Worldwide Vaccines; More Harm than Good?

[bamf]

Pierce's thread about donating your life to 'solve' various problems made me start thinking about WHO and the widespread use of medicinal vaccines around the world. I'm starting to think that they're doing more harm than good.

:: Disclaimer :: I am a supporter of universal human rights, and I am not trying to say that the lives of any one person is worth more or less than any other person, or that a life has any sort of definable value.

I believe that with the current approaches of 'aid' to poor and weak nations around the world, in this case specifically vaccination (not all medicine), that we (the people of the world) are doing more harm than good. We're eradicating disease out of the fear of death, with the mission to save as many lives as possible, and lessen the suffering of the poor. However, we're doing it too quickly, and it's too widespread.

Think about it, disease is population control. Yes, with disease comes horrible human suffering, but nevertheless, it controls population growth with an increased death rate.

In developed nations, vaccinations make sense. We can keep people from suffering, and save lives. Developed nation's birth rates, however, are often very similar (if not less than) to population death rates. Some nations, such as Japan and Poland, have negative growth rates. This is almost never the case in poor/weak nations.

In places where there is a high death rate, the natural remedy is a high birth rate. When vaccinations are introduced into these populations, the death rates drop, literally overnight. What we are left with is a population with a still remarkably high birth rate, but a lower than before death rate. This equals population boom.

Take a country like Liberia for example. Their population growth is estimated to be somewhere around 4% a year, if not more (according to the UN, listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate )
In 18 years, the population will double. So what does that mean?

It means that in 2030, over 50% of Liberia's population will be under the age of 18. Now there's nothing people hate to see more than children in pain (or maybe starving kitties). Through this population growth, there will be a greater need for natural resources. Resources which are already scarce to begin with. There will also be an increased need for land. Slash and burn techniques are commonly used, which rapes the soil of any nutrients after about a generation (if not less). Continued population growth will inhibit any form of rejuvenation of the land. When the land is all used up, what are these people going to do? Either die, or move to a neighboring country, and thus repeating the process.

By vaccinating poor populations, and eradicating deadly diseases, we're essentially eliminating a form of population control. Not only does this lead to an increase in population growth, but it also burdens these nations/people with increased poverty.

To me, the current approach to worldwide vaccination, and disease eradication, seems unethical. If we're going to decrease the death rate, we also have to implement methods of population control that will decrease the birth rate. However, forced abortions, limiting childbirth, and such measures seem to be seen as unethical.

Free condoms/birth control is a nice start, but it's obviously either A. not widespread enough, or B. simply not working.

If we're going to be adamant about destroying disease, we need to be reasonable enough to decrease birthrates at the same time, or we are only burdening the people who are already suffering.


Thoughts? Opinions? Complaints? Any constructive input is greatly appreciated.

 

[Duty]

The solution is to solve/spend resources on the problems that vaccination exacerbates, because things like resource distribution/production, overpopulation, etc, are problems that need solving regardless.

The true problem is that we don't go full force into solving these issues, not that one of the issues is exacerbating problems that already were there.

 

[bamf]

The solution is to solve/spend resources on the problems that vaccination exacerbates, because things like resource distribution/production, overpopulation, etc, are problems that need solving regardless.

The true problem is that we don't go full force into solving these issues, not that one of the issues is exacerbating problems that already were there.

True, but if we aren't going to spend the time/resources to actually solve the problems, wouldn't it make sense to at the very least eliminate (or radically overhaul) something like vaccinations, which are contributing to the problems?

 

[dneecey]

This is the kind of topic that I find really frustrating because it makes sense and I don't see a real solution to it.

I mean it's like one of those things where I feel like I'm having the same conversation over and over in my head.. with no solution...

The ideal situation would be for there to be enough resources for us not worry about the population, and then to be able to tackle things like disease with vaccinations.

I feel like we're doing things backwards, because often people need to feel like they are at least doing something. Show a healer a wound and then dare to get them not to fix it.. I just don't see that happening.

But the real question should be how to change the process you know.. The real problem is having enough resources not to have to worry about overpopulation, but since that isn't the case, what do we do?

Sit back and watch people suffer, even if we have the means to heal?

And what else are we supposed to do besides educate on birth control, take away peoples rights to have children? Implement laws that say how many children a family can and can't have... maybe? I don't see it going over that well...

I don't know.. I see the problems. I just don't know where we go from here....

 

[Duty]

True, but if we aren't going to spend the time/resources to actually solve the problems, wouldn't it make sense to at the very least eliminate (or radically overhaul) something like vaccinations, which are contributing to the problems?

Becomes a "weighing game" (or, utility problem would probably be a good technical term for it): is keeping a terrible disease around more harmful then exacerbating resulting problems?

Keep in mind these too:
Will exacerbating other problems turn attention to those to be solved (so you eventually eliminate them and the disease anyways)?

Can we reliably predict the new, more pronounced problems (because if we can't, then we might as well eliminate the disease, as it is a problem we can predict)?

 

[enfp can be shy]

The main reason for over-reproduction is low quality of life. Any improvements in the quality of life will reduce reproduction naturally. This includes vaccines, but there should also be education. I honestly believe that the optimal solution to most world problems at the moment would be radical redistribution of quality of life.

That being said, vaccines are clearly supported by powerful corporations which produce them and distribute them. So that's the main motivating force behind events, it's not necessarily the well-being of poor countries.

 

[bamf]

Becomes a "weighing game" (or, utility problem would probably be a good technical term for it): is keeping a terrible disease around more harmful then exacerbating resulting problems?

Keep in mind these too:
Will exacerbating other problems turn attention to those to be solved (so you eventually eliminate them and the disease anyways)?

Can we reliably predict the new, more pronounced problems (because if we can't, then we might as well eliminate the disease, as it is a problem we can predict)?

But isn't it a weighing game to begin with? (in my disclaimer, I was just saying that I'm not trying to come across as saying I value one life more than another, or that some are privileged to vaccines when others aren't)

Shouldn't it be about harm reduction? If we're solving disease (a known population control), while ignoring the population boom that comes out of a reduction in death rates, aren't we willingly burdening people that are already burdened?

In essences, I don't see how it's anything less than a weighing game. Which is worse? People dying from disease, or people dying from increased poverty due to lack of disease? I don't know the answer, but I think we should examine the possibility that vaccines are doing more harm than good, by eliminating a natural population control.

 

[bamf]

The main reason for over-reproduction is low quality of life. Any improvements in the quality of life will reduce reproduction naturally. This includes vaccines...

But the problem (in my mind at least) is that the death rate drops immediately, almost over night. We go from a population with (hypothetically) a growth rate of 1%, to that of 4%. While yes, we're saving lives, people are still going to over-reproducing for a time. In that time, the increase in population, while it might be disease free, will create an increased competition for already scarce resources, and thus just maintain some form of a 'low quality for life'.

High birth rates are usually present to combat high death rates. When you decrease death rates at a drastic rate, you will have overpopulation, regardless of the quality of life.

 

[Duty]

But isn't it a weighing game to begin with? (in my disclaimer, I was just saying that I'm not trying to come across as saying I value one life more than another, or that some are privileged to vaccines when others aren't)

Shouldn't it be about harm reduction? If we're solving disease (a known population control), while ignoring the population boom that comes out of a reduction in death rates, aren't we willingly burdening people that are already burdened?

In essences, I don't see how it's anything less than a weighing game. Which is worse? People dying from disease, or people dying from increased poverty due to lack of disease? I don't know the answer, but I think we should examine the possibility that vaccines are doing more harm than good, by eliminating a natural population control.

I see what you're saying, and your original question was probably a step ahead of where I was going, although I still think it is useful to point out that it specifically is a weighing game.

To that end, I would say that there is certainly a possibility that eradicating a disease from a given region, given that we aren't going to pour resources into solving the difficulties that may result (I would contend that we probably would if those difficulties outweighed the disease eradication...we'd feel responsible for it), that the solution is that we have to judge region by region what the projected utility of our actions are.

I think redirecting the question to be, "How do we determine whether eradicating a disease is right for a given region?" is more interesting.

 

[bamf]

I see what you're saying, and your original question was probably a step ahead of where I was going, although I still think it is useful to point out that it specifically is a weighing game.

To that end, I would say that there is certainly a possibility that eradicating a disease from a given region, given that we aren't going to pour resources into solving the difficulties that may result (I would contend that we probably would if those difficulties outweighed the disease eradication...we'd feel responsible for it), that the solution is that we have to judge region by region what the projected utility of our actions are.

I think redirecting the question to be, "How do we determine whether eradicating a disease is right for a given region?" is more interesting.

Very true. It really all does depend on the region, and each one has specifics pertaining to what would be the best method of use. What works in a part of Africa, might not work in some part of the Middle East.

Interesting question, because it is difficult to imagine how we would determine if eradication is right or not.

 

[Duty]

Very true. It really all does depend on the region, and each one has specifics pertaining to what would be the best method of use. What works in a part of Africa, might not work in some part of the Middle East.

Interesting question, because it is difficult to imagine how we would determine if eradication is right or not.

Well, we were already on somewhat of a right track. We can identify some of the issues that eradicating a disease would cause. I think you would have to consider the effects of those problems, and the effects of the effects of those problems, and the effects of the effects of the effects, etc.

So as an example, eradicating, say, malaria from a region that is very troubled by it in sub Saharan Africa would, as primary effects, produce a population boom and a shift in the population toward the much younger and the much older.

A result of these effects will be an increase in resource demand (but not an increase in the workforce immediately, that would come after the "boomer" generation came of age...about 15 years after the eradication). The country will probably become an importer/debtor country.

With debt comes interest. A long term danger is the country will have little room in its economy for social benefits, defense, and other high budget programs.


So, the country will probably want to reduce tax benefits (or even put a penalty on) for having children, as they are sort of "high supply" in this economy. They will probably want to take measures to stimulate their industrial sector so they can produce more goods to compensate for higher demand. Further, they'll want to stimulate domestic companies in the commercial sector that do a lot of international trade. Specifically, companies that import "need" items like food and wood (as that will be what is in demand) and companies that export everything else (so the country won't rack up a large debt) will be the primary candidates.


That is the kind of stuff that needs to be considered. Admittedly, I personally don't have the economic, ecological, or public health knowledge to come up with all the specific potential problems eradication of a major disease problem would bring. I understand the complexity of the issue, but unless someone here studies the specific stuff associated with it, we may not be able to answer the question.

 

[enfp can be shy]

mf, sir,

I agree that vaccines, as a single measure, can do more harm, and even more human suffering, in the end, if not part of very well planned infrastructural and educational reforms. Sadly, as I mentioned before, it is highly likely that just the business interests of some companies, that produce said vaccines, have worked as more major force in making decisions, instead of solid determination to carry on a major cultural improvement. We'll see.

You made a very interesting point with this thread though. To help a human to survive the immediate danger, only to be faced with even worse suffering, is in the end more sadistic than humanistic. Our current idea of "help" is all about the local impact, here-and-now, fix it, save it, cure it, solve it, day-to-day. Get them to say they are "happy", get them to say they "agree", get them to say they are "guilty", get them to say that's their "choice", get them to say they are "feeling better", get them to vote for you, get them to buy from you -> assume you've helped. Nope. It doesn't work that way in reality. Instead, we should focus on more long-term thinking about systems, and about people. Consider the whole life-cycle, not just a moment of it. Until we do this, we'll be stuck with endless problems, that get more and more extreme.

 

[Duty]

mf, sir,

I agree that vaccines, as a single measure, can do more harm, and even more human suffering, in the end, if not part of very well planned infrastructural and educational reforms. Sadly, as I mentioned before, it is highly likely that just the business interests of some companies, that produce said vaccines, have worked as more major force in making decisions, instead of solid determination to carry on a major cultural improvement. We'll see.

You made a very interesting point with this thread though. To help a human to survive the immediate danger, only to be faced with even worse suffering, is in the end more sadistic than humanistic. Our current idea of "help" is all about the local impact, here-and-now, fix it, save it, cure it, solve it, day-to-day. Get them to say they are "happy", get them to say they "agree", get them to say they are "guilty", get them to say that's their "choice", get them to say they are "feeling better", get them to vote for you, get them to buy from you -> assume you've helped. Nope. It doesn't work that way in reality. Instead, we should focus on more long-term thinking about systems, and about people. Consider the whole life-cycle, not just a moment of it. Until we do this, we'll be stuck with endless problems, that get more and more extreme.

Funny, I was just about to come back to this thread and say something very similar. Eradication of a disease, in the short term, may have detrimental effects and those need to be addressed.

However, in the long term (and I'm not just thinking life-cycle here ENFPcbs, but 500 years, 1000 years from now), eradication is nothing but improvement. People will survive short term bad effects, and although those will have ripples in the fabric of our world, eradication produces more people (which is a benefit to industry, thinking/development, etc etc...the natural direction we are in is always positive/evolutionary, so although more people means more Hitlers, it means more Ghandis, and the effect of the Ghandis always turns out to outweigh the Hitlers in the long run and is the reason we have progressed).

 

[Exit]

Funny, I was just about to come back to this thread and say something very similar. Eradication of a disease, in the short term, may have detrimental effects and those need to be addressed.

However, in the long term (and I'm not just thinking life-cycle here ENFPcbs, but 500 years, 1000 years from now), eradication is nothing but improvement.

I'm not so sure that eradication is "nothing but an improvement." Theoretically speaking, eliminating a disease simply opens up an evolutionary niche that something will seek to fill. Hell, look at antibiotic-resistant infections. That's evolution at work for you. Stronger drugs end up breeding stronger diseases.

 

[Slayerwolf]

I don't take vaccines, for good reasons. I value my health. I also don't trust mainstream media's spin and pushing of vaccines either.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H1N1_vaccine_CDC.html