Wow....this is a brutal read. I don't know where to start. While I appreciate the access to information that the internet provides, I also fear the access to BAD information the internet provides. My first inclination is to believe that Ms. KW has a financial interest in the pharmaceutical industry. However, I realize, that this is actually what most are told to think. I'd like to remain respectful of her post, but I would be doing a disservice by not at least giving her readers something more to think about. While the entire post is based on a classic "company line" when it comes to medicine, I'd like to focus on one particular aspect of the piece. Herd immunity. This term is used as a "sales slick" to encourage and entice the intellectually lazy into a false sense of security. Herd immunity, abbreviated, describes a situation where the number of vaccinated subjects of a given populace increases, so does the protection against a given disease. I believe the current misinformation states that at least 95% of a populace must be vaccinated to maintain "herd immunity". Most people will seek out this information from sites such as the CDC, WHO, etc..., due to their long history of research on disease. However, a simple understanding of vaccination policy, specifically in the U.S. will show you that this is a false theory. When the baby boomers were introduced to mass vaccination programs, the belief was that they would be protected from disease for life. Current research shows that a vaccine's efficacy ranges from 2-10 years max!!! This is why we now have a "booster" program in place. (that panacea is for another discussion) So, doing a little logical thinking, you have to realize that over 50% of our current population is not protected against the diseases for which they were immunized. And it has been that way for 30-40 years without a significant resurgence of disease!! What you have to be aware of is the numbers game that vaccine proponents like to play. 95% immunity required indicates the a much bigger threat than 50% and it makes people lose their minds if they feel their children are in danger. Even the author address the poor, innocent babies at home. Its an empathetic technique to try and lend credence to her claims. What it really does is try "peer pressure" her reading public into doing what she feels is best. The problem is that it is obvious, to someone who works in the medical field, that she is using basic cut and paste journalism to potentially cause further harm to the public she claims to want to protect. I apologize for sounding a bit rash, but I would ask that you look beyond the resources she's posted as most of them benefit significantly from the financial success of pharmaceutical company money. A man made vaccine provides nowhere near the immunity of the actual disease. It would be like the difference between someone telling you about how thrilling a rollercoaster ride is vs. you actually riding the rollercoaster. And please don't try to "apple and orange" that comparison, because, while yes, people die from measles, for example, the mortality rate of measles in the US is only around .3%. Hardly epidemic proportions. I would argue that there are more vaccinated people getting measles then there are people who die from it. I have so much more to say on this....
Comment Reply
Wow....this is a brutal read. I don't know where to start. While I appreciate the access to information that the internet provides, I also fear the access to BAD information the internet provides. My first inclination is to believe that Ms. KW has a financial interest in the pharmaceutical industry. However, I realize, that this is actually what most are told to think. I'd like to remain respectful of her post, but I would be doing a disservice by not at least giving her readers something more to think about. While the entire post is based on a classic "company line" when it comes to medicine, I'd like to focus on one particular aspect of the piece. Herd immunity. This term is used as a "sales slick" to encourage and entice the intellectually lazy into a false sense of security. Herd immunity, abbreviated, describes a situation where the number of vaccinated subjects of a given populace increases, so does the protection against a given disease. I believe the current misinformation states that at least 95% of a populace must be vaccinated to maintain "herd immunity". Most people will seek out this information from sites such as the CDC, WHO, etc..., due to their long history of research on disease. However, a simple understanding of vaccination policy, specifically in the U.S. will show you that this is a false theory. When the baby boomers were introduced to mass vaccination programs, the belief was that they would be protected from disease for life. Current research shows that a vaccine's efficacy ranges from 2-10 years max!!! This is why we now have a "booster" program in place. (that panacea is for another discussion) So, doing a little logical thinking, you have to realize that over 50% of our current population is not protected against the diseases for which they were immunized. And it has been that way for 30-40 years without a significant resurgence of disease!! What you have to be aware of is the numbers game that vaccine proponents like to play. 95% immunity required indicates the a much bigger threat than 50% and it makes people lose their minds if they feel their children are in danger. Even the author address the poor, innocent babies at home. Its an empathetic technique to try and lend credence to her claims. What it really does is try "peer pressure" her reading public into doing what she feels is best. The problem is that it is obvious, to someone who works in the medical field, that she is using basic cut and paste journalism to potentially cause further harm to the public she claims to want to protect. I apologize for sounding a bit rash, but I would ask that you look beyond the resources she's posted as most of them benefit significantly from the financial success of pharmaceutical company money. A man made vaccine provides nowhere near the immunity of the actual disease. It would be like the difference between someone telling you about how thrilling a rollercoaster ride is vs. you actually riding the rollercoaster. And please don't try to "apple and orange" that comparison, because, while yes, people die from measles, for example, the mortality rate of measles in the US is only around .3%. Hardly epidemic proportions. I would argue that there are more vaccinated people getting measles then there are people who die from it. I have so much more to say on this....
August 25, 2013 - 6:23pmThis Comment
Reply