[back] Medical lies
[The Medical lie 'Herd immunity' is trotted out by vaccinators to promote high vaccination levels but the real reason is here: High vaccination drive.]
[2012 Feb] The Deadly Impossibility Of Herd Immunity Through Vaccination, by Dr. Russell Blaylock Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations..... Neil Z. Miller, in his latest book The Vaccine Information Manual, provides compelling evidence that herd immunity is a myth.
[Media June 2002] Barbara Sumner-Burstyn: Immunisation choice challenges the herd mentality
Herd immunity by Meryl Dorey
The validity of herd immunity undergirds all compulsory vaccination policies. The theory of herd immunity posits that when a sufficiently high threshold of people in a community is immune to a specific disease, it creates a protective effect, a barrier of sorts. Society achieves herd immunity when this protective cordon prevents a resurgence of the disease and, as a result, protects vulnerable individuals who cannot receive vaccines (or whose vaccines failed).
After the conference, I approached James Colgrove, PhD, an expert in the history and ethics of public health from Columbia University. I complimented him on his 2006 book State of Immunity and asked for clarification. His book reveals that the term “herd immunity” first appeared in 1923. He describes data limitations and the difficulty in validating the theory empirically. He quotes one official saying, in 1932, that herd immunity was “a mere hypothesis.” I asked Colgrove for subsequent evidence-based research upholding the soundness of herd immunity. He mentioned epidemiological studies on measles in the 1960s and 1970s that provided corroboration. I challenged him.
As explained to me by pediatrician Larry Palevsky, the original basis for herd immunity had nothing to do with vaccines. When sufficiently high numbers of people contracted the wild form of the disease and secured lifelong natural immunity, statisticians observed a protective effect in the community as described above. Policymakers eager to promote vaccines sought ammunition to increase vaccine uptake. Researchers assumed that vaccine-induced immunity would operate in the same manner as natural immunity and presumed that vaccines therefore would also create herd immunity. I am not a scientist but I know that vaccine-induced immunity is not remotely the same thing as natural immunity. Natural immunity is the gold standard. Vaccine-induced immunity is qualitatively different; for starters, vaccines do not always work and their protection wanes over time. Colgrove admitted as much, and I just stood there for a moment, stunned. We clearly need more inquiry into this critically important subject. However, it does not take scientific brilliance to understand this key point: discredit herd immunity and the house of cards supporting vaccine mandates comes tumbling down.
One of the grand lies of the vaccine program is the concept of "herd immunity." It is based on the idea that if a certain percentage of the population is immunized against an infectious disease, epidemics can be prevented. The exact percentage changes, mainly, in my opinion, to suit the vaccine manufacturers. In the beginning it was 68 percent, but now some are calling for 95 to 100 percent immunization to reach these goals. We are constantly told, and many doctors believe, that herd immunity has prevented epidemics from occurring in modern America. Unfortunately, there is very little evidence of this for a number of reasons. .....vaccines for most Americans declined to non-protective levels within 5 to 10 years of the vaccines. This means that for the vast majority of Americans, as well as others in the developed world, herd immunity doesn't exist and hasn't for over 60 years.Vaccine Safety Manual by Neil Z. Miller. (Preface)
The belief in herd immunity leads to many delusions. One of them is that when the number of immune people in a community drops below a certain point, it will make the next epidemic come sooner. In 1976 in Britain the vaccination rate for whooping cough dropped from 76% to 42%, because there had been publicity of bad side effects from the vaccine. The medicrats expected that the drop in the vaccination rate would make the next whooping cough epidemic come sooner, as well as expecting it to be worse. The whooping cough bacteria paid no attention to human theories, and the disease followed the usual timing of its natural cycle of virulence. Medicrats expressed surprise that the epidemic did not come sooner. There were also fewer cases and fewer deaths during this epidemic. The much lower vaccination rate of 42% made no difference to the long term decline of whooping cough, which had been happening for a hundred years.  Raising A Vaccine Free Child by WENDY LYDALL
"In October, 1972. a seminar on rubella was held at the Department of Pathology, University Department, Austin Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Dr. Beverly Allen, a medical virologist, gave overwhelming evidence against the effectiveness of the vaccine. So stunned was she with her investigations that it caused her, like a growing number of scientists, to question the whole area related to herd immunizations. Dr. Allen described two trials: the first trial concerned army recruits who were selected because of their lack of immunity as determined by blood tests. These men were given Cendevax, an attenuated rubella virus that is supposed to protect. They were then sent to a camp which usually has an annual epidemic of rubella. This occurred three to four months after they were vaccinated, and 80% of the so-called immune recruits became infected with rubella virus. A further trial shortly after this took place at an institution for mentally retarded people with similar effects. Additional disturbing evidence was sent to us by a Melbourne GP who was in the United Kingdom at the time that Chief Health Officer Sir Henry Yellowlees, had released a press statement (February 26, 1976) informing doctors that, in spite of high vaccination figures, there had been no detectable reduction in the number of babies born with birth defects."--Dr Archie Kalokerinos & Glen Dettman "Does Rubella Vaccination Protect?," Australian Nurses Journal, reprinted in The Dangers of Immunisation p54
"The reason vaccinations are promoted with such intensity is to prevent people from realising that vaccines do not protect and also in the event of an outbreak or an epidemic the vaccinated are as much at risk of becoming infected as the unvaccinated. The truth can be kept hidden if people's vaccination status remains unknown and if everyone is vaccinated, making a comparison with unvaccinated people impossible. This is also the real reason for the relentless push to vaccinate as many children as possible."-- Dr Buchwald (The Decline of Tuberculosis despite "Protective" Vaccination by Dr. Gerhard Buchwald M.D. p101)
Peter Flegg says, "The only reason
more children do not die of measles in the UK is that herd immunity is still
sufficiently high to protect those who cannot or have not been fully immunised."
That is not entirely correct in my opinion.
A site called Measles Initiative says that (7), "Measles is a leading killer of children in many developing countries for several reasons. Children are already compromised with poor living conditions, they are infected at very young ages when their immune systems are not strong, malnutrition is rampant in many homes, and many families do not have access to medical care to treat measles and its complications. Measles, itself, does not kill children. Instead, complications from measles attack the child's already weak immune system. Measles attacks the body, inside and out. It is similar to HIV in the sense that when it knocks down the immune system, the child becomes susceptible to the myriad of diseases that fester in poor living conditions."
Do children in the United Kingdom have the same living conditions as children in Africa? ----Hilary Butler [Letters BMJ Becoming Ben Oct 2008]