or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › Everything Else › How do you feel about vaccinating in very underdeveloped countries?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How do you feel about vaccinating in very underdeveloped countries? - Page 6

post #101 of 119
But overall, the official jury is out, yes?:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...21?cookieSet=1
post #102 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallacesmum View Post
But overall, the official jury is out, yes?:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...21?cookieSet=1
The effect is there and I don't think that's disputed, but the details seem to vary from population to population.
post #103 of 119
Another interesting study:

http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1162

"Pneumonia was most common cause of death in children with measles in the four studies that specified cause. Pooling data from studies that used two doses of vitamin A, comprising 429 hospitalized children, the reviewers found a 67 percent reduction of mortality from pneumonia.

However, when taking into account all studies, which included outpatients with mild disease, vitamin A did not significantly reduce measles-related mortality for children above age 2.

However, when taking into account all studies, which included outpatients with mild disease, vitamin A did not significantly reduce measles-related mortality for children above age 2.

Vitamin A cut the risk of post-measles croup by 41 percent (722 children studied), and of the two studies that addressed post-measles diarrhea (474 children), the one using two doses of vitamin A showed a 65 percent lower risk of developing diarrhea, while the single-dose study did not show reduction."


Thought this was also interesting:


"Vitamin A deficiency puts unvaccinated or under-vaccinated children at higher risk for measles. In turn, measles can contribute to acute vitamin A deficiency. "

Wonder if that sentence should read a deficiency can put under-vaxed kids at risk for measles complications?



"Vitamin A deficiency is not an issue in the United States or most other developing countries. However, for some 60 countries worldwide, vitamin A programs are in place or planned for the prevention and treatment of measles, according to the study authors."


I like the "treatment" component...
post #104 of 119
I thought one study showed that there was increased risk with vit. A in children with pneumonia.
post #105 of 119
Thread Starter 
Gitti, what I was referring to specificall was the claim that exposure to the measles can prevent asthma. Do you have any references for that specifically?
post #106 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
Where is your information that shows that maternal immunity is lasting?
Did someone say that? I think we are all aware that maternal immunity is not lasting but it makes the disease the second time, milder.
That is how diseases that were killers, became benign.
The first time, lots of people died from the scourge. The ones that survived passed that immunity on to the offspings and they had then base immunity which made the disease milder when they then encountered it.
It was like that for all diseases from what I'v read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post
... measles can prevent asthma. Do you have any references for that specifically?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
post #107 of 119
There are actually quite a few studies that show a protective effect against asthma from a multitude of infections, as long as they are not lower respiratory infection (which demonstrate the opposite effect).
post #108 of 119
The positive relationship between childhood illness and asthma, versus the negative relationship between vaccine-induced immune responses and asthma, is quite curious.
post #109 of 119
Depends on the vaccine (and even then, the evidence I have seen on the 'increase in asthma' side is nothing concrete with a possible exception for the Hep B which I have read a few studies that make think maybe that one could be an issue)
post #110 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti View Post
Did someone say that? I think we are all aware that maternal immunity is not lasting but it makes the disease the second time, milder.
That is how diseases that were killers, became benign.
The first time, lots of people died from the scourge. The ones that survived passed that immunity on to the offspings and they had then base immunity which made the disease milder when they then encountered it.
It was like that for all diseases from what I'v read.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
You sort of implied it. First talking about Vit A and mortality and then sliding in severity and maternal immunity. It was hard to tell if you were referring to maternal immunity and mortality or to severity.

I guess I question this regarding measles because vaccination in developing countries is not widespread and effective, children are still getting immunity probably because more kids are breastfed than in developed countries. But their cases are not dropping and they are still dying. So how does that work there? It doesn't seem less severe at all to me.




"As you see, the decline in mortality from measles was well established BEFORE the introduction of the measles vaccine. During that time people had decent food and certainly plenty of Vitamin A.

Now could it be that Vitamin A did play a role in reducing the severity?
That is the question. My guess is that it did.
That, and the fact that we carried with us maternal immunity."
post #111 of 119
Quote:
I guess I question this regarding measles because vaccination in developing countries is not widespread and effective, children are still getting immunity probably because more kids are breastfed than in developed countries. But their cases are not dropping and they are still dying. So how does that work there? It doesn't seem less severe at all to me.
I think vaccination is becoming pretty widespread and, according to the WHO site, deaths are dropping dramatically. It would be interesting to see numbers that isolate non vaccine targeted areas, but I don't know if we can find anything on that. (i mean, studies on these populations that don't involve vaccines-- most of them are just measles numbers pre and post vaccine or vaccine +A)
post #112 of 119
You just misunderstood.
post #113 of 119
I haven't read the asthma studies, but the connection is so logical, given the way vaccines are supposed to work and the nature of asthma as a condition. Since there aren't any real vaxed vs. nonvaxed study, there is no way to know, but when there is an inflammatory condition associated with a hyper T cytokine response, similar to the one that the vaccines are intending to make, I think it is worth some serious inquiry.
post #114 of 119
The difficulty with any study that looks at deaths from a particular disease is that it doesn't actually tell you if lives are being saved.

Here is how it can work.

We have a population where 500 children die every year from disease A. Vaccine is developed and introduced and disease A vanishes (or almost vanishes) from the scene and deaths from this disease go down to zero. Huge success, right?

Not necessarily. What could have happened:

Some children who would have died from disease A have been saved.

Some children died as a result of the vaccine. Some of these children would have died from disease A, so we are equal on that one, but some of them wouldn't have died from disease A, so we have some additional deaths which are NOT counted at all, if we are limiting our research to deaths from disease A.

Some children die from different diseases. Some of these children would have died from disease A (it was the most common cause of death, which is why they developed a vaccine) but since the kids are still malnourished and living in filth and misery, diseases B, C and D, do them in. These deaths aren't counted either, but the children are just as dead.

We aren't getting accurate accounting. We are getting accounting designed to give the vaccines all the credit going around. Even credit for children who are still dead, but aren't considered because they didn't die of measles.
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
We aren't getting accurate accounting. We are getting accounting designed to give the vaccines all the credit going around. Even credit for children who are still dead, but aren't considered because they didn't die of measles.

Exactly!

Same for possible side effects of vaccines.

I have been looking for the numbers of children with diabetes Type I. Where are the numbers?

Why would the CDC keep track of how many kids have measles but not how many are suffering from Type I diabetes?
post #116 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
I think vaccination is becoming pretty widespread and, according to the WHO site, deaths are dropping dramatically.
Right... the drop being probably more aligned with vaccination since prior, there was maternal immunity (such as Giti is describing) yet measles persisted and mortality was high. My point I guess is that maternal immunity didn't seem to be helping people say, In Africa, where measles has been notoriously high and mortality high.
post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Some children who would have died from disease A have been saved.
To bring this back to the developing country perspective, how were these children being saved? other than Vit A with its questionable reliable effectiveness, what else has been done to save them?
post #118 of 119
In my narrative, the vaccine saved them. I'm not denying that the vaccine "saves" lives. I'm arguing that the accounting is screwy. If all you count is measles deaths, then hurrah, deaths are going down. If deaths are going up from other causes than measles, those deaths will not be counted. But the children who have died are just as dead as if they had died of measles.

No system which looks at each disease in isolation is going to give accurate numbers.

Here, I'll give you another example.

Women and babies died in childbirth if the baby, for whatever reason, couldn't emerge. With the invention of forceps, it was possible to intervene and "save" babies and mothers from death in childbirth. This was good. Due to a failure to understand the need for cleanliness, however, this positive, live-saving intervention, resulted in many deaths of both mothers and babies from puerperal fever (breastfed babies would die as a result of the mother's infection). So, if someone was counting only deaths in childbirth, forceps were an unmitigated success and made a huge difference. If an accurate accounting was employed, forceps saved a small number of lives.

The accounting methodology is faulty.
post #119 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti View Post

Cool, thanks!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Everything Else
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › Everything Else › How do you feel about vaccinating in very underdeveloped countries?