Herd Immunity and Vaccine Questions…
by Joseph Ratliff
One of the main reasons that has been suggested to get an immunization (vaccine) for a disease like, say, influenza… is the resulting “herd immunity” will make sure the disease doesn’t spread as fast.
I’ve read that true herd immunity is based on natural immunity to a disease, not an artificial immunity like vaccines… because if a “herd” is naturally immune to a disease, then a virus couldn’t spread.
But this isn’t the case when you give an annual vaccination for influenza, because the vaccine wears off every year… so no one person builds true and natural immunity to the influenza (if anyone did, we wouldn’t need to get a shot every year, as we would have a long-lasting natural immunity).
So my important questions are these:
- Are we really building any effective herd immunity from influenza by taking the vaccination? If so, why aren’t deaths and hospitalizations being reduced in years when we had the highest percentage of vaccinated population?
- Is the vaccine 100% effective (it isn’t)? Because if it isn’t, how can we, in a short period of time each year we’re supposed to vaccinate, ever really achieve true herd immunity?
- Why am I seeing reports of less people getting their shot, yet also not seeing the spread of the influenza at any faster rate, or with any more consequences (annual death rate increasing etc…)?
- Are we going to move science beyond vaccinations as a solution at some point? It’s a pretty outdated concept and treatment.
- With new (or different) strains of the influenza being discovered and circulating each year… why should anyone take the chance (and waste their money) on any vaccine that may NEVER be effective?
- Forget mercury, what other chemicals are in the current vaccines? (as in, the ones actually being sold RIGHT NOW)
- Are those chemicals, in ANY amount, something we should be putting inside our bodies? Show me unbiased science (not supported by drug companies) that it is.
- Forget the “autism debate” for now, if these vaccines were so good for us, why aren’t the drug companies liable in the free and open market for any human consequences that might result?
Man, for something that is supposedly SO good for us… there are sure a WHOLE bunch of questions that have no definitive answer. And by the way, “just do it” or “trust us, it’s good for you” are NOT satisfactory answers.
Prove your case. Openly and publicly publish the unbiased science that shows the answers. This science should have NO influence from the drug companies, NO influence from anyone who has been paid by a drug company in the past… it needs to be unbiased.