Printable View
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
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. :)
What about those who do have food and water? Death is a proven safety issue. ;)
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.
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.
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.:
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...)
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.
I think clean healthy water (and food) is a basic human need (note: priority) for every single person and every single person deserves that. Not vaccinations. Gates has poured so much money into programs to vaccinate these people, why doesnt he put it towards that instead? Because he has a vested interest and shares/ownership in companies making the vaccines.
Word Kelly.
Here's you vaccination to go with your brown water and those herbs you use to give your dirt cakes some flavour! It's like trying to put out a grass fire with a bucket while someone stands at the end of the field with a flame thrower.
Thats terrible, he gets to save lives and keep some of his money that he gave away. Sounds like a good deal to me!:
Ouch, Yeddi! I haven't seen anyone eating dirtcakes in third world countries personally, I've seen the brown water though, I would love to know the miracle that Gates should've invested in...
In India there's a massive engineering scheme to drill wells for villages, only problem is the water table is dropping so for every well they sink another dries up. What would you do?
I work in a research institute on the same floor as a group that is dedicated to finding a vaccination for tuberculosis. I really wish some of you could meet these people and see the passion that they have for reducing human suffering. They are not out to make money at all.
I totally agree that there are MANY MANY issues of social justice that desperately need addressing. Tonight I was at an event listening to some former child soldiers from Uganda. What a challenge to meet the needs in that country. Totally onboard with Onyx's point- how much are we willing to sacrifice to see things change. Yes governments need to take action but so do we all.
In terms of what is a better use of money- disease control or food and water? well I think they are all crucial. This money all comes from different places from people with different passions- lets welcome any program that reduces suffering in developing nations.
He's involved in technologies which vaccinate people without them even knowing, and in foods etc. Uninformed consent. Reeks of law suits to me. Nanotechnology vaccinations.....pffft.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_va...ill_Gates.html
Wow! You support that rubbish, on you own website no less. It makes the Skeptical OB look sensible.:
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.
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.
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 ;)