Skip to main content

Herd Immunity: Why NOT Vaccinating Your Child Can Hurt Other Children and people, so vaccinate the kids now!

  • Author:
  • Updated date:


In the past 10 years there has been a "movement" of concerned parents of autistic children loudly claiming some sort of a link between the childhood vaccines and variety of ailments, including autism ADD and ADHD, and so on, but they have no scientific evidence to back up any of their claims. However, they do have celebrities backing their cause, such as Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, so they get the airtime, and they spread all sort of falsehoods on the Internet. Due to widespread hysteria, and misunderstanding of the decisions involved, hundreds of thousands of parents chose NOT to immunize their children.

The result is resurgence of childhood diseases, the very diseases vaccines were supposed to stop: such as whopping cough (i.e. pertusis). Several outbreaks pertusis were reported in various locations around the US in 2010. Several infants have DIED because of it. In California alone, 10 babies died, and over six THOUSAND became sick in 2010. Outbreaks were reported in Texas and Florida, as well as many other states, and outbreaks had been predicted and reported back in May 2009.

Those children may not have died if more children have been vaccinated, even if they themselves may not have been. Such as the phenomenon known as "herd immunity". But first, what is Herd Immunity?


What Is Herd Immunity

Herd Immunity describe the phenomenon where even un-vaccinated individuals within a "herd" (group) are protected against the disease, as long as sufficient number of individuals within the herd HAVE been vaccinated. The more infectious the disease, the more people need to be immunized for herd immunity to work.

How does it work? In a community that is mostly vaccinated, the chance of infected person encountering an un-vaccinated person to pass the disease on is quite low, compared to a community that has a larger vulnerable population (i.e. un-vaccinated)... Once one person is infected, that person can pass it onto multiple vulnerable people, who in turn will pass it onto even MORE people... Thus, by simply reducing the amount of un-vaccinated people, (i.e. vaccinate more people), the chance of disease spreading is reduced, even among un-vaccinated people.

If you can't see the idea in your mind, let's try it with math.

Herd Immunity In Numbers

Let us assume a disease that is 100% infections... It will infect someone. However, the vaccine is 100% effective. If you have it, you cannot get sick from that disease. In reality, that doesn't happen, but let's just use that simple case to consider the following scenario.

Let's say in Community A, 95% of the population were vaccinated, so they can't get sick. The remaining 5% can get sick. And let's say one of them do. For comparison, in Community B, only 90% of the population were vaccinated. The remaining 10% can get sick.

In Community A, the sick person contacts 20 people, but since 95% is vaccinated, the chances are he infects only 1 person out of that 20. And if that person contacts 20 people, total infection is 2.

In Community B, the sick person contacts 20 people, but since only 90% is vaccinated, the chances are he infects 2 people out of 20. Two people contacting 20 each, that's 4 additional infections, for a total of 6.

And that's only 2nd round of infection. If you count even more rounds, that 5% extra of vaccination vastly reduces amount of potential infections. Just for fun, what if we add a round 3?

Round 3

Community A, 2 people contacts 20 people each at infection rate of 5%, so it's now 4 total.
Community B, 6 people contacts 20 people each at infection rate of 10%, so it's 12 additional, for total of 18.

Round 4

Community A: 8 infected
Community B: 36 infections + 18 = 54

Round 5

Community A: 16 infected
Community B: 108+54 = 162 infected...

Round 6

Community A: 32 infected
Community B: 324+162 = 486

That is Herd Immunity in action: when people vaccinate, even those who did not vaccinate are protected. Larger number of un-vaccinated / vulnerable people means the disease spreads much faster in the community where just 5% less people got vaccinated.

If you assume each community is 10000 people...

In community A, un-vaccinated count is about 500, so by round 6 you still have 468 people protected by herd immunity even though they were not vaccinated. 94% of vulnerable population were protected by Herd Immunity.

In Community B, with 1000 un-vaccinated people, almost half of them were infected by round 6 in this model. This population did not have enough vaccinated people for herd immunity to be very effective.

This example is assuming some absolutes. We are assuming that the disease is 100% infectious, and the vaccine is 100% effective. However, the basic math is the same. For pertusis (i.e. whooping cough) the real herd immunity threshold is 92-94%, according to mathematical models. For less infectious diseases, the herd immunity threshold is lower, as low as 80% in some cases.

Not Vaccinating Your Child Can Hurt Others As Well

Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Federal agency against diseases, tallied that over 6400 whooping cough infections were reported in California, with 10 deaths, all infants, in 2010, and the year is not over yet. This is the biggest outbreak of pertusis in almost 60 years.

Usually there should be only one to two thousand infections per year in the ENTIRE United States. In 1976 it was down to just over 1000 cases in the entire country. In 2009 there were OVER 20000 pertusis cases in the US. A previous outbreak in Michigan is still ongoing, with more infections reported year after year. See CDC website for pertussis outbreak information.

Dean Blumberg, a specialist of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, and associate professor of pediatrics in UC Davis, blames parents who opted not to vaccinate their children for the outbreak.

“It’s not that they can’t afford it or don’t have access to vaccinations. We are seeing geographic clustering in areas with lower immunization rates, where parents choose to opt out because they are reading stuff on the Internet.”

Those children who were not immunized get sick, and pass the disease onto others. Whooping cough is usually not lethal... UNLESS babies are involved. Infants under 2 months of age cannot be vaccinated because their immune system has not developed yet. For them, whooping cough can be fatal. There were TEN DEATHS in California from pertusis in 2010 alone, all of them infants less than 2 months old.

Vaccine refusal may just make your child sick, but they can also KILL defenseless infants, because you chose NOT to immunize your child.

Immunize Your Children Protects Other Children As Well

Parents often consider vaccination is a solely "personal" decision. While I do not doubt that a parent should have control of their children, they should consider the effect of that control, when it comes to vaccination. It may be a personal decision, but it may have much wider-reaching consequences.

A 2009 study in Colorado branch of Kaiser Permanente members who were between 2 months to 18 year old from 1996 to 2007 revealed something very obvious: if the child was NOT vaccinated against pertusis (whooping cough), the child is 23 times more likely to catch the disease.

And before you say it is your decision, please consider those who CANNOT be vaccinated yet... infant less than 2 months old. They have not yet developed an immune system and thus cannot be vaccinated. They MUST rely on herd immunity and anti-infection protocols. If you do not vaccinate YOUR child, not only is your own child likely to get sick, your child may pass the disease onto others, possibly compromise herd immunity and put those infants at risk.

Mayo Clinic research group determined that 11% of the pertussis cases are due to vaccine refusal.

AMA graph of mortality rate drop due to disease

AMA graph of mortality rate drop due to disease

Same graph, stretched 10X vertically

Same graph, stretched 10X vertically

Vaccine Refusal is Bad Science

People who do not believe in vaccines set up websites such as "Vaccine Liberation" where they cite pseudo-science which supposedly "prove" that vaccines are actually bad for you.

Their proof mainly lies in the waivers that parents nowadays are asked to sign to allow their children to be immunized. They somehow claim that this "prove" that vaccines can be harmful. Frankly, this is completely backwards. There was no waivers for vaccines until the vaccine refusal folks started demanding their children to NOT be vaccinated.

Vaccine Liberation website claim to cite official stats that somehow "prove" that vaccination does no good. Well, this I have to see. And the link is to... Natural News. That doesn't look very official to me. Not any sort of study, nor does the author seem to have any credentials to make him or her a person of authority. So what is the article about?

The reality, as documented by the American Medical Association's own journal (JAMA) in the January 1999 issue, is that there is no connection between death from infectious diseases and vaccinations; that's right, "none".

Scroll to Continue

Okay, where did they get this conclusion? Turns out this author just cited one graph, not the whole study. What's the graph? See the first graph to right. The author wrote:

From 1900 through the 1920s, the infectious disease rate goes down at an impressive pace. This is a time during which there were no vaccinations against childhood diseases. The rate of decrease of deaths from 1940 through 1960 continues at about the same pace. Then, it starts to level out, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of children are vaccinated during this time.

Wow, hold on there. Infectious diseases leveled out by 1960s BECAUSE it's already so ****ing low. That's like 50 deaths or so out of 100000 PER YEAR! What were you expecting? Total eradication?

Now, take a look at the same graph showing the death rates from all causes. This should make you nervous. The rate of death from all disease decreases slightly from 1900 through 1920. However, after this, when vaccinations start to be introduced, the death rate from noninfectious causes starts to increase. It isn't a huge amount, but it's definitely there. Most significantly, the increase in death rate from noninfectious causes starts when vaccinations are introduced.

There is a slight rise from 1940s to 1960s, then it dropped again from 1960s from 1980s. However, this is overall mortality, NOT children's mortality. Unless you break down the number, you can't really say what is the 'cause' of this rise in mortality. Could be wider spread of travel and all that. Yet the author clearly meant to imply that vaccination is such a cause, and since vaccination is for children, the IMPLICATION is that the mortality is of children, but there is no data to support such a claim!

Then what was this author talking about? Nothing. He claims the conclusion was already "obvious".

Since it's obvious from the AMA's own documentation that vaccinations have little or no effect on the outcome of infectious disease deaths...

Based on what evidence? The author arbitrarily threw in "history of vaccination" and try to argue that "vaccination had no effect on mortality". What data did he provide to "prove" this? Absolutely NOTHING!

The main argument was that vaccinations happened during the 1960s, so there should be a further drop in mortality after the 60's and he doesn't see any.

However, perhaps we should look at the graph AGAIN... I took the SAME graph, and expanded the vertical axis 10X, and the second graph to the right. From 1960 to 1980, there was a significant drop in mortality due to infectious disease. It was low, and it *did* get lower.

Without vaccination the effects of hygiene would have stabilized by 1950s and 1960s. so the line would have gone FLAT, but it *did* keep falling.

Which blew the conclusions right out the window.

The author used the graph to make a FALSE point... by spinning the data one way. The conclusion uses the false point to perpetuate fear mongering.

So what was author's overall conclusion? The author basically claims that the medical industry is out to earn money.

As with any corporate-controlled business (and make no mistake, the medical industry is big business) the answer always goes back to the same thing: money. Filthy lucre. There are millions and billions of dollars, pounds, euros, and other currencies to be made by both the pharmaceutical firms and the doctors themselves.

This is an unsupported opinion, and is one of the primary falsehoods spread by vaccine refusal folks. Vaccines are usually ordered by governments at fixed prices, usually barely at cost. The prices are so low, only a few companies in the world bother making them. If it was so profitable for the makers, you'd think MORE people would get into the business!

And pharmaceutical firms make far more money from medicine than from vaccines. Just consider the following obvious fact that no vaccine refusalists will bother to mention... How much medicine do you take during your lifetime, vs. how many vaccines do you need during your lifetime? If pharmaceutical firms want to "rig" anything, it'd be the drugs, NOT the vaccines!

Vaccine Refusal uses bad science to perpetuate fear.


Herd Immunity is real, and NOT vaccinating your children not only hurts your children, it also have the potential of hurting OTHER children.

Upon closer examination, so-called evidence held out by vaccine refusalists to justify their refusal just do not hold up. It is bad science. It is pseudo-science.

The risks of not vaccinating your children vastly outweighs any risk of vaccinating them, and the protection extends to strangers as well.

Make the right choice.

More About Vaccinations

  • Childhood Vaccinations
    No one wants an unhealthy child. Most parents spend a lot of time and effort on ensuring that their child is brought us as a healthy, well adjusted child. The trouble lies in the fact that there are many...
  • Recent Breakthroughs in Vaccine Technology
    Due to continued research, advancements in developing newer and better vaccines have been achieved in the last decade. Some of these newly discovered vaccines are highly potential in preventing...


kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on March 04, 2015:

Interesting pseudoscientific view that claimed vaccines that had worked for more than 200 years (first used in 1796 for smallpox) was a hoax. I guess next you'll claim we're in a matrix and this is all an illusion.

Bible Flock Box on February 13, 2015:

I don't believe herd immunity works. As a matter of fact, I don't think vaccines work. I wrote a hub called, "10 Facts that Vaccine Companies Don't Want You to Know", which explains that there is no real proof vaccines work; and that they do more damage than good.

Aime from Trudeauland (it's like Disneyland but hotter) on May 08, 2014:

I'm glad you wrote this and am even more pleased to see how well you've handled the responses.

I'm still confused as to what the point was in bringing up literacy. It's actually pretty unfortunate that people read biased pseudo-scientific articles they found through Google and think they are armed with enough information to choose not to vaccinate. There is a huge difference between being able to read and being able to critically analyze and understand content.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on February 27, 2014:

So 89% of vaccinated kids did NOT spread diseases, vs. a few % (assuming natural immunity) if they were not vaccinated. What exactly is your point?

By your logic, if something that doesn't work 100% it shouldn't be used. Yes, I see exactly where you're going there. In fact, I think Dilbert covered your logic last Sunday.

Your logic is simply backwards. Chicken pox is "annoying rarely complex childhood illness" BECAUSE of vaccines. If you stop vaxing, it will STOP being "annoying rarely complex". As for seizure risks, it's primary from the immune system kicking in causing fever, which in turn causes febrile seizures, which are primarily harmless.

Non vaxed people are the PRIMARY REASON that diseases long thought eradicated are making a comeback. Disease trackers have tracked significant outbreak of vaccine preventable diseases. Decreased vaccination is breaking herd immunity, the specific issue discussed here, and you're STILL advocating CUTTING immunization?

One such outbreak was specifically traced to Eagle Mountain Church, which was antivax. The church leader changed his mind.

And your final paragraph is just nonsense. non-vaccinated population is getting blamed for UNDERMINING vaccination protection, not for the ISSUES of vaccination. Wake up and understand biology, where nothing is ever 100%. Your black and white thinking is the problem, not vaccination.

Chris on February 26, 2014:

So the author spouts how non vaccinated kids spread disease and then sites that 11% of cases were from non vaccinated people. Which is it?

This article makes the assumption that ALL vaccination confers immunity. It doesn't. See where I'm going here?

Another point failed to be made is how we are now seeing mutated forms of pertussis DUE to vaccination. Strains that the vaccine doesn't cover.

It's not so simple to just blame non vaxed individuals without having all the facts AND one of the biggest fact is that vaccines are flawed and overused.

Big pharma laugh at us. Seriously. Take the chicken pox vax. An annoying, rarely complex childhood illness. But when combined with MMR has a decent rate of little ones having seizures.......risk vs benefit anyone?

Stick with the important ones. Minimize the crap vaccines are suspended in. Stop over vaccinating our population just because you can. It doesn't mean we should.

And lastly stop blaming the non vaccinated populations for the issues caused by vaccinations. Non vaxed people are not the sole reasons some diseases still exist. Less than 100% efficacy is one reason. Vaccination not conferring immunity is another. Wake up and take a hard look at the system as it is, own its flaws and fix it so essential vaxes are delivered safely to the people who need it the most.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on January 17, 2014:

Your logic, frankly, is circular reasoning, and you have NOT explained why should there be a right to be carrier of disease and infect others.

As for your vaccine court argument, as in "they wouldn't have created a court if it weren't dangerous"? Frankly, having a bunch of lawyers trying to rule on science is ridiculous.

The law was passed to PROTECT the vaccine makers from excessive liability BECAUSE the vaccine supply had to be protected to ensure availability. It was not passed because they feared the vaccines were dangerous.

Links between the DPT vaccine and injury have been generally disproven, and the court has been notorious in awarding claims where there is NO scientific evidence of injury caused by vaccine, like Hep-B vaccine and MS. Court has been notoriously easy to get compensation from: 44% success rate vs. 23% overall malpractice lawsuit success rate.

Chuck Bluestein from Morristown, AZ, USA on January 12, 2014:

I cannot make it any simpler. I said that if people were prevented from reading then you would not have this minority that is against vaccinations. Now if you disagree with that, then you are saying that there would still be people against vaccinations if there were no reading but offer no explanation of how.

What I am saying has been proven by North Korea. They do not want a single person there disagreeing with the opinion of the government so they control all the information that is available to North Koreans.

Without reading, people would not be able to know that On October 1, 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)." The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) was created as a NO FAULT program to pay people hurt by vaccines. And that it has already paid out $1.5 billion to 1,800 families.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on January 11, 2014:

A1) Your logic makes no sense because there is no 100% correlation between education / literacy and vaccination, much less causation. That 2007 study you cited earlier already proved that.

A2) Then you managed to extrapolate from that ridiculous premise. That's known as GIGO... Garbage in, garbage out.

A3) Considering the overall trend, vaccination is a victim of its own success. It was so successful that it bred a load of "healthy living" people who got lucky (i.e. they benefited from herd immunity) even if they did not vaccinate, and they somehow believe their luck is their own doing. That's known as the self-serving bias.

A4) The fact that preventable diseases such as whooping cough, Mumps, Rubella, Measles, and so on surged in recent years, which coincides with the rise of the anti-vax movement apparently does not figure into your logic.

A5) And the fact that outbreaks are spread specifically BY the unvaccinated population in both California and Texas... apparently is viewed as a right by you to "remain vulnerable to infection and thus spread it to as many people as possible". Ever heard of Typhoid Mary?

Chuck Bluestein from Morristown, AZ, USA on January 10, 2014:

All of the people that are against vaccines did not decide this because of what their doctor told them. They did not decide this based on what their hairdresser told them. They decided it from reading. So reading is the reason everyone is not getting their children vaccinated. Illiterate people cannot read

So if reading were made illegal in the U.S. and the punishment was death, there would be 100% of people getting vaccines. That is what your article is about. Also people would not be against GMOs or want to eat organic food. So the above is all caused from reading. Also you would not have all these vegans. Also people would not be saying that war is bad since every 85 minutes a U.S. veteran commits suicide. This is an example of a stat (short for statistics).

Then in school they can stop teaching kids how to read and when 100% are illiterate then 100% of people would be getting vaccinated.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on January 10, 2014:

A1) You have not demonstrated how unpolluted air is relevant to having no immunity. Your analogy makes no sense.

A2) You have not demonstrated any sort of potential harm from injection other than general soundbites like. Besides, many vaccines can be hyposprayed or nasal-sprayed. Then what?

A3) Stats on what? That their parents are tree-huggers and vegans? What are you trying to imply?

A4) What's your point in bringing up illiteracy?

As I said, you're just throwing random factoids at me but you're not making any coherent arguments with them.

Chuck Bluestein from Morristown, AZ, USA on January 09, 2014:

It is about the way you propose to produce the herd immunity-- vaccines, and why all people are not vaccinating their children. Is unpolluted air bad for health? Does it hurt your skin or does it hurt to breathe it? No.

But it can kill someone if it is injected into their blood. Now many things are good for health like green tea but I would never suggest that people inject themselves with green tea. Injections bypass all of the body's ways to protect itself. So I would say that injections are too invasive unless in an emergency situation.

As far as herd mentality, if you looked at the stats on people that have their kids vaccinated and those that do not you would find big differences. You would find that the parents that do not have their kids vaccinated, smoke a lot less than others, eat more organic foods and are more against GMO foods.

Of course this is correlation not causation. I am not saying that smoking or eating GMO foods causes people to get vaccinations. But some have attitudes where they do not care about health unless something goes wrong. Then there are health enthusiasts that are called health nuts by the others and they spend time researching things.

14% of Americans are illiterate. Now if their doctor says to them to get vaccinations they are not going to say "Well, let me research it" because they cannot read.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on January 09, 2014:

A1) Customer, in this case, is the government, not the people. If that's what it takes to get herd immunity working, government will do it.

A2) I am not going to debate the "cause of autism" with you as it's way off topic. Same with vitamin D and "toxins".

A3) Are you just going to go through every ingredient you *think* may have some deleterious effect in a vaccine? We can go at this for days or weeks, but so far all you did is throw irrelevant or incomplete facts at me. And none of this has anything to do with herd immunity.

Chuck Bluestein from Morristown, AZ, USA on January 08, 2014:

They took it out to please the customers so more people will be willing to take it. In business the saying is the customer is always right. The ultimate cause of autism is lack of vitamin D that is actually a neurosteroid hormone. When fetuses and people get enough vitamin D, their body can get rid of toxins. When they do not get enough then toxins are retained and cause disease like cancer.

There are more toxins than ever out there. Moores Cancer Center proposes that cancer is a vitamin D deficiency. Wikipedia says that there is a vitamin D deficiency pandemic (widespread epidemic). Doctor of Public Health, Cedric Garland, says that enough vitamin D would virtually eradicate breast cancer.

Dr. Prendergast is the leading endocrinologist in California. He says that enough vitamin D increases immune system strength 3 to 5 times. The CDC says that vaccines contain aluminum, antibiotics, egg protein and MSG.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on January 08, 2014:

RE Formaldehyde -- Yes, but you're ignoring the DOSAGE info. NCI says commonly acceptable dose of formaldehyde is 0.75 PPM... in the AIR, else there's a risk of respiratory cancer (nose and throat). You don't take vaccines through the nose (except the inhalable flu one)

RE Mercury / thimerasol -- you got the cause and effect reversed. They took it out because anti-vaxxers complained about possible cause of autism. After its removal, autism did not drop but continue to rise. So it's NOT thimerasol / mercury that causes autism. They took it out for nothing.

Chuck Bluestein from Morristown, AZ, USA on January 08, 2014:

Wikipedia says "In view of its widespread use, toxicity and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health.[4] In 2011, the US National Toxicology Program described formaldehyde as "known to be a human carcinogen".[5][6][7]" Carcinogen means causing cancer.

Thimerosal contains mercury. It was in most vaccines. The CDC says that it is totally safe. But they took it out of all vaccines except for one-- the group flu vaccine. So going by the above, this means that the only reason that they too it out was because people were saying that it causes autism.

So they took it out because people do not like it so that way they can sell more of it.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on January 08, 2014:

A1) Vaccines are bought at fixed prices through government mandate. If "big pharma" were making money, more companies would be getting into the business, yet companies are getting OUT of the vaccine business. Thus, your story of "big pharma" sounds good, until you do a reality check.

A2) As for formaldehyde... Your body produces formaldehyde naturally as well as a part of natural cell process. Quoting from the CDC: "Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body as a part of normal functions of the body to produce energy and build the basic materials needed for important life processes. This includes making amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins that the body needs."

A3) Scarlet fever is same strep throat, a really MILD disease (unless left untreated) Your great uncle's death seem to prove more the lack of medical care back then, than prove your premise of human immune system improvement.

A4) The only relevant study was published in 2007 that says "more education does not lead to more vaccinations". When a bunch of moms of various educational backgrounds are surveyed. What you have there is a correlation, not a causation that you're implying.

Chuck Bluestein from Morristown, AZ, USA on January 07, 2014:

The United States is not a socialistic society but a capitalistic society. So the goal of modern medicine or Big Pharma is making money so everything done is toward that goal. They used to be able to make money from people that were sick. But vaccines are a way that they can make money on healthy people including defenseless infants.

Vaccines contain many toxic substances like formaldehyde according to the CDC. A great uncle of mine died from scarlet fever. Now no one gets it. They never created a vaccine for it but it died out as human's immune systems have adapted to it. Studies show that the more education people receive (like college), the more likely they are to not vaccinate their children. The less education people receive, the more likely they are to follow the heard mentality and do what most parents are doing.

clairewait from North Carolina on February 27, 2013:

And the debate continues.

I'm actually secretly waiting for small pox to make a dramatic comeback. The upside is that all of us pro-vax'ers (who even came up with such a ridiculous title?) could use it as our big "I told you so" to those who chose not to vaccinate.

Meanwhile, I'm seriously looking in to becoming a therapist so that, in about a decade, I can start capitalizing on the parenting idiocy that is so rampant in my generation. For sure the adult results of "attachment parenting" are one day going to need SOMETHING. That is, if they survive the small pox outbreak.

Ashish Joshi from India on July 02, 2012:

Brilliant hub...have added a link to it in one of mine about childhood immunization.

'up' and 'useful'...

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on February 11, 2012:

@Pippy Wardell -- sorry to hear about your experience with vaccines, even though causation was not totally proven. Yu do appear to be the exception, rather than the rule. So the question is... which approach yields more public benefit?

Pippy Wardell on February 11, 2012:

I was made sick from a vaccination that I was forced to receive as a four year old. I spent my whole childhood in and out of hospital wondering if I would ever grow up. Before I had the vaccination I had not had one day of illness..... do not talk to me of the safety of vaccinations.. I am not against all vaccinations I am against the explosion of the number of vaccinations that they want to put into a small child's body before it has time to develop its strengths and immunities. By the way I healed my self as a teenager when I ignored the doctors drugs and took control of my own body and used natural healing methods to get better. We must not limit ourselves to a one way only approach. what might work for Mary and Steven may be toxic for amanda and Greg.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on January 29, 2012:

@ReuVera -- again, you're not reading it correctly. Unvaccinated people get sick, and pass it onto unvaccinated babies. Normal people (vaccinated or not) don't DIE from whooping cough, but infants do die from whooping cough. Several did last year in California. You *do* read the news, right?

There are no "big pharmaceutical profits". Vaccines are provided at government mandated prices, and each kid only needs one or two (and maybe some booster shots 20 years later). If pharma rig anything it'd be the drugs. if it's making so much money, companies would be fighting to get INTO the vaccine business, not getting out of it. Your logic holds no water on multiple levels.

As for right to make decisions... the question is at what point does parent's decision become child endangerment, esp. when such decisions are based on biased info that appeals to emotion, instead of logic?

(Not vaccine related, but one parent in Australia was convicted of grievous bodily harm when he refused to take his daughter to the hospital, but instead relied on some nutritional supplement that he believes will cure her. She's now brain-damaged and confined to wheelchair for life, thanks to his decision.)

ReuVera from USA on January 29, 2012:

Vaccinating newborns is unnecessary and actually dangerous, as a healthy newborn has the best immune protection, especially when he is breast-fed.

I still do not understand how a HEALTHY unvaccinated person can put anyone at risk.

Disclaimers are normal, even pro-vaccine sites have disclaimers. It's up to parents to decide whether they want to raise their kids healthy or to break their natural immune system for the sake of big pharmaceuticals profits.

By the way, I don't eat any food from cans.

We all have a right for our own researches and decisions. Boosting immune system will protect the body. The power that made the body will heal the body.

However, some (only some, NOT ALL) vaccination might be possible for children at a later age (NOT as newborns). It's up to parents to decide.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on January 28, 2012:

@ReuVera -- you misread the statement. The unvaccinated kids (and adults) are putting at risk the kids who CANNOT be vaccinated, such as newborns.

As for the ingredients, it's no sicker than what you eat. What's jello? Gelatin is from cowhide and such. Besides, themirasol may contain mercury, but only in trace amounts. You get more mercury by eating a can of tuna than a lifetime of vaccines.

Your fear mongering doesn't stand up to logical analysis. It is purely appeal to emotion. As for, you clearly didn't read their disclaimer:

"The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric."

What you got there is skewed logic.

ReuVera from USA on January 28, 2012:

Hm, there is no logic at all in a statement that non-vaccinated children put at risk those who are vaccinated. If a child IS vaccinated, then presumably he/she is "protected" from a disease, or isn't he?

Do you actually know WHAT is in those vaccines?

OK, here- Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum; Formaldehyde; Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol; Thimerosal which is a mercury-containing preservative; chick embryonic fluid; human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue; 2-phenoxyethenol continuous line of monkey kidney cells; thimerosal mouse serum proteins; calf serum.....

Vomiting yet? Go ahead, put this stuff into your children.


Our innate intelligence is created to protect our bodies, our immune system is created to fight diseases.... just do not interfere with its work. Right clean food, healthy life stile, regular visits to chiropractor will do miracles. No chemicals or embryonic tissues involved.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on November 28, 2011:

@shmrd -- the very fact that Polio and other diseases have been nearly eradicated would put a lie to your conspiracy theory. Vaccination is never 100% effective, and was never advertised as such.

People can print anything on the Internet. That doesn't automatically make them true, yet decades of vaccine effectiveness can't be faked.

That site you linked to? Cited Viera Scheibner. She likes people to call her Dr.. However, did you know her expertise is in study of tiny fossils, not medicine?

shmrd on November 28, 2011:

Also, something that pro-vax folks have never been able to explain sufficiently: exactly how non-vaccinated people spread illness to vaccinated people. Think about it. Your wonderful vaccinations may not actually work. But keep blaming the non-vax'd.

RobertDCrandell on November 07, 2011:

Nice hub!

John from Pittsburgh on August 29, 2011:

Janet, Vaccines do work, How do you explain the complete erradication of polio and almost complete eradicaation of other childhood diseases. You are putting your children at extreem risk by not vaccinating them.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on February 23, 2011:

Perhaps they are just... misguided. :) They claim they are protecting their children from the "harm" of vaccines.

frynch from Cheek-o on February 23, 2011:

Title should be called "Herd Mentality..."

Vaccines would be an irresponsible parent NOT to vaccinate your child based on some internet-driven hyperbole about the so-called dangers of vaccines. Polio and smallpox, and even chickenpox now have been all but eradicated because of vaccines. It disgusts me to think that parents would put their high-minded beliefs over the health of their children.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on February 03, 2011:

@Capridame -- if you have raised the issue and the parent was decided against it, then I guess there is really no point bringing up again. You love them, which is why you brought it up, but you love them nonetheless.

Perhaps you can go through a neutral party on what exactly IS the objection, but is it that important?

The 20-year old is old enough to make his or her own decisions. Does s/he get flu vaccines? Does his/her doctor know? Perhaps his/her doctor can have a talk with him/her on what are the risks / benefits so a proper analysis can be made.

Also, do any of these children plan to be exposed to ANYTHING or travel AT ALL? If they prefer to live in a bubble, well, guess that's that. They HAVE to get shots if they travel.

I recommend a reading of my "crap detector" hub. :) Maybe you can gently point them at it, and see if the stuff they read is, well, crap. :D

Capridame on February 03, 2011:

Hi, I have three daughters, one of whom lives in England (I live in Australia) and she is dead against vaccinating her now 7-year old, who has never had a single vaccination. She has a doctor in the family, who is very concerned, but everything he says falls on deaf ears. The 7-year-old is exceptionally healthy and was breast-fed until 1 1/2 yrs. old and is exceptionally well looked after. When I returned from a visit and spoke to my other daughter who has 2 children, one now 20, the other 13, she told me that her children are not vaccinated either. She had not lived in the same city as myself for many years, so I was unaware of this fact. Now, when I last mentioned that at the very least the 20-year old should be told to have a rubella shot, no action was taken - this is over two years ago. The other one just shouts me down and refuses any discussion on the subject. There is too much misinformation posted on the internet, too many parents trying to blame vaccination for a condition which is most likely inherited (borne out by one little fact, that the ratio of ADD and ADHD between girls and boys is quite different: something like 1 - 3. How does that fit the anti-vacc mythology?)

I am angry, but also resigned, but will go on making remarks, and maybe approach the 20-year-old myself, but know I might be endangering my relationship with both, mother and daughter.

The thought that their children could one day say to them: "Why did you pass that responsibility onto me, when I could have had all the shots when I was little and mostly unaware of impending pain/inconvenience etc." or worse, the possibility of their children getting a serious but avoidable disease, and the ensuing recriminations and their own possible guilt .. does not seem to occur to them.

Any advice welcome. For example, what shots would it still be advisable to give a 20-year-old? I guess a blood test could show what they're already immune to and make a decision from then on?

I feel our health- and government authorities are letting us down badly - every parent presenting a child for school entry should be able to produce an up-to-date vaccination record. I had to do this when enrolling my then 3-year old in Kindy in a European country.



TahoeDoc from Lake Tahoe, California on January 08, 2011:

Thank you for writing this important hub. Vaccines DO work and millions of deaths have been prevented. And, no even though I'm a doctor, I do not receive money to encourage people to get vaccines as was suggested in a forum elsewhere and I'm not covering anything up - my own kids were vaccinated and I would never put them at risk if I was trying to push something dangerous or didn't believe in the advantages.

kschang (author) from San Francisco, CA, USA on December 29, 2010:

Maybe you should re-read what you wrote and decide whether you sound like a crackpot sprouting conspiracy theories or someone who is actually spreading reasonable information.

Janet Jubilee on December 28, 2010:

Anyone with a brain can see that vaccines don't work once they see what filth is in them! Do you research before you spread eugenic madness spouted off with big pharma money and their depopulation agenda.

Related Articles