Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I always thought that the purpose of vaccination was to eradicate disease.

So some questions:

When a society is still injecting babies (almost) a century later in an attempt to synthetically generate life-long immunity in a population (ie eradicate) against a particular disease, isn't it time to admit that the practice embraced to do so is not working?

What exactly does elimination mean?

Can we really be expected to believe that this practice is going to protect people from other diseases when it doesn't even satisfy its original intention?

OK, no doubt, the very smart people on these forums know where I'm going with this. I believe the word 'elimination' snuck into our lexicon in the same way that this meme of vaccines protecting people from every disease under the sun is now doing.

If vaccines aren't doing what they are originally intended to do, then the rest is all vaccinology dogma!

OK even though I made my point I would still love to know what others think. Thank you if you do!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
WHOs polio eradication fun facts:"Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan 2013-2018 has been developed, in consultation with polio-affected countries, stakeholders, donors, partners and national and international advisory bodies. The new Plan was presented at a Global Vaccine Summit in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, at the end of April 2013. It is the first plan to eradicate all types of polio disease simultaneously – both due to wild poliovirus and due to vaccine-derived polioviruses."http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/

How they'll achieve eradication,I'm not sure. They've made statements about not until every child is vaccinated. As long as they're giving opv,they'll have vaccine induced polio outbreaks. Thats their own admission. http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/

WHOs definition of elimination for leprosy: "Elimination of leprosy globally was achieved in the year 2000 (i.e. a prevalence rate of leprosy less than 1 case per 10 000 persons at the global level). Nearly 16 million leprosy patients have been cured with MDT over the past 20 years."

I guess there are different parameters for achieving elimination? I'll see if i can find more info later.

They seem to have a more reasonable grasp on cholera vaccination. I'm not sure why this approach doesn't work for more of the recommended vaccines that are virtually eliminated.

"WHO recommends that immunization with currently available cholera vaccines be used in conjunction with the usually recommended control measures in areas where cholera is endemic as well as in areas at risk of outbreaks. Vaccines provide a short term effect while longer term activities like improving water and sanitation are put in place.

When used, vaccination should target vulnerable populations living in high risk areas and should not disrupt the provision of other interventions to control or prevent cholera epidemics. The WHO 3-step decision making tool aims at guiding health authorities in deciding whether to use cholera vaccines in complex emergency settings.

The use of the parenteral cholera vaccine has never been recommended by WHO due to its low protective efficacy and the high occurrence of severe adverse reactions."

Bubonic Plague,scarlet fever,typhoid, etc etc were once loathed alongside other diseases that we now vaccinate for. Vaccines are the purposed cause for the decrease in diseases where a vaccine exists. All the other ones which didn't have a vaccine also decreased....oh but that's irrelevant right. A coincidence. Uhg. In big pharmas mind,the theory of natural elimination by improved sanitation works for everything but diseases where a vaccine exists. Nope,that elimination is only achieved when everyone takes their vaccine over and over again.

Vaccine induced polio outbreak? Don't worry,just vaccinate every person with opv multiple times until the outbreak stops and eventually polio will be eliminated.Talk about a vicious cycle. Madness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thank you littlebear3! I agree pure madness!!!! There's just no logic behind the so called "science" of mass inoculations.

So as far as i am aware, smallpox is the only disease that vaccines are credited for "eradicating". Is that right?

All other (so called) VPDs are merely "eliminated". Is that right?

I would love to pick the brains of the people here who might know better than I about the work of Dr Freil. Back when this all started for me (after witnessing my own child go through adverse reactions - 10+ yrs ago) my research lead me to the opinion that it was counter productive (if you will) to continue vaccinate for polio. But I know that Dr Freil doesn't think so. Can someone explain in laymans' terms why he has that opinion? Does anyone know more about endemic polio in other parts of the world?

Remember when there was some hoopla over Secretary Sebelius administering polio vaccines in India? Everyone here aware of the doc, The Final Inch? Weren't those the live polio virus vaccine drops?

Didn't we learn the lesson with smallpox that the vaccine was the source of all the outbreaks for thirty years? THIRTY YEARS! (Mendelsohn, and many others, have referenced this so I hope @applejuice has my back).

Side Note: To this day I can't get over the fact that Bill Maher had to hand over the Oscar to the makers of The Final Inch when his doc wasn't even nominated. Isn't that just a little too uncanny? OK, OK, I know that's conspiracy speak. Hopefully consideration of the location of my posts will garner a little forgiveness of my indulgence. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
I always thought that the purpose of vaccination was to eradicate disease.
I always thought the purpose of vaccination was to reduce the risk of disease for the individual and reduce the incidence of the disease in the population. Eradication is a wonderful goal, but likely only realistically achievable for a few diseases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
The Principles of Disease Elimination and Eradication
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm

Although definitions outlined below were developed for infectious diseases, those for control and elimination apply to noninfectious diseases as well.

Control: The reduction of disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity or mortality to a locally acceptable level as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required to maintain the reduction. Example: diarrhoeal diseases.
Elimination of disease: Reduction to zero of the incidence of a specified disease in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required. Example: neonatal tetanus.
Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required. Example: measles, poliomyelitis.
Eradication: Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. Example: smallpox.
Extinction: The specific infectious agent no longer exists in nature or in the laboratory. Example: none.
my bold
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,838 Posts
The focus on specific diseases rather than on health works well for some interests.

Consider, for example, the increases in acute flaccid paralysis and the decreases in polio. If the point of the exercise was healthy children (neither dead nor paralyzed), it would have to be seen as mostly a failure. By making the point of the exercise the absence of a single type of virus from the stools of those with symptoms, success can be declared despite a significant rate of paralysis and death.

Same thing with the absence of rubella. Do we have an overall decrease in babies born with serious birth defects? If yes, then success. If birth defects have remained at the same level or increased, then getting rid of rubella didn't actually do what is claimed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
The focus on specific diseases rather than on health works well for some interests.

. . .
Same thing with the absence of rubella. Do we have an overall decrease in babies born with serious birth defects? If yes, then success. If birth defects have remained at the same level or increased, then getting rid of rubella didn't actually do what is claimed.
I don't really agree with your measure of success. The overall rate of serious birth defects is dependent on many factors that have nothing to do with the rubella vaccine. The overall rate of birth defects would be expected to rise or fall based on the rising and falling of the combination of those factors, not just rubella.

Getting rid of rubella is a success if the number of babies born with serious birth defects is lower than it would have been without the rubella vaccine--whatever the overall rate of serious birth defects.

Your example is a failure only if the rubella vaccine itself is causing a rise in birth defects at least as large as the number of birth defects it prevents.

ETA: Similarly, a decrease in the overall rate of serious birth defects after rubella vaccination afwould not demonstrate success, unless there was some reason to believe that the decrease was due to the vaccine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,838 Posts
I don't really agree with your measure of success. The overall rate of serious birth defects is dependent on many factors that have nothing to do with the rubella vaccine. The overall rate of birth defects would be expected to rise or fall based on the rising and falling of the combination of those factors, not just rubella.

Getting rid of rubella is a success if the number of babies born with serious birth defects is lower than it would have been without the rubella vaccine--whatever the overall rate of serious birth defects.

Your example is a failure only if the rubella vaccine itself is causing a rise in birth defects at least as large as the number of birth defects it prevents.
I can see your reasoning, but there are huge problems.

1) Narrow focus. As I pointed out, this can make something look like a remarkable success, when the real world outcome is very bad. A non-vaccine example would be a housing program that measured only the number of families moved into housing, without any measure for the livability of the housing.

2) Focus on one factor as the only issue. If the major cause of birth defects is exposure, say, to dangerous chemicals from poor regulatory controls, but the public health people don't want to tackle big nasty corporations and captive regulatory agencies, a focus on something like rubella is a "feel-good" solution. And one that assists in covering-up and denying real problems. Your approach encourages just that sort of "look over there, not over here" behavior.

The Progressive Movement in the US accomplished amazing changes by having a broad focus. Definitely made some mis-steps, but I think they should get credit for caring about working hours, living conditions, toxic exposures, nutrition and many other essential issues.

Seriously, the narrow focus approach can very easily be a cop-out and also a way of channeling funds into the pockets of campaign contributors.

Consider, for a moment, the states of West Virginia and Mississippi. They have only one public health achievement, high vaccination rates for school kids. But otherwise the states are filled with miserably unhealthy people. Are they making the best possible use of their limited public health funds? I don't think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
Bubonic Plague,scarlet fever,typhoid, etc etc were once loathed alongside other diseases that we now vaccinate for.
This is not accurate and should not be stated IMO as you did.

Bubonic Plague, scarlet fever, typhoid (etc?) we did not vaccinated for in the US.

Typhoid is only now (it's not that old as far as vaccine go either!) for select countries.

Lumping those disease into a discussion on vaccines IMO is not a correct connection to make. If someone is lurking here they may mistakenly feel vaccines did away with those disease, but that is not true.

Also the US did have a malaria problem and again, no vaccine eliminated that here either!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
This is not accurate and should not be stated IMO as you did.

Bubonic Plague, scarlet fever, typhoid (etc?) we did not vaccinated for in the US.

Typhoid is only now (it's not that old as far as vaccine go either!) for select countries.

Lumping those disease into a discussion on vaccines IMO is not a correct connection to make. If someone is lurking here they may mistakenly feel vaccines did away with those disease, but that is not true.

Also the US did have a malaria problem and again, no vaccine eliminated that here either!
I think what she was trying to say was that diseases that we do not and never have had vaccines for such as Plague, scarlet fever, etc, were once just as loathed as diseases that did get vaccines developed for. So multiple diseases that were once loathed, some of which vaccines were developed to fight, and some that did not get vaccines developed. And that incidence of both sets of diseases, the ones with AND the ones without vaccines, and the surrounding fear and loathing has gone down.

I may be fully wrong in how I read the comment, but that is what I got from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
I think what she was trying to say was that diseases that we do not and never have had vaccines for such as Plague, scarlet fever, etc, were once just as loathed as diseases that did get vaccines developed for. So multiple diseases that were once loathed, some of which vaccines were developed to fight, and some that did not get vaccines developed. And that incidence of both sets of diseases, the ones with AND the ones without vaccines, and the surrounding fear and loathing has gone down.

I may be fully wrong in how I read the comment, but that is what I got from it.

Again, that is not accurate. There is only a vaccine for Thyroid and it is not even used in the US.
We certainly do still have Bubonic Plague and scarlet fever here in the US.

IMO it does not come off as accurate.

IF it that WAS her intent it should be written clearly. I do not feel it is at all.

Lumping the two together is not accurate. We still have many disease that have no vaccine for or none even on the horizon, and they too should not be lumped together either IMO.

We are talking about vaccines, many are clueless and think vaccines did it all!


ETA - since this thread is about elimination/eradication again, lumping disease that have no connecton to vaccines IMO should simply not be lumped together.

Elimination (I don't feel that word is even correct with what diseases were mentioned) is a not a correct term, these disease were not eliminated, just lessoned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,838 Posts
I want to return to the earlier discussion looking at whether a narrow focus actually ends up delivering the desired outcome.

The bit I meant to mention but skipped, is that we don't have unlimited funds for any public health initiatives. One of the problems with a narrow focus, is the high cost for limited results. With polio, for example, a lot of money has been spent analyzing stools, saying "it is not polio" and then delivering more doses of vaccine to eliminate those last few "cases". Meanwhile, acute flaccid paralysis soars--either redefinition of polio or another dangerous illness breaking through but ignored--and public health is not really being served. If public health is actually about preventing death and disability, at least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
I can see your reasoning, but there are huge problems.

1) Narrow focus. As I pointed out, this can make something look like a remarkable success, when the real world outcome is very bad. A non-vaccine example would be a housing program that measured only the number of families moved into housing, without any measure for the livability of the housing.

2) Focus on one factor as the only issue. If the major cause of birth defects is exposure, say, to dangerous chemicals from poor regulatory controls, but the public health people don't want to tackle big nasty corporations and captive regulatory agencies, a focus on something like rubella is a "feel-good" solution. And one that assists in covering-up and denying real problems. Your approach encourages just that sort of "look over there, not over here" behavior.

The Progressive Movement in the US accomplished amazing changes by having a broad focus. Definitely made some mis-steps, but I think they should get credit for caring about working hours, living conditions, toxic exposures, nutrition and many other essential issues.

Seriously, the narrow focus approach can very easily be a cop-out and also a way of channeling funds into the pockets of campaign contributors.

I think you are conflating two different things:
(1) pretending that you are addressing a big problem by doing something that sounds good but has very little positive effect
vs.
(2) effectively addressing a small part of a big problem.

The first (as with your housing example) is problematic. And I guess if the government were going around presenting the message that birth defects are no longer a problem because of rubella, that would be problematic. But I don't think that's what's happening.

Imagine you live in a country where every year you have babies with birth defects caused by congenital rubella syndrome, babies with birth defects based on drug use in pregnancy, babies with birth defects based on a specific genetic disorder, babies with birth defects based on a second specific genetic disorder, babies with birth defects based on folic acid deficiency, babies with birth defects from miscellaneous environmental toxins (other than drug use in pregnancy, and babies with birth defects of unknown origin.

If your goal is to reduce birth defects, what do you do? I think you look at the list and address what you can, when you can. And if you get rid of (or significantly reduce) one set of cases, that's a huge success--albeit a partial one. Then you keep on trying to address the rest. Any solution is gong to be piecemeal and incomplete, because they're independent problems with independent causes and varying levels of scientific and practical difficulty.

Do you get the impression that the government or the CDC think birth defects are no longer an issue now that the subset caused by rubella have been addressed? I do not.

Also, I am really confused about your position that "a focus on something like rubella is a 'feel-good' solution" that "assists in covering-up and denying real problems." Rubella is a real disease that causes real birth defects for real babies. By your rationale, it seems any attempt to cure one specific disease is objectionable because it's just a "feel-good solution" that helps cover up real problems just because it doesn't cure all diseases. Or am I misunderstanding?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,838 Posts
All very good points.

I'll go with this one.

In the US, during the 1800s, a huge movement of people occurred from rural areas into cities. The death rate from infectious diseases shot way up. Now, it would have been possible, even given the limited technology of the time, to try to develop specific vaccines and medical interventions for each of the diseases in question. Typhoid, cholera, diphtheria, measles, yellow fever, malaria, intestinal illnesses caused by a variety of bacteria and viruses and many more.

Instead, there was an attempt to tackle the big problems. Dirty water. Overcrowded living conditions. Lack of sanitary facilities. Malnutrition. Long working hours. Child labor. Death rates from ALL of the various infectious diseases plummeted. In some cases incidence also dropped dramatically, in other cases incidence went down a bit, but the death rate was what went down dramatically. This approach was economically very effective. It worked as public health. It meant that many thousands of children who would have died in infancy or childhood grew up to be reasonably healthy adults.

Let us contrast it with one of the major public health initiatives of our time. No, not vaccinations. Screening for early detection of disease. http://www.amazon.com/Less-Medicine-More-Health-Assumptions/dp/0807071641 This is a perfect example of the narrow focus approach to health. Spend money. Find specific diseases. Treat these diseases. Save lives. Only, as the author of this interesting book explains, when you do the numbers it doesn't work out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
I want to return to the earlier discussion looking at whether a narrow focus actually ends up delivering the desired outcome.

The bit I meant to mention but skipped, is that we don't have unlimited funds for any public health initiatives. One of the problems with a narrow focus, is the high cost for limited results. With polio, for example, a lot of money has been spent analyzing stools, saying "it is not polio" and then delivering more doses of vaccine to eliminate those last few "cases". Meanwhile, acute flaccid paralysis soars--either redefinition of polio or another dangerous illness breaking through but ignored--and public health is not really being served. If public health is actually about preventing death and disability, at least.
If acute flaccid paralysis is soaring and you think it's possible that it's actually polio, doesn't it serve the public health to find out whether or not it is actually polio?

What is known about acute flaccid paralysis? How common is it? Is it infectious? Highly contagious? Does its epidemiology show that it's likely to occur as outbreaks or epidemics? If polio doesn't cause it, what might? (I'm asking these questions because they might bear on how much of a priority addressing acute flaccid paralysis should be, as a public health matter.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
All very good points.

I'll go with this one.

In the US, during the 1800s, a huge movement of people occurred from rural areas into cities. The death rate from infectious diseases shot way up. Now, it would have been possible, even given the limited technology of the time, to try to develop specific vaccines and medical interventions for each of the diseases in question. Typhoid, cholera, diphtheria, measles, yellow fever, malaria, intestinal illnesses caused by a variety of bacteria and viruses and many more.

Instead, there was an attempt to tackle the big problems. Dirty water. Overcrowded living conditions. Lack of sanitary facilities. Malnutrition. Long working hours. Child labor. Death rates from ALL of the various infectious diseases plummeted. In some cases incidence also dropped dramatically, in other cases incidence went down a bit, but the death rate was what went down dramatically. This approach was economically very effective. It worked as public health. It meant that many thousands of children who would have died in infancy or childhood grew up to be reasonably healthy adults.

Let us contrast it with one of the major public health initiatives of our time. No, not vaccinations. Screening for early detection of disease. http://www.amazon.com/Less-Medicine-More-Health-Assumptions/dp/0807071641 This is a perfect example of the narrow focus approach to health. Spend money. Find specific diseases. Treat these diseases. Save lives. Only, as the author of this interesting book explains, when you do the numbers it doesn't work out.
"Tackling the big problems" that cause lots of diseases instead of "find specific diseases and treat them" is a great approach.

What are the big problems to be tackled now that would likely simultaneously address the different types of birth defects (with causes genetic, infectious, and environmental) the way that addressing dirty water, sanitation, and overcrowding addressed infectious disease deaths?

If a variety of diseases or problems have common causes or contributing factors (as with dirty water and lack of sanitation for infectious diseases), then it's (probably in most cases) more efficient to address the common causes than to address the individual diseases. But I have trouble thinking about what that common cause would be in the case of birth defects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,838 Posts
The book came as a shock when I read it to review it for the library I run. I expected it to be very heavy and serious. It is extremely funny, entertaining and serious. Quite a trick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anne Jividen
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top