
Note: That justice would eliminate GMO crops which rely on toxic pesticide use.
I’m not spinning rainbows. I’m just pointing out that, with these two changes alone, hospitals and clinics and doctors’ offices would empty out, and the medical cartel would finally experience vast comeuppance.
Health and life are not medical functions.
Any science that claims they are is false science, and the people who make those claims are liars or morons or criminals, or some combination of all three.
Here's an excerpt from my own research on vaccines:
Perhaps the most oft-cited truism among those who unequivocally defend the current vaccine program is the notion of “herd immunity.” The idea is that if a large enough percentage of the population is immunized against a certain disease, then epidemics can be prevented.
Originally, it was suggested that 60-70% of the population needed to be immunized to reach those goals...today some claim that 95-100% immunization is needed.
There is a very strong, and rarely mentioned, case against the perceived state of “herd immunity” in the population today. The mistake lies in the assumption that high percentages of the population are still immune to diphtheria, smallpox, pertussis, etc.
The problem with this is that most of the protection afforded by these childhood vaccines waned many decades ago, so that most baby boomers, the largest percentage of the population, have no protection. In fact, vaccines for most Americans declined to non-protective levels within 5 to 10 years of the vaccines.
This means that for a majority of Americans, as well as others in the developed world, herd immunity doesn't exist and hasn't for over 60 years.
The media and vaccine enthusiasts would have us believe otherwise, like claiming that as many as 40,000 people die from the “flu” every year, despite this claim being completely unsupported by the data.
In fact, Peter Doshi, Ph.D., a Johns Hopkins scientist, recently issued a blistering report, claiming that only a small portion of those diagnosed with the “flu” actually have the influenza virus present.
Promoting influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies in the United States, says Doshi of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Drug companies and public officials press for widespread vaccination each fall, offering vaccinations in drugstores and supermarkets.
The results have been phenomenal. Only 20 years ago, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States on an annual basis. Today, the total has skyrocketed to 135 million doses. Mandatory vaccination polices have been enacted, often in healthcare facilities, forcing some people to take the vaccine under threat of losing their jobs.
According to Doshi, “The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated. For most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it.” That's not the case, he says.
Although the CDC implies that flu vaccines are safe and there's no need to weigh benefits against risk, Doshi disagrees. He points to an Australian study that found 1 in every 110 children under the age of 5 had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for H1N1 influenza. Additional investigations found that the H1N1 vaccine was also associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents.
Hopefully, the latest Tamiflu debacle will help reignite this crucial conversation.
36 comments
5 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-11-14
It's absurd looking at the votes these posts have been getting. Can't something be done about this? Are the admins of this site aware of the vote manipulation that's going on here? (...little joke)
5 axolotl_peyotl 2014-11-14
It's the lovely folks at /r/vaccinemyths.
This thread was linked by JF_Queeny and is currently #1 in the sub.
This post actually reached #15 in /r/conspiracy, but after JF_Queeny xposted it, magically it dropped sharply. Go figure.
1 ct_warlock 2014-11-14
I've just gone and checked and wow!, that subreddit has a whole 657 readers!
0 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-11-14
And if even 5 of them downvote a post in the new queue right after it's posted, the odds of it ever reaching the front page of the sub are minimal at best.
1 ct_warlock 2014-11-14
I thought most people browsed in /r/conspiracy/new anyway?
If not, they really should.
-1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-11-14
I agree but most people just look at their reddit front page, meaning they only ever see if and when a post from this sub makes it to the #1 spot. Of those who actually visit the sub specifically, most probably just look at "hot" or "top". It wouldn't take many people to significantly influence the flow of information, especially for a post like this which has clearly been cross posted to a sub dedicated to discrediting posts like this.
2 shadowofashadow 2014-11-14
I noticed axolotl was getting hit pretty hard the past day or two. In another topic with only 10 or so comments he made a pretty benign post. Every other post was positive and his was at -7!
4 axolotl_peyotl 2014-11-14
They're my internet lovers.
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-11-14
Haha yeah he seems to have a little crew following him around. You can almost see them in action in real time.
2 axolotl_peyotl 2014-11-14
Check out these two folks with highly upvoted comments in this thread.
One never posts to /r/conspiracy, and the other is a /r/conspiratard.
1 HeLMeT_Ne 2014-11-14
I assume I am the one you are talking about as the conspiratard since you pointed it out earlier. Just to clarify, I have made one post and three comments in that sub since I joined reddit. I have about 30 times the karma on this sub as I do on that. I did not downvote you on this submission as I believe in the rule that downvotes are not the disagree button, and I have been and still am in favor of making this a subscriber only sub due to the brigading that often happens to your posts as well as many others.
I will continue to be a skeptic who looks for sources in the field for which the claims are made, which is why I made my original comment in this thread. I was simply pointing out what I felt should be known about one of the sources you used as I do not find him to be credible on the subject. It is up to the other readers to decide if my point was valid. If you don't like having your sources so easily discredited, I suggest finding better ones to use.
2 [deleted] 2014-11-14
I just up voted you wink
3 KingDoink 2014-11-14
I thank you for posting, because I do like reading the opinions opposing my own. First though Jon Rappoport is not creditable. A quick Google search shows him as a loon. Secondly your own research isn't credible. What are your qualifications to make you credible? Your Australian study is behind a pay wall.
While your post was an interesting read I do think everyone should take it with a gain of salt at the very least.
6 axolotl_peyotl 2014-11-14
I see you've never posted in /r/conspiracy before this comment.
May I ask how you came across this post?
4 peterson2004 2014-11-14
He used this service, which quickly alerts the user/army the second anything on reddit appears with certain words.
1 [deleted] 2014-11-14
Wow, thanks for that!
No wonder they can act so fast!
1 KingDoink 2014-11-14
I generally just lurk here. I just decided to comment hoping to see more credible post. As I stated I like to read opinions that oppose my own, and have no problem changing my stance in light of real evidence.
1 HeLMeT_Ne 2014-11-14
Another note on credibility - Peter Doshi is neither a virologist nor a epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who completed a fellowship in comparative effectiveness research at Johns Hopkins. He conducted no research about influenza or vaccines at Johns Hopkins, nor does he speak for the university on that subject.
-2 axolotl_peyotl 2014-11-14
So you're a contributor to /r/conspiratard and rarely post at /r/conspiracy...
What brings you to this thread?
3 HeLMeT_Ne 2014-11-14
I have a pretty long history of posting here - I don't have as many comments as links posted. Apparently you have checked my history if you say that I am a contributor over there, so you should know this. I may at some point have contributed to /r/conspiratard, but generally I read the comments only. I believe this sub plays an important role in creating awareness of some issues, but I also believe that some of the more outlandish theories are crazy and should be treated as such.
Regardless, it makes my comment no less valid.
0 peterson2004 2014-11-14
Look at this anonymous vaccine evangelist preaching about credibility on the Internet.
What makes you credible? How credible is the pharmacy industry as a whole? When's the last time any disease was cured?
1 KingDoink 2014-11-14
I'm don't hold anything that would give me any credibility in this subject matter. So I didn't post my own research that would dispute his. If I wasn't mobile currently, or at the time of my post, I may have linked more credible sources.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying a good conspiracy, but before you preach it, have some actually evidence. Is that too complicated? Or should I just start making stuff up that goes against the masses?
Edit: Word
1 peterson2004 2014-11-14
http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2evaxb/released_under_freedom_of_information_cdc_doctors/
http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/23oi4e/the_skeptics_guide_to_vaccines_part_i_poxes_polio/
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
etc..
1 [deleted] 2014-11-14
Please answer:
When is the last time any disease was cured?
2 timpster1 2014-11-14
Tamiflu is some NASTY shit, I had to take it in the powder form -- NEVER again.
4 axolotl_peyotl 2014-11-14
What the Tamiflu saga tells us about drug trials and big pharma: We now know the government's Tamiflu stockpile wouldn't have done us much good in the event of a flu epidemic. But the secrecy surrounding clinical trials means there's a lot we don't know about other medicines we take.
Tamiflu: Millions wasted on flu drug, claims major report
Is Tamiflu Worth It? Britain Reconsiders a Best-Selling Flu Remedy
Donald Rumsfeld's controversial links to drug company behind Tamiflu
Tamiflu maker Roche didn’t investigate 80,000 adverse reactions, including 15,161 deaths
The Tamiflu saga shows why all research data should be public
Who Owns the Rights on Tamiflu: Rumsfeld to Profit from Bird Flu Hoax
0 timpster1 2014-11-14
HOLY SHIT! I forgot a lot of stuff out there about how it didn't really help. Thanks for the links!
-1 materhern 2014-11-14
Rumsfeld, I should have known that slimy bastard was in the mix some how. Can't believe I never heard that before now.
1 [deleted] 2014-11-14
Plus, it's efficacy is under 20%.
It's worth dealing with the flu if I can avoid Tamiflu's side effects.
NEVER AGAIN. It's shite.
1 timpster1 2014-11-14
I completely agree.
-5 axolotl_peyotl 2014-11-14
Here come the downvotes...can't have this stay on the front page of /r/conspiracy eh?
How about you negative nancies actually speak up?
5 dtiftw 2014-11-14
KingDoink did. You ignored the substance of his comment, choosing to go through his posting history.
Are you willing to debate this topic, or are you going to dismiss all criticisms of your position out of hand?
-6 SovereignMan 2014-11-14
Lol. You call this "substance"?
There's absolutely nothing of substance there, just character assassination.
2 dtiftw 2014-11-14
Is Rappoport credible? I don't see any reason to take him as such. So at the very least, axolotl could have provided just a little reason to consider him an authority in this field.
edit: I found a blurb about one of Rappoport's books:
This doesn't seem like a person who has a strong background in science.
-2 SovereignMan 2014-11-14
My point was that KingDoink simply saying so doesn't make it so and neither does him saying so have any substance.
2 dtiftw 2014-11-14
Is Rappoport credible? I don't see any reason to take him as such. So at the very least, axolotl could have provided just a little reason to consider him an authority in this field.
edit: I found a blurb about one of Rappoport's books:
This doesn't seem like a person who has a strong background in science.