Registered User
Universal vaccination could save 60million + lives per year!
While the vast majority of injuries allegedly caused by vaccination remain very controversial and unproven in the scientific community the ability of vaccines to save lives has been shown in hundreds of studies in different countries using different methods.
The WHO estimated that in 2002 57 million lives could've been saved by vaccination:
WHO | Estimates of disease burden and cost-effectiveness
Registered User
Issues of vaccination safety aside though, I do wonder who would have fed them all.
I still question this desire to save everyone, prevent everything, when they still won't have clean drinking water.
Thanks for posting.
Registered User
What about those who do have food and water? Death is a proven safety issue.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
You know, seriously - Lime makes a good point.
I understand that mass vaccination programs would statistically prevent 60 million deaths a year, but before I would really throw my support behind them, I would have to see how many deaths a year are attributable to poor quality drinking water or famine - I would imagine basded on my knowledge of the third world condition that this would be much higher. And death from gastro that results from contaminated water is in many ways much more of a certainty than the risk of death from a vaccine preventable disease such as measles.
Moderator
I agree that over-population is of major concern but I don't really see why the people of developing nations should be sacrificed to disease in the name of population control.
Some people argue that if the world's resources were distributed equitably we would all have enough to survive. I'm not sure what the real figures are and I'm guessing that most of us (including me) would be resistant to such a hefty downsize in lifestyle.
Registered User
Are you saying that the money could be better spent on existing programs? A good point but having been involved in improving water quality on the ground in Africa I can say that its a very expensive and complicated proposition. The lives could be saved by relatively inexpensive vaccination programs. Disease cripples communities, it doesn't control populations, family planning and education do that and enrich peoples lives along the way.
Registered User
Food and water programs are complicated and involve logistic and cultural problems (and big, big $'s), not that I'm against them at all, sustainable programs are the only way forward really but it takes healthy bodies to dig wells.
The link in the OP lists vaccinations common in first world countries that prevent diseases that cause millions of deaths in other countries regardless of expensive and inefficient food/water programs.
Last edited by RockinSAHD; May 18th, 2011 at 09:02 PM.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
No, no, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that disease control could partially be boosted by spending such resources on maintaining access to clean water and safe food, in addition to all of the other benefits that clean water and good food would bring.
(sent from Tapatalk on my mobile...)
Registered User
Wow! You support that rubbish, on you own website no less. It makes the Skeptical OB look sensible.
♥ BellyBelly's Creator ♥
Havent you read about nanotechnology vaccinations? Tell me what you know about it.
Just what I have read. Is it NOT TRUE that this will happen? Do you think this would/could never happen?These are both part of the Gates Foundation's involvement in the "Grand Challenges Explorations" program which claims to be working to "achieve major breakthroughs in global health."
...breakthroughs like mass sterilization and nanoparticle vaccines that could be covertly administered even without your knowledge, it turns out. These nanoparticles could be used in a spray mist that's sprayed on to every person who walks through an airport security checkpoint, for example. Or it could be unleashed through the ventilation systems of corporate office buildings or public schools to vaccinate the masses. You wouldn't even know you were being vaccinated.
Kelly xx
Creator of BellyBelly.com.au, doula, writer and mother of three amazing children
Registered User
Ok, that is an extraordinarily simplistic statement and I think you missed the point that the earlier posters were trying to make.
If you give that vaccine and save those lives, you would be adding more people to the end of the food line. Finite food supplies will be stretched even further and instead of saving 1,000,000 lives through vaccination, you are taking 2,000,000 through starvation.
It will NOT save lives without further planning to provide basic food and water resources to the new 'survivors' (for lack of a better word).
As I said, extraordinarily simplistic.
Registered User
Yep, that is pretty much it.
There is no point saving 60 million people, so that they can die drinking the filthy water because they have no access to anything else and there are more to share around the limited food supplies...
If you want to "save" all those people, you are going to need a whole lot more than vaccines, and they wouldn't even be in the top 5.
ETA: But then, we have had this conversation before RS
Registered User
Sorry Inertia, I do understand but it's not simple maths. If people aren't sick then more people can work the fields, more can go to school. If less babies die then mothers give birth to less. This is what people have seen work in real life, its never so simple.
Kelly: I don't know about nanotech vaccines, your massively OT BTW but I can think of incredibly cheap and simple ways to deceive people into being vaccinated that don't involve billions in high tech research. There are lots of things that could happen in this world but I don't wear a tin foil hat to prevent the government reading my mind or avoid drinking fouridated water in-case the government is using it to control my thoughts and I doubt you do either. Also you know my thoughts on unconsented vaccination BTW.
LS, we have seen this conversation before; I still maintain that healthy educated people have less children, thats the better way to sustainable population, not your survival of the fittest, disease culls the numbers. It's an awful, gross, negative idea.
Last edited by RockinSAHD; May 19th, 2011 at 12:32 AM.
Registered User
I hafta agree with everyone else, of everything that is needed in these countries, vaccination is pretty low on the list. Can you imagine what would happen for people in 3rd world countries who are affected by these 'controversial and unproven' side effects of vaccination?
In other news RSAHD, if you click on the BB logo in the top left hand corner, it'll take you to a page with all of the available forums we have here on BB. So many awesome topics for discussion, most of them having nothing to do with vaccination (surprisingly)
Registered User
I'm going to have to agree with rocking on this. We sit in our comfortable homes saying we know what the third world needs and so they die of disease, aw well, good for population control. Yes water is a priority and so is food, but everyone has the right to the knowledge, that we have, that their children will survive childhood free from the fear that a vaccine preventable disease will cause them to die or maim and cripple them to the point that they will have no way to make a living other then begging. Polio is still endemic in parts of the world, as is measles.
I have seen RSAHD contribute in other parts of the forum. I have also seen members that don't really contribute out of their belly buddy groups, doesn't make their opinion worth anything less.
Registered User
I wonder what a teenager from a developing country would say if we asked them this question:
"In Australia, children are given medicine that can stop them getting some of the diseases that are killing your brothers and sisters and causing tremendous pain. Although a small number of people worry that there might be harmful side effects, most of the country gets this medicine. Do you think you have the right to get this medicine?"
Looking at it from a statistical level, maybe you can say it is a bad idea to save 60million people. But questions of human rights must be looked at from the perspective of the individual.
Moderator
I think that you've raised a really good point - why do we assume the right to say what is good for the developing world? Surely they should be able to make the same choices as us. Some of us choose to vaccinate other choose not to. It would be nice if that choice was global rather than restricted to us.
Mozzie nets yes. Eradication, no. Messing with the ecosystem always seems to have unintended consequences.
BellyBelly Member
I would say that that saying this was unethical - you might believe that, but that doesn't it make it the truth. You are providing promises you can't keep (vaccine isn't 100% effective and some will still die of the diseases they're vaccinated against - and sometimes even catch it from the vaccine because they still use live virus vaccines in the third world, i.e polio), providing one side of a very complicated and emotive issue. The fact there is so much debate in the Western world is enough to show you it is not a forgone conclusion that vaccination does more good than harm - both sides of the debate are theories in the process of proving themselves, both have evidence and scientific support - just because one theory is more socially acceptable and considered the status quo of thought and practice doesn't make one truth and the other fiction - for years common practice and thought was that the sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth was flat.
And the thing is they aren't really given a choice. People in third world countries who have access to vaccination are given the emotional blackmail and not given the opportunity to make an informed choice because they get told that same line, or just outright blackmailed along the lines of "we wont give you medical treatment while pregnant unless you promise to vaccinate your baby". There was a case recently where people in the Philippines stopped taking the DTaP vaccination because there was a lot of unexplained deaths that co-incedently happened within 48 hours of taking the vaccine. So naturally, people stopped taking their kids and themselves to be vaccinated. The vaccination safety group investigated it - not by actually going there and doing tests, interviewing people or looking at doctors reports but by looking at an old clinical study on the vaccine done in a Western country and then declared that it couldn't be the vaccine (that's proper WHO vaccine safety investigation for you - makes me feel real confident in their processes - NOT). So consequently they went around door knocking with the local police no less, accosting people in their homes, made them feel like they couldn't say no and injected them. That to me is very, very wrong.
I know some of you (you particularly RSAHD) foofooed my statement that I wouldn't be sure that huge push to vaccinate, especially in third world countries, wasn't about population control - perhaps you should look at this: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
This man makes US policy (which would include vaccine safety trials), and where they lead we usually follow. Call me cynical!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks