Vaccine Technocracy By Mrs Vera West
Criticisms of the vaccination industry were once populous on the web, but censorship and law suits, and mandatory vaccinations, often at gun point, have mowed down the ranks of the champions of freedom. But, has Big Pharma actually won?
“The latest measles outbreak that’s gripped communities across the country in recent months pushed the topic of vaccinations (and those who choose to forgo them) right back onto centerstage for many Americans. Now a new survey delving into feelings over immunizations finds the country may be more split on the issue than believed, with 45% of adults admitting to harboring some doubt about the safety of vaccines. That said, the vast majority — more than eight in 10 surveyed — still view vaccines as effective and continue to support them, despite their concerns. The survey, funded by the American Osteopathic Association, questioned 2,000 adults and asked doubters the source of their suspicions of the science-supported, long-established safety and importance of vaccinations. Of the nearly half who listed at least one source of doubt over vaccine safety, researchers found the most common sources came from online articles (16%), distrust of the pharmaceutical industry (16%), and information from medical experts (12%). According to lead researcher Rachel Shmuts, a perinatal psychiatrist, widespread negative attitudes towards vaccines has become a phenomenon caused by human psychology and amplified by social media. “From an evolutionary perspective, humans are primed to pay attention to threats or negative information,” Dr. Shmuts explains in a media release. “So it makes sense that people hold onto fears that vaccines are harmful, especially when they believe their children are in danger.”
Another factor in this phenomenon is that, since vaccines have effectively banished many once-common and deadly diseases, people fear possible side effects from the vaccines more than the diseases themselves.
“For some, it really might be that vaccines are viewed as the more salient threat,” says Shmuts. Despite these concerns, 82% of respondents were still generally in favor of vaccines, while 8% showed serious doubts, and 9% said they were unsure. Many people are uninformed about vaccines. The state of Michigan, for example, ended public education for vaccines in the mid-2000s. This, combined with legislation that allows for vaccine exemptions for religious and philosophical beliefs, led to Michigan being ranked 44th in the country in the number of vaccinated children between the ages of 19 and 35 months in 2015. In 2017, the state launched a new education program about vaccines, and immunization rates increased across all demographics. Doctors warn that people with doubt only breed more people with doubt, and that can be dangerous when certain diseases require up to 95% of the population to be vaccinated in order to eliminate the threat of those diseases.”
Requiring 95 percent of the population to make something work clearly shows that it does not work, at least as it should. If vaccines give me immunity, what possible difference does it make if even the rest of the world was not vaccinated? Herd immunity? Yes, no doubt there is a level of protection in the population which makes it difficult for a disease to spread, but that does not alter the argument, because if the individual is immune, he/she is immune, so those that choose to be unvaccinated, by their logic are only putting themselves at risk. And, adults at least, should have the right to do this without having guns waved in their faces.
“If you only risked your own health by not getting vaccinated, that would be your business,” mass vaccination advocates state. “But when your failure to get vaccinated endangers me or my child, that becomes my business.” It’s a powerful argument, except for one thing — herd immunity in vaccinated populations has been repeatedly disproven. In November 1966, in announcing a mass vaccination program for measles that would exceed the 55% level reached in Baltimore, the U.S. Public Health Service confidently announced that “Effective use of these vaccines during the coming winter and spring should insure the eradication of measles from the United States in 1967.” When measles failed to be eradicated, public health experts decided that a 70% or 75% vaccination rate would secure herd immunity. When that proved wrong, the magic number rose to 80%, 83%, 85%, and then it became 90%, according to a 2001 Health Services Research report. Later health experts commonly cited 95%. But that too was insufficient — measles outbreaks occur even when the vaccinated population exceeds 95%, leading some to say a 98% or 99% vaccination rate is needed to protect the remaining 1% or 2% of the herd. But even that may fall short, since outbreaks occur in fully vaccinated populations. “The target would be to have 100% of the population vaccinated,” Dr. Gregory Taylor of the Public Health Agency of Canada recently told CBC, voicing an increasingly common perspective among public health professionals. At that point, the balance of the herd that would be protected through mass vaccination would be precisely 0.
But even vaccinating 100% of the population wouldn’t be enough, say scientists at the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group, because the measles vaccine is a dud with some people, offering no protection at all, and its effectiveness wanes with others, even if they get boosters. According to Tetyana Obukhanych of Stanford University’s School of Medicine, the measles vaccine works as planned with only 25% of the population, leaving the majority of adults who have been vaccinated as children with little or no protection. Up to half of today’s cases involve adults. Unlike childhood measles, adult measles is dangerous: 25% of cases require hospitalization. Measles is especially dangerous when contracted by expectant mothers — studies of hospital outcomes in Los Angeles and Houston found that most suffered serious complications, some died, and their babies often died in the womb. The dangers extend to infants who, as USA Today points out, are too young to be vaccinated. These entirely helpless members of “the herd” depend on antibodies inherited from their mothers. Yet previously vaccinated mothers have few antibodies to pass on, depriving their babies of protection. The only tried-and-true way for mothers to safeguard their infants — those most at risk of death from measles — remains nature’s way: by ensuring that the mother had previously contracted natural measles.
In fact, herd immunity — so elusive today — fully existed prior to the vaccine’s introduction. Virtually 100% of the population then contracted measles, typically as children, giving everyone lifelong immunity — and future mothers the means to protect their offspring. In mass vaccinating us, scientists of the 1960s didn’t realize that infecting us with the measles vaccine — a weak version of the natural measles virus — would give us a weak version of the defenses our bodies develop to the real thing. Ironically, the Public Health Service considered measles generally benign in the pre-vaccine era. “Complications are infrequent and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare…. Immunity following recovery is solid and lifelong in duration,” its chief of epidemiology, Alexander Langmuir, acknowledged in “Epidemiologic basis for eradication of measles in 1967.” Why, then, did he decide to eradicate this generally harmless and beneficial disease? “To those who ask me, ‘Why do you wish to eradicate measles,’ I reply with the same answer that Hilary used when asked why he wished to climb Mt. Everest. He said, ‘Because it is there.’ To this may be added, ‘…and it can be done.’” Herd immunity sounds fine in theory. But as Stanford’s Dr. Obukhanych concluded, “As with any garbage in-garbage out type of theory, the expectations of the herd-immunity theory are bound to fail in the real world.”
They said it, not me, I’m just the message girl.