‘Herd immunity’ is the protective effect that occurs when a population contracts and recovers naturally from an infection.
The phrase ‘herd immunity’ was originally coined in 1933 by epidemiological research from A W Hedrich (1). He studied measles patterns in the US between 1900 and 1931, before the introduction of a measles vaccine. His observation was that measles epidemics only occurred when >68% of children had developed natural immunity to it. This is based on the principle that people build their own immunity after suffering with, or being exposed to the disease. Therefore, if at least 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defence, there would be no epidemic, there would literally be ‘herd immunity’.
However, ‘herd immunity’ is a term that has been applied to vaccine-induced immunity without scientific basis.
Have you read that vaccination uptake needs to be 95% for it to be effective and protect the rest of the ‘herd’? Where does this information come from? I can’t find any scientific data that justifies or explains the extrapolation of 68% of a population being naturally immune to 95% of a population being vaccinated to produce ‘herd immunity’ within that population. It appears that Henrich’s data has been manipulated to suit a vaccination agenda.
When vaccines were first introduced, their proponents asserted that they provided a ‘life-long’ immunity in the same way as natural immunity. This was shown not to be the case, hence the introduction of ‘booster shots’ at intervals between 2 and 10 years. Furthermore, outbreaks still occur in groups where vaccination uptake is 100% even having had booster shots. (2, 3)
Herd immunity is based on an active disease and not based on mimicking the disease with a vaccination. A vaccine isn't nature, it's manufactured to challenge the immune system to produce antibodies to a pathogen. We cannot apply the same model of herd immunity in a natural disease to vaccination policy, yet we do... falsely.
Whether I’m immune or not, does not determine whether I carry a virus (or a bacteria for that matter), so it’s nonsensical to deduce that a child vaccinated with pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine for instance, somehow stops carrying pertussis bacteria in their lungs simply because they have been vaccinated. Furthermore, it won’t prevent the vaccinated children from spreading the bacteria either. The vaccine is, however, designed to modulate the vaccinated individual’s response to the exposure of the bacteria. Vaccination rates for whooping cough have no impact on whether pertussis bacteria is in the air, or whether they breathe them in. Should you choose to vaccinate, there is no need to worry about unvaccinated individuals - a non-vaccinated child is no better at transmitting pertussis than a vaccinated one.
We have been led to believe that vaccination will stop you carrying a virus or bacteria... it won’t.
However, it's likely to modify your reaction to the bacteria or virus.
- Unvaccinated individuals are no more disease vectors than vaccinated individuals.
- Do not choose, or be coerced into vaccinating solely on the basis of herd immunity.
- Monthly estimates of the child population “susceptible” to measles, 1900–1931, Baltimore,Maryland. Am J Hyg 1933;17:613-636.
- Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population.
- Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination - Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.
Evolution of Measles Elimination Strategies in the United States.