“Herd Immunity” is a concept purported by those vested in the vaccine program to try and increase vaccine uptake nationwide. It’s also used by the pharmaceutical lobby in support of their push for legislators to remove informed consent and mandate vaccines across the states. But what exactly is herd immunity, and why does it remain one of the industry’s most widely used talking points?
In very simplistic terms, as it’s presented today, herd immunity is the theory that high vaccination rates at a specified threshold within a community can prevent disease outbreaks. This is the theory that continues to be stated as fact by industry reps, CDC officials, pharma lobbyists and the media (who repeatedly echo the talking points their sponsors have fed them) when promoting vaccines. However, when closely examined, the assumptions required for this theory to stand up prove to be illogical and lack evidential support. Let’s take a look at several of the roadblocks that ought to make the concept of herd immunity questionable at best.
Roadblock #1: Vaccination vs. Naturally Acquired Immunity
Dr. Kelly Brogan discusses one of the earliest assertions of the herd immunity theory, stating that, “it has no basis in vaccine-induced antibody production and heralds from an observation by A.W. Hedrich, in 1933, that measles outbreaks in Boston between 1900 and 1930 were suppressed when 68% of the children contracted the virus.” So the original theory had nothing to do with vaccination. It was based on an observation of suppressed outbreaks based on 68% of the population having acquired lifelong, natural immunity by catching – and recovering from – the actual virus. Applying Hedrich’s original theory today would actually support allowing exposure to childhood illnesses so that a percentage of the population could build their natural defenses and establish the presence of natural immunity within the community.
Hedrich’s theory, which, again, had nothing to do with vaccination, was used to promote mass vaccination campaigns against measles in the late 60s (campaigns that failed to achieve the herd immunity they anticipated). In order to make the theory fit their agenda, without any supporting evidence, public health officials just presumed vaccinated individuals to have precisely the same immunoprotective status as individuals with naturally acquired immunity. This bold assumption is problematic as we know from basic biology that vaccine-induced antibody responses are acquired very differently from natural immunity. Vaccines completely bypass the immune system’s primary lines of defense (in the skin, mucosal linings in the respiratory system and digestive system), and instead force an irregular immune response by activating the production of antibodies against the antigens that have been injected. Given vaccination does not allow the body’s immune system to function as it was designed to – by running through its entire immune response – it is illogical to assume the same end results.
Roadblock #2: Documented Vaccine Failure
Outbreaks of measles, chicken pox, mumps, and pertussis have occurred in highly vaccinated school populations, and those getting sick have primarily been the vaccinated. (See sources here, here, and here.) In a recent article discussing MMR vaccine failure rates, Dr. Gregory Poland, Editor-in-Chief of the medical journal Vaccine, stated that we have this “paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized.“ The CDC and many peer-reviewed journal articles warn of waning vaccine-induced immunity (several sources can be found here, here, here and here), hence the recommendation of multiple doses and additional boosters of most vaccines sold today.
Even if you ignore the fact that vaccination does not generally equate to natural immunity and choose to believe that a predetermined vaccination rate (usually reported to be 75 – 95%, depending on the disease) protects an entire community from that disease, the recurring disease outbreaks among vaccinated children in communities where these thresholds were met or exceeded completely disprove the theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity. Also, if the vaccines aren’t able to protect the people who actually received them, under what plausible scientific theory are the vaccines protecting others in that community? And, why is the answer to repeated, documented vaccine failure always more vaccines? It just makes no logical sense when you stop and critically think about what you’re being told.
Roadblock #3: Adult Vaccination Rates
As of 2017, the government estimates that children make up 22.6% of the U.S. population, meaning a whopping 77.4% of the U.S. population is adults. The CDC acknowledges that national vaccination rates in adults are extremely low and that, for most adult-recommended vaccines, coverage is somewhere in the 20 – 30% range. Given these low adult vaccination rates and the fact that the effectiveness of vaccines received in childhood wane over time, what we’re left with is the vast majority of Americans being what the CDC would consider unvaccinated or, at best, under-vaccinated.
As this graphic from vaccine-safety advocate J.B. Handley depicts, according to the CDC we as a country fall far below the CDC’s proclaimed coverage thresholds needed for herd immunity – and we have for ages. Yet, we don’t see plagues of diseases befalling our communities and wiping out our citizens, as we are warned will happen if herd immunity numbers are not maintained.
Roadblock #4: Current Childhood Vaccination Rates
In stark contrast to adult immunization rates, childhood vaccination rates across the country are quite high. In the state of Texas, less than 1% of children go to school with any sort of vaccine exemption. Even in the school district with the highest vaccine exemption rate, more than 95% of the children are fully vaccinated. With such high compliance rates, why all of the news reports warning of outbreaks on the horizon? Why the need to propose legislation that threatens Texans’ rights to informed consent, medical privacy and individual vaccine choice? Again, even if you believe that we obtain herd immunity at thresholds of 70 – 95% vaccine coverage, then why all the hoopla over the less-than-one-percent that opts to forego even one of the many childhood vaccines on the schedule? It just doesn’t add up.
In spite of all of these roadblocks to its reasonableness, the application of Hedrich’s theory to vaccination persists. As with many other claims made to support mass vaccination, with no supporting evidence, somewhere along the way it stopped being cited as a possible theory and began to be promoted as generally accepted fact.
So who’s promoting herd immunity…and why?
The ‘who’ is simple. The ones using the idea of herd immunity to promote vaccines are those with vested interests and financial ties to the vaccine industry. These include the industry itself, the CDC (who actually acts as a subsidiary of the vaccine industry, holding dozens of vaccine patents of their own), medical professionals, including pediatricians, who receive industry funding for promoting vaccinations, and, of course, the media, whose biggest advertiser by far is the pharmaceutical industry.
The ‘why’ is a little more calculated. You see, those tied to the vaccine industry have to rely on a tactical public relations campaign in an effort to keep as many folks as possible on board with blindly trusting them and their recommendations. I recently wrote about one aspect of this sadly effective PR campaign, mentioning that the campaign has to be aggressive enough to offset the number of parents telling how their previously-healthy babies were permanently injured, disabled or even killed by their vaccines. When a theory like herd immunity is touted as fact, it becomes instrumental in pitting parent against parent. This scientifically unfounded message that one parent’s choice puts another’s children at risk creates great conflict resulting in added social pressure in an effort to coerce compliance from more people. Additionally, this message further vilifies those who don’t dutifully fall in line and blindly accept whatever the CDC recommends. Finally, the threat of losing herd immunity is a scare tactic that has been instrumental in selling legislators on laws that remove individual freedoms through vaccine mandates and other laws aimed at restricting informed consent and medical privacy where vaccines are concerned.
Bottom line: the idea of herd immunity is strategically being used to force an untested, bloated vaccine schedule on parents by publicly shaming anyone who doesn’t fall in line and to push for vaccine mandates using a one-size-fits-all approach. The goal is to apply enough peer pressure to make people believe that choosing what they inject into themselves or their children is no longer a personal choice, and that exercising their rights to informed consent makes them selfish and dangerous. But when you really dig in, and look at the actual facts and figures behind the theory you’re being sold, you soon realize that it makes no actual sense – and it never really did. As well-known author and neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock puts it:
“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.”
I am a board-certified Medical Laboratory Scientist and an expert in immunology. The theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity is a myth just as this article has described. It’s propagation relies heavily on the ignorance of the people. Part of the social pressure equation requires complete unquestioning obedience to the “authorities” who know what’s best for you. Well, it doesn’t take a medical school degree to learn how vaccines work. I know. I have one. And what I was taught in the most prestigious medical school in the state where my degree is from is VERY different from what I now know today. And most everything that I have learned about vaccines has been self taught. YOU just need to take the initiative. I say you because you, the parent, are ultimately responsible for the consequences of vaccination be it good or bad. No doctor will ever take responsibility. No company. No agency. Nobody but you. So, to turn a coined phrase by former Texas Senator Wendy Davis, just do your damn homework (instead of “just vaccinate your damn kids).
Thank you for having the mind to break free from indoctrination. It’s so important that people with medical degrees, especially those with expertise in immunology speak up on such topics
Objective analysis should always be encouraged. If our words cannot hold up under scrutiny, do they really deserve consideration?
Thoughts on Roadblock #1. The immune response objective described by administering an injection of an antigen to stimulate antibody response (and requiring a bypass of the external defenses of the body) is a sound medical and scientific practice. Without the bypass, the external defenses of the body would prevent seroconversion from ever occurring. The first vaccine against small pox required piercing a cow pox pustule with a needle and thread (soaking the thread) and then running the needle and thread through the muscle in the upper arm. The difference between vaccine-induced immunity and natural immunity is that when the body is exposed to a wild type virus, antibody creation is not how the immune system responds. The immune system has several mechanisms to expel any foreign antigen that has bypassed or gotten through the external defenses. Cytokines, complement, natural killer cells, T-cells, B-cells, neutrophils, macrophages, monocytes, and antibodies all take part. Vaccines train the body to attack a virus with antibodies. That’s like asking the school wimp to take on the school bully on the playground. It’s not the best choice.
Roadblock #2: I agree with what you have said about waning immunity and ineffective vaccines and the CDCs solution is to recommend more booster shots of the ineffective vaccine. It doesn’t make much sense, but I will even go further than that. Is the booster shot actually boosting immunity? Is it even necessary? Every efficacy study used to justify the FDA approval of the vaccine has administered the full course of the vaccine and then tested for immunity. Not one single study has ever tested for immunity after giving the first shot to see how long it lasts before needing a second shot. I argue that the “booster” shot has less to do with waning immunity and more to do with the theory of herd immunity.
If you give the first dose of a vaccine to 100 children, assume 95 of them begin to seroconvert (build antibodies). If you give all 100 kids a 2nd dose, 97 of them will seroconvert. And if you give a 3rd dose, 99 of them will seroconvert. What does this mean? 95 out of 100 children received 2 unnecessary doses of vaccine. A simple blood test can determine if a child is producing antibodies following vaccination but the American Academy of Pediatrics does not have a protocol that calls for pediatricians to test a child to see if a 2nd dose is necessary before administering the 2nd dose. It’s “easier” (for the pediatrician) and “cheaper” (for the parents) to just give the 2nd dose.
Roadblock #3: Do not confuse adult vaccination coverage rates with adult immunity rates. Herd immunity requires the population to be immune not just vaccinated. Again, lack of testing is the problem. The only adult population that is required to be tested for immunity are those in the healthcare industry. And that testing only occurs after vaccination. At this time, it is unknown if the immunity created by vaccination in childhood lasts into adulthood and how long each lasts for. The CDC would have you believe that if you got 2 shots of MMR when you were a child that you will be immune to measles for life. But this is not true. The MMR immunity wanes after 10 years. Polio vaccine: 20. DTaP: 3. We need to advocate for pediatricians to test children before recommending a 2nd dose and for medical insurance to cover the test.
I am actually writing a comprehensive paper on the dangers and effectiveness of the ingredients of vaccines. So far, I have found that the before the introduction of vaccines, the mortality rate from these diseases where on a rapid decline! This article is very helpful for my paper as well. Thank you!
Faith, I would like to read your paper, if you completed it.
Thank you!
Julie
I would love to read it as well!
Ditto!
I know that this site is basically click bait – take a highly charged topic and create a web site. You lost all credibility by insinuating that the theory of herd immunity is one created by big pharma.
Wrong.
To quote Wikipedia:
“Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune. In a population in which a large number of individuals are immune, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted, which stops or slows the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of individuals in a community who are immune, the smaller the probability that those who are not immune will come into contact with an infectious individual.’
THAT is what Herd Immunity is.
And you lost all credibility by referencing Wikipedia. Nice try, though.
😂😂😂😂😂 Wikipedia 😂😂😂😂 it must be correct if Wikipedia said so😂😂😂😂😂😂 that’s scientific!
The key part of herd immunity is, quite obviously, IMMUNITY. The part that you are failing to understand, Vinny, is that vaccination does NOT equal immunity. The fact that people can still acquire a disease after being vaccinated is proof of that. This is why vaccination is not part of herd immunity. This was explained in the article, but it doesn’t sound like you read it, or at least understood it. This can also be referenced in many other scientific articles and discussions.
Decades ago, people were truly immune to a disease because they came into contact with the actual wild virus – THAT was herd immunity.
Vaccines have literally killed any herd immunity that society had. Herd immunity is a thing of the past.
Vaccines are for immunity, to quote, “Vaccines are like a training course for the immune system. They prepare the body to fight disease without exposing it to disease symptoms. When foreign invaders such as bacteria or viruses enter the body, immune cells called lymphocytes respond by producing antibodies, which are protein molecules.” Yes even if a person is vaccinated it is possible for them to not build immunity, however that is a very low percent. Herd immunity does exist and is helpful and life saving to children who are too young to be vaccinated and people who can’t be vaccinated because of a medical condition. The “real immunity” you talking about is harmful. An example of this is with chicken pox where if you had it as a child you run a very high risk of getting shingles later on. I don’t think you understand, or want to understand, that even if vaccines can’t help every single person its given too it still is a life saver to millions of others.
No, the article was dead on with its background on the real origins of herd immunity.
Herd immunity has ZERO to do with vaccines and everything to do with natural immunity. It’s a term that was hijacked by the pharmaceutical industries in order to dupe well-intentioned people so they could try and scare everybody else.
My decision not to inject my kids with toxins has absolutely zero effect on the health of other kids in my community.
Thank you for responding! We’ve been lied to for so long, and so many children are sick and our infant mortality rate continues to rise. When will people wake up to this corruption. It’s either ignorance or evil.
The chicken pox vaccine is causing shingles in children. Exposure either naturally OR by man is still exposure! That’s all you need to develop shingles. NOT being exposed is the only way to guarantee not getting shingles.
Your quote sounds exactly like Vaccine Industry/CDC marketing material that you might find in a CDC brochure or their website. Just because you read those words, that doesn’t make them true.
“To quote Wikipedia”? Seriously?
THAT’S your argument?
Wikipedia employs a recursive, crowd-review editing process that has produces a information source as reliable as any other encyclopedia. The knee-jerk dismissal of Wikipedia as a source is at least 15 years out-of-date.
Giles, J. (2005). “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head: Jimmy Wales’ Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries”. Nature. 438 (7070): 900–1.
Maybe it did in 2005 – 14 years ago. Big Pharma’s pockets are deep.
In 2005, Jim Giles, Journalist, engaged peer reviewers to evaluate a grouping of scientific papers that were published in both Wikipedia and Britannica. They found that in those similar papers, Wiki had an average of 4 errors and Britannica had an average of 3 errors. You see Erik, therein lies the problem with your assertion, begging the question, that either source is reputable because they have similar failure rates. This is much like the same mentality that offers the ideology that testing a new vaccine safety profile against a different vaccine rather than an inert placebo is valid. The point is: Can Wiki stand alone as a reputable informational resource? Not, Does it fail similarly to others, and if so can be quoted as fact. My vote is that since Wiki “averages” 4 errors per article, I cannot use it for much of anything, and certainly cannot use it to replace actual studies.
If you read up on herd immunity, you will find that the original definition was based on natural immunity. There are numerous reasons why natural herd immunity cannot be applied to vaccine-induced immune populations.
They did not say the concept of herd immunity was created by pharma, rather the opposite.
The concept of herd immunity goes back before vaccines and was in reference to herd immunity resulting from natural exposure and acquisition of an infectious disease. When a majority of the population gets the disease and has the subsequent life long immunity to wild strains that comes with natural exposure, and moms can pass those antibodies to their babies, herd immunity is achieved.
Pharma has hi-jacked the term herd immunity and claims it is something only to be achieved through vaccination. Vaccination undermines natural herd immunity.
But if you read the OP it clearly states that herd immunity was a thing that existed and was achieved before pharma via natural exposure, but that pharma has misused the term/concept and twisted it in order to push vaccines (which actually undermine real herd immunity, esp to wild strains) which is a huge misunderstanding and misapplication of the term and concept.
Thank you for the definition of herd immunity. It’s still not an argument against what the article is saying.
Very good article! Thanks very much.
Thank you so much for your efforts!!
Vaccines are for immunity, to quote, “Vaccines are like a training course for the immune system. They prepare the body to fight disease without exposing it to disease symptoms. When foreign invaders such as bacteria or viruses enter the body, immune cells called lymphocytes respond by producing antibodies, which are protein molecules.” Yes even if a person is vaccinated it is possible for them to not build immunity, however that is a very low percent. Herd immunity does exist and is helpful and life saving to children who are too young to be vaccinated and people who can’t be vaccinated because of a medical condition. The “real immunity” you talking about is harmful. An example of this is with chicken pox where if you had it as a child you run a very high risk of getting shingles later on. I don’t think you understand, or want to understand, that even if vaccines can’t help every single person its given too it still is a life saver to millions of others.
Passive immunity from mother’s placenta/breast milk is the best weapon a baby can get..not vaccine or the assumption of herd immunity. Vaccines interrupt this natural chain of passive immunity.
There is no such thing as too young too vaccinate…they give newborns as soon as there born 2 to 3 shots…then at my newborn infants 1st pediactric visit they wanted to give him 5 shots at once….
Great Article! Helps me tremendously with my own research against vaccinations. Thanks so much
Great article! Thank you for your work. And I appreciate all the comments by doctors. I believe the criminality of the vaccine industry will be exposed within the next 5 years, but it will be at the expense of so many children. I will continue to speak out about it, despite the ugly responses I get. Maybe it will make someone do some research before they allow further harm to their babies.
Thanks for posting this informative article. It seems the primary issue and primary danger of vaccines, and where Big Pharma and the medical system failed, is the inclusion in the vaccines of substances which are known toxins to the human body. Mercury (thimerosal) and aluminum top the list. By any measure, these substances have no business being injected into the blood stream of human beings. They aren’t able to find other nontoxic preservatives and adjuvants ?
The CDC held a secret meeting in 2000 in Simpsonwood, GA. Mainly surrounding the toxicity of thimerosal (mercury) and its causal relationship to the explosion of autism rates. The comments made at this meeting by ‘toe the line’ doctors regarding the relationship between thimerosal and autism go a long way in showing what they know and when they knew it. ‘They’ being the medical powers that be.
Thanks to the ‘freedom of information act’, citizens were able to get a transcript of this meeting –
http://putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html
Great article
Thank you for sharing this information and all of the input by others.