Featured

The Science Behind Herd Immunity – And an Extension to GMOs?

March 12, 2012 by admin in Vaccines with 21 Comments

 

Cows

This photo (which has been cropped) is by Lynette Coates, whose Flickr Photostream is at http://www.flickr.com/people/42959385@N08/. (Clickable link below*.) Image rights owned by Lynette Coates.

I must admit that the temptation to produce a blank page with only the above title was almost uncontrollable. But I’ve managed—though the simple fact is that there is no science behind the oft’ vaunted claim that everyone is ethically and morally bound to be vaccinated so that all can be protected by herd immunity.

There isn’t one shred of evidence behind it. It’s a fraud shrouded in Big Pharma money, not an established fact. But it sounds so good, doesn’t it? It brings up an image of civic duty. Indeed, herd immunity’s enthusiastic promoters play on the image of the poor grandma or newborn who died of a “preventable” illness. They’re brilliant at tossing around the manure of guilt.

The idea of herd immunity first came about around a hundred years ago in reference to natural immunity resulting from having a disease. The concept says: If X percent of the population is immune to a disorder, then the rest of the population is protected from that disease.

The concept of herd immunity, as taken up by proponents of vaccination, is used to accomplish three things:

  • Promote a sense of guilt in nonvaccinators, convince them of the idea that they may be responsible for others—including the vaccinated!—being infected with disease.
  • Encourage an aggressive response from vaccinators against nonvaccinators by giving the impression that those who don’t vaccinate are to blame for disease.
  • Press for governmental enforcement of vaccinations for everyone, regardless of different viewpoints, philosophical ideas, or individual rights—and regardless of the inherent risks of vaccination.

Inherent Flaws in the Concept

The term herd immunity is tossed about as if it had been proven to work. But it hasn’t. The fact is that herd immunity has never been more than a concept—an idea that sounds good, but has little basis in reality.

The figures tossed around for how many must be vaccinated for herd immunity to take effect have never been established. Now and again, attempts are made to establish a figure using statistics and math. However, no amount of math or statistical manipulation can add up to a valid figure when all that underlies the calculations is assumptions.  The intention of those pressing the idea of herd immunity becomes quite clear as you note that the percentage being quoted has grown larger and larger with time, now often approaching 100%, but with no accompanying explanation.

Vaccines are Not Fully Protective

Vaccinations are not 100% effective. This fact is not in contention. The initial concept of herd immunity was based on the idea that infection by a disease is completely protective against further infection.

Vaccines Wear Off

The fact is that protection provided by vaccinations is limited over time. It wears off, sometimes within 2 years, most likely within 10 years in nearly all cases. It’s becoming more and more acknowledged, and is used as an excuse to give booster shots.

Clearly, these dual facts—vaccines’ ineffectiveness in a significant number of cases and loss of effectiveness in a short time span—mean that the basis of the herd immunity concept comes from a mistaken notion that vaccines are consistently effective. They aren’t.

Even if a vaccination rate of 100% is achieved, and even assuming that the initial protection from a vaccine is perfect, the vast majority of people will have little or no immunity within a fairly short period of time. In fact, most adults, who are not revaccinated every few years, will have very little vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Blaylock uses these facts to demonstrate the complete lack of authenticity behind the herd immunity concept:

That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.(1)

As Dr. Blaylock’s observation clarifies, there is nothing behind that claims of herd immunity beyond the mass belching of overheated gases.

The fact is that herd immunity sounds good, but it has no real meaning. It doesn’t even have a clear definition. It’s a public relations term used to herd people to through the vaccination doors. It’s used to explain why everyone should not only be willing, but be happy, to do their civic duty and take the risks associated with vaccines.

Herd Immunity and GMOs?

It’s may be hard to believe, but the flawed concept of herd immunity is now being used to push genetically modified crops! Many genetically modified crops carry a gene that makes them produce toxins to certain pests. For this article, we’ll leave aside the fact that they’re toxic to humans, too.

A study has been done that claims genetically engineered Bt corn, modified to suppress the corn borer, has resulted in benefits to non-GM producers by reducing their exposure to corn borers. Perhaps. It’s one study only. But let’s assume that it’s true. There’s another aspect to to this story that’s devastating and needs to be addressed in terms of vaccinations, too.

Pests have rapidly developed immunity to Bt corn. That, of course, ultimately makes the pest problem much worse—not only for GM growers, but also for innocent organic farmers.

Of course, the downside is routinely ignored by the cheerleaders of GMOs. The sound of herd immunity sounds so good, it’s now being used to push genetically engineered crops. How long will it be before all farmers are forced to plant GM crops based on the idea that it’s their civic duty?

The Vaccine Connection

The same thing that’s happened in GM food crops through mass planting—the development of more virulent pests—has happened in vaccinations. As has been reported in Gaia Health, recent outbreaks of whooping cough are caused by a new variety of the B. pertussis microbe that is a direct result of the vaccine. Thus, the vaccine is fueling the outbreaks, and they are far more virulent and deadly than the type covered by the vaccine.

Clearly, there’s more to consider in the concept of herd immunity than whether it’s effective. Pushing for more and more vaccinations may fuel new and more virulent diseases.

The concept of herd immunity is trotted out whenever someone who wasn’t vaccinated contracts a disease so that fingers can be pointed at all those people who didn’t do their “civic duty”. Finally, it’s become part of the methodology used to control the masses—to get people to leave their reasoning ability behind, and do what they’re told.

*Photo at top of page by Lynette Coates.

Sources:

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

    Are you kidding? Study after study after study for the past 50 years have shown that herd immunity is real. If you search Google Scholar for vaccine herd immunity you get OVER THIRTEEN THOUSAND articles showing how herd immunity works!

    Just a few examples:

    “These data show that, in addition to direct protection, meningococcal conjugate vaccine contributes to the control of meningococcal infection by indirect protection, by reducing the attack rate in the unvaccinated population by 67%.”
    http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7385/365.1.short

    A review paper from the Journal Nature from 1985 that shows even 27 years ago there was a huge amount of evidence for herd immunity:
    http://compepi.cs.uiowa.edu/uploads/Readings/Anderson85/anderson85.pdf

    “Vaccination of approximately 20–25% of children, 1.5–18 years of age in the intervention communities resulted in an indirect protection of 8–18% against MAARI in adults ≥35 years of age.” [Translation: vaccinating children prevented disease in unvaccinated adults]
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X04007297

    Paper showing herd immunity is important for protecting the elderly:
    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/irt/2011/419216/

    A good overview article of herd immunity:
    http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.short

    “Decreasing hospitalization-rates from RV-GE were observed in children of all age groups, even in those not eligible for vaccination according to their age, suggesting herd immunity induced by universal mass vaccination against RV-GE.”
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11001769

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/CN47TWDJZRFIYBT2AD7ACI5XZA Jo

      All of the flawed “scientific” studies showing herd immunity as a real and positive thing are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Do the math…..

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

        Oh, you’re right. The entire public health system of the entire world has been bought by the pharmaceutical industry. Tens of thousands of people are willfully lying and are so greedy that they put their own research funding ahead of the lives of others. They are basically murderers. This giant conspiracy extends to all levels of public health infrastructure, from the CDC to every single local health department in the country, from all 50 state health departments to private researchers and all State Universities, to every single employee of all of the big international aid agencies (Carter Center, USAID, CARE, Doctors without Borders, etc), across various levels of nonprofits, through every Medical school across the globe, to every hospital and family doctor, to the health agencies of every country. All of the tens of thousands of public health practitioners and tens of thousands of aid workers and politicians and hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses who participate in this conspiracy have managed to hide every shred of evidence while they line their own pocketbooks and knowingly endanger our poor children.

        Do you ever listen to how crazy you sound?

        • HeidiStevenson

          There’s a fine argument – calling someone crazy.

          If you don’t realize how much pharmaceutical money has infiltrated, they you’re wearing blinders.

          It doesn’t require that all of the people involved be part of it, which is precisely what you’re implying. It requires only a few bad actors who can convince most of the rest. And there are plenty who take Big Pharma money and do their bidding.

          But the fact is that there is much lying in the medical literature and medical world. Open your eyes. Even a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine has made clear that there’s little to be trusted in medical journals – and the BMJ has been writing about it recently.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

            And this somehow proves that the entire concept of heard immunity is false? Show me one shred of evidence.

          • HeidiStevenson

            The point is that herd immunity has never been shown to be true. It’s an assumption that’s gained the gloss of truth by being stated over and over again.

            If you have a problem with what’s in the article, then discuss that. So far, you’ve just dished out a bunch of links to studies. That proves absolutely nothing, other than an ability to use a search engine. Plus, you have attacked the writer of a comment with a demeaning and rude comment – and that’s unacceptable..

            No, I haven’t called anyone a liar. Your accusation is out of line.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

            Heidi,
            The fact is that herd immunity has been proven over and over, by independent researchers, and these findings have been peer-reviewed and published in hundreds of journals. I’ve backed up everything I’ve said with hard evidence, and you’ve presented ZERO evidence of any type.

            And yes, you have called people liars. You have stated that researchers are taking money from pharmaceutical companies and then coming up with fake results to and lying about it. You absolutely are calling everyone who has ever published a study on herd immunity a liar. And may I remind you that’s 13,900 studies, most with multiple authors.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

            Heidi, I appreciate your attempt to refute the articles I’ve posted. Let me start by saying that these are just a few random articles I chose – there are literally thousands I could have posted. Even if you were to somehow prove that the articles I posted are irrelevant, false, or have lying authors, it does nothing to disprove the concept of herd immunity.

            The first article is a direct study involving humans. I have no idea why you’re saying it involved animals. This was a study in Great Britain that showed directly how herd immunity works in humans. To quote the authors: “these data provide more robust evidence of herd immunity across the whole population.” This study was published in BMJ, a highly respected journal that you apparently trust because you referenced it above. You have no way to disprove this study, so you tried to claim it was about animals.

            The second article is indeed a review article, meaning that it covers *other* research on the topic. Note that they cite many direct studies that show herd immunity in humans (see especially references 23-26, 67, and 75). This was published in the Journal Nature, one of the most highly respected Journals, and shows that even back in 1985 there was ample evidence for herd immunity and it was widely accepted as fact among the medical and public health communities.

            Again, you have no response for the third paper. This study is direct evidence for herd immunity in Both the US and Japan. Yes, the authors did take into account adult immunity to the flu – in each case there was a control community. Adult immunity rates would be similar between the two communities. This is a basic concept of epidemiology. The studies results show strong evidence of herd immunity.

            The fourth study is again a review article, a concept that you don’t seem to understand. To quote the article:
            “The beneficial effects for herd immunity are now well documented. This is not only for influenza infection as previously demonstrated but also effective for pneumococcal diseases, measles, pertussis, and diphtheria prevention.” The authors directly cite several studies that have demonstrated this herd immunity in humans for multiple diseases.

            I’d like to point out that the study that you posted had mixed results, and did indeed show that vaccinating health care workers protected the elderly – both lower ILI and lower death rates overall. The authors note that there is a high risk of bias. This means they think their study might not be representative of other hospitals or of the population as a whole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)
            The authors also note that Randomized Controlled Trials would be needed in order to overcome this bias. Their study was not an RCT.

            The fifth article I posted is just an overview. I noted this in my initial post. This is just a more up to date (published 2011) review of all of the recent research showing that herd immunity exists.

            For the sixth article I posted, you’re back to your tactic of calling the authors liars. It’s yet another study with direct evidence for herd immunity in humans. I’m not sure why you think all 8 of the authors have reason to lie and falsify data. These authors represent a non-profit children’s hospital owned by the Red Cross, an infectious disease institute, a government public health institute, a school of public health, and an environmental health institute of a medical school. At the very least, you’re suggesting that all of these authors and all of the peer-reviewers of the article are being disingenuous.

          • ella

            Small pox was eradicated using herd immunity via vaccination. Polio is well on the way to being eradicated in the developing world where vaccination is common. I am sure your group of anti-science reactionaries will do everything you can to keep childhood disease a reality for us, though.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

            I’d also like to point out that your “fine argument” is calling people liars.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

            Direct quote: “But the fact is that there is much lying in the medical literature and medical world.”

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

      Just so it’s clear I’m not placing importance on the above five articles in particular, here are some more studies that specifically show herd immunity in humans:

      http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/5/737.short
      “The impact of vaccination with MCC vaccine on the prevalence of carriage of group C meningococci was consistent with herd immunity.”

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673605665506
      “In addition to providing direct protection to vaccine recipients, killed oral cholera vaccines confer significant herd protection to neighbouring non-vaccinated individuals. Use of these vaccines could have a major effect on the burden of cholera in endemic settings.”

      http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00365549609027169
      “…our results suggest some indirect protection conferred to older, non-vaccinated children through the administration of conjugated vaccines to younger children.”

      http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/265/1399/855.short
      “…variations in the observed age–prevalence patterns of infection in filariasis can be effectively explained by the occurrence of an exposure–driven acquisition of herd immunity.”

      http://compepi.cs.uiowa.edu/uploads/Readings/Warburton72/warburton72.pdf
      “Widespread use of a vaccine containing A2/Hong Kong antigens produced a herd immunity which limited the spread of A2/Hong Kong viruses…”

      http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/4/1044.short
      “The inverse relationship between vaccine coverage and efficacy illustrates that people living in high-coverage areas may be indirectly protected from cholera because people living around them are vaccinated.”

      http://jvi.asm.org/content/83/11/5363.abstract
      “These results support the hypothesis that herd immunity is a driving force for GII.4 evolution in the U.S. population.”

      http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ftd/erv/2009/00000008/00000007/art00006
      “…herd immunity effects have been demonstrated following the introduction of meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC) vaccines, with reductions in disease attack rates in unimmunized individuals and significantly lower serogroup C carriage attributable to the vaccine introduction.”

      • HeidiStevenson

        So you’ve demonstrated that you can find quotes that support what you believe. Enough is enough. You have not tried to refute the arguments given in the article. Instead, you call names and give a bunch of links.

        (referring to an earlier post) And now you quote Wikipedia! That’s a joke.

        The fact that there are lots of journal articles on the subject of herd immunity proves nothing beyond the fact that there are lots of journal articles on the topic.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

          Heidi, I didn’t “find quotes” from articles. I found entire studies that support herd immunity. The authors of these studies conducted research, and found direct evidence for herd immunity in humans. You can deny the findings all you want, but I’ve supplied you with multiple studies by multiple authors from multiple institutions that provide strong scientific proof for herd immunity. You have provided no response to the last eight articles I linked to because you know you’re in over your head. I’ve shown ample evidence for herd immunity, and you choose to ignore the evidence. Obviously your mind is already made up and no amount of evidence can change your uninformed opinion.

          Meanwhile, you have provided no evidence for your viewpoint. If you want to try to disprove herd immunity, the onus is on you.

          My reference to wikipedia was for your own edification, because I assumed you didn’t know what statistical bias is. This is absolutely not a joke – wiki is a good reference for basic knowledge on this mathematical concept. This is no way affects my argument for herd immunity.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

          As for “you have not tried to refute the arguments given in the article,” well, here goes:

          First I’ll point out that this is entirely opinion. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong, but it is in no way backed up by any scientific evidence. Heck, I’m not even asking for peer-reviewed evidence, since you distrust the entire system. This opinion article doesn’t show any type of proof and doesn’t refer to studies or any data or statistics from any source.

          The claim is made that herd immunity is “used to accomplish three things.” This is a straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Herd immunity is a scientific concept, and thus is not “used” to accomplish anything. Your entire premise makes no sense. You also, once again, provide no proof for any of the statements.

          You say the term herd immunity is “tossed about as if it has been proven.” That’s because it has. I’ve shown you multiple studies that show direct evidence for herd immunity. Please read the studies, or at least their abstracts. Decades of research on multiple diseases have shown that herd immunity is indeed real.

          A claim is made that herd immunity is “based on the idea that infection by a disease is completely protective against further infection.” This is simply not true, and shows the author of this posts misunderstands the very concept of herd immunity. 100% immunity is not required in the concept of herd immunity. In fact, in equations that are used to determine what percentage of the population has to be immunized in order for herd immunity to have an effect, a variable is included for effectiveness of the vaccine. The very calculation of herd immunity depends on exposure rates, how contagious the disease is, and how effective the vaccine is. This is why there are different herd immunity thresholds for different diseases. So the claim that herd immunity is somehow predicated on vaccines being 100% effective or vaccines not wearing off is simply absurd.

          The statement is made that “most adults, who are not revaccinated every few years, will have very little vaccine-induced immunity.”
          Again, you give no proof for this, and it’s yet another false statement.
          For example, the Hep B vaccine lasts for 20 years in normal individuals:
          http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/HBV/HBVfaq.htm#D11 One MMR vaccine usually lasts for an entire lifetime.
          Smallpox typically last 3 to 5 years on the first vaccination, and longer on a second:
          http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp So it depends on the vaccine and the person. The statement in the Gaia blog that “the vast majority of people will have little or no immunity within a fairly short period of time” is simply false.

          Dr. Blaylock’s opinion (again, not backed up with any facts or studies) is therefore false due to everything I just showed above. In addition, he claims that “vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie,” but I’ve shown you multiple studies that show that it not only exists, but has been responsible for reducing disease rates in humans.
          There are plenty of other gaping holes in Dr. Blaylock’s argument, including the false statement that “relatively recently it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given.” I’ve shown above that several vaccines last much longer than that, including one of the most important: MMR, which lasts a lifetime. Also, for those that wear off more quickly, people receive booster doses. This concept has been around for decades. Just for example, tetanus booster doses were being manufactured more 35 years ago:
          http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/tetanus 
          so Dr. Blaylock’s argument that “for over 70 years” the scientific community didn’t know that some vaccines wear off is blatantly false.

          I don’t know much about GMO’s, so I won’t comment on that portion of the opinion post.

          • HeidiStevenson

            You don’t understand what a straw man argument is. The term applies when a weak argument is produced and then shot down in an attempt to prove that the opponent’s arguments are no good. Your example doesn’t even come close to the concept, as I didn’t offer those points to shoot them down. I offered them as the reasons that the concept of herd immunity is pushed so hard.

            Yet, you presume to lecture me.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4C5DS4A3B5FCI2B4E4ZEJY4S5Q Paul

            Once again you’ve provided no response to any of the studies that show clear evidence of herd immunity, and you’ve provided no evidence for any of the statements made in this blog post. All opinion, all contrary to evidence.

    • ROFLCOPTERY

      I think you’re too well-informed to be posting here Paul.

  • HowdyNeighbor

    Excellent article! Thank you for helping parents make an informed decision about vaccinations.

  • Pingback: ¿Qué tiene que ver la inmunidad de grupo con los transgénicos? « noticias de abajo

  • http://www.facebook.com/mor.sagmon Mor Sagmon

    With re. to flu, TWO reviews, on ein 2006 and the other in 2010 (Cochrane) found the flu vaccine to be ineffective (effectiveness of 1%-3%), conferring no herd immunity. They also noted the bias in research that downplays independent research while promotes industry-funded research.
    1. British Medical Journal, 2006;333:912-915
    2. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA,
    Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane
    Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD001269

    In that Cochrane, you can see what the meducal staff think about the flu vaccine:
    3. Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Influenza vaccination for
    healthcare workers who work with the elderly. Cochrane Database of
    Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005187

    Take that together with BMJ investigation on the industry influence on WHO and the whole world flu vaccines policy, and you have it.
    http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2912.full

    This investigation, among other findings, found that flu guidance to governments throughout the world, recommending to stockpile flu medications, were written by the industry reps.
    A quote from the European committee on the H1N1 pandemic:
    “Some of the outcomes of the pandemic, as illustrated in this report,
    have been dramatic: distortion of priorities of public health services
    all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money, provocation of
    unjustified fear amongst Europeans, creation of health risks through
    vaccines and medications which might not have been sufficiently tested
    before being authorised in fast-track procedures, are all examples of
    these outcomes. These results need to be critically examined by public
    health authorities at all levels with a view to rebuilding public
    confidence in their decisions.”

    So much for influenza herd immunity…

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software