1 pack of pampers = 1 tetanus vaccine - Page 8

[KimberlyD0]

Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital

I know, right?

My head hurts... :

I think in the long run its one of those agree to disagree things...

[ericswifey27]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

I highly doubt this.

Why?

Because no government or private entity would ever use humans as guinea pigs, right?

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by WC_hapamama

Here's an analogy to think about.

Others have pointed to some flaws in this analogy. But from a geogrpahical perspective there is no differenece in terms of risk of exposure to tetanus. I remember reading that you can even be exposed to tetanus in your super sterile opperating theater in the US. Tetanus spores are just about everywhere.That is not the issue. The issue is how well you are educated on the risks of contracting tetanus and how to prevent it. And how well you are educated on the risks of the vaccine. And that there is a choice. Vaccination is not the only way to reduce tetanus death

[Deborah]

This discussion is on the sharp edge of the vaccination debate, which is always between two extremes:

vaccines saved us/continue to save us from dire disease (therefore some side effects are necessary, including the occasional death)

and the other side:

vaccines are useless crap which are forced on people with misinformation and the diseases in question are either not that dangerous or can be avoided with reasonable care and good sense and okay living conditions

I don't buy either extreme, although I lean more towards the second stance. My historical research shows some really bad science supporting the "vaccines saved us" thesis.

[anewmama]

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/.../en/index.html

Communication

Effective communication and social mobilization involve a variety of tasks, such as advocacy campaigns among political, traditional and religious leaders, as well as creating community demand for services and encouraging the community to use services. Almost every disease-control initiative we reviewed required increased advocacy of some sort, as well as counselling of family members and sustained community involvement. Many countries that we reviewed had successful communication campaigns because they received support from WHO and UNICEF country offices and a range of local organizations. We found that only a small number of staff members were dedicated to communication-related issues and that this limited their effectiveness. Since the introduction of the Reaching Every District initiative, however, resources for communication and social mobilization have increased at district and community levels.

Seems to me the WHO is very much aware of the need for communication.

Instead of being pressured to accept a new vaccine, or being encouraged to introduce a new vaccine because it is politically expedient, countries must base their decisions and applications for new vaccines on solid epidemiological data and on evidence that supports the cost-effectiveness of any new approach. Encouragingly, post-introduction assessments carried out to date in six countries show that the introduction of new vaccines does not cause disruption, but instead stimulates improvements in routine services

[Deborah]

I like this:

Instead of being pressured to accept a new vaccine, or being encouraged to introduce a new vaccine because it is politically expedient, countries must base their decisions and applications for new vaccines on solid epidemiological data and on evidence that supports the cost-effectiveness of any new approach. Encouragingly, post-introduction assessments carried out to date in six countries show that the introduction of new vaccines does not cause disruption, but instead stimulates improvements in routine services

However, there are forces out there that are pushing unnecessary vaccines. See this article: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...rivate-profit/ for an example of WHO recommending vaccines for India which are not particularly urgent. Why would they do that?

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by anewmama

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/.../en/index.html





Seems to me the WHO is very much aware of the need for communication.

Sure, the question is, what is being communicated? I know that the communication I get from dd's pedi is not exactly the whole story or enough information to make an educated and well-rounded decision. It is full of pressure and scare tactics. I'd imagine it's not much different for those families.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by ammiga

Sure, the question is, what is being communicated? I know that the communication I get from dd's pedi is not exactly the whole story or enough information to make an educated and well-rounded decision. It is full of pressure and scare tactics. I'd imagine it's not much different for those families.

I think no matter what is communicated, it will not be adequate. As you pointed out, this is a problem here (US but could also include all developed countries) as well as elsewhere.

As someone said many pages back, there is ALWAYS going to be a bias involved here. Whether it's the bias of non-vaxers and how they view vaccines and what information they would want to see presented or the bias of pro-vaxers and their info. I am not sure there is ever going to be an adequate approach to any of this because the pro-vaxers see data they way they do, and the non they way they do.

And BOTH sides point fingers at the other about how they are not looking at the data correctly or don't fully understand the risks (risks of vaxing or not vaxing). At least that is what I often come away with on both non and pro vax sites.

I think another big missing piece is that the decisions we (non-vaxers) make with the information we find is based on personal consumption... ie to vax or not. If you were making those decisions for a country where hundreds and thousands die of (lets say) measles every year, you might as a health official arrive at entirely different conclusion.


You might argue that we'd be better off with measles circulating, it's not that big of a deal, etc, etc... but that is a conclusion entirely made with our standards of living in mind and our access to health care and what not. If you lived where you had to have many kids because you don't know how many you will loose to disease, violence and malnutrition, you might take an entirely different approach to opting out of the measles vax or communicating it's benefit.




http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

29 NOVEMBER 2007 | ATLANTA/GENEVA/NEW YORK/WASHINGTON -- Measles deaths in Africa fell by 91% between 2000 and 2006, from an estimated 396 000 to 36 000, reaching the United Nations 2010 goal to cut measles deaths by 90% four years early. The spectacular gains achieved in Africa helped generate a strong decline in global measles deaths, which fell 68% worldwide – from an estimated 757 000 to 242 000 – during this period.

I think if you were to plot measles in Africa, you would not see a natural decline in cases and death such as you see in the US's figures. A 90% drop in 6 years is pretty amazing.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by Deborah

I like this:

However, there are forces out there that are pushing unnecessary vaccines. See this article: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...rivate-profit/ for an example of WHO recommending vaccines for India which are not particularly urgent. Why would they do that?

Sure. Here is an interesting page linked from yours. It's definitely a very complex problem... with one element at it's root : money.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/336/7647/750#193358

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by anewmama

Sure. Here is an interesting page linked from yours. It's definitely a very complex problem... with one element at it's root : money.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/336/7647/750#193358

It's so weird how, in the US, we're giving our kids (arguably) "unnecessary" vaccines, so that the manufacturing costs will go down, and the product will be more affordable to developing nations, where the diseases kill far more kids.

But the people in India don't want it, either.

[Deborah]

That is an interesting letter--the one in BMJ. The newer vaccines don't seem to be turning out as nifty as they sounded in the original presentations.

I think drug companies are expecting that vaccines will be their long term savior--the drug market is getting saturated--people can only absorb a limited number before the drug interactions and the cost do them in--but I don't think people are going to be willing to absorb an unlimited number of vaccines, either. Something has to give.

[ema-adama]

The cost of research is halved by conducting it in developing countries (7). The compensation needed to pay for adverse events is much lower. In an upside down world where profits are paramount, the authors write that this arrangement ‘could help meet international demand for low cost products’ (1). The fates of human guinea pigs in developing countries don’t count for much.

From the letter in the BMJ
Underlining mine