Vaccine Assumptions – Are They Effective?

An “effective vaccine,” as defined by medical doctors, is a vaccine that protects a person from developing the infection that they have been vaccinated against. For example, the chickenpox vaccine is considered to be medically effective if, in the case of an outbreak, those vaccinated do not contract chickenpox.

An “effective vaccine,” as defined by researchers, is one that leads to the development of antibodies after it has been injected into the bloodstream. Referred to as “positive seroconversion,” one vaccine is considered to be more effective than another if the first vaccine induces a measurably greater antibody response than the second.(1)

These definitions are quite different and have considerably different ramifications. It is known, for example, that the presence of an antibody in the blood does not necessarily confer protection from infection.(2) In addition, many outbreaks have occurred in fully vaccinated populations. One of many examples is the outbreak of measles in a group of children that had a vaccination rate of greater than 99 percent.(3)

Further evidence exists that antibody titers measured in the blood have not been proven to be clinically protective. The manufacturer of the Haemophilus influenza vaccine, the HiBTiter®, reports in its package insert that “the contribution [antibodies make] to clinical protection is unknown.”(4) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated the following about the pertussis vaccine: “The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a direct correlation between antibody response and protection against pertussis disease,”(5) meaning, the presence of an antibody does not guarantee that the vaccinated person will be protected from contracting a pertussis infection.

Therefore, when the medical community reads that a vaccine as been “proven to be effective” the perception is that it will confer nearly 100 percent protection. It is important to understand that effective and protective in vaccine research are not synonyms.

The dogma that “vaccines are safe and effective” has become medicine’s sacred cow. Within the medical community, it is considered irrational to question the importance of vaccines. Parents who have experienced the wrath of pediatricians are seeking information independently. After reading horror stories of vaccine injury or have sadly experienced first-hand their child regressing into autism, many are deciding for themselves not adhere to the vaccine dogmas preached by the medical profession. They are deciding that the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risks of normal childhood diseases. They are finding other, more natural ways, to keep their children healthy. Information is power, and they are taking self-empowering steps to make healthcare decisions away from the fear-based dogma of medical professionals.

A benchmark of public health policy in a mature society is the absence of infectious diseases. This doctrine emerged from the pre-antibiotic era, when thousands of people died annually across the globe from infections introduced through poor hygiene. We have long past this basic need in our society. Our concept of public health must become more than the myopic focus on high vaccination rates and low infection rates.

The dogma “vaccines are safe and effective” must be replaced with the truth: Vaccines can be harmful and have not been proven to be medically to protect from infection. It is time to dispense with this dogma before one more child becomes a medical statistic.



(1) CDC. MMWR. Pertussis Vaccination: Use of Acellular Pertussis Vaccines Among Infants and Young Children. March 28, 1997/Vol. 46/No. RR-7, p.4

(2) Del Giudice G, Podda A, Rappuoli R. Vaccine. 2001 Oct 15;20 Suppl 1:S38-41. PMID: 11587808

(3) Gustafson, T., 1987;316-771-774.

(4) HibTiter® vaccine package insert. Physician’s Desk Reference, 2002. Vol. 56. pg. 1860.

(5) CDC. MMWR. Pertussis Vaccination: Use of Acellular Pertussis Vaccines Among Infants and Young Children. March 28, 1997/Vol. 46/No. RR-7.