This post is from contributing writer Mary Voogt of Just Take A Bite.
Before I begin I want to state that this post does not deal with vaccine safety. It is not pro or anti vaccines. It is simply discussing vaccine efficacy and the theory of herd immunity.
Vaccinating vs. not vaccinating is a very personal choice – a choice every parent should have.
Vaccination is a medical procedure and the government should never be allowed to make that decision for us, but it’s getting closer and closer to that point, such as in Michigan. If our freedom to choose whether or not to vaccinate is taken away or prohibits us from education or a career, then we no longer live in a democracy, in the land of the free. We live in a dictatorship.
People have different beliefs on safety, religion, morality, etc. The right to choose must be maintained.
But some people feel it’s ok to take away that individual right “for the good of the group.” The theory used to back up this claim is called the
Herd Immunity Theory
Note the word theory.
The theory of Herd Immunity is not a proven fact. And it’s NOT a valid reason to mandate vaccination, which is what I want to work through today.
So just what is a theory?
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a theory is:
“an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances” or “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.”
A theory is not proven. It is hypothetical. It is a possible solution given to explain things.
In a recent trending Forbes article, astrophysicist Ethan Siegel has this to say about a scientific theory: “You’ve heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Except that’s a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren’t proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility…Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery.”
What is the Herd Immunity Theory?
According to vaccines.gov:
When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as “community immunity.”
The principle of community immunity applies to control of a variety of contagious diseases, including influenza, measles, mumps, rotavirus, and pneumococcal disease.
In simpler terms – if enough people are vaccinated, the disease can no longer spread.
Factors Necessary to Validate the Herd Immunity Theory
The theory of Herd Immunity seems like it makes sense. It is a “plausible general principle.” But let’s take a closer look.
There are three critical factors that must be true in order for the Herd Immunity Theory to work.
- Vaccines must be 100% permanent. They must provide complete immunity for life.
- The only way to catch a disease must be directly from another person that has the illness.
- Vaccinated people must not be able to transmit the disease.
If all those are true, then if you are vaccinated, you are 100% safe from the illness you are vaccinated for. Then only unvaccinated individuals would be able to be infected and are the only source of the disease spreading. And if enough people are vaccinated then we can eradicate a disease.
Let’s look at these three assumptions.
Vaccines must be 100% permanent.
Quite simply, vaccines wear off (AND sometimes they never work in the first place). The CDC states:
Immunizations are not just for children. Protection from some childhood vaccines can wear off over time. You may also be at risk for vaccine-preventable disease due to your age, job, lifestyle, travel, or health conditions. (emphasis added)
Immune.org/nz states that “No vaccine is 100% effective, a small percentage of people are not protected after vaccination and for others, the protection may wane over time.”
This means we have plenty of teens and adults walking around thinking they’re protected from many diseases who probably aren’t, plus a good number who never were.
According to cdc.gov, “Depending on the vaccine, about 1% to 5% of children who are vaccinated fail to develop immunity. If these children are exposed to that disease, they could get sick.”
So vaccines are not 100% effective, to begin with. And they wear off. If you read about any recent outbreaks of illnesses like mumps or measles, you will note that many of the individuals who contracted the illness were vaccinated.
Wasn’t the vaccine supposed to protect them? If it’s not protecting them, how are they (the herd) protecting others?
With all these gaps in effective immunization, we probably get a lot closer to losing that critical mass needed for “herd immunity.”
Disease only spreads from person to person.
Let’s check the second assumption. Is the only way to catch a disease directly from an infected person?
According to healthline.com, there are seven ways a disease can be spread through indirect contact. These include food and drinking water, animals, insects, and environmental reservoirs.
This is in addition to both direct and indirect contact with an infected person. Animals and even soil can carry diseases, not just other humans.
Vaccinated people can’t spread the disease.
Herd immunity hinges on the fact that if an unvaccinated person is in a room with a vaccinated person, the latter can’t infect the former with the preventable disease.
If vaccinated kids were simply walking around sharing diseases that no one knew they had, it wouldn’t go quite as well.
Westonaprice.org explains “Scientific evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza [nasal mist] can shed the virus for many weeks or months afterward and infect the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.”
This means that sometimes, individuals who ARE vaccinated are often the ones spreading the disease, and it’s BECAUSE of the vaccinations.
It begs the question, should individuals be quarantined after vaccination? It might prevent the spread of disease better than the vaccine itself.
Even if you don’t believe shedding is real (it’s controversial), with pertussis (whooping cough), it may be even worse. People can’t “shed” pertussis because it’s no longer delivered as a live virus, but there’s a darker secret there.
It’s only been documented officially in baboons, although Katie believes it’s also happened in her own family. People who are immune via the vaccine for pertussis can still be infected for an entire month with it, although they may not show any symptoms. This means they are highly likely to be around plenty of others, including those at risk of severe pertussis infections, such as newborns and the immuno-compromised.
That’s three strikes against the Herd Immunity theory. Which disproves it.
But let’s look deeper yet. Assume again that we do have 100% efficacy and that the only way to spread a disease is from unvaccinated person to unvaccinated person.
How many people encompasses “a critical portion of a community” for Herd Theory?
Does it surprise you that we don’t really know?
The theory of what makes herd immunity effective has changed over the years when it was noted that the theory was not proving true. I’ve done my share of science in the past, having a degree in electrical and computer engineering. Last I checked you don’t keep fudging the data until you can make it look like your hypothesis is correct.
Scientists say the number is different for every disease/vaccine. pbs.org explains it like this:
To set a threshold, epidemiologists—experts in infectious disease transmission—use a value called “basic reproduction number,” often referred to as “R0.” This number represents how many people in an unprotected population one infected person could pass the disease along to. For example, R0 for measles is between 12 and 18, while for polio, it is between five and seven.
The higher this number is, the higher the immunity threshold must be to protect the community.
Because measles is extremely contagious and can spread through the air, for example, the immunity threshold needed to protect a community is high, at 95%. Diseases like polio, which are a little less contagious, have a lower threshold—80% to 85% in the case of polio.
The general concept of an immunity threshold seems simple, but the factors involved in calculating a specific threshold are complex. These factors include how effective the vaccine for a given disease is, how long-lasting immunity is from both vaccination and infection, and which populations form critical links in transmission of the disease. The collective differences in these factors result in different thresholds for different diseases, with a significant factor being R0.
Also see this article in the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases.
So even from vaccine to vaccine the “critical portion” is different, even though the generally accepted portion is 95%. But that is not actually true for all vaccines. And the threshold is just an estimate.
Should this have any impact on which are required for attending school and whether vaccines are mandatory with no exemptions? Seems like it should.
To account for ineffective vaccines, both Wikipedia and Academic.oup explain it like this:
Assuming a vaccine is 100% effective, then the equation used for calculating the herd immunity threshold can be used for calculating the vaccination level needed to eliminate a disease, written as Vc. Vaccines are usually imperfect however, so the effectiveness, E, of a vaccine must be accounted for:
Vc=((1-(1/Ro))/E
From this equation, it can be observed that if E is less than (1 − 1/Ro), then it is impossible to eliminate a disease, even if the entire population is vaccinated. Similarly, waning vaccine-induced immunity, as occurs with acellular pertussis vaccines, requires higher levels of booster vaccination to sustain herd immunity.
But don’t the pharmaceutical companies tell us that herd immunity works? Shouldn’t I believe them?
If herd immunity is something the drug companies truly believe, they would be trying to enforce vaccines on the entire population about every ten years since they know full well that the vaccines wear off.
But they know adults would never agree to that or simply would not take the time for it. Instead, they target babies, toddlers, and preschoolers (who have no voice of their own and can’t tell us how they feel after a vaccine) and try to convince us that a 2 day old being vaccinated for Hepatitis B is going to protect our teens from STDs. And if you don’t agree then you are somehow an unfit parent and can even have your children taken away.
But if you decline a vaccine as an adult, you wouldn’t be questioned or taken to jail.
The truth is they must know herd immunity is not complete protection (or they believe it is without understanding how it actually works themselves). The lie is perpetuated when we convince parents to vaccinate their children without adequate and accessible information about how herd immunity works.
If you knew half our population is unvaccinated anyway (think everyone above the age of thirty), would you trust mandatory vaccines for children? The bottom line is that even if herd immunity were possible, we don’t have it.
If Herd Immunity Works, We’d Have More Outbreaks
If scientists believe that herd immunity is truly what keeps diseases from spreading and that their calculations are correct – that we need around 95% vaccination rate to eradicate disease – then why don’t we have these diseases running rampant through our country right now?
If you really think about it, our vaccination rate is probably more like 40%. With large portions of the population that never were given the current vaccines (because the vaccine schedule has changed so much), plus a large portion that had the vaccines but they have worn off, plus a portion of younger individuals that have either declined vaccines or are unable to receive them, we don’t come anywhere close to 95%.
If we aren’t close to achieving the proper conditions for herd immunity, why don’t we see these illnesses on a daily basis?
It doesn’t add up. The logical conclusion is that herd immunity is not actually true. That 95% calculation is starting to look more like a profit margin than a scientific calculation to eradicate infectious disease.
So the next time another parent or celebrity or TV personality (the drug companies use them to promote vaccines) or even a doctor tries to tell you to vaccinate your child to protect others, ask them when they had their last round of vaccines.
Because they are just as likely to be spreading disease as a child. Or ask them to explain what herd immunity means. I bet they don’t know.
Does Herd Immunity Exist?
Please note that there is a thing called herd immunity – but it only comes from natural immunity, not from vaccines.
Vaccines do not work the same way as natural immunity to a wild virus. So you can’t apply the same logic to them, even though that is what the vaccine industry has worked to make us believe. It is just not true.
Real herd immunity comes when the virus is present and we develop immunity and keep that immunity as we are re-exposed.
God created our bodies so amazingly with the ability to fight disease and heal. Don’t expect a man-made drug to be able to do the same thing. Something God-made and something man-made never compare (think about our food!!).
Chickenpox is a great example of natural herd immunity – and of what happens when we interrupt that cycle.
Chickenpox is not a deadly disease. I had it as a kid and gave it to my little brother, as many of us probably did. My older brother actually had chickenpox while my mom was in the hospital giving birth to me!! Yes, it’s annoying to itch for a few days. But who cares. There is no serious need for a vaccine for an annoying sickness.
It’s actually good to exercise your immune system with illnesses that aren’t serious. The chickenpox vaccine was pushed because of convenience. Parents didn’t want to stay home from work for a week with a sick child.
But now we face the consequences of that convenience. Now that most kids are NOT getting chickenpox, there are many more cases of shingles in adults – a much more serious illness. And those of us who had chicken pox as a child are losing our natural immunity since we are not re-exposed to the illness by our own children.
You guessed it – we are now more susceptible to shingles.
“If you have had chickenpox previously, you have developed immunity to the virus that causes shingles. However, this immunity declines over time. But, if you are later exposed to a child or adult with chickenpox, your immunity to the virus is “boosted”. This boost may help to reduce your risk of developing shingles.” (source)
“The best explanation for the increase is that we used to get a subclinical boost when we were exposed to the chickenpox virus as adults,” said William Schaffner, MD, a pediatrician and vaccine expert at Vanderbilt University. “Because of widespread immunization, that’s not happening.” That WebMD article admits that this is also just a theory though and may not hold true.
That does not sound like a good trade-off to me at all. There was nothing wrong with kids getting chickenpox, and it helped adults keep immunity from shingles. The chickenpox vaccine has disrupted a system that was working, one in which, ironically, the children were protecting the adults by their small suffering with an illness. I personally would love to be around a kid with chickenpox to keep my natural immunity!!
This is also a theory of course, and it is shifting as well. Science Daily reports in 2015 that the age group put more at risk for shingles because of chickenpox vaccination is younger than previously thought, 31-40 years old. This 2006 research in the Postgraduate Medical Journal states, “Having a child in the household reduced the risk of shingles for about 20 years,” but by 2015 it was thought that the reduced risk was only for about 2 years.
The CDC explores the theory as well but claim that the data do not show correlation. Scientists cannot yet explain the marked increase in shingles that began in the mid-1990s.
So we may or may not be skipping the benign illness to be exposed to something more serious, but in a similar twist, vaccines may cause worse strains of diseases to arise.
“Since the adoption of mass and ring vaccination, complexities and challenges to herd immunity have arisen. Modelling of the spread of infectious disease originally made a number of assumptions, namely that entire populations are susceptible and well-mixed, which do not exist in reality, so more precise equations have been developed. In recent decades, it has been recognized that the dominant strain of a microorganism in circulation may change due to herd immunity, either because of herd immunity acting as an evolutionary pressure or because herd immunity against one strain allowed another already-existing strain to spread.”[source]
Final Thoughts on Vaccines
It’s worth noting that the people that are usually worried about the spread of disease are the ones that are vaccinated. If one believes strongly in the efficacy of vaccines shouldn’t he or she have nothing to worry about?
Also, I’m not sure how this lie got started, but unvaccinated children do NOT carry diseases (there was a recent Harvard study done to prove that they pose no risk).
Case in point: If you are a parent, when your child was born, were you scared to go near them for fear of catching a deadly disease? Of course not! We are not born with diseases. An unvaccinated person does not carry disease, and they are not somehow harmful to others. They can catch an illness just like anyone else, even someone who is vaccinated. That’s just plain common sense.
For those that are curious, I have three children of my own (and one on the way!). Two of my kids have had vaccines. One of my kids is in the group of people that cannot get vaccines. Her doctor has deemed it unsafe.
She DOES need the theoretical herd to keep her safe! But I am not trusting my child’s health to an unproven theory. I am proactive about keeping her (and all of my kids) healthy through real food and a natural lifestyle. To me, that is far more effective.
As I mentioned before, this post is about efficacy, not safety. Vaccine safety is something everyone should research (and research and research) and come to their own conclusion about and do what is best for his or her own family. I can’t stress this enough. Please do your own research. Parents need to have the knowledge to make informed decisions.
Let’s keep our kids safe by advocating for safe vaccines (without heavy metal adjuvants and preservatives that are used to make the vaccines cheaper. Here is a list of ingredients in case you’ve never seen one), true information about the benefits and risks and maintaining our right to choose.
And let’s not perpetuate the lie that by vaccinating more children, we are doing what’s good for the majority. It’s just not true.
Do what is right for you and your family. If you decide not to vaccinate, your child will not automatically be carrying disease or be dangerous to those around them.
Want to dig deeper into the vaccine issues? This wonderful docu-series is airing right now!
Joke says
Just read the following article and was reminded of the discussion here. Outbreaks do happen when herd immunity is compromised and the weakest in society are the most affected: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/fatal-inaction-how-measles-made-a-comeback-11-30-2017
Amanda says
As tragic as this is, it’s not fair to compare healthcare in Romania to healthcare in the US. Romania doesn’t have first world healthcare. Also, measles is typically treatable with vitamin A. Google the Humphries protocol for more info.
Gina says
I applaud you for opening up the eyes of others. Vaccines should not be mandatory!
Amanda says
Did you know that type 1 diabetes is a possible side effect of the mmr vaccine? Or that you’re supposed to be quarantined from immune compromised individuals for 2 weeks after receiving the mmr?
I encourage everyone to research vaccines fully before giving them to your kids or loved ones, or getting them yourself. Google the name of the vaccine and the word “insert” and you will find a pdf that comes straight from the manufacturer. Read up on the ingredients. If you don’t know what something is, research it. For example, MRC-5 is fetal lung cells. Read the possible side effects.
People spend more time researching car seats, vacation homes, and celebrities than they do researching something that is injected into the body.
The very fact that you can’t sue a vaccine manufacturer if something does go wrong, should make everyone stop and think. Research needs to go beyond the CDC website or your pediatrician. Did you know that th y get bonuses for vaccinating patients? Do your own research. Asking your doctor and looking at CDC data and calling that “research” is like checking Ford’s website for car info before buying, but never actually checking reviews or consumer ratings and independent reports.
Lav says
Thank you !!! Mary and Kate
Thank you being brace and letting people know the truth about vaccines. People need to do research and not just believe everything the media says. Vaccines have done a lot of damage..
My first son had his first set of shots, he had a bad local reaction. The doctor would not listen to my concerns. I did research at the time (26years ago) and decided not to ever give him more vaccines. I did not give any vaccines to my other 5 children either. They are the most healthiest kids/adults I know. All their friends who were vaccinated got sick often, got some of the diseases that they were vaccinated against and have allergys or autism. There is a good book about how most diseases were gone or almost gone BEFORE vaccines even came out. Book is “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History” by Suzanne Humphries MD (Author), Roman Bystrianyk (Author)..
btw the person who said that vacs eradicated small poxs must have not done her homework. Look it up truth.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
Thank you for sharing truth, Lav. My prayer is that more and more people seek out truth about vaccines so they can make informed decisions and not be pressured into medical procedures.
Valerie says
My kids are vaccinated and are also very healthy. Go figure?!
I also know of two large families who have not vaccinated and out of six kids each, three have autism. So by this I conclude that vaccines protect me from autism.
Eileen says
Valerie…..That was a terribly cruel comment. Shame on you.
Becca @ The Earthling's Handbook says
I also have a background in science, mostly psychology and criminology, but I recently worked in medical research studying common childhood infections. There may be some doubt about the herd immunity theory, but there are too many leaps of logic in your argument, and you certainly aren’t proving that it’s false but only raising some doubts.
Your “three critical factors that must be true in order for the Herd Immunity Theory to work” would only need to be true for it to be 100% effective. It’s like arguing that because some children die while riding in carseats, carseats don’t “work.” Herd immunity can ***decrease*** unvaccinated people’s exposure to diseases even though it does not provide perfect protection.
The non-permanence of vaccines is the reason many vaccines require multiple doses, a well-known policy that many people comply pretty well with–but you don’t even mention it.
Your argument about person-to-person transmission would only make sense if the germs in water, on surfaces, etc. got there by themselves. But they get there mostly from people. Indirect transmission is still usually transmission from another person, just with something else in between. Just because diseases also can be carried by animals (some of whom also can be vaccinated, by the way) and soil bacteria doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to decrease person-to-person transmission.
If herd immunity is a total lie, how do you explain our freedom from smallpox?
Perhaps the real problem here is that the phrase “herd immunity” sounds like it means it makes everyone immune, like 100% protected. Maybe the theory needs to be called by a different name so that we all can understand that it is a way of decreasing the spread of disease and that “making it less but not zero” doesn’t mean “not working at all.”
Katie Kimball @ Kitchen Stewardship says
Hi Becca,
Thanks for chiming in. We’re happy to just raise some doubts, open up conversation, and get people thinking and talking. We’re learning a lot too! Katie
Valerie says
Thank you! Finally a sensible viewpoint. A while back I had a blood test to see what my immunity was like and my measles immunity had lapsed. I had the vaccine and I’m fine again. Almost every adult I know has had their whooping cough booster. Maybe, just maybe, the adults need to ask for these things?! It’s not difficult.
I, too, found this a ‘Dr Mercola- style fear-mongering article. And it certainly is anti-vax. This ‘do your own research business – having an Internet connection does not a scientist make. You can find anything to support a viewpoint on Dr Google.
Bonnie says
On another note, I took offense to the offhand comments:
– There is no serious need for a vaccine for an annoying sickness.
– The chickenpox vaccine was pushed because of convenience. Parents didn’t want to stay home from work for a week with a sick child.
Is it just an annoying sickness? No one has died from it? There have been no complications found with kids with asthma or other respiratory issues? You may have had a mild case but is yours the case for every child?
And the comment about the parents not wanting to stay home for a week with a sick child as the driving force to create the chicken pox vaccine leaves me dumbfounded. How can you state this so casually like it’s a fact? There are probably many parents that can’t stay home for a week with their sick child but I’d be astounded if that were truly the drive for the creation of this vaccine. That is a really demeaning comment to parents who truly can’t afford to take a week off work and they shouldn’t feel guilty if they do decide to get the vaccine with that in mind. The way you have it worded sounds like you think those parents are too lazy to care for their sick kids.
Katie Kimball @ Kitchen Stewardship says
Bonnie,
Point taken. There are many reasons for the vaccine, and it would have been gentler to say that chickenpox, in severity, is a far cry from measles or polio — and if it really does increase the incidence of shingles, it doesn’t seem like a balanced trade-off. We can leave parents work schedules out of it. Sound fair? We definitely don’t want to make parents who choose vaccines feel guilty (both Mary and I have vaccinated some of our children). We just want to help people unravel information, and in the process likely getting more muddy with too much gray area. And we do want to support freedom of medical choice. But we can do that without hurting others’ feelings, so thank you for your comments.
Katie
Amanda says
I can’t speak as to the author’s intent regarding chickenpox comments. But when you research the history of the vaccine development for this one, you’ll find that it was indeed due largely to convenience. It was pushed and backed by corporations who didn’t want parents taking time off for chickenpox. Also, not to say that there are zero complications with the chickenpox virus, but when you look at data, you have to look at US only data. The CDC sometimes posts worldwide data, and kids who don’t have access to clean water or healthy food will have very different disease outcomes. I had a convo with my old pediatrician years ago when trying to decide whether or not to vaccinate for chickenpox. He told me that the kids who die from the disease have underlying or complicating conditions. So each parent had to make the choice for their own children.
Michelli says
Tremendous. Courageous. Glad to see the myths boldly being busted.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
Thank you, Michelli!
Amanda says
While we live in a republic, do t we have the the right to life, liberty…don’t we have the right to bodily integrity? Also, aren’t forced medical procedures against the Nuremberg code? I digress.
I’d heard this info on the fallacy of herd immunity, but had never seen it explained in this way. So thank you for writing and sharing.
As to what someone said the “Christian response” should be (comment or above), I’d tou research the ingredients in vaccines, you will find that the vaccine industry could not exist without the abortion industry. And the deeper you go down that rabbit hole, the sicker it gets. So as a Christian, I cannot support the current vaccination system. As for “safe” vaccines well, I’d love for us to have them, but I think that’s about as likely as wishing for a unicorn. There will always be risk when injecting something into your body.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
Yes, Amanda!!! 100% against the Nuremburg code!! Yet people still think it’s ok. By “doing what’s good for the group” many don’t realize we are slowly losing our freedoms.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of talking about vaccines. I am stressed daily by my knowledge after going down that rabbit hole 😛 It’s a scary place.
I hope more and more people will continue to research and learn more about how vaccines are made, how they can impact our bodies and how they are produced and marketed.
Bonnie says
I feel like you probably had some good points but for me they were overshadowed by your erroneous “in simpler terms” at the beginning of the article and not enough description as to how you came to your three factors necessary to validate the theory.
In the theory definition you gave from vaccines.gov, they say “most members … are protected” and “there is little opportunity for an outbreak”. This does not translate to “the disease can no longer spread.”
I find it frustrating to read some of these articles that profess to be not advocating against vaccines and are just “trying to open up the conversation.” They like to criticize scientific data and research, and while a lot of points are valid, they don’t come out with anything that I can fully stand behind either. I feel they think if they can shout loudly against something then we won’t notice that what they are bringing to the table doesn’t really add up either.
I read an article a while ago about how a vaccine caused complications with a young girl. The article stated she was “perfectly healthy” before the vaccine and then everything went terribly wrong afterwards. The article was quick to rant and rave at the unsafe vaccines but didn’t come forward with how they knew the girl was “perfectly healthy” before hand. Were extensive tests done before the vaccines to make sure there was nothing that could have adversely reacted to something in the vaccine? Was there something in her genetic makeup that would have caused her to have these symptoms anyway and they just coincidentally came about after the vaccine? I find it difficult to comprehend how they can bash everyone else’s data and yet use words like “perfectly” and “healthy” without proof of it. To me, I found no correlation between the vaccines and her newfound illness because the article couldn’t prove the “perfectly healthy” part.
I’m not saying this article was as bad but I still get a sour taste in my mouth when I see unsupported and poorly explained “tests” to disprove other data. Makes me feel like the whole article should be discredited.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
I think many people are skeptical of an author’s intent, Bonnie. I can assure you my intent is to make people think for themselves and do their own research. Don’t like my points or my research? Great!! Please, please do your own. That is what I love to hear.
I have been researching on my own for many years after having a child almost killed by vaccines. My goal is not to persuade anyone one way or the other. But to make people think that maybe everything they’ve been told isn’t quite true so they will keep reading and researching. And to make sure our freedoms are maintained. That is my passion. Whether or not someone chooses to vaccinate is not a concern of mine. I want freedoms and knowledge.
Joke says
Quite sad to see a clickbait style article title on this website.
Also sad to see the word dictatorship used very lightly. Really, this is a first world problem and not to be compared to the sufferings of jailed human rights defenders, journalists etc under actual dictatorial regimes.
Off topic: your introduction about freedom of choice made me wonder whether the vaccine questioners and those pro-choice in the abortion and marriage debates (as per the comment before) have something in common they didn’t realize.
Finally, I believe the article I am linking to had better arguments than this one. https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/04/20/the-simple-math-of-herd-immunity/
Chess says
Thank you! I also found this article incredibly disheartening, especially given the otherwise valuable content usually featured on this blog.
“First world problem” indeed, Re warning that we are on a slippery slope towards a dictatorship. I almost stopped reading after that sensationist line.
First, dismissing something because it’s “just a theory” is ludicrous and irresponsible.
Next, and as already pointed out, who says vaccinations need to be 100% effective and last forever to be beneficial? We have laws against robbing banks and over 90% that do happen are solved, but there are literally thousands of bank robberies every year. Should we not have laws against them because they are not 100% effective?
Katie Kimball @ Kitchen Stewardship says
Chess,
You’re making some very good points – although we’re not dismissing the theory, just saying it shouldn’t be the basis of mandatory vaccinations for all. And I see your bank analogy…I think it only works with this if the laws against banks potentially harm others, like saying that everyone who enters a bank needs to have a chemical inserted in them so that if they rob the bank, they can be tracked, or something. Mandatory vaccination laws could affect people’s health. It’s a very, very tricky balance – everything is a gray area when it comes to this issue IMO.
I do thank you for following KS and finding all the valuable content here — Best, Katie
Beth says
Katie,
Thank you for clarifying your intent, when I first read this it sounded much more anti-vaccine than you claim it was intended to be.
I want to point out why “the theory isn’t perfect, so let’s not act on it” raises a lot of hackles:
1. Puts you in bad company. Both cigarette manufacturers and the corn syrup lobby have argued “we don’t fully understand how our action hurts people, so you can’t regulate it yet”
2. Ignores how science and human culture work. In science, nothing is ever “done”, we are always finding new wrinkles and refining our understanding of what is really true. To wait until a theory is done, is to wait until forever.
3 To discuss the risks and benefits of vaccines requires calculating relative risks for rare events of suffering severities; something humans as a species are really bad at. I can show you numbers that flying is safer than driving, but more people are afraid of flying.
Mary,
I am so sorry that one of your children had a reaction to a vaccine. The number of people who that happens to is small, but that doesn’t change your suffering. Hopefully as we learn more about the genome and how the immune system works we will get better at predicting and preventing those reactions.
The good news is even in the most restrictive mandatory vaccination programs, people with a medical reason not to be vaccinated would have an exemption.
Thank you for listening to my viewpoint, and now I’ll sign off and stop trying to change people’s minds on the internet.
Katie Kimball @ Kitchen Stewardship says
Hi Joke,
I do think that article on thoughtscapism was very well done, agreed. Mary’s point, which may have gotten a bit lost, was simply that since we don’t fully understand herd immunity, it should not be used as a basis for *mandatory* vaccination. My child should not be forced into a medical procedure to protect someone else’s child.
I see your thinking on all “pro-choice” people being put together, but I would respectfully disagree. Pro-abortion means to be able to do something incontestably harmful to another human being, while being pro-medical choice means to have the freedom to NOT do something that may harm or may help another human being. At least, that’s how I see it, but I’m open to discussion.
Thanks for chiming in, although to call a well-researched if emotionally charged article “clickbait” is a low blow.
Katie
Joke says
Dear Katie,
Thank you for your reaction.
You are right that the point may have been gotten a bit lost. You call Mary’s article well researched, but I think the problem is the parts that are researched get lost between the sensationalist statements about dictatorship or vague statements like “If you really think about it, our vaccination rate is probably more like 40%”. It’s really hard to take arguments seriously when they are interspersed with these other types of statements.
And I didn’t say the article is clickbait, I said its title is. It gives a certain expectation of the article, and not exactly that I will read a well-researched one. Maybe “Why I question / do not believe in the Herd Immunity Theory” or “Arguments against the Herd Immunity Theory” might have been more adequate than the emotionally loaded word “lie”, which implies purposeful deceit (and feeds in with the dictatorship narrative maybe).
I do agree that the philosophical question about the forced medical procedure is a very good point. In the country I live vaccination is not mandatory but highly recommended. The schedule also clearly shows that adults need to come back for booster doses.
Thank you for your reaction regarding abortion. There is no question that abortion is always a loss. But trying to use similar words to yours, I believe those pro-abortion want to give a human being the freedom not to be (further) harmed physically and / or psychologically, and not to harm the wellbeing of a human being to be (risk of precarious living situation, of not being able to stay with the mother etc).
I personally am a proponent of prevention and support measures that avoid the need for abortion, but believe the option should be there, with appropriate safeguards in place, as a last resort for protecting the women concerned and their families. As a mother I can imagine that experiencing a pregnancy and birth without hopeful expectations for your child can be torture.
Kathleen Frasetto says
Mary – I appreciate all the time you took to put together this post. Great info! I have also researched vaccination very thoroughly myself as one of my children was vaccine injured, which made me really educate myself. I TRULY wish I knew then what I know now. You did a great job presenting all of this information. I agree with others that say vaccination should be an individual’s (or parent’s) choice. We need to get educated and ask questions. There is risk involved and therefore, it should be our right to decide what we put into our bodies (and our children’s bodies). Katie – Thank you for sharing this post.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
I’m so sorry to hear that, Kathleen. I can totally sympathize with you. I too trusted vaccines until one of my children was injured by them. I too wish I had known before what I know now. I wouldn’t have to be jumping for joy that my 3 year old finally reached 27 lbs. She would instead be thriving like the plump, healthy child she started as.
We MUST keep our freedom to choose. And we MUST fight for the safety and health of our children.
Kathleen Frasetto says
I couldn’t agree more. We MUST keep our freedom and we MUST fight for the safety and health of all children. Much love to you and your family!!
Cindy says
So many YESes to this article. Please be brave enough to share, pin and email others. We’re losing our medical freedom in this country.
Christie says
This was a great angle to take, Mary. I agree completely with your views on this and after deciding to default to zero (new) vaccines for my family (with an open but extremely skeptical mind about any given thing that might come up), I think standing my ground while many would like to impose notions of guilt and “selfishness” on me is an important thing in itself. It’s such a weak argument (get vaccinated to protect others), but so many act like it is gospel truth. Amen and hallelujah to the comments about chicken pox. I really wonder if we had just left chicken pox alone if it might have begun to disappear from the population in another generation or two. That’s what happened with others, like measles (although the vaccine pushers would like to argue that vaccination was what made it go away; the graphs demonstrate that while this is possible at best, there’s no good evidence to that effect).
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
Thank you, Christie! So many “what-ifs” in regards to vaccines and what they have done. It’s scary sometimes. All we can do is educate and make better decisions moving forward. Don’t let anyone try to push you into anything.
Beth says
It is true that not everyone develops immunity from the shots, and that in some people, for some diseases, immunity fades with time. It is also true that while chicken pox is usually not serious if you catch it between about 4 and 12, adults and infants can have more serious cases.
Many of the points in this article felt like exaggerations of the current scientific understanding. Yes it is the theory of herd immunity, and it is also the theory of gravity. In scientific circles, theories have a lot of supporting evidence before they are accepted; ideas with less support are hypothesises or conjectures. Similarly, we may not know the exact value for vaccination required to limit outbreaks, but if we know that we can’t get it to 100% (because of people who can’t be vaccinated) shouldn’t we try and get it as high as possible?
As moms and as Christians we are to care for others. If a temporary discomfort helps save someone’s life, it’s worth it to me.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
If you want exaggerations, Beth, just look at how the media and drug companies talk about vaccines. Their goal is to incite fear without actual facts.
As a Christian that is pro-life I don’t feel comfortable injecting something into my kids that came from aborted fetal cells.
Also, if a temporary discomfort was the only consequence I’d agree with you. But that is assuming there are no other consequences from vaccines. Which is just not true. I can say that with 100% confidence having a child that was almost killed by vaccines. Two years of crying every day, watching her convulse in my arms and wondering if she would make it…that isn’t just a temporary discomfort. And I know I’m one of the lucky ones. So many parents have to watch their child suffer so much more than I have because of vaccines.
Becca @ The Earthling's Handbook says
As a Christian who thinks the abortion issue is not at all simple, I think that when the death of an embryo leads to saving the lives of other people, at least some good has come out of the sad situation that led to that embryo being conceived by parents who couldn’t raise a child. It is better than if that brief and tiny life’s only impact on the world was to cause trouble and stress. I don’t believe that there is some vast and evil market for fetal tissue motivating women to conceive and abort on purpose. It’s more like repurposing medical waste, and while I agree that it’s normal and healthy for us to feel creeped out by that idea, it is possible to take that revulsion too far. If you believe that abortion is a sin, that doesn’t mean that the innocent unborn child who was killed is so tainted with sin that it will harm your child. (Bloodborne illnesses in the fetal tissue are a more realistic worry. Of course, they test for those.)
Katie Kimball @ Kitchen Stewardship says
Becca,
I think some of the concern with human tissue of any kind being used in vaccines is the ramifications of injecting tissue from one human into another. I understand that vaccines aren’t creating some sort of twisted market for aborted tissue, and certainly the unborn child has no sin, so it’s not that when Christians object to vaccines using aborted fetal tissue. It’s a principle, like if someone had stolen something and the victim was already dead, I still might feel uncomfortable benefiting from the thing that was stolen.
Katie
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
Very well said, Katie. I also read this from Right to Life of Michigan: “There are two particular fetal cell lines that have been heavily used in vaccine development. They are named according to the laboratory facilities where they were developed. One cell line is known as WI-38, developed at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA. The other is MRC-5, developed for the Medical Research Council in England. WI-38 was developed by Dr. Leonard Hayflick in 1962, by taking lung cells from an aborted female baby at approximately the end of the third month of pregnancy. Dr. Hayflick’s article published in the journal Experimental Cell Research states that three cell lines, WI-26, WI-38, WI-44 were all developed from aborted babies. “All embryos were obtained from surgical abortions and were of approximately three months’ gestation.”(1) Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who developed a Rubella vaccine using WI-38, addressed a question at an international conference as to the origin of WI-38. Dr. Plotkin stated:
“This fetus was chosen by Dr. Sven Gard, specifically for this purpose. Both parents are known, and unfortunately for the story, they are married to each other, still alive and well, and living in Stockholm, presumably. The abortion was done because they felt they had too many children. There were no familial diseases in the history of either parent, and no history of cancer specifically in the families.”(2)
The origin of the MCR-5 cell line, created in 1966, is documented in the journal Nature by three British researchers working at the National Institute for Medical Research. They wrote, “We have developed another strain of cells, also derived from foetal lung tissue, taken from a 14-week male foetus removed for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old woman with a genetically normal family history and no sign of neoplastic disease both at abortion and for at least three years afterward.”(3) Noting that their research parallels that of Dr. Hayflick’s development of the WI-38 cell line, the researchers conclude, “Our studies indicate that by presently accepted criteria, MRC-5 cells—in common with WI-38 cells of similar origin—have normal characteristics and so could be used for the same purposes as WI-38 cells.”(4)
In both of these cell lines it is quite clear that the aborted children were presumed to be healthy, and that there was no life-threatening condition or other medically-indicated reason for the abortion of these two babies.
There is a more recent cell line, PER C6, developed in 1985, which is being used currently in research to develop vaccines to treat Ebola and HIV. The origin of PER C6 is clearly documented. In direct testimony before the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Dr. Alex Van Der Eb, the scientist who developed PER C6, stated:
“So I isolated retina [cells] from a fetus, from a healthy fetus as far as could be seen, of 18 weeks old. There was nothing special in the family history, or the pregnancy was completely normal up to the 18 weeks, and it turned out to be a socially indicated abortus, abortus provocatus, and that was simply because the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus.”(5)
Currently several vaccines using the PER C6 cell line are in development. Undoubtedly the cells used to establish PER C6 came from a healthy baby, aborted from a healthy mother for social convenience reasons. While many of the common childhood vaccines used today were developed using the WI-38 and MRC-5 fetal cell lines, there are some vaccines available that were developed using animal cell lines.”
That just doesn’t sit well with me. When there was no need to abort these healthy children. I am 19 weeks pregnant. And to hear of a baby aborted at 18 weeks…it makes me sick to my stomach.
Becca @ The Earthling's Handbook says
Thanks for sharing that detailed information, Mary. From my perspective, it is good to know that fetal tissue used in vaccines did not come from an unhealthy fetus that could have caused a risk to the health of people receiving the vaccine. If I understand correctly, the reason they get this tissue from abortions rather than from pregnancies that die spontaneously is that the reason for a miscarriage is often unknown so it could be an abnormality that would be harmful.
When I was pregnant I too found it upsetting to think about other women at the same stage choosing to end that tiny life within their own bodies. It is sad to think of it being discarded and wasted. That’s the reason why I feel it is better for that tissue to be used to improve other lives, than for it to be just thrown away.
Have you read the story of Henrietta Lacks? Her cells were taken without her or her family’s consent, and they have benefited millions. It was wrong for the doctors to do it that way, and her descendants (who can’t afford medical care) should be compensated. But it’s great that her tumor cells, which she wouldn’t have needed or wanted even if she’d survived, have helped humankind. I don’t think we should reject treatments developed with HeLa cells because they were collected unethically 66 years ago, do you? But we should have informed consent policies that prevent people’s tissues or their children’s tissues from being used without their knowledge–and because of that case and others, we do have those laws; in most states, fetal tissue research requires the mother’s consent.
Amanda says
Yes. There’s also a new cell line that comes from China called Walvax. The infant used was delivered alive so that cells could be harvested prior to cell death. When I think about that, it’s beyond horrific. And I also have to wonder, given that this is from China, if the abortion was even consented to. I don’t think we can say, “we’ll at least some good came from this procedure.” I think God wants more from us. I say that to myself as much as anyone else, because coming to terms with this was a process for me as well.
Christie Phillips says
Beth, I do agree with you that the scientific concept of “theory’ does, indeed, imply a pretty strong confidence in its validity. (I’m not a scientist but that is what I have understood from other reading). However, as we’re discussing something more specific, I think this theory (herd immunity vis-a-vis vaccines) is very misguided. If you look at the history/evolution of the concept of vaccines, the notion that they might wear off is a far cry from how they were originally marketed to the public (probably accompanied by a lot of well-meaning wishful thinking, also). Each new vaccine was supposed to not only give life-long immunity to individuals, but eradicate each disease so that the vaccine itself would also become obsolete. The past several decades (and 1.5 centuries, really) have made it ever-so-clear that neither of these things is anywhere close to what happens. For a really well-documented history of vaccines (like, 50% of the text is direct source quotations), I recommend Suzanne Humphrey’s “Dissolving Illusions.” I got it from my local library.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
Very true, Christie. I think the original intent of vaccines was very good. But it has gotten way out of control recently. And not in the best interest of our children.
Katie Kimball @ Kitchen Stewardship says
Hi Beth,
I wanted to address your question, because it’s one of the most heart-wrenching parts for me about vaccines:
“As moms and as Christians we are to care for others. If a temporary discomfort helps save someone’s life, it’s worth it to me.”
What you say is exactly true. And in fact, as a Catholic, I see much value in suffering and sacrifice. But…I can’t bring myself to potentially bring MORE than temporary discomfort to my kids for the small chance that it will actually protect others. 🙁 It’s a terrible game of numbers and theories and vaccines that don’t have entire lifetimes of studies done on them. If I believed that herd immunity was true, then I might be compelled as a Christian to vaccinate for the good of others. I’m just not there yet…but it pulls me in all directions trying to weigh the benefits, risks, call to stewardship of the entire community, call to stewardship of my own children’s health. Ugh. It’s literally my least favorite subject/decision in the world.
I am rambling, but ultimately I want to thank you for commenting and for pointing out how very grey this topic is. What Mary calls not serious (chickenpox), you rightly point out how it can be; what you call temporary discomfort, Mary knows to be far from it. Bottom line is that we don’t know what we don’t know, and we have to keep asking questions, thinking consciously, and looking for answers in places beyond government and pharmaceutical companies.
Thanks again for chiming in, Katie
M. says
Thank you, Katie, for posting this fine article. Thank you, Mary, for the facts and details in this fine article. Thank you Lori (comment above). There is a lot to think about here. Now, if only people would, indeed THINK! God bless.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
Glad you enjoyed it! Yes, that is the goal – for people to think!
Kathy Gardner says
Thank you so much for this thoughtful commentary. As a grandmother of 5 and a retired nurse, I have found myself at odds with my daughter the pharmacist on herd immunity.
I have followed available research and am not anti vaccine. I am too for further research on SAFE vaccines.
I am appalled by the influence of the pharmaceutical industry to force these vaccines to market without the quality research of their safety.
I have seen the damage done to babies and children because they don’t pay taxes and vote. They are so vulnerable to ways of the adults who speak for the herd
No recourse for families who have injured children. (Pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued for adverse effects)
Please keep an honest discussions coming without vilifying those with different opinions.
Here is to raising healthy happy children through good nutrition and lifestyle practices.
Lori Smith says
I appreciate this article and will go back and reread it and share with family.
However, I would like to clear up a misconception the author and most of America has- we do NOT live in a democracy! In a true democracy all law is based on the will of the people, but this is not the case in our country as our laws are based on Constitutional Law- which means we are a Republic- just as it says in our Pledge of Allegiance (“….and to the republic, for which it stands….”).
Because we do NOT live in a true democracy is why many voted on issues are knocked down by the Supreme Court (such as marriage laws in many states which were overturned). If we live in a true democracy then whatever the people would vote in would stand, but every law that is brought before the SCOTUS is looked at through the lens of the Constitution and based on how these 9 people interpret law is how they come up with whether a law stands or not based supposedly on the constitution (many laws have not been upheld based on faulty thinking- but it stands because of we rely on SCOTUS to interpret law for us (but they are not allowed to make law as that is up to Congress).
In 1926 the meanings of a democracy and a republic were changed in encyclopedias and the lies about the kind of government we have began to be dismantled and mis-taught in our high schools and colleges. If you tell a lie long enough then people will believe it.
One can find the truth by reading the writings of our founding fathers and our official documents, Pledge and how things are run. When people know the truth they cannot be lied to and they can demand truth. But with the media, our own government officials and our schools teaching lies- people believe the lies.
A true democracy always ends up in mobacracy and eventually a dictatorship. Please, please educate yourselves.
Kathleen Frasetto says
So so true Lori. I have been educating myself more and more. Everything you said is spot on!
Tracy says
Absolutely! We are not a democracy. This just irks me beyond belief. We are a Republic. People can’t seem to quite understand that. If you notice on the news just about every country seems to be a democracy. Except we are a country that is truly freer any nation on earth. Say it with me , REPUBLIC. Since the author misconstrued this fallacy , I see a lot of other anti vax propaganda in this article as well.
Mary Voogt (Contributing Writer) says
I guess it just depends on what definition you use, Lori.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.7e1066239269