Herd Immunity, Viral Shedding and the Questionable Science Behind Vaccines


A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines: Part 7 of 12

Herd Immunity

Herd immunity is a highly sensitive and extremely polarizing topic within the vaccine debate. Understandably, it enrages parents on both sides of the issue. Like all good parents, vaccine proponents want to protect their children. We’re all being told by our health officials that everyone must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, or else the entire population will be at risk. For vaccine skeptics, the herd immunity concept is a primary point of contention because they are being pressured to vaccinate their children based on what they perceive to be a false premise. It’s a dirty but effective trick to pit us against one another as parents, playing on our most vulnerable fears regarding our children’s health. Vaccine skeptics find fatal flaws in the application of the herd immunity concept to a vaccinated population.

Vaccine skeptics perceive the herd immunity concept as creating social pressure, which is supporting a legislative agenda to remove vaccine exemptions. Herd immunity is also an effective marketing tool to convince the masses for universal mandatory vaccines. It is being widely used to convince us that everyone who can be vaccinated, should be vaccinated, with every vaccine possible, from cradle to grave and without informed consent (in fact, without consent of any type).  We have already seen this scenario play out in California with the 2015 passage of SB277, and there is legislation pending around the country with an eye toward accomplishing this very thing.

In part 8, we will take an in-depth look at herd immunity theory and the facts behind naturally-acquired, versus vaccine-acquired immunity. We will also discuss the role viral shedding plays in proliferation of disease and how it may have facilitated recent outbreaks. Finally, we will delve into the ideological foundation of vaccination and the science behind the theory.

What Is Herd Immunity?

A.W. Hedrich studied the epidemiology of measles in the US from 1900-1931 and in 1932, published a paper on measles susceptibility in children. He concluded that once 68% of children in a population had been infected with measles, the measles cycle in that population would be interrupted, thereby ending the outbreak. The foundation of the theory was the knowledge that once a child has measles, the child becomes immune to measles for a lifetime. Herd immunity theory assumes that a large portion of the population is truly immune to the pathogen in question.

Health officials and vaccine proponents have recently begun using  herd immunity theory to pressure the public into vaccinating. Their argument is that the unvaccinated are only safe from contracting ‘vaccine preventable’ disease because they are enjoying the broader protection of the vaccinated herd. In other words, they maintain that when a certain portion of a population is fully vaccinated, incidence of disease will be so rare that exposure is severely limited. It sounds plausible on the surface and it has been marketing gold for vaccine manufacturers, adding to the building momentum for a legislative agenda that will make vaccines mandatory and without exemption.  It is effective because it is, at once, a scare tactic and an appeal to our sense of obligation and compassion for others. Influencing public opinion is job #1 when you have something to sell and it would be hard to find a more effective tool.  The only problem is that it isn’t true.  We have to dig a little deeper to get the full picture.

The original concept of herd immunity referred to natural immunity, conferred as a result of contracting and recovering from disease.  Transferring the concept and applying it wholesale to a vaccinated population assumes some basic facts which do not hold true. It is a fundamentally flawed theory in relation to a vaccinated population.

Natural Immunity

As depicted by the graphic below, natural immunity offers benefits to individuals and to a population across time and generations. Mothers who contract and recover from a childhood illness pass their immunity to their babies while in utero and through breastfeeding.


The immunity of those who are vaccinated is different from, and inferior to, the immunity of those who have recovered from an infection. Natural immunity often lasts a lifetime, while vaccination immunity is relatively short-lived. Natural immunity is superior to the vaccine acquired type because it has staying power but also because natural exposure to a pathogen challenges the immune system as a whole, rather than simply creating antibodies, and fortifies overall immunity while supporting long-term health.

Natural immunity strengthens our immune systems, preparing us to better handle future exposure to various pathogens. Viera Scheibner, PhD, tells us that natural immunity to certain childhood illnesses may also offer protection from asthma, degenerative diseases of the bone and cartilage and even cancer.  A study was published by Mayo Clinic in July, 2014, documenting the use of an engineered version of the measles virus to cure what was deemed ‘incurable’ cancer and research is currently underway to replicate these results.

Dr. Scheibner offers the perspective that “(w)ell-managed natural infectious diseases are beneficial for children.” She believes that childhood diseases serve a function in the human ecosystem and that they “… prime and mature the immune system and also represent developmental milestones.” This perspective is shared by pediatrician, Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, in his interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola in 2012:

Some of the diseases vaccines are designed to prevent, such as chickenpox, measles, and the flu, may actually have an important place in childhood development – and may ultimately be beneficial for the child’s future health by helping their immune system, nervous system and brain mature.

True Herd Immunity

Natural immunity typically offers lifetime protection. In a population where immunity has been conferred naturally, each generation of children contract childhood illnesses while also naturally boosting the immunity of those who were previously infected through a cycle of re-exposure. This is a model for true herd immunity, and its benefits for protecting the herd are self-evident. In a natural immunity model, the incidence of common childhood illness is greatest among the young, whose systems are best equipped to handle them and for whom long term protection is maximized due to their young age.  Generally speaking, common illnesses of childhood are less benign and result in more severe complications when experienced by adults.

Before vaccines were in wide use, babies would receive immunity from their mothers who had acquired natural immunity as children. Today, many mothers have been vaccinated and cannot offer their babies immune protection. Vaccines prevent natural immunity and so babies born today are in a more vulnerable position than babies born in the pre-vaccine era.

Vaccine Acquired Immunity

So How Long Do Vaccines Last
Image Source
  • Vaccines wear off. When vaccines work, they confer immunity for some period of time, but vaccines are short-lived compared to natural immunity. This is why booster shots exist.  Vaccine-conferred immunity cannot offer us the inter-generational protection afforded by natural immunity, whereby mothers pass on immunity to their infants. 
  • ‘Fully vaccinated’ does not translate to ‘fully immune’. In order to estimate the number of people who must have immunity before herd immunity occurs, epidemiologists look at the basic reproduction number (written ‘RO’) for any given pathogen.  RO refers to the number of people one infected person might expose to a pathogen and thereby, infect with the disease. The more easily transmitted a disease, the higher the RO.  The chart below shows epidemiological estimates regarding the immunity threshold required to confer immunity to the herd for common childhood illnesses.
Photo credit: © Tangled Bank Studios; data from Epidemiologic Reviews 1993. Image Source

Please notice that we said ‘immunity threshold’, not percentage of vaccinated people. The reason for this is that being fully vaccinated does not translate to immunity. Because vaccines generally are effective for only 2-10 years, and those of us who have not had vaccines or boosters since their childhoods, are no longer enjoying vaccine-conferred immunity. If we get our last childhood vaccines at age 18, then by the time we are 28, at the latest, we have likely lost any immunity we gained from vaccines. Even in the most generous scenario, if we were to imagine that all vaccines are effective and that all of them confer immunity for a full ten years, the folly of applying this idea to a vaccinated population is apparent. As of 2014, a full 67% of Americans were 26 years of age or older.  How much immunity, then, actually exists in our general population as a result of vaccination? How much could have ever existed since the introduction of vaccines?

Media stories hyping a dire need to vaccinate based on protecting the herd invariably assume that if a certain percentage of the population is fully vaccinated, we will achieve herd immunity. Knowing that vaccine protection is temporary and not always effective, we can see that this is an absurd assumption. Is this a critical detail that they happened somehow to overlook? Or is it a major point that undermines the entire marketing campaign for mandatory vaccines?

What if the public were to respond to the vaccine marketing campaign and 95% of us became vaccinated today? In short, the herd immunity concept still falls painfully short as a remedy for infection control. Applying the concept to a vaccinated population wrongly assumes that only infected herd members can infect others. This is patently untrue, as we will discuss later. Viral shedding is a well known side effect of vaccination. In addition, even those who are immune to a pathogen can carry it and pass it on to infect others.

  • Vaccines bypass the immune system’s ‘first responders’, the linings of the airways and intestines and the skin itself. Each of these subsystems plays an integral and complex role in the natural immune response. Pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Palevsky explains: “…when you inject materials into your body, you are bypassing that crucial first step called the primary line of defense. With vaccination you are just creating an antibody. That does NOT impart long-term immunity because it does not create the kind of memory that occurs when you breathe it in, eat it, or are exposed through the skin, and then go through the course of the natural disease.”  Avoiding activation of the entirety of the human immune response may have serious consequences about which we know very little so far.
  • Vaccines prevent natural immunity.  Vaccine-conferred immunity prevents natural immunity and all of the known and as yet undiscovered benefits it offers. Lynn Borne describes natural immunity: “When a baby becomes infected with a communicable disease, his immune system responds through a sophisticated web of interlocking reactions that can produce immunity for life to naturally acquired childhood diseases.”  She goes on to explain that one of the functions of these defenses is to prevent pathogens from “… taking hold in the deeper systems and organs of the body.” Borne describes mass vaccination as “…  a man made attempt to remove the natural infection response from human development and replace it with a series of artificially imposed infections and immune responses determined by the doctor’s vaccination schedule.”

The Dangers of Herd Immunity

An emerging model suggests that vaccine-acquired herd immunity is not something to aspire to, even if it were possible to achieve. In his 2016 book, Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, Neil Z. Miller explains that “Herd immunity may never be achieved because high vaccination rates encourage the evolution of more severe disease-causing organisms” (p.109). Miller cites several examples of published studies which support this assertion, including this paper published in 2012 in the World Journal of Virology, this research, published in 2006 in the journal Evolution and this paper published in 2007 in JR Soc Interface. Miller notes that vaccine-conferred immunity is always imperfect and notes that this “… may cause a resurgence of disease” (p.112). Dr. Suzanne Humphries, in her article “Herd Immunity. The flawed science and failure of mass vaccination”, notes that … vaccination creates a “quasi-sterile” environment that opens up the possibility of disease outbreaks.” It’s very hard to improve on Mother Nature, as we have learned time and again. This model suggests that striving to attain vaccine-acquired herd immunity may be a foolish goal, raising the stakes and creating new and more serious mutations of existing pathogens.

You can read more about the protective role of viruses as part of the natural, evolving ‘human microbiome’ in this report by Barbara Loe Fisher from the National Vaccine Information Center.  This report represents a very thorough discussion of emerging information about how exposure to viruses supports health.

Most people fear and view viruses as dangerous microbes that only cause sickness and death. However, emerging evidence has revealed that viruses play an integral role in helping us stay well, too.

-Barbara Loe Fisher

Vaccine-Conferred Immunity is a Flawed Concept 

Let’s take a look at some real world data. As we see in the charts below and in part 5 of this article, there are many documented cases of infectious disease outbreaks in populations in which more than 90% were vaccinated.  Even if the protection afforded by vaccines were long-lasting, (which it is not), they are imperfect and can fail to protect the vaccinated.  This is just one more reason why the herd immunity concept does not and never will translate to vaccinated populations.

vac measles test
Source: Vaccine Choice Canada – Raymond Obomsawin
vac mumps 1
Source: Vaccine Choice Canada – Raymond Obomsawin

More Cases of Vaccine Induced Herd Immunity Failures 

 What Independent Experts Are Saying

Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote an article in 2012 titled “The Deadly Impossibility Of Herd Immunity Through Vaccination”. He reflects on the short-lived nature of vaccine-acquired immunity and notes that “… 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.” Dr. Blaylock alludes to the value of herd immunity as a marketing tool.  He goes even further, connecting the herd immunity hype with a campaign underway to do away with vaccine exemptions and, thereby, our ability to decline vaccines for ourselves and our children:

“Without the mantra of herd immunity,public health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations.”

– Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Suzanne Humphries

Dr. Suzanne Humphries has done extensive research on vaccines and the theory of herd immunity. She wrote about her findings in the article cited above, titled “Herd Immunity. The flawed science and failure of mass vaccination”.  In this very thorough explanation of the problems with herd immunity, Dr. Humphries explains the unintended consequences we face as a result of a strong pro-vaccine mindset: “Vaccinators miss the point that the body defends most efficiently as a result of ongoing re-exposure. They try to mimic this with boosters. But the vaccination plan leaves the elderly (due to vaccine-induced immunity being short-lived and antigens taken out of circulation) and the very young (due to lack of transferrable maternal immunity) more vulnerable to several diseases that were not a threat to them before vaccination.”

She also addresses the use of herd immunity theory to intimidate the public into vaccinating, noting her belief:

“… we are being systematically altered, sickened and manipulated by powerful governing bodies that either don’t understand the risks of vaccination, or don’t care.” 

-Dr. Suzanne Humphries

Another worthwhile article was written by Joanna Karpasea-Jones: “The Herd Immunity Myth”.  This is an extremely well-sourced article which exposes the faulty reasoning behind any translation of herd immunity theory to a vaccinated population.

So far, we have identified that the foundation for applying herd immunity theory to a vaccinated population consists of at least four basic premises which are false:

Herd Immunity:  4 False Premises

⊗ False Premise 1: Vaccines can confer herd immunity.

  • Reality: Vaccines are imperfect and they confer imperfect immunity; outbreaks occur regularly among the fully vaccinated.  This means that we cannot assume that 100% of those who have been fully vaccinated can be counted among the immune.

⊗ False Premise 2: Once vaccinated, an individual will always be immune.

  • Reality:  Vaccine immunity wears off; it is temporary. That means that, for any population currently, a very much smaller number of people have immunity than would be required to achieve a theoretical herd immunity threshold (estimated to be 75%-94%, depending on pathogen).

⊗ False Premise 3: Vaccines stimulate immunity just like having the illness.

  • Reality: Vaccines bypass significant functions of the immune system.  This may have short and long term effects on pathogen-specific and overall immunity among the vaccinated.

⊗ False Premise 4: Preventing illness is always a good idea.

  • Vaccines can prevent natural immunity. Emerging evidence is suggesting that natural immunity may play a preventative role in a number of diseases, including autoimmune disease and cancer. Natural immunity has a number of benefits, including a strengthened immune system, inter-generational immunity and lifelong immunity.

In explaining the impossibility of herd immunity among the vaccinated, experts talk about an additional problem which we must now add to the list of reasons why it just doesn’t add up: viral shedding.

What is Shedding?

Shedding is a medical term used to describe the transmission of a pathogen through the urine, excrement, saliva and breast milk (in the case of rubella) of infected persons and those who receive live virus vaccines.  Shedding occurs for weeks, and sometimes longer, following vaccination. Sometimes this exposure results in infection of others. Viral shedding is acknowledged by our health officials and by the pharmaceutical industry, alike, as a by-product of vaccination with live attenuated viruses. Examples of current live virus vaccines include measles, nasal flu vaccine, shingles vaccine, rotavirus vaccine, chicken pox vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine.

This report from the National Vaccine Information Center, alludes to the fact that shedding is not a topic our health officials are eager to explore: “There is no active surveillance of live virus vaccine shedding and most vaccine strain virus infections likely remain unidentified, untested and unreported.” Twenty years ago, a new procedure was developed which helps to identify the strain of virus causing an infection. When someone has measles, for example, it is impossible to tell what strain of measles they have simply by noting their symptoms.  RT-PCR (reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction) testing is a highly sensitive means for distinguishing vaccine-strain from wild-type measles virus. We have the technology to discern between wild-type and vaccine-strain infections, but are we using it?  If so, where are the results? When there is an outbreak and the blame is placed on the unvaccinated, we haven’t yet learned to ask if the infectious pathogen might actually be the vaccine strain itself.

If you have any doubt that health officials, medical institutions and physicians know about viral shedding, you can review the visiting rules for any hospital and find exhortations to avoid visiting immune-suppressed patients if you have been recently vaccinated. The graphic below, for example, is from the Johns Hopkins Patient Guide. Similar precautions are in place at every hospital.  You can also view the visitation rules at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, for example, which mirror the same information.

Image Source

If you have any doubt about whether vaccine manufacturers are aware of the dangers of shedding, just check out the package inserts for the live attenuated vaccines. Below is a screenshot of the chicken pox vaccine insert.

Varivax-Vaccine-Insert-10 shedding
Image Source

Here is a table taken from the package insert from FluMist, a nasal flu vaccine.  You can see the duration of shedding measured for this vaccine was between days 17 and 28.  The table also shows that between 20 and 89% of those vaccinated measurably shed the vaccine.

Image Source

You can view all of the package inserts firsthand to assess for yourself what the manufacturers share regarding the shedding risk for individual vaccines.

In March, 2015, CNBC published an article titled Public Health Officials Know Recently Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease”. The article addresses the issue of viral shedding following vaccination and quotes Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation: “Evidence indicates that recently vaccinated individuals should be quarantined in order to protect the public.” The article cites no fewer than ten sources in its summation: “Scientific evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza can shed the virus for many weeks or months afterwards….”.  Of interest is the article’s reference to recent research demonstrating that the vaccinated can carry diseases in the back of the throat and infect others while displaying no symptoms of a disease. Finally, the article concludes that viral shedding as a result of vaccines poses a risk to both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals due to the transient and imperfect immunity conferred by vaccines.

“Vaccine failure and failure to acknowledge that live virus vaccines can spread disease  have resulted in an increase in outbreaks of infectious disease in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.”

-Leslie Manookian, 

producer of The Greater Good 

Image Source

Shedding or Unvaccinated Children?

Whenever the smallest outbreak occurs in the US, the media and our health officials immediately point the finger of blame toward the unvaccinated.  As if acting as a hundred arms of a single, well-oiled machine, they will speculate that it was started by an unvaccinated person. The top priority, they will tell us, is that everyone get vaccinated. Soon after that, the digital lynch mob comes out posting mean spirited memes and the shaming campaign begins. But what if it is not the unvaccinated children who are transmitting the virus, but rather, the recently vaccinated? When we consider the benefits of natural immunity among the unvaccinated, in conjunction with the phenomenon of viral shedding, who would you rather your child be in close contact with —the child who was recently vaccinated with a live virus or an unvaccinated child who has not? There is mounting evidence showing that those who recently received a live virus vaccine can and do spread disease and cause outbreaks.  As we can see from the vaccine inserts, viral shedding can last for a long time. If we are concerned about infecting the immune-compromised, shouldn’t we be concerned about infecting the general population as well?

The Questionable Science Behind Vaccines

vac debut
Source: Vaccine Choice Canada – Raymond Obomsawin

The science that supports the idea of vaccination is remarkably muddy and was born from a fundamentally flawed concept.  Namely, the theory wrongly presumes that the creation of antibodies to a particular pathogen is sufficient to confer immunity. In fact, not only are antibodies insufficient, we now know that they are sometimes completely unnecessary for immunity.

The Theory Behind Vaccines

The idea behind vaccines started as a noble one.  The basic premise is that we could save some misery and even some deaths by avoiding certain common illnesses. The idea is to reduce illness.  The plan is to trick our bodies by having just enough contact with a pathogen that we develop immunity to the real thing. The mechanism is that a vaccine introduces one or more antigens into the body and, in response, we produce antibodies.  These antibodies learn to recognize the illness and then form memory cells that will immediately identify this illness in the future and do away with it before we get sick. This is referred to as the primal theory of disease prevention.

We have been raised to believe that vaccines work and that this theory is a factual and complete justification for the widespread use of vaccines.  You might be surprised to learn how wrong the theory has been regarding what mechanism actually confers immunity. Whenever these problems are addressed, it is often as the subject of lengthy, academic articles and studies. These kinds of studies don’t make the evening news and, for this very reason, they are important to cover here.

Problems with the Primal Theory of Disease Prevention

Originally published in 1928, H.M. Shelton’s work was grounded in the belief that the human body is adept at handling illness without interference and the human immune system is brilliantly complex and effective when the body is well nourished.

“Nature makes no mistakes and violates no laws. She is uniformly governed by fixed principles and all her actions harmonize with the laws that govern those actions.”

-Herbert M. Shelton

from Human Life: Its philosophy and laws.

This primal theory of disease prevention is the bedrock upon which vaccination practice is built.  This is how doctors are taught to understand the mechanism of vaccines; it explains why we vaccinate and how vaccines work. Except that it doesn’t — and the medical community has known this for a long, long time.

The theory has been in question from the beginning. At the outset, as vaccines were first being used and the primal theory of disease prevention was being developed by Paul Ehrlich, there were skeptics of the practice who were highly esteemed within the field of medicine. One example of an early critic is W.H. Manwaring, who was a professor of bacteriology and experimental pathology at Leland Stanford University. Raymond Obomsawin, PhD, in his book UNIVERSAL IMMUNIZATION Medical Miracle or Masterful Mirage, quotes Manwaring:

I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . . . Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological role of the specific ‘antibodies’ is erroneous.

Antibodies are not reliable predictors of immunity. Dr. Obomsawin points out that the role of antibodies as primary predictors of immunity continued to lose ground as a viable theory during the mid-1900’s.  He notes that, for example, children with an inherent immune deficiency (agammaglobulinaemia) cannot produce antibodies at all, and yet they still recover from measles and develop lifelong immunity.  Obomsawin quotes the Nobel prize winning virologist Sir MacFarlane Burnet: “In his view it was clear “‘that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody.'”

In the 1940’s, Dr. Merrill W. Chase  helped to discover another aspect of the immune system: cell-mediated immunity. In publishing Chase’s obituary in 2004, the New York Times quoted other experts regarding Chase’s research: ”So many areas of medicine rely on this type of reaction that he clearly distinguished as not being antibody mediated,” said Dr. Ralph Steinman, a professor of cellular physiology and immunology at Rockefeller. ”People never anticipated that there would be something other than antibodies. It was an amazing finding.”

In 1980, researchers knew that the primal theory of disease prevention was wrong. Authors of this study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, examined a rubella outbreak among staff at one hospital and found that “(n)either a history of rubella nor a history of immunization with rubella vaccine was reliable in the prediction of the presence or absence of immunity.” They concluded: “It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior serologic determination.” This means that titers showing a high level of antibodies did not reliably predict immunity and vice versa; antibody levels were unrelated to immunity.

Obomsawin offers a long list of research examples in his book, which have built upon one another over time, to substantiate that the antibody theory of vaccines is, at best, a gross oversimplification of a brilliant, multi-dimensional living system.  It simply no longer works as a theory. Those who research this and who think about it, marvel at the fact that vaccines are heralded everywhere we turn, as the saviors of us all. The reality is that vaccines have created antibodies which, alone, do not confer immunity.  The contrast between the reality and the prevalent vaccine marketing message is disconcerting.

The flu vaccine has now been shown to have exactly the opposite of the advertised effect. Dr. Mercola references a study published in 2011 in the Journal of Virology which found that the flu vaccine may weaken children’s immune systems and increase their chances of getting sick. Dr. Mercola explains: “With vaccination, you are merely creating an antibody, but as the Journal of Virology study showed, the unvaccinated children actually built up more antibodies against a wider variety of flu virus strains than the vaccinated children!”

 “Warning: All Vaccines Compromise Natural Immunity.”

-Dr. Joseph Mercola


We should ask ourselves this question: We have recently learned that vaccines are only effective for anywhere from two to ten years (thus the need for boosters) and we know that most of the population does not receive the full schedule of vaccines.  The US has an estimated immigration population of anywhere from 10-20 million people, many without access to the full schedule of vaccines. All of this begs the question: unless everyone in our country had all these diseases as children which conferred lifetime immunity, (which is not the case), how can there ever be herd immunity?

Why are we hearing so much about herd immunity lately? Why do our officials promote this theory so aggressively, despite all of the conflicting evidence showing its flaws? Are our health officials really worried about our health or is their concern more likely for maintaining the sponsorship of the pharmaceutical industry that funds them? Is this a grand gesture in support of the pharmaceutical industry agenda regarding vaccines? As our human rights are stripped away in the name of public health, perhaps they have resorted to bolstering their argument with a plea to protect the weakest among us.

Maybe this is Plan B, to fall back on in the event they can’t sufficiently influence our lawmakers and courts to implement mandatory cradle to grave vaccines based on the data. Or perhaps it’s the beginning of the second wave, whereby once childhood vaccines are mandatory, this will be the argument that supports mandatory adult vaccines. Unless we get seriously involved in doing our own research, informed consent is dead or dying and history will show the myth of herd immunity to have been a nail in the coffin.

Not only does the herd immunity concept fail to translate to a vaccinated population, but the very theory of disease prevention by which vaccines are sanctioned is fatally flawed.

This is Part 7 in the 12 part series: A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines

Part 1: Why Are So many People Choosing Not To Vaccinate?

Part 2: A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies

Part 3: Vaccine Policymakers and Conflicts of Interest

Part 4: How The CDC, FDA and WHO Lost the Trust of Vaccine Skeptics

Part 5: Are Vaccines Safe & Effective?

Part 6: What Are The Real Risks of Not Vaccinating in the U.S.?

Part 7: Herd Immunity, Shedding and the Questionable Science Behind Vaccines

Part 8: Did Vaccines Really Eradicate Infectious Diseases in the 20th Century?

Part 9: The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism

Part 10: Why Don’t We Hear The Whole Story About Vaccines?

Part 11: What Are Independent Experts Telling Us About Vaccines?

Part 12: Vaccines: The Greater Good or Greater Greed? – Conclusion