Dr. Suzanne Humphries exposes myths and lies behind vaccine research at the Vaccine World Summit

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by mm4

No difference. First three Google entries follow:


You can't extract yourself from this.

So problem solved; why all the hand-wringing?

You can keep playing as dumb as you need to.

Keep in mind you aren't helping your ani-vax stance when you use $5.00 words & phrases that you don't understand, such as "herd immunity" and "neurosis", when you only have pennies to spend.

You're saying you're giving consenting unvaccinated people protection, and you can't wiggle out of it.

Absolutely! Never said differently. Try to keep up.

And you are welcome.

[Juram]

Originally Posted by mm4

You're saying you're giving consenting unvaccinated people protection, and that obviates 'herd immunity.' Period.

http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma...evt4o1_500.jpg








Also, putting "Period" in emphasis at the end of something that is inherently false doesn't make it anymore correct.

[mm4]

Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker

You can keep playing as dumb as you need to.

Keep in mind you aren't helping your ani-vax stance when you use $5.00 words & phrases that you don't understand, such as "herd immunity" and "neurosis", when you only have pennies to spend.

Absolutely! Never said differently. Try to keep up.

And you are welcome.

What you don't understand is, with those words, you've just negated a progressive leftist so-called 'herd immunity' imperative that demands that all persons of allopathically-ascertained physiological development stage and ability, in the 'herd,' must be vaccinated in order for effective immunity to be imparted. And you didn't even realize it, and still don't.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker

Don't waste your breath.

The only reason the anti-vaxxer's have anything to say is because they know they are safe and thanks to those who DO vaccinate.

They would NEVER spend any time in a vax preventable communicable disease ridden environment without getting themselves vaccinated (let alone bring their newborn or immuno-compromised family member along for the trip). And they especially would NOT when those communicable diseases are of the likes of polio or tuberculosis. They're stupid but not that stupid. I hope.


They're just quite the hypocrites.

Unfortunately, they are that stupid. They go to places where measles is circulating, catch it, and bring it back to the USA.

I think that proof of immunity to vaccine preventable diseases should be required for entry into the US. That means visitors from other countries and citizens. Don't want to vaccinate? Don't expect to leave and re-enter until you do.

Originally Posted by mm4

No difference. First three Google entries follow:


You can't extract yourself from this.

You're saying you're giving consenting unvaccinated people protection, and you can't wiggle out of it.

So problem solved; why all the hand-wringing?

You clearly do not understand the links you posted. Herd immunity protects anyone who is not vaccinated, whether it's infants too young or the scientifically illiterate who have bought the anti-vax woo.

For those who deliberately do not vaccinate, it's called "hiding in the herd". "Dr. Bob" Sears advises his patients who want to hide in the herd to not recruit their friends and neighbors to do the same thing - because of the breakdown in herd immunity that will happen if too few people in their local community vaccinate. That's the same Dr. Bob, by the way, who had a patient start a measles outbreak - in Dr. Bob's office.

Just the Vax: 2008: Measles in Dr. Bob Sears' Waiting Room

Not only did Dr. Bob's deliberately unvaccinated patient go to Switzerland and come back with measles, whoever saw him in Dr. Bob's practice did not make the diagnosis.

"During January 31--February 19, a total of 11 additional measles cases in unvaccinated infants and children aged 10 months--9 years were identified. These 11 cases included both of the index patient's siblings (rash onset: February 3), five children in his school (rash onset: January 31--February 17), and four additional children (rash onset: February 6--10) who had been in the pediatrician's office on January 25 at the same time as the index patient. Among these latter four patients, three were infants aged less than 12 months. One of the three infants was hospitalized for 2 days for dehydration; another infant traveled by airplane to Hawaii on February 9 while infectious."

The hospitalized baby had a fever of 106:

Vaccines: VPD-VAC/Measles/Unprotected Story

The family pediatrician - Dr. Bob's office, remember - did not make the diagnosis. The baby's parents suspected it from pictures on the internet and took him to the hospital.

Bob Sears: Bald-faced liar, devious dissembler, or both? | The Panic Virus

Every vaccinated person counts. Had Dr. Bob's patient been vaccinated, the outbreak would not have happened and that baby would not have been so sick and in the hospital.

[mm4]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

You clearly do not understand the links you posted. Herd immunity protects anyone who is not vaccinated, whether it's infants too young or the scientifically illiterate who have bought the anti-vax woo.

You're a little confused by your professional community's historically held definition of so-called 'herd immunity,' where it is held--always--that effective immunity above acceptable threshold is not achievable unless all potential candidates for vaccination are innoculated.

And you read where Sawdustmaker claimed that he and other suckers protect the unwashed unvaccinated of all physiological capacity (not just those exempted from innoculation)--and you don't disagree with him/her. And so you, in addition to Juram and Sawdustmaker, don't comprehend the concept of the commonly accept def. of community immunity.

In fact it is the rallying cry of all vaccination hysterics that it's so important that all individuals that fall into their vaccinatable range must be innoculated for "herd immunity." And we're not complying and Sawdustmaker says s/he's protecting us. So, cool; no need for us to fill out their card.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by mm4

What you don't understand is, with those words, you've just negated a progressive leftist so-called 'herd immunity' imperative that demands that all persons of allopathically-ascertained physiological development stage and ability, in the 'herd,' must be vaccinated in order for effective immunity to be imparted. And you didn't even realize it, and still don't.

You really do not understand herd immunity, despite multiple posters trying to explain to you what the concept is. Herd immunity has nothing to do with "effective immunity to be imparted".

The percentage of people who must be immune to a particular disease, as was explained in one of the links you either did not read or did not understand, depends in part on how easy it is to catch the disease. Just about every susceptible person who is exposed to measles will catch it, and creating herd immunity for it means that about 95% of the population needs to be immune. That includes people such as old fogies like me who have had measles because we caught it before the vaccine existed and those who have had the vaccine. That means that we can let 5% get by without being vaccinated (as long as that 5% do not live in one suburb). However, that 5% has to include all the people who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons, such as infants under 12 months old and kids with cancer.

The more people who are vaccinated, the fewer people who are able to be infected with the disease. That means that the risk of an unvaccinated person coming in contact with someone with the disease is low. Thus the vaccinated people protect the unvaccinated ones - whether they are unvaccinated by choice or for medical reasons.

Originally Posted by mm4

You're a little confused by your professional community's historically held definition of so-called 'herd immunity,' where it is held--always--that effective immunity above acceptable threshold is not achievable unless all potential candidates for vaccination are innoculated.

And you read where Sawdustmaker claimed that he and other suckers protect the unwashed unvaccinated of all physiological capacity (not just those exempted from innoculation)--and you don't disagree with him/her. And so you, in addition to Juram and Sawdustmaker, don't comprehend the concept of the commonly accept def. of community immunity.

In fact it is the rallying cry of all vaccination hysterics that it's so important that all individuals that fall into their vaccinatable range must be innoculated for "herd immunity." And we're not complying and Sawdustmaker says s/he's protecting us. So, cool; no need for us to fill out their card.

Dear heart, you appear to be trying to change the definition of herd immunity to fit some peculiar personal idea of what it should be. It does not work that way. Herd immunity has a very specific definition. You do not get to change it just to suit your anti-vax philosophy.

The threshold level of immunity needed for a particular vaccine can be calculated. It's a very real number. Once the number of immune persons (by virtue of having had the disease or by virtue of vaccination) exceeds that threshold, the chance that an outbreak of that disease will get very far is small.

A population in which a large percentage of the population is immune to the disease provides protection to those who are not immune - including those who reject vaccines.

[mm4]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

You really do not understand herd immunity, despite multiple posters trying to explain to you what the concept is. Herd immunity has nothing to do with "effective immunity to be imparted".

I'll repeat it for you: It is the rallying cry of all vaccination hysterics that it's so important that all individuals who fall into their vaccinatable range must be innoculated for "herd immunity." That is the historically accepted benchmark, at least with the progressive left.

But Sawdustmaker said above that the innoculated (by every stupid vaccine they can think of) protect the willfully unvaccinated. And you agree with that, so it is rather you and him/her and Juran who do not understand your own community's historically defined term of art. (By contrast, 'herd immunity'--by accepted allopathic definition--is considered attainable only if all physiologically recommended groups participate.)

All you three all agree that your unvaccinated subjects are "protected." Well, you know what? Then no prob. No need for the latter to be vaccinated.

You're so preoccupied with flinging MacGuffins around, that you also fail to see that endorsing Sawdustmaker makes you complicit in disagreeing with the historically applied def. of 'herd immunity.'

Instead of damage control, just admit that when Sawdustmaker said he (and like-minded) "protect" the unwashed unvaccinated, that it contravenes the orthodoxy of 'herd immunity' as applied up until now by the vax crowd. After all 'herd immunity' means (up until now) that everybody who can be, must be vaccinated--you know, "for herd immunity." The implication being that it hasn't been attained unless all who are able to participate.

There is another possibility: that your and Juran's and Sawdustmakers words (in agreement that "The only reason anti-vaxxers have a platform to stand on and whine from is due to the fact they live in a country where the masses vaccinate. They're protected by the risks others take for their children and themselves. They should be saying 'thank you'. I give them zero credit due to the fact they live off of the protection others give to them.") suggest that herd immunity has already been realized. Good.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by mm4

I'll repeat it for you: It is the rallying cry of all vaccination hysterics that it's so important that all individuals who fall into their vaccinatable range must be innoculated for "herd immunity." That is the historically accepted benchmark, at least with the progressive left.

But Sawdustmaker said above that the innoculated (by every stupid vaccine they can think of) protect the willfully unvaccinated. And you agree with that, so it is rather you and him/her and Juran who do not understand your own community's historically defined term of art. (By contrast, 'herd immunity'--by accepted allopathic definition--is considered attainable only if all physiologically recommended groups participate.)

All you three all agree that your unvaccinated subjects are "protected." Well, you know what? Then no prob. No need for the latter to be vaccinated.

You're so preoccupied with flinging MacGuffins around, that you also fail to see that endorsing Sawdustmaker makes you complicit in disagreeing with the historically applied def. of 'herd immunity.'

Instead of damage control, just admit that when Sawdustmaker said he (and like-minded) "protect" the unwashed unvaccinated, that it contravenes the orthodoxy of 'herd immunity' as applied up until now by the vax crowd. After all 'herd immunity' means (up until now) that everybody who can be, must be vaccinated--you know, "for herd immunity." The implication being that it hasn't been attained unless all who are able to participate.

There is another possibility: that your and Juran's and Sawdustmakers words (in agreement that "The only reason anti-vaxxers have a platform to stand on and whine from is due to the fact they live in a country where the masses vaccinate. They're protected by the risks others take for their children and themselves. They should be saying 'thank you'. I give them zero credit due to the fact they live off of the protection others give to them.") suggest that herd immunity has already been realized. Good.

Sawdustmaker is describing herd immunity! When the number vaccinated reaches a critical mass, the unvaccinated are protected as well! For many diseases, that number has to be pretty high, e.g. for measles it needs to be upwards of 90% immunized so the other single digit percentage can be protected. Those protected include babies too young to be immunized, those for whom the vaccine didn't take (a very small percentage with measles vaccine), those who can't be immunized for medical reasons, e.g immunocompromised people, those with true allergies to a vaccine component, etc. In fact, "Dr" Sears encourages his patients to "hide in the herd". He tells them not to tell their friends they're not getting certain immunizations, so that herd immunity will protect their kids. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...cines-part-iv/

It has been determined that the California outbreak was caused, in part, by low immunization rates in some areas. Here is a clever headline that describes the situation: (Hopefully, the title will make it through the CD filter) No ****: Disneyland Measles Outbreak Linked to Anti-Vaxxers

Well, I see they bleeped out part of the title, but open the link.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by mm4

No difference. First three Google entries follow:

You can't extract yourself from this.

You're saying you're giving consenting unvaccinated people protection, and you can't wiggle out of it.

So problem solved; why all the hand-wringing? You should be unconcerned. You keep doing what you're doing and we'll keep not casually accepting mystery adjuvents and bovine fetal DNA, and assorted contaminents and other crud, and unpredictable, immunity shock inducing, iatrogenically destructive bs, systemically, for just everything you can think of making an invasive vaccine for. Win-win.

The emphases in the inner quoted portion are mine.

1. Do you understand what the word "indirect" means wrt immunizations? I'll help you, it means an unimminized person will get some protection from the immunized.

2. Do you understand what "critical portion" means? Portion implies not the entirety.

3. Do you understand what "critical mass" means? Hint: same as above.

Originally Posted by mm4

You're a little confused by your professional community's historically held definition of so-called 'herd immunity,' where it is held--always--that effective immunity above acceptable threshold is not achievable unless all potential candidates for vaccination are innoculated.

And you read where Sawdustmaker claimed that he and other suckers protect the unwashed unvaccinated of all physiological capacity (not just those exempted from innoculation)--and you don't disagree with him/her. And so you, in addition to Juram and Sawdustmaker, don't comprehend the concept of the commonly accept def. of community immunity.

In fact it is the rallying cry of all vaccination hysterics that it's so important that all individuals that fall into their vaccinatable range must be innoculated for "herd immunity." And we're not complying and Sawdustmaker says s/he's protecting us. So, cool; no need for us to fill out their card.

In none of the definitions that you so kindly provided in the first post, does it say "ALL potential candidates".

[Jo48]

Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker

That IS herd immunity.

Anti-vaxxer's get it from those who vax.

Hellooooo?

Not exactly true. You have 76 million older unvaccinated Baby Boomers walking around you with NATURAL immunity from HAVING those childhood diseases.

Or maybe you think that isn't good enough? Only immunity is from a vaccination? Does the Media ever even talk about Natural Immunity? Of course not. They promote vaccines from the Big Pharms, and Government. Follow the money.