How do you feel about vaccinating in very underdeveloped countries? - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 05:46 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
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.
wallacesmum is offline  
#92 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 05:50 PM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
anewmama is offline  
#93 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 05:54 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
wallacesmum is offline  
#94 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 05:54 PM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallacesmum View Post
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?
anewmama is offline  
#95 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 05:58 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One of the things I am wondering myself.
wallacesmum is offline  
#96 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 05:59 PM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
anewmama is offline  
#97 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:07 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
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.


Quote:
And secondly, does this mean that malnourished infants end up with a higher titer with Vit A than the placebo?
Yep.
mamakay is offline  
#98 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:14 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And there's this one:

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

Which I haven't read yet.
wallacesmum is offline  
#99 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:16 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So, MK and anewmama, in that study the vit. A improved uptake in malnourished infants, so the vaccine "worked" better, right?
wallacesmum is offline  
#100 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:19 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Right.
mamakay is offline  
#101 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:21 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But overall, the official jury is out, yes?:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...21?cookieSet=1
wallacesmum is offline  
#102 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:27 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
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.
mamakay is offline  
#103 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:31 PM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...
anewmama is offline  
#104 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:32 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I thought one study showed that there was increased risk with vit. A in children with pneumonia.
wallacesmum is offline  
#105 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 06:35 PM - Thread Starter
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#106 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 08:11 PM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Gitti is offline  
#107 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 08:17 PM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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).

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#108 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 09:18 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The positive relationship between childhood illness and asthma, versus the negative relationship between vaccine-induced immune responses and asthma, is quite curious.
wallacesmum is offline  
#109 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 09:22 PM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#110 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 09:23 PM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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."
anewmama is offline  
#111 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 09:48 PM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#112 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 09:52 PM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You just misunderstood.
Gitti is offline  
#113 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 09:53 PM
 
wallacesmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
wallacesmum is offline  
#114 of 119 Old 11-07-2008, 11:03 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,605
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
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.
Deborah is online now  
#115 of 119 Old 11-08-2008, 12:54 AM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
Gitti is offline  
#116 of 119 Old 11-08-2008, 03:40 AM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
anewmama is offline  
#117 of 119 Old 11-08-2008, 03:42 AM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
anewmama is offline  
#118 of 119 Old 11-08-2008, 09:03 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,605
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
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.
Deborah is online now  
#119 of 119 Old 11-08-2008, 10:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti View Post

Cool, thanks!

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off