or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › How to talk your patient into vaccinating...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to talk your patient into vaccinating... - Page 2

post #21 of 75
Um, isn't it common knowlage that vaccination doesn't provide lifelong immunity? Maybe I missed something. There is an adult vaccination schedule right?
post #22 of 75
Considering the recent program slashed the deaths by giving one booster, and most people should get one or two more in their life, that's lifelong. How long until a vitamin A supplement clears the body? A year or two? A month or two? How are you going to keep going in there so often and give every person vitamin A?
post #23 of 75
My understanding of the measles vax is that is actually very good at giving life-long immunity to most people as it is a live virus vaccine. About 200 yrs is the estimation, I have no idea where they get that from but I picked it up from a pubmed article somewhere, I wish I could link to it.

The measles is actually one of the few vaccines that i plan to give my kids.
post #24 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post
How much do you think stabilizing the governments of every third world country will cost? Considering how long, how expensive and how successful we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan? Then you need to create an entire first world infrastructure of transport, hospitals, drains, water treatment plants and sewerage treatment plants, food subsidies, poverty eradication, communications infrastructure and so on. The US's infrastructure is crumbling due to lack of money to maintain it. Do you think a poor country can do a better job of maintaining theirs?

The greatest minds in the world have been working on how to do it for years and have had very little impact. Do you think that refusing to vaccinate poor children and then using their deaths as ammunition to lobby for political change would really work?
Mama, whoa, US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the form of military invasion and occupation. This has nothing to do with stabilizing these countries in the sense the poster was noting. When US speaks of stabilizing these countries they are speaking in terms of stabilizing potential risk to the west. Not the same thing.

And "first world infrastructure" is not needed to develop access to clean water, sanitation, and education. Many of the "greatest minds" working on global poverty solutions estimate that successful alleviation would cost between 60 billion/annually to about 200 billion, lump sum, depending who you ask. the Iraq war alone has cost more that 700 billion.
post #25 of 75
And yet, it still hasn't happened. And, one of the huge issues in implementing those sorts plans is political stability (think of the Congo/Zaire). I ask again, are you willing to keep allowing children to die of measles so you have a shocking number to lobby for political change with? This campaign has saved the lives of 586,000 people this year alone. Half a million people, in a year. They've achieved this in eight years, for less than $2 per person with vaccination.
post #26 of 75
Even if vaccines save lives in developing countries, I don't understand why that should affect my decision where I live (Canada).

I am not anti-vaccine. I am pro-informed consent and believe that every parent should do their own research and make their own decisions without such blatent arm twisting as this. I think vaccines have some merits, and do work - just not as effectively as the powers that be try to lead us to believe. And they absolutely come with significant risk.

When we made our vaccine decision, we weighed the pros and cons of each option. Since we have access to clean water, proper nutrition, antibiotics, and decent health care, we felt that the risks of vaccines outweigh the risks of disease.

If I was living in Afghanistan with none of those things available, would I make the same decision? I don't know... maybe not. I don't see it as a relative factor though.

India still has the plague. I don't let that keep me up either.
post #27 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsJewelsRae View Post
turquesa- interesting!

So I guess it was accurate at the time of printing, but is inaccurate info for 10 years later.
Thanks for digging that up!
post #28 of 75
Just a reminder to remain focused on vaccine issues in this forum. This is not the appropriate place to delve into other political or socioeconomic issues.
post #29 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_lily View Post
Even if vaccines save lives in developing countries, I don't understand why that should affect my decision where I live (Canada).

India still has the plague. I don't let that keep me up either.
Antibiotics aren't effective against measles, because measles is a virus. In fact, almost all vaccines are for viral diseases for just that reason. Plague is not a big deal these days because it's susceptible to antibiotics, and transmission mostly requires fleas and rats.

But, for viruses, Canada is only a few hours on a plane away from anywhere. Look at how fast swine flu spread.
post #30 of 75
Not that this adds much to the conversation, but the plague is still around in North America. In California, where I live, it is spread by native ground squirrils. I had a student once who had had it...caught it off a locker room floor in Orange County.

Sorry...continue.
post #31 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post

But, for viruses, Canada is only a few hours on a plane away from anywhere. Look at how fast swine flu spread.
This argument/scare tactic is much overused. Things may easily spread, but in countries with adequate infrastructure and medical care can be treated. Many on this forum believe that the prevention (in this case vaccines) is worse than the disease (in this case measles).
post #32 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post
Antibiotics aren't effective against measles, because measles is a virus. In fact, almost all vaccines are for viral diseases for just that reason. Plague is not a big deal these days because it's susceptible to antibiotics, and transmission mostly requires fleas and rats.

But, for viruses, Canada is only a few hours on a plane away from anywhere. Look at how fast swine flu spread.
I'm going to second the opinion that this kind of scare tactic is way overused. Yes, look at how the swine flu spread! And what was the mortality rate? Lower than the common flu? I personally know dozens of people who got sick from the vaccination for H1N1. I know 2 people who got sick with H1N1, and neither of them got as sick as the people I know who reacted to the vaccine.

Vaccinations have their place, and I definitely think they are helpful in places where the majority of people do not have access to medication, clean water or sanitary living conditions. But for relatively healthy people in a first world nation that have access to those things... why risk it?
post #33 of 75
We did actually have a measles outbreak here in Canada after the winter olympics in vancouver. It was believed to be started by just such a "plane ride away senario". No one died though.
post #34 of 75
So, since there's no vax for the common cold, should we all just stay locked up inside our houses to keep from getting it? not when there's no need. The cold is not so bad for a healthy person to get. Through the same logic, I refuse to vax for the flu, because it is not so bad. And similarly, we don't vax for pertussis or rota, because, again, not so bad. These illnesses may suck, but they don't suck bad enough for me to justify injecting my own or my child's body with God knows what. The remainder of the vaxes that we don't do are because for us, the risk of getting the illness, combined with the risk of actual harm coming to one of us due to said illness, do not outweigh the risk of the vax itself. And, in some cases(if not all)(i.e. cpx) the benefit of getting the illness outweighs any benefit of the vax.
post #35 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post
How much do you think stabilizing the governments of every third world country will cost? Considering how long, how expensive and how successful we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan? Then you need to create an entire first world infrastructure of transport, hospitals, drains, water treatment plants and sewerage treatment plants, food subsidies, poverty eradication, communications infrastructure and so on. The US's infrastructure is crumbling due to lack of money to maintain it. Do you think a poor country can do a better job of maintaining theirs?

The greatest minds in the world have been working on how to do it for years and have had very little impact. Do you think that refusing to vaccinate poor children and then using their deaths as ammunition to lobby for political change would really work?
My point is that children living in the conditions they do in some parts of the Middle East, Africa, Asia have a lot more going against them than measles. Preventing a death from measles is not necessarily that big of an achievement over the long term when these children have so many other obstacles to overcome. I fully understand the desire to 'do something' and preferably something measurable like the number of doses of vaccine distributed. But it is not that simple. Vaccinated women have lower IgG, making their babies more vulnerable at a time that they are at their most vulnerable. Vaccination is not without it's consequences. And I am sure you are well aware of the complete chaos of providing health care in developing countries.

I think it is horrific to advocate letting children die to use it as a political lobbying tool. However, I do not think that vaccines offer the best solution, necessarily. And I believe it can lead to a false sense of accomplishment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post
However, you have to keep coming back and giving shots on a regular basis. Vaccination provides lifelong immunity without the risks of infection.
To the best of my understanding, measles vaccine is estimated to offer up to 25 years protection, and there seems to be some suspicion that measles is going to re-emerge in highly vaccinated populations due to the lack of boosting from naturally circulating virus. (Keeping the virus endemic provides free boosters to those who have had the disease or been vaccinated, but with the risks to people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons - and would want to be if they could - or who are immune compromised)

I understand your point, I think. I just am not sure it is as black and white as you are presenting it.
post #36 of 75
Quote:
Canada is only a few hours on a plane away from anywhere. Look at how fast swine flu spread.
What "swine flu"?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-Pandemic.aspx
post #37 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post
Antibiotics aren't effective against measles, because measles is a virus. In fact, almost all vaccines are for viral diseases for just that reason.
I am pretty sure I never said that measles could be cured with antibiotics, so I don't understand why you feel the need to correct something I didn't say.

Yes, I did include access to antibiotics as one of the contributing factors in our non-vax decision. Although most VADs are viral, the greatest risk seems to come from secondary infection... when good antibiotics would be of use.

Like, oh say a patient got flesh eating disease from CP, like it was suggested in the original text.
post #38 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by alllyssa View Post
What "swine flu"?
It was a new strain of H1N1 influenza that appeared last year and spread like wildfire. There were cases in multiple countries before they even thought of closing borders, and even countries who did used useless measure. China detained and quarantined people entering the country with a fever, for example, although you are contagious before you start to have a fever.
post #39 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
My point is that children living in the conditions they do in some parts of the Middle East, Africa, Asia have a lot more going against them than measles. Preventing a death from measles is not necessarily that big of an achievement over the long term when these children have so many other obstacles to overcome.
You or I might think it's pointless, but I'm sure their mothers would disagree.
Quote:
And I am sure you are well aware of the complete chaos of providing health care in developing countries.
Which is why cheap, simple interventions that don't require continuous maintenance are so wonderful, aren't they?

Quote:
I think it is horrific to advocate letting children die to use it as a political lobbying tool. However, I do not think that vaccines offer the best solution, necessarily. And I believe it can lead to a false sense of accomplishment.
Half a million lives saved per year is a pretty darned remarkable and true accomplishment to my mind.
post #40 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBoysBlue View Post
Um, isn't it common knowlage that vaccination doesn't provide lifelong immunity? Maybe I missed something.
Quick! Someone needs to tell the CDC!

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...d-of-the-herd/

and

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...6830-1,00.html

Yet, in the same year, the PHS said that measles was not a big deal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00027-0069.pdf

In 1967, the CDC wanted to wipe out measles in one generation with one shot to each customer. We are all on a learning curve with vaccines, including the experts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › How to talk your patient into vaccinating...