Mr Manning,

First of all you are putting the cart before the horse - it really would be for Prof Offit to conduct the studies to show that his extreme suggestion was true, otherwise he would be just whistling in the wind. In my submission to the House of Commons Health Committee I remarked:

"There were several obvious things wrong with Offit’s claim that 10,000 or 100,000 vaccines administered to an infant in one go might be safe. Offit was comparing routine exposure to environmental pathogens, with cocktails of serious disease derived pathogens; it took no account, for example, of the use of adjuvants to boost the antigens and the route of administration was nothing like routine exposure to pathogens in the environment i.e. in most cases injected when normally we have skin, the digestive system, the lungs which have evolved to protect us.."

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/07/written-evidence-on-vaccination-from-john-stone-on-dataparliamentuk-.html

In fact, Offit had adapted his ideas from a 1990 paper by Cohn & Langman "The protecton: the unit of humoral immunity selected by evolution" which anyway referred to very different circumstances - and of course if the infant immune system was so robust why would it need to be vaccinated against diseases? Moreover, on this basis if any product was so safe by virtue of being a vaccine, why would it have to be tested for entering the market? - you could just bung them in (which is more or less what happens anyway)..

And as I pointed after my attempts to call his bluff Offit started to have it put out that he'd never really meant it (although the evidence is otherwise). But if you are talking about an experimental base Offit provided none, and it was no more plausible than him declaring that he had fairies at the bottom of his garden.

General question for users of this thread / website:

Can anyone share with me any well-conducted studies in support of any claims made here? .... specifically in support of the claims that the child's immune system "can't" handle an aggressive schedule of immunizations? Or that natural immunity is somehow being affected by vaccination?

I admit that this whole conversation about the Offit's "10,000 or 100,000" seems to miss the larger point entirely -- that vaccines save far more lives than they harm by protecting us against deadly diseases.

But I am here to ask questions. I am interested in supporting evidence for the claims made here, in this thread and on this website, or even in the antivaxing community at large. Obviously, if there IS good evidence, the larger medical community is sharing it.

In Sickness and in Health . Ach ,for goodness sake John ,don't let these barra boys -abnoxious creatures sicken yer happiness. see Wee Cock Sparra Duncan MacRae youtube One of ma mum Donalda's cousins. Classic two Ronnies Fork handle sketch youtube John,you have pinpointed the problem ie basic bureocratic doublethink translated into fork-tongue medicalised doublespeak terninology.
MULTIPLE EXPOSURE -for "Stupid Days " and "silly sausages" Fact not Fable . March 9th 1957 a gathering of 10,000 people in George Square ,Glasgow ,supported by The Highland Light Infantry and The Glasgow Police Pipe Band .Dr Bill Thompson wrote the song "X-ray Rock" The raffle prize draw for an Austin A35,washing machine,tv ,gas fridge .reported concerns over people having multiple X-rays
to get raffle tickets these people were referred to as "Twicers" The then Chief Medical Officer for Health Dr William A Horn stated "That the end of Tuberculosis was in sight "
Slante mhath , To you very good health

Except he never said what you claim and you have been called out on this lie for years.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/10/06/to-all-who-use-paul-offits-10000-vaccine-paper-to-scare-others-put-up-or-shut-up-and-that-means-you-age-of-autism-and-all-your-team/amp/

John, I fear we are heading towards a disaster in future generations, with natural immunity being destroyed by the over-use of vaccine products.

Take for example mumps as mentioned previously. Back in 1974 it appears it was considered unnecessary to introduce a mumps vaccine because complications from the disease were rare. Yet subsequently a mumps vaccine was introduced in a combined product, i.e. the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines produced by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.

Now we have the situation that mumps is appearing in individuals who have had the two dose schedule. This is put down to ‘waning’ immunity, although I’m not aware we have evidence that the vaccinated individuals affected were ever actually immunised in the first place because immunity is not generally verified, i.e. by antibody titre testing.

As you know, I have been campaigning for parents to have the option of antibody titre testing after the first dose of live measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, to check if their child is already immune after the first dose, but I have encountered fierce resistance to this evidence-based medicine option. It is bizarre. Are they trying to hide something here, i.e. that the MMR is not as effective as indicated by the manufacturers, i.e. that 95% of seronegative individuals should seroconvert after the first dose?

And now ‘the authorities’ are considering a THIRD dose of MMR because of problems with the mumps component?

I find it astonishing that alarm bells are not ringing about this, i.e. that mumps vaccination interfered with the natural progression of what was previously regarded as a disease in which complications were rare, and the implications this has for the implementation of other vaccine products, e.g. HPV vaccines and meningococcal B vaccines, and also pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination which may be causing new strains to develop, and spreading the disease via vaccinated individuals.

It is also excellent that aluminium adjuvants and their safety figure in Nordic Cochrane's complaint to the European Ombudsman about the European Medicines Agency over HPV vaccines:

http://nordic.cochrane.org/sites/nordic.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/ResearchHighlights/Complaint-to-ombudsman-over-EMA.pdf

Elizabeth
You have bear in mind that JCVI's basic terms of reference relate to the cost effectiveness of licensed products, so probably mumps did not make the grade when measles and rubella were already recommended, but the introduction of a three in one vaccine gets round that problem, as it were. In 1988 the PTB could just have pushed M&R harder if they were worried about uptake but probably they were looking forward to softening everyone up for the brave new world of dozens of infant vaccines.

John, re mumps, here's an extract from minutes dated 1974, from a meeting between Central Health Services Council, Scottish Health Services Planning Council and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation:

From Section 10 re Mumps, page 6: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120907090205/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_117596.pdf">http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_117596.pdf">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120907090205/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_117596.pdf

QUOTE:

...In general discussion on the subject of reactions Brigadier Venreenen said that in the view of the Ministry of Defence mumps vaccine was unnecessary because complications from the disease were rare.

The Committee agreed that there was no need to introduce routine vaccination against mumps.

END OF QUOTE.

Soon after the Australian government implemented the coercive No Jab, No Pay law last year, another diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis jab was added to the schedule, for 18 month olds. That's six doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines that children have now, at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 18 months, 4 years and between 10-15 years. With an aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine 'the authorities' know is defective, i.e. may actually be causing new strains of the disease to develop and spreading the disease via vaccinated individuals.

All up, children in Australia aged from birth to 15 years will have at least 46 doses of vaccine via combined vaccine products and revaccinations. This does not include the dubious flu vaccinations we are all being pressured to have every year.

Currently vaccine industry-associated members of the very powerful vaccination clique in this country are lobbying to have the GlaxoSmithKline Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine added to the schedule, even though it's already been rejected THREE times by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee due to 'multiple uncertainties' about this vaccine product for a rare disease.

According to the Murdoch media[1], now there's talk of a THIRD measles, mumps and rubella vaccine being added to the schedule here because "An entire generation of young adults could be at risk of catching the viral disease mumps despite being vaccinated decades ago, as waning immunity contributes to the largest outbreak in 20 years".

Apparently 804 cases of mumps were recorded last year - "But what is worrying health professionals is that 27 per cent of all mumps cases in Australia over the past five years were suffered by adults who had already received two doses of the vaccination, one at 12 months of age and another between the ages of four and six".

"The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation has acknowledged that recent outbreaks of mumps have "predominantly involved young adults, nearly all of whom had a history of vaccination during childhood, most with the recommended two-dose schedule. "This evidence of waning immunity has led to suggestions that vaccination with a third dose during adolescence might be an effective measure to prevent outbreaks." Dr Bartley said a third vaccination to protect young adults with waning immunity is "under active consideration"...

What do you think about that John?

Reference:
1. Young adults at risk of catching mumps despite being vaccinated. The Courier Mail, 14 March 2017: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/young-adult-at-risk-of-catching-mumps-despite-being-vaccinated/news-story/0f265bfa686a4c72fda82393f952e25c

This could be like answering the question "Can a car run people over?" And the answer might be that if the parts have not been assembled and the driver hasn't got in it won't run anyone over. No risk folks!

This is the shifting ground which is already in the paper. Offit slips from the number of antigens to the number of vaccines:

"Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative. But using this estimate, we would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune system would be “used up.”

And the obvious point is that the adjuvants are there to modify the effect of the antigens to stimulate a reaction, so it is not actually the number of antigens on their own which is critical. Equallly, a driver is unlikely to cause a car accident if they haven't got into the car.

Who authorized that photo of him? Seriously. I've never seen anyone look more uncomfortable and evil holding a baby. The baby looks terrified. He should be.

Congressman Dan Burton on 10,000 vaccines

"He should be held accountable for that or, he should shut his mouth"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWWZkYfXWX0

Pharma for Prison

MMR RIP

Eindeker and ndavis

You are really just trolling. The title of the article is:

"Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?"

Dr Offit's hospital reproduced an article from Babytalk magazine which makes the context clearer:

"But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once."

That is what this about. I remember once I tried to return a badly cut shelf which would not fit my bookshelving system to a DIY furnishing store. Instead of readily replacing it the shop assistant kept on sliding it half a centimeter so that it matched up against a properly cut example at both ends. I was surprised that he thought this was sensible thing to do - and that there was anything in it for them - but it went on for minutes, I was obviously being messed around, and I finally lost my temper. But this is exactly what you are both doing - it is shameful, untrustworthy and you both know perfectly well better than that.

Eindeker and ndavis. What planet are you on? For the lay person, i.e. parents thinking about vaccinating, 100,000 (or 10,0000) vaccines is just that. Vaccines. They have probably never heard of antigens. Therefore, John is right: it is a marketing ploy to make sure parents feel safe vaccinating. All your scientific information is completely irrelevant to parents who believe that getting their children vaccinated according the the schedule is the right thing to do. Until is isn't!

John: What is confusing you about the statement you quoted from Offit, seems clear enough to me as a theoretical proposition? I’ve been looking at the 2002 paper and the whole thrust of this is the capacity of the individual to respond to multiple antigenic challenges, as NDavis highlighted in his quote “the theoretical capacity TO RESPOND to 10000 vaccines” doesn’t mention safety, it’s all about the antibody response, as is stated in the summary in the 2002 paper:
1) the ontogeny of the active immune response and the ability of neonates and young infants to respond to vaccines; 2) the theoretic capacity of an infant’s immune system; 3) data that demonstrate that mild or moderate illness does not interfere with an infant’s ability to generate protective immune responses to vaccines; 4) how infants respond to vaccines given in combination compared with the same vaccines given separately; 5) data showing that vaccinated children are not more likely to develop infections with other pathogens than unvaccinated children; and 6) the fact that infants actually encounter fewer antigens in vaccines today than they did 40 or 100 years ago.

Here's what Offit wrote:

"Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. . . . A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that 1) approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide), 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 10^3 B-cells per mL, 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 10^3 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody (therefore, vaccine-epitope-specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), 4) each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 10^3 epitopes), and 5) approximately 10^7 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood, then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 10^7 B cells per mL by 10^3 epitopes per vaccine)."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124

@Eindeker,

the concern that too many different antigens in vaccines “mopping up” the antibody producing capacity

Sometimes I wonder where the claim that "too many, too soon" was to be defined as "too many antigens, too soon". Is that really the parental concern regarding vaccines? How often do parents talk about the "toxic" overload of vaccines, yet scientists will gladly defer our attention to the number of antigens? Why not study whether it's "too much adjuvants, too soon"?

Our daily exposure to environmental antigens far exceeds any antigen exposure to vaccines, so I don't know why this needed to be addressed by the likes of Offit and DeStefano.

@ndavis,

If we are being honest here, I think the average person will not interpret Paul Offit's assertions to mean antigen exposure. Not many people will take the time to calculate the aluminum adjuvant load nor the liquid volume that would have been injected when listening to Offit's assertions that it's safe to take 100,000 vaccines a day.

I mean, if we can take 100,000 vaccines worth of antigens a day, how would the audience who is listening to Offit interpret that as being delivered? Through normal environmental exposures? Or through vaccines as he is suggesting?

It's like John Stone said, it's extremely misleading, and perhaps purposefully so, to convince the masses how safe vaccines really are.

When Offit is being called out on his absurd claim, not only do they make no apology NOR any real clarification NOR correction (except maybe the number that can be tolerated), but they (Offit and vaccine apologists like Joel Harrison and others who quote Offit) double down on their assertions by saying, "well, we didn't mean it that way", or "it wasn't meant to be all at once", etc.

They can't discredit Offit, because if they do, it would just be an embarrassing admission that relying on vaccine experts or infectious disease experts for vaccine information and recommendations is not justifiable.

John, no, NDavies is quite correct in his comment, Offit was referring solely to the potential number of different antigens that the immune system can respond to by producing specific antibodies, it is estimated the potential number is c 10^10 http://biosiva.50webs.org/immunediversity.htm , as Offit stated. This was to answer the concern that too many different antigens in vaccines “mopping up” the antibody producing capacity, also in his articles/talks he does caveat that this is a theoretical consideration and he is not recommending giving 1000’s of vaccines in one visit, it just illustrates the tremendous diversity of potential antibodies that can be produced. There was no attempt to “bamboozle”, he was just illustrating a point.

Just to add a reminder from recent history with the discovery of pig viruses contaminating a couple of renditions of a certain vaccine ...we don't really know how many distinct antigens are in a vaccine (attenuated or not) and therefore we don't know overall antigen count per dose, and if I remember correctly, Dr. Humphries considers aluminum salts an antigenic exposure so that study comparing the older higher antigen containing vaccines to the newer schedule with more doses that could be 1) contaminated and 2) deliberately contain more aluminum should probably not be considered even testing what it limitedly reports to test (IMO) never mind what ever other concerns they try to stretch it over.

John Stone,
Offit was using "vaccines" simply to indicate the number of antigens. He was apparently attempting to assuage common parental concerns that a child's immune system might be unable to respond to 'too many' vaccines given 'too soon.' In the context of his discussion of "the theoretic capacity of an infant’s immune system" in the section of his paper titled "Do Vaccines "Overwhelm" The Immune System" he clearly did not mean to suggest that a tiny infant could be injected with over 100 pounds of fluid during an office visit.

In regards to aluminium adjuvants, which are included in multiple revaccinations now, e.g. HPV, dtap and meningococcal B, the 'experts' even admit they don't know how these work, for example:

"Offit says it's still unclear exactly how aluminium salts stimulate the body's immune response, making the vaccines more effective. "It appears to be several mechanisms," he tells WebMD".[1]

Paul Offit is a very careless and dangerous man. One day we might more fully understand the enormous damage he has done.

Reference: Aluminium in Vaccines Poses No Harm. WebMD. Jan 29, 2004: http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20040129/aluminum-in-vaccines-poses-no-harm#1

ndavis

No, because even in the paper Offit et al slide from the number of antigens to the number vaccines missing out an awful lot in between. It is irrelevant, to cite an example given by them, that the Hep B, diptheria and tetanus vaccines only have one antigen each, because those are not the only active ingredients. That is only one objection of several but a reasonable place to start. And we have it from a CHOP pamphlet:

"But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once."

and from Dr Offit's 2008 lecture:

"I think conservatively, one could say that, based on their caveats, that one could probably respond to about 100,000 different vaccines at one time."... "I would say you probably could get 100,000 vaccines every day."

At best this unhelpful and misleading: to make it the scientific underpinning of an expanding schedule is absurd, irresponsible even fanatical.

It is like the sales pitch of an old door-step salesman - it may have some truth in somewhere but you know it is not actually true, and how you wish they would just go away.

whyser wrote: "
Didn't even think of the volume of liquid it would be. 10,000 vaccines would be 5L of vaccine. Absolutely ridiculous."

Yes, indeed. When Offit wrote, "Given that babies are constantly confronted with trillions of bacteria and that each bacterium contains thousands of epitopes, the notion that children could respond to a hundred thousand different vaccines [at one time] shouldn't be surprising" certainly didn't suggest that Offit believed that babies could sustain the simultaneous adminstration of one hundred thousand actual vaccines (and thus suddenly receive nearly 100 times their blood volume in vaccine-associated liquids) at once.

From The Greater Good outtakes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWWZkYfXWX0

ndavis,

good point. Didn't even think of the volume of liquid it would be. 10,000 vaccines would be 5L of vaccine. Absolutely ridiculous.

ndavis

It is not at all evident that he made that clear, particularly if you look at subsequent propagandistic claims based on the paper notably by Offit himself - which is the point of this article. It is obviously meaningless to say the body could tolerate that number of antigens when in order for the 10,000 vaccines to function they would mostly need an adjuvant. In fact true or not it does not really "address parents concerns", except to bamboozle - it is at best an irrelevant statement.

whyser asked, "Is Paul Offit speaking strictly in terms of antigen exposure?"

Yes. Exactly.

Consider that blood volume in an infant or child can be estimated as about 80 mL/kg body weight, so ten thousand vaccines administered at one time would thus contain fluid equal to many times the blood volume of a 15 pound infant--and so would be fatal. Offit certainly never suggested that administration of so many actual vaccines in a day was safe--only that an infant could mount an effective immune response to the antigens contained in that many vaccines. He made that clear in his 2002 Pediatrics paper.

Offit's assertion presumes a simple(-minded) model of the immune system. I bought _How the Immune System Works_ by Lauren Sompayrac to inform myself of the basics and, boy, the immune system cannot be described as simple.

Nor is it homogeneous. Surely throughout our evolution the exposure of a babe-in-arms to antigenic invaders has been primarily through the respiratory and digestive tracts and the type/quantity of antibodies is different in these systems than in the blood. The primary mucosal antibody, IgA, is good at gathering pathogens and sweeping them out of the body without triggering inflammation. By contrast, IgG, the most abundant antibody in the blood, is good at "fixing complement" which includes an inflammatory response. Cytokines generated by inflammatory response can up-regulate class I MHC expression on normal cells in the tissues, making these normal cells better targets for destruction.

You speak for millions John from the heart well done.

Pharma for Prison

MMR RIP

What we inject into infants defines us as a humane race. So what did 21st century human beings reason was scientifically appropriate to inject into infants? In days to come, science will show these criminals for the inhuman buffoons they are.

Thank you John Stone and AoA for all you do!

Excellent piece, John.

I take the liberty of quoting a message to me from immunologist Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD:

”The immune system has a theoretical capacity to respond to an unlimited number of antigens, but not all at the same time. Once immune reaction starts in the lymph nodes, there is strong competition between immune cells for antigen presentation, which means that some antigens would predominate over the others. And there is also limited physical space in the lymph node that restricts how much proliferation of the activated immune cells it can support”.

That one propagandist would make such an absurd claim is not the problem, the problem is that no medical organization has countered Offit's statements, no one has called on Offit to correct his error. To the contrary, medical organizations and professionals use his statement to justify the poisoning of children with multiple vaccines at once. See this BYU Nursing school video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYDzOy36zk0

The fact that a nationally ranked nursing program would post such an unscientific video on YouTube demonstrates the power of the vaccine paradigm over the medical establishment and over much of the public. Offit is but a tiny part of the diseased vaccine program.

How about these recent findings to add to the mile-long list that easily disproves the 10,000 (sometimes 100,000) claim:

The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment

The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment
Søren Wengel Mogensen et al

Published Online: January 31, 2017
Open Access
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.041
http://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(17)30046-4/abstract

Highlights
...Children were therefore allocated by birthday to receive vaccines early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. In this natural experiment vaccinated children had 5-fold higher mortality than not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. DTP-only vaccinations were associated with higher mortality than DTP + OPV vaccinations. Hence, DTP may be associated with a negative effect on child survival.
Abstract
Background
We examined the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s.

Methods
The child population had been followed with 3-monthly nutritional weighing sessions since 1978. From June 1981 DTP and OPV were offered from 3 months of age at these sessions. Due to the 3-monthly intervals between sessions, the children were allocated by birthday in a ‘natural experiment’ to receive vaccinations early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. We included children who were <6 months of age when vaccinations started and children born until the end of December 1983. We compared mortality between 3 and 5 months of age of DTP-vaccinated and not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children in Cox proportional hazard models.

Results
Among 3–5-month-old children, having received DTP (±OPV) was associated with a mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 5.00 (95% CI 1.53–16.3) compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. Differences in background factors did not explain the effect. The negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (HR = 10.0 (2.61–38.6)). All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (HR = 2.12 (1.07–4.19)).

Conclusion
DTP was associated with increased mortality; OPV may modify the effect of DTP.

Posted by: Jane | March 13, 2017 at 07:21 AM

The developing situation in Aus"Jail"ia is so concerning but what I am hoping for and praying for is the back lash against this level of authoritarianism . Tell me its there ? please

"They said 140,000 have had their welfare payments cut for refusing to have their children vaccinated according to the schedule."

If 140,000 have really refused to budge then this is a marvellous level of resistance .
140,000 people who presumably would vote for anyone but Jill Hennessy .
I think the best resistance method is to attack the media for its collusion & complicity .
Everything about this global vaccine program is dependent on the media .
The media is the weak link .The BBC are chief ringleaders in all of this .

If an infant's immune system has such "huge spare capacity to deal with challenge", why the hell do they "need" vaccines in the first place?

John

"A grand take away from history might be that social cohesion has most often depended on belief systems which were flawed - and the best way to avoid this - or mitigate it - is for modern societies to allow plenty of room for civilised argument."

Unfortunately .. we live in an age where our "modern society" has overwhelmed any "room for civilized argument" .. under the guise of "political correctness" .. which simply allows all disagreement to be reduced to calling people names ... such as .. Plato's .. "lunatic and fools".

Indeed .. in today's reigning "belief system".. HL Mencken's words ring true .. "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"

Bob

A grand take away from history might be that social cohesion has most often depended on belief systems which were flawed - and the best way to avoid this - or mitigate it - is for modern societies to allow plenty of room for civilised argument. Reflecting on my experience I think I began with the illusion that this was a sphere in which government was trying to behave in a benign way rather than fostering poweful interests (in some case perhaps they even tried to convince themselves of this). In fact some of them may have thought that such were the overall benefits of the program that one must never allow for dissent at any cost. The trouble with this is that it means the belief system becomes ever less grounded in reality and ever more open to abuse. Everything now is wrong: a captive market, industrial producers without liability, ownership of the media, suppression of dissent. And at he middle of it complete, unreflecting, indefensible nonsense.