Why are we so worried about vax vs non-vax? - Page 13 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#361 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 04:02 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama24-7 View Post


Ah, so you're not here to learn. How sad.

I've flagged your post.
 

 

You want to tell me you are here to learn? Why, Mirzam was quite proud of not Googling the "garbage" (i.e., mainstream science sites) that I link to.

Goose. Gander.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#362 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 04:15 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,438
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post

 

You want to tell me you are here to learn? Why, Mirzam was quite proud of not Googling the "garbage" (i.e., mainstream science sites) that I link to.

Goose. Gander.

 

I guess you missed Cynthia's post with the new guidelines, here's a excerpt for you:

 

Quote:
One: No namecalling. No insults. No attacks. Discuss the topic, argue the opinion, give your own opinion. But don't post to insult, demean, or denigrate a person or group of people as a whole. This includes members as well as nonmembers. Saying "You are an idiot" is clearly not acceptable. Saying "Your argument is idiotic" is not acceptable. Though we have long allowed negative descriptive statements like that, placing them in the "not namecalling" category, it seems to have only served as a loophole for members to insult but claim innocence through "it's not namecalling". 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1400364/posting-guidelines-for-the-forums/0_50

applejuice likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#363 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 04:33 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,438
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)

One can have an opinion of 'scientific' research, mine happens to be most of it is garbage. As Liam Scheff said, Science is an interpretation of data. Most of the data is crap. This is not personal to you. Have a nice day!

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#364 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 06:37 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

 

There is a lot of science supporting the idea that proper levels of Vit. A will reduce measles complications. 

 

I think the polarized views:  that proper nutrition will prevent complication 100% of the time is false; I think the view that nutrition is irrelevant to complication is equally false. 

 

Is it victim blaming to say that people who are obese or smoke are more likely to have heart attacks?  And even if you think it is - isn't it more important to get the message out about smoking and obesity  to try and prevent health issues than to worry about "blame" ?

 

The same can be said for measles and Vit. A.  Information sharing is not bad.

I'm not sure I have ever seen a "mainstream" claim that better nutrition is irrelevant to the outcome in infectious diseases. Unfortunately, as you suggest, there are limits: the most fantastic nutrition in the world doesn't guarantee a good outcome. Although most studies show advantages to Vitamin A treatment, here's one in Ghana where mortality was over 14% and Vitamin A had no statistical effect. (Vaccination did.) And I doubt if many readers of forums are Vitamin A deficient, while elsewhere malnutrition from poverty is rampant. Here's a quote from a web site against vaccination: 

Quote:
 Barclay et al (1987). In the Mvumi hospital in central Tanzania, 180 children admitted with measles were randomely allocated to receive routine treatment alone or with additional large doses of vitamin A (200,000 IU orally, on admission, and again the next day).  Of the 88 children given vitamin A, 6 died, of the 92 controls, 12 died.   In the under 2 age group, out of 46 receiving vitamin A one died, while in the control (receiving no vitamin A) 7 out 42 died. (Scheibner p91)

Ouch! Even the numbers with Vitamin A correspond to a disaster.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#365 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 06:38 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote [emphasis added]:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

One can have an opinion of 'scientific' research, mine happens to be most of it is garbage. As Liam Scheff said, Science is an interpretation of data. Most of the data is crap. This is not personal to you. Have a nice day!

The irony of writing this paragraph on a sophisticated computer and posting it to a worldwide network…

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#366 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 08:07 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

I'm not sure I have ever seen a "mainstream" claim that better nutrition is irrelevant to the outcome in infectious diseases. Unfortunately, as you suggest, there are limits: the most fantastic nutrition in the world doesn't guarantee a good outcome. Although most studies show advantages to Vitamin A treatment, here's one in Ghana where mortality was over 14% and Vitamin A had no statistical effect. (Vaccination did.) And I doubt if many readers of forums are Vitamin A deficient, while elsewhere malnutrition from poverty is rampant. Here's a quote from a web site against vaccination: 

Ouch! Even the numbers with Vitamin A correspond to a disaster.

I followed your link and here's what was stated:

Quote:

Vitamin A treatment of measles reduces acute case fatality. A combined analysis of three randomized controlled trials (8-10) among children hospitalized with measles showed a 66 percent reduction (95 per- cent confidence interval (Cl) 23 to 85) in acute fatality among children who were treated with vitamin A (11). Population-based trials of vitamin A supplementation have shown an average overall decrease in all-cause child mortality of 23 percent (95 percent Cl 12 to 32) (12) and a 26 percent reduction (95 percent Cl —4 to 47) in measles-associated mortality (13), though the latter was not statistically significant.  

 
 
applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#367 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 08:16 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Samaxtics, do you disagree with my statement that even the Vitamin A group's mortality rate is a disaster? The raw numbers in my original post are a little less favorable to Vitamin A than the percentages you have bold-faced. Vitamin A group, 6/88 dead = 6.8% mortality. Controls, 12/92 = 13.0%. That's a 48% reduction. So that was less successful than the 66 percent reduction of the average over three studies. To get a 65 percent (just under 66) reduction, we would need 4/66 dead in the Vitamin A group. So I reiterate, that is a 4.5% mortality rate (plus whatever in permanent injury) in children, which I view as a disaster. You do not?

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#368 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 08:22 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,042
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

Samaxtics, do you disagree with my statement that even the Vitamin A group's mortality rate is a disaster? The raw numbers in my original post are a little less favorable to Vitamin A than the percentages you have bold-faced. Vitamin A group, 6/88 dead = 6.8% mortality. Controls, 12/92 = 13.0%. That's a 48% reduction. So that was less successful than the 66 percent reduction of the average over three studies. To get a 65 percent (just under 66) reduction, we would need 4/66 dead in the Vitamin A group. So I reiterate, that is a 4.5% mortality rate (plus whatever in permanent injury) in children, which I view as a disaster. You do not?

The 4.5% mortality rate was of those admitted to hospital.  Who knows how many surivied (or died for that matter) that were not admitted to hospital.  

 

And yes, it is very sad  :(  The measles vaccine may even be a good idea in a few places until such time as they can improve nutrition, sanitation and access to quality medical care.

 

Obviously the risk from measles is not the same in Ghana as it is in say, Canada.  ;) 

applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#369 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 09:19 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

Samaxtics, do you disagree with my statement that even the Vitamin A group's mortality rate is a disaster? The raw numbers in my original post are a little less favorable to Vitamin A than the percentages you have bold-faced. Vitamin A group, 6/88 dead = 6.8% mortality. Controls, 12/92 = 13.0%. That's a 48% reduction. So that was less successful than the 66 percent reduction of the average over three studies. To get a 65 percent (just under 66) reduction, we would need 4/66 dead in the Vitamin A group. So I reiterate, that is a 4.5% mortality rate (plus whatever in permanent injury) in children, which I view as a disaster. You do not?

 

It's a disaster if a single child dies.

That's not the point, though.


The point is that vitamin A supplementation showed a 66% reduction in fatalities.

Who knows how many more fatalities might have been avoided if other relevant issues had been addressed as well. But since those other relevant issues are carefully avoided by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, we don't even know what they are.  We can guess that clean water and proper sanitation are likely issues, as is adequate nutrition.

Taximom5 is online now  
#370 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 09:34 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

[snip]

The point is that vitamin A supplementation showed a 66% reduction in fatalities.

Who knows how many more fatalities might have been avoided if other relevant issues had been addressed as well. But since those other relevant issues are carefully avoided by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, we don't even know what they are.  We can guess that clean water and proper sanitation are likely issues, as is adequate nutrition.

I think my point is that a 66% reduction in such a high rate is at best an intermediate step. The end result is still very bad. I suggest it implies increasing vaccination coverage is going to be much better than either more Vitamin A (although that might also be useful) or waiting for the eradication of worldwide poverty. I am certainly not against clean water and proper sanitation, but that's going to be a many-generation climb, and if children are dying, it will be even longer.

ss834 and Imakcerka like this.
Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#371 of 466 Old 04-12-2014, 10:21 PM
 
prescottchels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Swimming in essential oils
Posts: 1,648
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Just wanted to let you all know that I deleted multiple posts here in the last 24 hours due to violations of the UA as well as some that were clearly off topic. If you need a refresher about what's appropriate here please check this link that Cynthia posted a couple days ago. http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1400364/posting-guidelines-for-the-forums
Please only continue on here with friendly debate, no name calling or demeaning one another. 

Thanks!

Mirzam likes this.

Former Nanny Extraordinaire, looking forward to being a Mama! treehugger.gif I love Organizing & being a Health & Wellness Coach eat.gif & I'm crunchy granola as long as it's organic and certified gluten free. GF since March '08 yummy.gif. Willoughby Nov '11  cat.gif TTC #1-still, again, some more, & seriously pondering adoption. 
prescottchels is offline  
#372 of 466 Old 04-13-2014, 03:19 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,563
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

I think my point is that a 66% reduction in such a high rate is at best an intermediate step. The end result is still very bad. I suggest it implies increasing vaccination coverage is going to be much better than either more Vitamin A (although that might also be useful) or waiting for the eradication of worldwide poverty. I am certainly not against clean water and proper sanitation, but that's going to be a many-generation climb, and if children are dying, it will be even longer.

And ethically speaking we should be more concerned about bringing in tools for clean water sources for these people , but again it's all about the $$$ - spend less to make more.  Bringing in vaccines is a short term remediation for a problem that won't go away even with a successful vaccination program simply because the foundation (water, sanitation, nutrition, healthcare) isn't there.

sassyfirechick is offline  
#373 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 09:02 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

And ethically speaking we should be more concerned about bringing in tools for clean water sources for these people , but again it's all about the $$$ - spend less to make more.  Bringing in vaccines is a short term remediation for a problem that won't go away even with a successful vaccination program simply because the foundation (water, sanitation, nutrition, healthcare) isn't there.

 

I don't think vaccines vs. infrastructure is a fair comparison. Obviously infrastructure plays a major role in disease and mortality. Obviously vaccines have helped to alleviate some serious illnesses in communities. Vaccines are part of the infrastructure-- the health care infrastructure-- in these countries that have very limited resources. Not only is this admittedly small step of vaccination reducing the burden on rural clinics and hospitals to treat people suffering from other ailments, but it is also relieving disease burden among the population so healthier people are able to work and provide for themselves.

 

In many countries, young girls are responsible for getting water for the family. They might have access to a nearby source of contaminated water, or a more distant source of cleaner water. If the girl is sick with measles for 7 days, even if she's not hospitalized and suffers no long-term harm, it's probably more likely that she'll go to the nearby, contaminated water source rather than trek a few more miles for cleaner water. If that contributes to diarrheal illness in the family, then the demand for water is going to be increased, and the number of healthy people in the family who can help out is going to be further reduced.

 

This is a highly simplified example, but my point stands. Whatever duties these sickened children have that are vital to sustaining their families are going to be disrupted by even a mild case of disease. If that disease can be easily and cheaply prevented in this population at this point in time, then the burden on the community and on future generations is going to be lessened long-term. A week of illness can make or break the progress of a family or small community living in severe poverty. Waves of disease every few years can be a huge setback for building additional infrastructure in the community. There's no magic bullet. It's not vaccines or water pumps or clinics with vitamin A shots, but every little effort makes an impact.

 

Most of the technology that's both accessible and sustainable for these communities also requires a great deal of ongoing human effort. Even if someone came in and installed fabulous water wells with superb water treatment, it would probably be at a central location and there would probably still be people walking several miles to get the water. Thus, the outside technology of vaccines is a more cost effective boost than other outside technologies simply for the fact that human health is so absolutely vital for starting and maintaining other infrastructure-building programs.

 

People need food and water every single day, but vaccines can be given in 2-3 visits to a clinic and can make a lifelong impact for that individual, as well as for their family. It just makes sense.

ss834 is offline  
#374 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 09:53 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)

It doesn't make sense.

 

After all, this was not the order of things in developed countries.  Vaccinations came last.

 

At the end of the day, a malnourished vaccinated person in a developing country is still susceptible to disease when they don't have access to clean water, sanitation and food.

 

And in these countries, political corruption and wealth distribution are the biggest obstacles to improving conditions for the poor.

sassyfirechick likes this.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#375 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 10:12 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,563
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

It doesn't make sense.

 

After all, this was not the order of things in developed countries.  Vaccinations came last.

 

At the end of the day, a malnourished vaccinated person in a developing country is still susceptible to disease when they don't have access to clean water, sanitation and food.

 

And in these countries, political corruption and wealth distribution are the biggest obstacles to improving conditions for the poor.

This along with the fact that since they don't have the infrastructure for healthcare like in developed countries and don't have all the resources, they are trading one ill for another when they begin to experience the adverse effects of vaccines with auto immune disorders, GI issues, food allergies and a whole host of "unknowns" which they are ill equipped to handle.

Mirzam and samaxtics like this.
sassyfirechick is offline  
#376 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 10:21 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,042
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)

I am reminded of Maslov's pyramid:

 

Until such time as things like food and clean water are available, we might just be chasing our tails focusing on things like vaccines, rather than very basic needs.

 

I dunno.  Maybe it isn't an either/or situation….but I can say that if they are over focusing on vaccines while failing to address huge systemic issues, that is a problem.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#377 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 11:50 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

It doesn't make sense.

 

After all, this was not the order of things in developed countries.  Vaccinations came last.

 

At the end of the day, a malnourished vaccinated person in a developing country is still susceptible to disease when they don't have access to clean water, sanitation and food.

 

And in these countries, political corruption and wealth distribution are the biggest obstacles to improving conditions for the poor.

 

Contaminated water is often a source of foodborne illness even in developed countries (how does E.coli get on our bagged spinach?) In developed countries there are still rural populations that don't have access to the same "developed" services that suburbs have. But they do have vaccine programs and the programs work.

 

I work in environmental health, and there are still tons of people in my area that do not have access to "clean" water in the sense of piped, centralized, treated water systems. There are plenty of people with malfunctioning sewage systems, and very little coordinated effort to address this. The majority of rivers in the US are polluted with bacterial contaminants and other things. Groundwater is often contaminated with the same things, and digging a well deep enough to avoid these problems is too costly for people HERE, in my country, in the US. The efforts are building, but they require lots of on-the-ground work by very dedicated people. That's in a developed country where 10 miles away we have a public university, can buy all the junk we want at the store and people can hop on the internet to get information about whatever we desire.

 

There is no "we" to do all of this work for people on the ground in still-developing countries. "We" can give them tools to accomplish things, but much less often are "we" over there to do the work ourselves. Their doctors and their nurses implement vaccine programs in the vast majority of cases. Their midwives want to protect their patients young babies from neonatal tetanus. The WHO has a major hand in coordinating this, but most countries don't just let foreign workers come and run amok and set the priorities for their people. Believe it or not, people in other countries actually want vaccines (sans some political movements in some places like Pakistan), and perhaps seeing the diseases maim and kill firsthand plays a role in that.

 

Tremendous progress has been made with smallpox and polio eradication in spite of the challenges of overcoming these other more wicked infrastructure issues. Tremendous progress has been made with vaccines HERE in this country despite these ongoing water and sewage challenges. Just like vaccine programs, infrastructure needs constant maintenance. You can't go in and "fix" the water problems faced by 1 billion people in the world one day and expect that to last for decades without additional effort. All of these things take ongoing work.

Katie8681 and Andrew Lazarus like this.
ss834 is offline  
#378 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 12:22 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I am reminded of Maslov's pyramid:

 

Until such time as things like food and clean water are available, we might just be chasing our tails focusing on things like vaccines, rather than very basic needs.

 

I dunno.  Maybe it isn't an either/or situation….but I can say that if they are over focusing on vaccines while failing to address huge systemic issues, that is a problem.  

 

I think if we're going to discuss this, we should be clear about who we are talking about.

 

When it comes to refugee camps, or urban slums, where people are in desperate, immediate need of food and water, food and water ALWAYS comes before vaccines. I've never heard of shots being handed out to abysmally hungry children who are left to hunger and thirst even after 3 or 4 rounds of expensive vaccine. 

 

If we're talking about rural communities that have been relatively stable, but are lacking in modern amenities with no immediate, urgent needs for food and water, but a definite ability to improve their access to both, then the community members can decide their own priorities. Some communities might want clinics or a vaccine program. Some communities might need a better water source. Some communities in the midst of an epidemic might choose vaccines, when otherwise they would choose a better water well. It all depends, and unless someone is doing fly-by vaccinating (which I don't think occurs very often without an epidemic), then the community is going to have input. After all, they have to drag their kids to the clinics to get the shots and forceful vaccination programs don't work in the long-term because they breed resentment.

 

How can we judge all these different situations with blanket statements about what ALL of these people need first before anyone offers a vaccine?

ss834 is offline  
#379 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 01:34 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,042
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

 

1.  When it comes to refugee camps, or urban slums, where people are in desperate, immediate need of food and water, food and water ALWAYS comes before vaccines. I've never heard of shots being handed out to abysmally hungry children who are left to hunger and thirst even after 3 or 4 rounds of expensive vaccine. 

 

2.  If we're talking about rural communities that have been relatively stable, but are lacking in modern amenities with no immediate, urgent needs for food and water, but a definite ability to improve their access to both, then the community members can decide their own priorities. Some communities might want clinics or a vaccine program. Some communities might need a better water source. Some communities in the midst of an epidemic might choose vaccines, when otherwise they would choose a better water well. It all depends, and unless someone is doing fly-by vaccinating (which I don't think occurs very often without an epidemic), then the community is going to have input. After all, they have to drag their kids to the clinics to get the shots and forceful vaccination programs don't work in the long-term because they breed resentment.

 

3.  How can we judge all these different situations with blanket statements about what ALL of these people need first before anyone offers a vaccine?

 

I am not sure whether you are making assumptions or have read extensively on the issues.

 

I have numbered things to make them easier to address, should you desire.

 

1.  Do you know this to be true?  Citations, please.

 

2.  I am not sure poor but stable communities get to decide for themselves what they want.  To a large degree I doubt it.  Aside from government (which might have its own ideas about what to implement) most funding for stuff will come from philanthropic funds.  I image they will be earmarked for certain things.  

 

3.  Interesting use of caps and (!!!!) italics with the word ALL.  ;)  As you are quoting me, you seem to be implying I said all - when really my post was quite short and I did not define communities (and if anything - by  discussing those lacking basic needs, I meant those communities lacking basic needs)

 

Alas, it could make an interesting topic, but it is far from simple and well beyond my own level of knowledge.

 

Take care and ciao.

 

Kathy


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#380 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 02:01 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

I am not sure whether you are making assumptions or have read extensively on the issues.

 

I have numbered things to make them easier to address, should you desire.

 

1.  Do you know this to be true?  Citations, please.

 

2.  I am not sure poor but stable communities get to decide for themselves what they want.  To a large degree I doubt it.  Aside from government (which might have its own ideas about what to implement) most funding for stuff will come from philanthropic funds.  I image they will be earmarked for certain things.  

 

3.  Interesting use of caps and (!!!!) italics with the word ALL.  ;)  As you are quoting me, you seem to be implying I said all - when really my post was quite short and I did not define communities (and if anything - by  discussing those lacking basic needs, I meant those communities lacking basic needs)

 

Alas, it could make an interesting topic, but it is far from simple and well beyond my own level of knowledge.

 

Take care and ciao.

 

Kathy

1) http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Enteric-and-Diarrheal-Diseases Not specific to refugees, but this is a starting point for how one major organization that promotes vaccine policy and other human services addresses the issue. There is a statement specifically on low-cost interventions and the benefits of those: "Low-cost interventions are available to help prevent infection and death from acute diarrhea in young children, including oral rehydration solution (ORS), Vitamin A and zinc supplements, exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life, improved personal and household hygiene, and access to safe water and better sanitation." These things are certainly addressed, and by their "low-cost" designation I am assuming are high priority for the GF and its grantees working in these areas.

 

Now, I'm not saying there are not cases where medical do-gooders have rushed in just to vaccinate and otherwise ignore the hunger and thirst, but I have seen no evidence that this is a strategy or goal of any of the major organizations doing vaccine work in recent years-- and really, who else is doing vaccine campaigns besides major organizations? I think this has been a problem with past programs, but led to resentment and distrust of these programs which doesn't help accomplish any goals, even if the goals are truly just Big Pharma profits.

 

2) The Gates Foundation does the majority of publicized work and grants on vaccines from what I have read. Their other programs include agriculture programs. During these programs, they made several errors in assuming which tools women needed to do their work, and had to respond to critical feedback from the women themselves who could no longer work because the tools they were given were inappropriate for their style of work (specifically, in the field with babies on their backs). I no longer have that original report, but this document essentially sums up the experience gleaned from the organization's work on the ground in that example, which was absolutely vital to making their work successful: https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/gender-impact-strategy.pdf

 

Some quotes relevant to my point:

Quote:
There is a structure for monitoring and evaluating measurable improvements in the welfare
of women, children and families by tracking known indicators for nutrition, income and
empowerment.
Quote:
 The potential grantee is committed to listening to the concerns and needs of women as
evidenced by specific milestones, processes or actions that engage women in consultation,
project activities, and feedback loops

 

 

That's a specific example, but given that this comes from the same organization, which has an overarching goal of re-evaluating their programs on a regular basis (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Information/How-We-Develop-Strategy), then I am assuming that a similar approach is applied to the vaccine programs.

 

You're right, the funding is earmarked and I doubt the communities can make demands outside of an organization's scope of work, but there is no organization that I know of that is working on vaccines alone without attempting to also address all of these other issues that have been brought up. Most importantly, these groups need to spend their money on what works and you only know what works by listening and responding to feedback from the communities.

 

3) Not really. As in my first sentence, which you left out, I am saying that you/we haven't made any distinctions about specific circumstances and this discussion is proceeding as if vaccines are being used as a solution for all of these situations regardless of the unique circumstances of vastly different countries and communities.

 

 

I would love to give more sources but I am having trouble accessing search engines today for some bizarre reason so I can't dig too much.

rainbownurse likes this.
ss834 is offline  
#381 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 03:40 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Deleted.

ss834 is offline  
#382 of 466 Old 04-14-2014, 03:47 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

In all of these examples regarding Syrian refugees, refugees being the most likely groups to be lacking in very basic needs, vaccines are a welcome relief for controlling the disease burden, but in none of these cases are they the only intervention offered:

 

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/jordan_70810.html

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/91/6/13-020613.pdf

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp/story.asp?NewsID=47088&Cr=syria&Cr1=#.U0xkUlc7ZkZ

 

Futhermore, unlike what some have suggested, the most preeminent driver for these emergency vaccine programs are actually disease outbreaks and not pharmaceutical profits.

I think I sufficiently addressed my thoughts on non-emergency vaccine programs in developing countries in the other post.

ss834 is offline  
#383 of 466 Old 04-15-2014, 08:51 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)

Actually I didn’t have the refugee scenario in mind.  The food and water handouts under these conditions are temporary.  I was thinking more in terms of permanent communities in developing countries.

Where it concerns developing countries, I understand that most people have good intentions.  But sometimes they are very misguided.  Such was the case when they wanted to get vaccination rates up by using a necessity as an incentive.  They tied a free mosquito net to having a measles vaccine with a vitamin A  supplement.  I think some mothers’ actions were very telling as to what was important to them.

 
Quote:
 

“Three more children have died in Nyanza province, bringing to eight infants

who have suc***bed to an overdose of the measles vaccine in the area...

 

The three died yesterday after their mothers, ignorant of the dangers of repeat dosage of the vaccine and Vitamin 'A' supplements, took their children for fresh vaccination in a span of 15 hours......

Mothers in search mosquito nets donated alongside the vaccine are said to present their children for more that the required single measles dose. The Shinyalu fatality the child died after receiving two jabs at Shikusi Dispensary and at Mukumu Mission Hospital within 24 hours. It developed complications and died as the mother received a second free net.” http://www.mombu.com/medicine/medicine/t-more-children-die-from-double-measles-vaccine-measles-outbreak-exercise-12604468-last.html

applejuice likes this.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#384 of 466 Old 04-15-2014, 09:04 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

There is no "we" to do all of this work for people on the ground in still-developing countries. "We" can give them tools to accomplish things, but much less often are "we" over there to do the work ourselves. Their doctors and their nurses implement vaccine programs in the vast majority of cases. Their midwives want to protect their patients young babies from neonatal tetanus. The WHO has a major hand in coordinating this, but most countries don't just let foreign workers come and run amok and set the priorities for their people. Believe it or not, people in other countries actually want vaccines (sans some political movements in some places like Pakistan), and perhaps seeing the diseases maim and kill firsthand plays a role in that.

I think the old saying of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" is in effect here.

Most of these developing countries do not have the money to implement their own medical system, and they become beholden to the people/sources that do make financial contributions.  

(I apologize for the Wikipedia link but it had a good compilation of experimentation examples) n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Experimentation_in_Africa#Meningitis_testing_in_Nigeria_-_1990s

 
Quote:

“Many African nations cannot afford to offer medicine for their citizens without subsidies from multinational pharmaceutical corporations.[4] To court these pharmaceutical corporations, some African nations minimize legal regulations on the conduct of medical research, which prevents potential legal battles from arising.[4] This forces some Africans to make a Hobson's choice: "experimental medicine or no medicine at all".[12] People living in the rural or slum area are also more vulnerable to experimentation because they are more likely to be illiterate and to misunderstand the effects of the experimentation.”[13]

Quote:
 

"Less stringent ethical review, anticipated under-reporting of side effects, and the lower risk of litigation make carrying out research in the developing world less demanding," said Ames Dhai, director of the Steve Biko Centre for Bioethics at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa....

According to Sonia Shah, author of The Body Hunters: Testing New Drugs on the World's Poorest Patients, up to 80% of patients recruited in some developing countries are not informed about the nature of the study they are taking part in. In addition, many of them do not feel free to quit the trial, because they think that they or their children will lose out on good healthcare or treatment if they abandon it. ”http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2011/jul/04/ethics-left-behing-drug-trials-developing

Interestingly, in all the years I have been researching and involved in forums, I have yet to meet anyone in N.America or UK/Europe that has volunteered themselves or their children in clinical trials for vaccines.  I have yet to read of anyone in the medical establishment (such as Dr. Offit) or their fanbase/promoters  (spokespeople like Ms.Riess) indicate that they have entered themselves or their children into vaccine trials.  And yet there are several that are recruiting. headscratch.gif 


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#385 of 466 Old 04-15-2014, 09:04 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

That sounds like a really bizarre situation. Based on comments in that forum from people whom I presume read the article, it sounds like parents deliberately interfered with the vaccine protocol? The page to the news story is not working for me and I can't find it anywhere through a search, so I really don't have much idea of what actually occurred in that situation.

ss834 is offline  
#386 of 466 Old 04-15-2014, 09:15 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

I think the old saying of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" is in effect here.

Most of these developing countries do not have the money to implement their own medical system, and they become beholden to the people/sources that do make financial contributions.  

(I apologize for the Wikipedia link but it had a good compilation of experimentation examples) n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Experimentation_in_Africa#Meningitis_testing_in_Nigeria_-_1990s

 

I think the fact that there are unethical medical experiments going on throughout the world doesnt necessarily mean that people never have control over their situations. Of course those who have the resources have more control over determining who has access to different medicines. Of course they can operate unethically. We have international laws intended to protect against this. Nevertheless, yes, there are criminals and unethical groups that will defy these laws. Notice that none of the examples you gave relate to major vaccine campaigns. The vaccines being supplied by UNICEF are not "experimental medicine."

 

If you're talking about how drug studies are conducted and the ethics of that, it's a different subject. Even past vaccine experiments are somewhat irrelevant to vaccine programs today because programs, sovereignty and transparency issues are rapidly changing.

 

But the subject we are discussing is whether or not existing vaccines have a beneficial role in international aid programs, and I think that they do.

 

None of what you posted negates my statement that people living in these countries and experiencing these disease do want tools (vaccines, medicines, etc) to help combat the diseases in addition to infrastructure improvements elsewhere. You say that the people need clean water, and I'm not going to argue with that by posting a bunch of examples where companies have gone in to provide "clean water" and it turns out the water is contaminated with something nasty as part of some experiment, just to be contentious.

ss834 is offline  
#387 of 466 Old 04-15-2014, 09:42 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,042
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

I think the fact that there are unethical medical experiments going on throughout the world doesnt necessarily mean that people never have control over their situations. Of course those who have the resources have more control over determining who has access to different medicines. Of course they can operate unethically. We have international laws intended to protect against this. Nevertheless, yes, there are criminals and unethical groups that will defy these laws. Notice that none of the examples you gave relate to major vaccine campaigns. The vaccines being supplied by UNICEF are not "experimental medicine."

 

14 babies died in GSK vaccine trials in Argentina.

 

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/88922/gsk-fined-over-vaccine-trials-14--babies-reported-dead

 

“These doctors took advantage of the many illiterate parents whom take their children for treatment by pressuring and forcing them into signing these 28-page consent forms and getting them involved in the trials.”    

“Laboratories can't experiment in Europe or the United States, so they come to do it in third-world countries."

I am sure there are other stories as well of unethical  vaccine trials/practices  in developing countries.  

 

If you're talking about how drug studies are conducted and the ethics of that, it's a different subject. Even past vaccine experiments are somewhat irrelevant to vaccine programs today because programs, sovereignty and transparency issues are rapidly changing.

 

No, they are not irrelevant. The Argentina deaths happened in 2008 or so - that was not very long ago.  The idea that that pharmaceutical companies are somehow better or more ethical now, with no evidence to show that, is off.  

 

 

applejuice, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#388 of 466 Old 04-15-2014, 09:51 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The problem is that you are both still talking about experimental trials, and not vaccine programs with vaccines that work. I'm not going to argue that unethical trials aren't unethical because they are... well, unethical.

 

That doesn't mean that giving polio and measles shots to countries that need them, or tetanus vaccines to mothers in countries with high rates of neonatal tetanus is a horrendous, unethical proposition. Yep, there can be some infrastructure solutions for all of these, in addition to vaccines. But that doesn't make proven safe vaccines a bad idea, even if only as a short-term solution.

 

Show me how A = B and then we'll be on the same page.

 

Do you want to submit water projects are a bad idea because I can provide you a list of water projects that have failed, or worse, have led to corporate profits at the expense of rural villagers? Does any of that prove that rural villagers don't need clean water? (Hey, here are some examples: Lesotho Highlands Projects, PlayPump failure, bunch of other failed aid projects)

 

Someone please respond to me why vaccine programs with vaccines that are known to be beneficial and known to reduce disease in communities are a horrible idea and why there is more benefit to waiting until the completion of major infrastructure projects before trying to combat ongoing measles outbreaks with vaccines in any village in the world of your choosing. Because that's what I'm talking about.

rainbownurse likes this.
ss834 is offline  
#389 of 466 Old 04-15-2014, 09:52 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,042
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

The problem is that you are both still talking about experimental trials, and not vaccine programs with vaccines that work. I'm not going to argue that unethical trials are unethical because they are... well, unethical.

 

You do not get to set the parameters for discussion.  

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#390 of 466 Old 04-15-2014, 09:53 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Oh. Well, I figured the history of the thread would have a little bit of influence on the parameters of the discussion. I'm responding to previous posts, you're responding to me, so I figured I could return to my original point if I wanted. Maybe you should tell me the parameters of the discussion.

ss834 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