I am getting attacked when I suggest that vaccinating pregnant women against tetanus in African countries is not the most productive use of $$$$ to help the situation there. I have pointed out that increasing sanitation measures (providing education about basic wound care/neonate umbilical cord care) and providing FOOD AND CLEAN DRINKING WATER would be much more beneficial to the malnourished mothers, babies and children there.... not to mention, save more lives....
But, no. Salma Hayek is saving mothers and babies !
Does anyone else not see the problem with investing huge amounts of money into pharmaceutical companies and their vaccines INSTEAD of using that money to improve sanitation and supply food to the malnourished ?
No less that the vaccine campaign Hayek is working for is funded by Pampers
Am I crazy here ?
ITA! your argument is perfectly logical to me!
i would assume the people that don't at least see your point (even if they don't agree with you) are probably a lost cause anyway!
but keep spreadin' the word, sister...the more people that think outside the box, the better...at least give them a little food for thought!
I have always thought that Bill Gates's money would be better spent on water treatment and infrastructure development than on vaccines. Most of these diseases are caused by contaminated water, malnutrition, and living in close quarters. It's far easier to fix those three situations than it is to develop a vaccine for every disease that one can possibly contract.
It doesn't make any sense for pregnant women to be vaccinated at all. Is the concern that the children are going to die from neonatal tetanus? Because neonatal tetanus happens most often when cow dung or dirt is put on the umbilical cord stump to stop the bleeding.
I don't see how people can think vaccines are this panacea, and to push for money going to vaccines when the recipients don't even have enough to eat.