Half Full
19 Aug 2011 Leave a Comment
in Uncategorized Tags: animation, motion, movies, music, stop, video
So, this is completely unrelated to public health…but I made a stop motion animation short. And, I would like to share it with the world…
Thanks for humoring me
DC Should be a State
10 Aug 2011 Leave a Comment
in Uncategorized Tags: aids, america, government, health, hiv, washington
Every few years, DC residents push for statehood. Having lived in DC for about a year now, I can understand why. Recent budget cuts and legislation now make it illegal to use federal funds for needle exchange programs (which are highly successful at and one of the cheapest routes for reducing HIV/AIDS in urban settings). Thus, DC is now no longer to have Distric funded (run by the city health department) needle exchange programs, even though the Feds don’t give money directly to the District DOH. Why? Because money used to rent land used for federal buildings or other money given to the Distric for allowing the federal government to operate in the city might be used for such purposes. So, even though Congress is basically paying rent to the District, it’s Congress that decides how that rent money can or cannot be used, not the District, which is technically the landlord. How does this make logical sense? DC has one of the highest rates of HIV in the US, and some parts of the District have rates as high as countries that are currently in a state of epidemic. Yet, it can’t use the methods proven most effective because of legislation that has nothing to do with the District.
And, in case anyone is wondering, this isn’t an issue of right vs left (though the left is usually more in favor for these types of programs). It’s an issue of health being affected by bureaucracy.
History as it happens, history as it’s written
09 Aug 2011 Leave a Comment
(momentary pause from facts and figures)
I’ve recently been reminded that history, as told through history books, is almost never objective, providing one side of the story and, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, leaving out key facts. History how it happened is almost never how it is told and remembered. Thus, we, as humans, continue to make the same mistakes, because our truth is tainted and twisted by agenda. We are unable to learn from our mistakes because we are unaware that we are at fault (or we simply don’t care).
In the public health world, this is no different. We are quick to forget the times our actions make the situation worse, and we are quick to hide the political agenda funding our projects. We may have good intentions, but we naively assume that our funders have those same intentions or turn a blind eye when it’s obvious they don’t.
I’ve recently read several accounts of military action under the guise of humanitarian action which almost always failed (both the military and the humanitarian aspect). The majority of the western, “civilized” world, especially the US, has had a hand in this some way or another. Yes, it is true that humanitarian crises are often coupled with violence and unrest, and sometimes military action may be needed. However, when the pattern of events seems to always be that the situation gets worse following foreign military arrival (often because the military fails to recognize what the problems are and targets the wrong groups), should we not stop and demand an answer of why we keep on in the same way?
Some of you may think that I’m not patriotic because I just criticized the military (though I would guess that those people aren’t reading this blog to begin with). However, which is more patriotic, to blindly accept what happens as what’s best, or to acknowledge that some of the actions are either not working the way they were intended or are completely unethical, and demand the military meet higher expectations of acting in the world? If we can do better, shouldn’t we? If you had a leak and hired a plumber, but the plumber made the leak worse, would you hire that plumber again?
Our system is broken in so many ways. Yet, to challenge some of these areas is seen as unpatriotic and bordering on treason. The military is not the entity to blame here. I think their actions and U.S. foreign policy is a symptom of a wider problem of believing we are better than the rest of the world and, thus, have the right to do whatever we want. We see this sickness on our own soil where the poor, immigrants, and the disenfranchised are kept at arms length so that the elite can have a comfortable life. I see people rant and rave about how the government sends money overseas instead of taking care of our own, and those same people rant and rave about how terrible “government handouts” are and practically blame the poor for being poor. What kind of message is this? That it doesn’t matter where you live, being poor is a crime regardless? In one breath we say we want our government to take care of our own, and in the next we say our government shouldn’t take care of the American poor. So, which is it? If I had to guess, it’s the one that benefits the collective “me” the most.
An Imperfect Offering
09 Aug 2011 Leave a Comment
in Uncategorized Tags: books, catholicism, doctors without borders, health, humanitarianism, james orbinski, life, monk, msf, offering
I am currently reading An Imperfect Offering by James Orbinski. Only 50 pages in, I can already tell this book will be important to me in years to come. If you are interested in humanitarian work or global health, I highly recommend reading this book and seeing his documentary, Triage, which is available through Netflix.
One aspect of the book I have found to be particularly moving is Orbinski’s quest for “right living.” He is a devout Catholic, but I think even the non-religious would find his quest moving. As a young man, he befriended a Catholic monk, who became a mentor and confidant. In response to being asked if he knew the right way to live, the monk replied, “Well, like everyone else, James, I get out of bed and put one shoe on at a time…I am acting and being acted upon. Meaning is in the living, not simply in the thinking or feeling. And it seems to me that living well is mostly about loving well…Correct answers can rarely be given. We can, though, be conscious of the questions so that we can live ourselves into the answers, into what in retrospect can be right living.” (pg 31-32).
Vaccine Misconceptions: Part 3
08 Aug 2011 Leave a Comment
in Uncategorized Tags: cdc, cough, death, diptheria, disease, health, illness, life, measles, mumps, pertusis, rubella, safety, tetnus, vaccination, vaccine, vaccines
I thought I would put in one more vaccine misconception before writing more about Somalia. So, be looking for the next post on the drought coming soon. This next misconception is going to address safety and side effects. One thing you may notice missing from this post is autism. While I know autism is a concern with parents who are deciding whether or not to have their child vaccinated, I will save that topic for another day. Vaccines and autism is a big enough topic to be its own post, and I think it’s important enough to have a separate post. Of course, most of my information comes from the CDC.
Misconception 3: I should not have my child vaccinated because the vaccines are too dangerous–with all the possible side effects, the benefits don’t outweigh the risks.
First of all, let me state that all “adverse effects” (any time someone has a reaction or illness that could be potentially related to a recent vaccine) are reported to the CDC and carefully scrutinized. You can read about the types and frequency of adverse effects on the CDC website, and they keep the database up to date. If you ever have concern about vaccine safety, you can see how many people have had side effects associated with a particular vaccine. While the descriptions of possible side effects can be scary and overwhelming, it is important to put the number into perspective.
Let’s look at measles again. If you get measles, you have a 1 in 500 chance of dying. However, you only have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of having a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine. That’s one in five hundred versus one in a million. I’ll take the one in a million.
Let’s look at the DTaP vaccine, which vaccinates against Diptheria, Tetnus, and Pertusis (whooping cough). The DTap vaccine is an interesting to look at because it was once believed to cause SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). However, studies performed to see if there was a link between the vaccine and SIDS showed that there was no causal link. Some studies found that the deaths would have occurred even if there had been no vaccination, and others found that infants who had recently received the DTaP had a lower chance of dying from SIDS. If the scientific studies aren’t enough, let’s look at the risk of dying from these three diseases versus the vaccine. The chance of dying from diptheria is 1 in 20, the chance of dying from tetnus is 1 in 5, and the chance of dying from pertusis is 1 in 1500. Based on these numbers, you may now be curious of the chance of dying from the vaccine. In fact, there have been no deaths associated with this vaccine.
While I was focusing on the worst case scenario, death, I used this type of adverse affect to show that the worst case scenario is extremely rare, or not even existent. However, dying from these disease are a real threat. Obviously, death is not the only type of reaction a person can have from vaccines. The more severe the reaction, generally the more rare its occurrence is. The less life threatening, the more common a reaction may be. Common side effects of many vaccines are tenderness and swelling at the injection site, low grade fever, and fainting. These side effects are not dangerous, and are more of an annoyance if anything.
It is true that there are risks to getting a vaccine. However, the chances of those risks being serious or life threatening are much smaller than serious complications for the diseases they are protecting against. The reasons that these vaccines were created in the first place was because children were dying. They were created to prevent death. Some of these vaccines have been around for 50 or more years–long enough for a vaccine to prove itself dangerous or to see any long term side effects. If these vaccines were not safe, they would have been removed from the market. If you don’t believe me, think about the simple economics of selling a dangerous product. If vaccines were really so dangerous, then pharma companies would be getting sued left and right, putting a huge financial drain on the company. It’s cheaper and better business for them to sell an effective, safe product. It’s in the company’s benefit to rigorously test the vaccines to ensure safety before entering the market.
U.S. Response to Somalia
05 Aug 2011 Leave a Comment
in Uncategorized Tags: america, drought, football, politics, sex, somalia, starvation, world
I saw this cartoon on the NPR website, and I feel like it pretty much sums up the U.S. response to Somalia.
Vaccine Misconceptions: Part 2
05 Aug 2011 Leave a Comment
in Uncategorized Tags: children, family, health, immune, immunity, life, measles, risk, shots, sick, vaccines
Today, I decided to continue the vaccine series. Once school starts back up, I’m sure I’ll have a wider variety of topics. Until then, vaccines! I’ve also been watching the news for any exciting developments in the world of public health. Other than the mess in East Africa, I haven’t seen much this week. So, here it goes.
Misconception #2: I don’t need to get vaccinated because they aren’t effective–most people who get sick have been vaccinated.
It is true that vaccines are not always effective. However, effectiveness usually has more to do with the individual than the vaccine itself. For some reason, some people won’t respond to a particular vaccine–this group of people is a very small minority of people who receive vaccines. You can’t make blanket statements about how effective a vaccine is based on such a small proportion of people. Most vaccines are up to 99% effective, meaning that, out of 100 people who receive the vaccine, one person might get the particular disease. To say that vaccine is not effective would be like saying that your favorite sports team sucks because of the one year in the team’s history it did not make it to the playoffs.
The CDC also has a really good example on their website. They said it so well, I’m going to repost it here.
In a high school of 1,000 students, none has ever had measles. All but 5 of the students have had two doses of measles vaccine, and so are fully immunized. The entire student body is exposed to measles, and every susceptible student becomes infected. The 5 unvaccinated students will be infected, of course. But of the 995 whohave been vaccinated, we would expect several not to respond to the vaccine. The efficacy rate for two doses of measles vaccine can be higher than 99%. In this class, 7 students do not respond, and they, too, become infected. Therefore 7 of 12, or about 58%, of the cases occur in students who have been fully vaccinated.
As you can see, this doesn’t prove the vaccine didn’t work – only that most of the children in the class had been vaccinated, so those who were vaccinated and did not respond outnumbered those who had not been vaccinated. Looking at it another way, 100% of the children who had not been vaccinated got measles, compared with less than 1% of those who had been vaccinated. Measles vaccine protected most of the class; if nobody in the class had been vaccinated, there would probably have been 1,000 cases of measles.
Like the example says, the fact that the majority of students who got measles had been vaccinated only proves that the majority of the students at the school had been vaccinated. Another way to look at it: 99% of the students who had been vaccinated did not get measles. Also, notice that 100% of the students who had not been vaccinated did contract measles.
If you don’t get vaccinated, you have a 100% chance of getting sick if you are exposed to the disease. You will also be passing the disease to those around you, potentially infecting many other people. If you are vaccinated, you only have a 1% of getting sick if exposed. If you don’t get sick, you can’t spread the disease to other people.
