How do you feel about vaccinating in very underdeveloped countries? - Page 5

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by MissRubyandKen

According to what I've read authorities claim ring vaccination is what eliminated smallpox.

I believe they generally credit the combination.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by Gitti

That is/was desired. People traveled to get measles and build life long immunity. They had to travel to get it though...it's not just everywhere. We looked!

What does this have to do with the implication that measles was reduced due to Vit A? Were is the source on that? Where is the proof that that there was some sort of uptake and surge in Vit A usage that corresponded to the reduction of measles CASES versus complications/mortality? If it's there, I would love to see it (honestly).

Yes, I have seen the few studies that are out there that show that Vit A can lessen complications and mortality from measles, but that it's a big leap to say that somehow Vit A helped measles drop in this country.

If anything, due to the nutrition (fast food, processed food, less fresh stuff), I would say out overall vitamin A consumption has probably decreased over the decades if I were to make any leap.

[wallacesmum]

Are you in the US? Because I wasn't addressing that, and Gitti is talking about Germany. I am talking about the relationship between lessened symptoms due to co-administration of Vit. A and fewer reported incidents in the developing world. As the recent Arch Ped article on flu vax suggested, children who are not very sick with VADs are not treated in acute care facilities, and thus their illnesses are often not reported.

[anewmama]

Where is the source for you implication though that Vit A was administered and was the reason for the fewer reported incidents?

I know Giti was talking about Germany because I brought it up. I was just doubting the entire role of Vit A in the reduction of measles versus the role of vaccination since 1) Germany is a developed country with good nutrition and assumed adequate intake of Vit A, 2) they continue to have outbreaks of measles in non-vaccinated groups.

I am just wondering as it seems you implied that the reduction in measles was due to Vit A.

Of course kids with VPD's who show mild symptoms might not present at doctor's offices and hospitals. But you are implying that measles went from a very noticeable and reported disease to being completely mild and not even worthy of taking infected kids to doctors all due to some widespread practice of administering Vit A.

I don't think that is true. But if you have the sources, please post.

[MissRubyandKen]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

I believe they generally credit the combination.

Would make more sense.

[anewmama]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft
It's pretty easy to show vaccine success when you look at the measles vaccine. It is highly effective and prevents transmission. I have tons of studies on that.

eta-- the example of measles might serve better than small pox since we have "here and now" studies on it

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

How much of that is related to vit. A, though?

uccomama, I don't think pumpkinhead is advocating that approach! I think we just got into a discussion of what it would mean and whether it was done, as a result of a comment early in the thread.

This is what I am referring to. Carrie talked about success of measles vaccine and you asked how much of it was related to Vit A. (I assume you are including the US).


Unless your question was about something else?

[carriebft]

Yes, I was also initially confused by the vit A statement as well. But I think she was trying to say that vit A reduces the severity of measles, so you get less reported cases when it is used. It has not been shown to prevent measles, however.


Although even this idea is contested:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/146/8/646.pdf

There was no sex difference in
incidence, but acute case fatality was somewhat higher in girls than boys (adjusted odds ratio = 1.3, 95% Cl
0.9-2.1). Measles incidence was lower in vitamin A-supplemented groups (23.6 per 1,000 child-years) than in
placebo groups (28.9 per 1,000 child-years), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.33).
Among 946 measles cases in clusters randomized to receive vitamin A or placebo, there was no marked
difference in acute measles case fatality between vitamin A-supplemented and placebo groups (15.4% vs.
14.5%, respectively). The biologic effects of vitamin A supplementation on the subsequent clinical manifestations
and severity of measles need further elucidation

[Gitti]

Talking about the benefits of disease:

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

Do you have any references for that? It's really interesting and I've never heard of that.

There is a lot written about that. Seems like older people knew kids had to get through some severe infections in order to build a strong immune system that will prevent much more severe diseases such as cancer, leukemia...


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/330/7503/1294

Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that reduced exposure to infection in the first few months of life increases the risk of developing acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

(my bold)


http://vaclib.org/basic/vaxhealth.htm

Today we know that childhood diseases have a strengthening and healing effect on the children and help maintain health during adulthood. This fact has always been known to older generations.

The children's hospital in Basle (Switzerland) used to get children with chronic kidney infections to contract measles intentionally in order to heal them, up until the 1960s 2.

http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web6.html

"Diseases are crises of purification, of toxic elimination. Symptoms are the natural defenses of the body. We call them diseases, but in fact they are the cure of diseases."

This seems to be fact. Because

The real disease is Toxaemia out of which the symptoms arise.

I have talked to a very informed MD about whether a vaccine virus will produce the same disease in a child as a wild virus.

The question was actually when we introduce our kids to chicken pox viruses from a vaccinated child, do the kids get immunity to the vaccine virus or to the wild virus.

He explained: the vaccine or the wild virus both will trigger the body to produce its own pathogens. (There was more but that's enough for this discussion.)

That makes so much sense to me because growing I have always heard that in the first 7 years of a child's life the child builds all the immunity that will carry him through the rest of his life. Some kids get symptoms with the infections, some only get a little cranky. That is beside the point. The most important is to let the body deal with it and give the child the chance to build immunity.

By clearly understanding the true purpose of symptoms, the beneficial nature of childhood infections becomes readily apparent. These so-called infections serve to restore internal purity thereby promoting the health of the child.

...the greatest part of all chronic diseases is created through the suppression of acute disease by means of drug poisons and through the destructive effects of the drugs themselves. Sir William Osler

And then there is this -
http://www.healing.org/Child-chap%2011.html

[Gitti]

[QUOTE=anewmama;12561382]...

This graph shows the decline in five infectious diseases from 1900 up until 1965, also indicating the years when various vaccines were introduced into public use.

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.

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs...rint_list_item



.

[wallacesmum]

anewmama, thank you for bringing to my attention that I have not been clear.

I want to know what percentage of the reported incidence of measles might be related to the co-administration of vit. A with the vaccine. Vit. A does not appear to reduce incidence of the disease (although I am taking everyone's word for that, too), so it would be less related to a reduction in actual events of the disease as to milder cases that don't get reported. I am basing that suspicion on similar suggestions made by pro-vax researchers studying other diseases. I don't know; that's why I am asking. Sounds like no one in this discussion does, that is why I said I should go do the research.

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by anewmama

But you are implying that measles went from a very noticeable and reported disease to being completely mild and not even worthy of taking infected kids to doctors all due to some widespread practice of administering Vit A.

Oh my, I really didn't mean to imply that; that's certainly not what I said.

[anewmama]

but it's pure conjecture, isn't it, that Vit A was the reason? I mean you are just guessing, no? Was A ever administered regularly as a practice? As a supplement in the US?

I think something contributed to the decline of incidences and it was probably a combination of many factors and ultimately, vaccine being one of those factors but not entirely responsible for the elimination.

And maternal immunity is NOT lasting from what I can tell. Certainly not enough to protect any child beyond a year.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16623854

"58 per cent of these children had lost the protective maternal antibody by the age of 4 months and only 3 per cent of the children had enough antibody to protect them between the ages of 6-9 months. Fifty-five colostrum samples from the same mothers and 347 breastmilk samples collected at various periods of breastfeeding also showed that anti-measles IgA had dropped below the protective cutoff within the first 2 weeks of birth. It is evident that the Nigerian child is born with solid anti-measles antibody but the rate of waning has left a large number unprotected before the first dose of the vaccine. There is an urgent need to review the measles vaccination programme in Nigeria to protect these susceptible infants."


Where is your information that shows that maternal immunity is lasting?

[wallacesmum]

I guess I haven't been quite clear. I don't have the answer to the question, thought someone might have more data, no one does, I should compile it myself. I am under the impression the the vit. A co-administration was a WHO initiative, and thus wondered if it had crossed the radar.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

Oh my, I really didn't mean to imply that; that's certainly not what I said.

we're cool. it was just the combination of the two posts that made it come across that way. i get what you were trying to say now.

But I am still confuse.... *lol*

"I want to know what percentage of the reported incidence of measles might be related to the co-administration of vit. A with the vaccine."

What do you mean? How many measles vax are given in conjunction with Vit A?

[wallacesmum]

One of the things I am wondering myself.

[anewmama]

Here is an interesting study:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/8/1569

But as usual, there is usually something confusing in the language to me of these studies. Maybe Mamakay can come along

"There were no significant differences in the geometric mean titers in the two groups (ratio of geometric means, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.97–1.46). Among malnourished infants, the geometric mean titer was significantly greater in the vitamin A group compared to the placebo group (ratio of geometric means, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.18–2.0), but seroconversion rates did not differ. "

First is says no significant differences between the two groups. Then is says among malnourished, the mean titer was much higher.

First, how can it be both?
And secondly, does this mean that malnourished infants end up with a higher titer with Vit A than the placebo?

[mamakay]

First, how can it be both?

Among "normal" (not starving) infants, vit A doesn't make a difference. Among malnourished infants (a subset of the study population) it helped them achieve a higher titre.

And secondly, does this mean that malnourished infants end up with a higher titer with Vit A than the placebo?

Yep.

[wallacesmum]

And there's this one:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...ract/146/8/646

Which I haven't read yet.

[wallacesmum]

So, MK and anewmama, in that study the vit. A improved uptake in malnourished infants, so the vaccine "worked" better, right?

[mamakay]

Right.