New Movement Spotlights The Value Of Vaccination

3 09 2014

Encouraging conversation through valueofvaccination.org

An ever-growing body of individuals and organizations has come together for the purpose of highlighting that which is well-known but seldom stated: vaccination adds value to our lives.

Building upon a groundswell of public support for vaccination, the Value of Vaccination movement is garnering attention to the benefits that vaccines bring to every community. The initiative features the sharing of personal stories, videos demonstrating the positive impacts of vaccination, and easy-to-understand guides to the science behind vaccines and the immune system.TVOV-1500

The movement is expanding beyond the website to include social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest. The goal is to encourage conversation at home, at work, and at school about the value of vaccination.

“The importance of dialogue around vaccines has become recognized globally,” said Heidi Larson, who leads the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “Conversations between health providers and the public, among individuals, families and communities, and between the public and policy-makers are key to building trust. This important value-centered movement appreciates the science, but puts people at the center. ”

A call has been put out to the public to provide ideas on how best to illustrate the value of vaccination to others. It’s hoped that through crowdsourcing, new and unexpected methods of communicating this critical dimension of public health will be discovered.

Value of Vaccination is a body of individuals and organizations working together to promote the fact that vaccines bring value to our lives, and the many ways in which that value is actualized. This program is supported by a host of volunteers, along with financial support from PKIDs, a nonprofit based in the US. For more information, visit www.valueofvaccination.org.





NOVA: Vaccines – Calling The Shots

28 08 2014

Premieres Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9PM/8c on PBS!

 

Press release from NOVA about this fascinating documentary:

Measles. Mumps. Whooping cough. Diseases that were largely eradicated in the United States a generation ago are returning.

Across America and around the globe, children are getting sick and dying from preventable diseases—in part, because some parents are choosing to skip their children’s shots. How and why do vaccines work? What are the biggest concerns and misconceptions, and what are the risks to the child and society when people decide to forego immunization? The award-winning science series NOVA helps viewers find the answers they need.

Misinformation about vaccines can spread quickly, creating confusion about the relative risks of vaccinating vs. not vaccinating. VACCINES–CALLING THE SHOTS is an important new film that encourages parents to ask questions and use the best available evidence to make decisions about how to protect their children.

This documentary travels the globe to provide the latest evidence and answers.  Featuring scientists, pediatricians, psychologists, anthropologists, and parents wrestling with vaccine-related questions, the hour-long film explores the history and science behind vaccinations, tracks outbreaks, and sheds light on the risks of opting out.  The film, produced for NOVA by Tangled Bank Studios in association with Genepool Productions, premieres Wednesday, September 10 at 9PM/8c on PBS (check local listings).

“Immunization plays a crucial role in our public health, yet there is a tremendous amount of apprehension and confusion around the topic,” said Paula S. Apsell, Senior Executive Producer for NOVA. “In VACCINES—CALLING THE SHOTS, NOVA dispels the myths and examines the latest science, engaging parents and viewers in a conversation with real answers about the best way to protect their families.”

“With the return of measles, whooping cough and other highly infectious diseases, we saw an opportunity to team up with NOVA to provide clarity for viewers about vaccination and what’s really at stake here for all of us,” said Michael Rosenfeld, Executive Producer for Tangled Bank Studios.

The vast majority of Americans—more than 90 percent—vaccinate their children, and most do it on the recommended schedule. Yet many people have questions about the safety of vaccines, and at least 10 percent of parents choose to delay or skip their children’s shots. The film illustrates how vaccines not only protect individuals, but also safeguard entire communities. The higher the overall vaccination rate is, the more protection for everyone.  For highly infectious diseases like measles, 95% of the community must be vaccinated to shield the larger population, a concept known as “herd immunity.” If the rate drops below that 95% threshold, even by just a few percentage points, this layer of protection can collapse, sometimes leading to the kinds of outbreaks reported in recent news headlines. Measles was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report 566 confirmed cases in 2014, as of July 11. In 2012, there were nearly 50,000 cases of pertussis, also known as whooping cough, and 20 deaths, in the U.S.

Highlighting real cases and placing them in historical context, VACCINES—CALLING THE SHOTS demonstrates just how fast diseases can spread—and how many people can fall sick—when a community’s immunity barrier breaks down. The film chronicles a 2013 measles outbreak in Brooklyn, New York, in which 58 people fell ill, including two pregnant women. Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician and infectious disease expert at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, offers the physician’s perspective on the vulnerable immune systems of young children, the history of vaccines, and how diseases re-emerge when immunization rates decrease.

Some parents—including a number of new mothers interviewed in San Francisco—are concerned about the risk of adverse reactions from vaccination. The film acknowledges that there are very rare risks, but Dr. Brian Zikmund-Fisher, a psychologist and risk specialist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, puts those risks in perspective: You’d need about ten football stadiums, each with 100,000 people, to find a single serious allergic reaction to a vaccine.

NOVA viewers meet Alison Singer, President of the Autism Science Foundation, and her daughter Jodie, who has autism. Singer cites the overwhelming scientific evidence refuting a link between vaccines and autism and discusses the lingering effects of a long-discredited study on public perception. The film further explores autism with new science from Dr. Dan Geschwind that reveals its genetic causes. His team and others have pinpointed mutations that affect the wiring of the developing brain—compelling evidence that autism begins in the womb.

VACCINES—CALLING THE SHOTS also follows Dr. Amy Middleman, Adolescent Medicine Specialist at the University of Oklahoma’s Health Sciences Center as she consults with patients and their parents on the safety and effectiveness of the controversial HPV vaccine, which protects against the cancer-causing human papillomavirus.

We’ll be watching on 10 September!





Invisible Threat

21 04 2014

One hundred trillion bacteria live on the surface of your body. And on mine.

We’re all teeming with germs so small, they’re invisible to our eyes.

For the most part, we coexist in peace and sometimes with mutual benefit. But, there are microbes lurking that bring pestilence with them.

They pose an invisible threat to me, to you, and possibly, to humankind.

A couple of years ago, a respected group of award-winning student filmmakers was asked to take a look at infectious diseases and the brouhaha erupting around vaccines. They declined, until they saw firsthand what happens to puppies when dog owners choose not to vaccinate against parvovirus.

The students then decided to investigate vaccines for humans, and the diseases vaccines prevent. They wanted to find out if there is cause for parents to refuse to vaccinate their children against potentially deadly diseases.

They wanted to answer the question: Are children safer vaccinated or unvaccinated?

Invisible Threat is the film that came out of their investigation. In 40 fast-moving minutes, this documentary drills into the science of disease transmission and the results of infection, and the safety and efficacy behind the design and manufacture of vaccines.

The students spoke with families, scientists, and experts who spilled onto the screen a thick soup of facts and fears, science and emotion.

At the end of their extensive research, the students were satisfied that they’d found the answer to their question. Children, and indeed all of us, are safer vaccinated.

This film is available for screenings. If you would like to show this film in your community, contact producer Lisa Posard: InvisibleThreatInfo@gmail.com

At some point in the near future, the film will be available for anyone to view online. We will let you know when that happens.

The student filmmakers are all a part of Carlsbad High School’s Broadcast Journalism Class (CHSTV), but CHSTV Films is an extracurricular program outside the class. Their teacher is Doug Green, who also directs the films.

Lisa Posard is an award-winning documentary producer and education advocate. She is a former President of the Board of The Carlsbad Educational Foundation, Chair of a successful $198 million school bond political campaign, and PTA President.

She now utilizes her advocacy background to give teens the opportunity to create peer-to-peer educational films. Her first film won international acclaim for teaching tolerance and anti-bullying by documenting teens discovering the lessons of the Holocaust as they interviewed survivors, visited concentration camp memorials, and spoke with German teens with Nazi grandparents. The Dachau Memorial Museum, National Holocaust Museum, ADL, and schools across the country have used the film with curriculum as an educational resource.

The second film documents hunger in the U.S. and was used for an advocacy campaign by Feeding America. That campaign blossomed into a national teen anti-hunger charity featured in PEOPLE Magazine. The film won numerous awards, was televised, and continues to be utilized by hunger organizations to spread awareness. Lisa is the mother of three teenagers. Her oldest daughter wrote Invisible Threat.

In recognition of the national launch of the Invisible Threat movement on May 1st, we are participating in a blog relay to raise awareness of this important issue.  Each day a different blogger will be discussing their personal perspective of the film as part of our 10-day countdown to a kick-off event with national legislators at the Capitol Visitors’ Center in Washington, DC.  Follow along to find out how you can join us in this movement, arrange for a local screening, and continue our fight against infectious diseases.

You have the ability to make a difference in our fight against infectious diseases.  Follow our Invisible Threat Blog Relay and find out how you can be a part of the movement.   Tomorrow’s post will be hosted by Shot of Prevention and will provide details about how you can help ensure your elected representative takes the time to see this important film on May 1st.    

 

by Trish Parnell





Pneumo – It’s All About the Numbers

3 03 2014

DDWhen we are immunized, we usually have to get several shots, or doses, before we’re protected against a disease.

Nearly all vaccine-preventable diseases require more than one dose of vaccine to provide us with a strong immune response. It’s not fun, but it’s better than fighting all those infections.

Last summer, an article in Pediatrics described a study which looked at the cost-effectiveness of removing a primary dose of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).

This vaccine helps to prevent pneumococcal infections, which can mean anything from an ear infection to pneumonia to meningitis. It can be a dangerous and deadly infection.

Right now, this vaccine is a four-dose series. The first three doses are primary doses, and the fourth dose is a booster.

A primary dose “primes” the immune system, allowing our bodies to develop stronger immunity with each primary dose we receive. The booster dose is the last shove to get us over the top, helping our bodies to develop long-lasting immunity against a particular disease.

The study in Pediatrics was the topic of conversation at PKIDs for several weeks, and, while we were surprised that removing a dose was up for consideration (and you’ll see why in a minute), we thought it was probably more of an intellectual exercise than a course of action that our public health leaders in the US would take.

After all, our tradition in the US is to use all of the tools we have to protect our citizens and prevent infections.

Come to find out, this is more than an exercise in “what if.”

In February, I attended the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting in Atlanta.

(As noted on their website, the ACIP “is a group of medical and public health experts that develops recommendations on how to use vaccines to control diseases in the United States. The recommendations stand as public health advice that will lead to a reduction in the incidence of vaccine preventable diseases and an increase in the safe use of vaccines and related biological products.”)

Based on that meeting, it sounds like they’re looking at removing a primary dose as a real option.

This may give us an opportunity to save money—$400 to $500 million—but it’s not a risk-free deal. In order to save that money, we have to be willing to see harm come to a lot of people.

This flies in the face of what we, as health advocates, say every day to the folks we meet, which is: Get immunized! Use the safe and effective prevention tools available to protect yourself and your family from unnecessary infections.

It’s easier to make this kind of money-saving decision if the conversation is all about the numbers: the dollar amount saved, the numbers of increased cases of disease, the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths.

Numbers are easy to talk about because they’re not personal.

But this decision to remove a primary dose of vaccine is personal. The consequences will be felt by our people, our loved ones, our friends, and our neighbors. We can’t dehumanize this process by just talking about the numbers.

If the third primary dose is removed, an average of 2.5 more people will die each year. Who are those people? One could be my niece, Millie, who’s just learning to crawl. Another could be your grandson, who loves cheerios and bananas.

Forty-four more people will get invasive pneumococcal disease. My daughter could get meningitis, and your son could get a bloodstream infection.

Fifteen hundred more people will be hospitalized for pneumonia. When my oldest was a toddler, she was hospitalized for pneumonia. It’s a terrifying experience and one that I would not have anyone else go through, if possible.

An additional 10,000 of our friends and neighbors and loved ones will have to be treated for pneumonia as outpatients.

Twenty-three hundred more ear tubes will have to be inserted into the tiny ears of children that we know.

A staggering 261,000 more children will get earaches, fevers, and possibly ruptured eardrums.

All of this happens if we decide to save money and remove a primary dose of PCV13.

It’s all about the numbers. We just have to decide which numbers are more important to us as a nation—the dollar amounts or our people?

by Trish Parnell





What’s New With Flu?

26 09 2013

CDC released lots of data today on last year’s flu season. This will help to inform all of us as we look at the coming season and determine our health messaging targets.

Take a look . . .

Flu vaccination is the best protection available against influenza.  All persons 6 months and older should receive a flu vaccination every year to reduce the risk of illness, hospitalization, and even death.

The 2012-13 influenza season is a reminder of the unpredictability and severity of influenza.  The 2012-13 season began early, was moderately severe, and lasted longer than average.

More children than ever before received a seasonal flu vaccination during the 2012-13 season.

  • 45.0% of people in the United States 6 months and older were vaccinated during the 2012-13 season,  less than half of the U.S. population 6 months and older.
  • Among children, coverage was highest for children aged 6-23 months (76.9%) with large increases in vaccination for children 5-12 years old (4.4 percentage points higher for the 2012-13 season compared to the 2011-12 season) and teens 13-17 year old (8.8 percentage points higher for the 2012–13 season compared to the 2011–12 season).
  • Among adults, coverage was highest for adults aged 65 years and older (66.2%) and lowest among adults aged 18-49 years (31.1%).
  • Among children, coverage was highest among non-Hispanic Asian children (65.8%), Hispanic children (60.9%), non-Hispanic black children (56.7%), and non-Hispanic children of other or multiple races (58.5%). Coverage among non-Hispanic white children was lower at 53.8%.
  • Among adults, differences in coverage among racial/ethnic populations remain, with coverage among adult non-Hispanic blacks (35%) and Hispanics (34%) far lower than their non-Hispanic white counterparts (45%).

Coverage by Age:

Coverage for children 6 months through 17 years of age was 56.6% in the 2012-13 season, an increase of 5.1 percentage points from the 2011-12 season.  State-specific flu vaccination coverage for children 6 months through 17 years ranged from 44.0% to 81.6%.

  • Coverage for children decreased with age:
    • 76.9% for children 6-23 months
    • 65.8% for children 2-4 years
    • 58.6% for children 5-12 years
    • 42.5% for children 13-17 years

• Coverage increased in the 2012-13 season:

    • Children 5-12 years: an increase of 4.4 percentage points from the 2011-12 season
    • Children 13-17 years: an increase of 8.8 percentage points from the 2011–12 season
    • Changes in coverage were not significant for other age groups

Coverage for adults aged 18 years and older was 41.5% in the 2012-13 season, an increase of 2.7 percentage points from the 2011-12 season.  State-specific coverage ranged from 30.8% to 53.4%.

  • Coverage for adults increased with increasing age:
    • 31.1% for adults 18-49 years
    • 45.1% for adults 50-64 years
    • 66.2% for adults 65 years and older
  • Coverage increased in the 2012-13 season:
    • Adults 18-49 years: an increase of 2.5 percentage points from the 2011-12 season
    • Adults 50-64 years: an increase of 2.4 percentage points from the 2011–12 season
    • Adults 65 years and older: an increase of 1.3 percentage points from the 2011–12 season
  • Among adults 18-49 years of age with at least one high-risk medical condition (asthma, diabetes, or heart disease), coverage for the 2012-13 season was 39.8%, an increase of 3 percentage points from the 2011-12 season coverage estimate of 36.8%  State-specific coverage ranged from 17.9% to 58.8%.

Coverage by Sex:

Children (6 months-17 years)

  • There were no differences in coverage for male and female children.

Adults (18 years and older)

  • Coverage was higher for females (44.5%) than for males (38.3%).

Coverage by Race/Ethnicity:

Children (6 months-17 years)

Coverage for Asian children (65.8%) was significantly higher than all other racial/ethnic groups.

  • Coverage for non-Hispanic Asian children (65.8%), Hispanic children (60.9%), non-Hispanic black children (56.7%), and non-Hispanic children of other or multiple races (58.5%) was significantly higher than for non-Hispanic white children (53.8%).
  • Coverage for non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native children (52.5%) was similar to that for non-Hispanic white children (53.8%).
  • There were significant increases in coverage from the 2011-12 season for non-Hispanic white children (6.2 percentage points), non-Hispanic Asian children (7.6 percentage points), and non-Hispanic children of other or multiple races (8.5 percentage points).
  • Coverage for non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native children did not change from the 2011-12 season.

Adults (18 years and older)

Coverage among adults aged 18 years and older increased across all racial/ethnic groups except for American Indian/Alaska Native adults and adults of other or multiple races in which coverage did not change.

  • Among adults, coverage for non-Hispanic Asians (44.8%), non-Hispanic whites (44.6%), and non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives (41.1%) was higher than coverage for non-Hispanic adults of other or multiple races (38.0%), non-Hispanic blacks (35.6%), and Hispanics (33.8%).

There is an opportunity to raise awareness of the important benefits that can be gained by increased vaccination among children and adults.

  • Continued efforts are needed to ensure those at higher risk of flu complications (i.e. elderly, young children, and persons with chronic health conditions) are vaccinated each year.
  • Access to vaccination should be expanded in non-traditional settings such as pharmacies, workplaces, and schools.
  • Health care providers should make a strong recommendation for and offer of vaccination to their patients and improve their use of evidence-based practices such as vaccination programs in schools and WIC settings and client reminder/recall systems.
  • Immunization information systems, also known as registries, should be used at the point of care and at the population level to guide clinical and public health vaccination decisions.

Pregnant women and healthcare workers

During the period of October 2012-January 2013, 50.5% of pregnant women reported they received the influenza vaccination before or during their pregnancy.

Overall, 72.0% of health care workers reported having had a flu vaccine for the 2012-13 season, an increase from 66.9% vaccination coverage during the 2011-12 season.





Reporters – Follow The Science (Please!)

12 12 2012

Immunizations are a perpetually hot topic. We’ve been getting questions from reporters for over a decade about the need for vaccines, the efficacy of vaccines, and invariably the safety of vaccines.

Reporters have been doing stories on vaccines for a lot longer than a decade, but I remember 1999 as the year that things kicked off on the national scene. The television program ‘20/20′ ran shows featuring parents who claimed that various vaccines caused SIDS, multiple sclerosis, autism, and a variety of other illnesses in themselves or their children.

All these years later, when study after study after hundreds of studies have proven the safety of vaccines, many reporters still insist on representing the “other” side of the story when the subject is vaccine safety.

When I get a call from a reporter asking to speak to a parent whose child has been affected by a vaccine-preventable disease, I ask if they are also speaking to parents who believe their child has been adversely affected by a vaccine.

The answer is always yes.

The reporter will say that he or she just wants to present a balanced story.

After all of these years, and after all of these studies, I can’t help but wonder what their definition of balanced may be.

When I read a story about the importance of wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle or a motorcycle, there is often included in the story an anecdote about someone not wearing a helmet while riding who was consequently harmed by the lack of said helmet.

Never, in the same story, do I read about riders who were saved from harm by not wearing helmets, although I’m sure there are people in this world who believe it is safer to ride without helmets. For some reason, reporters don’t feel the need to present the anti-helmet point of view in order to have a balanced story.

The use of seat belts in cars has been mandatory in all states since the 1980s. When writing about car accidents, reporters frequently include stories about the injuries sustained when so-and-so was not wearing a seat belt.

I don’t believe I’ve ever read such a story where the reporter also highlighted incidents of those saved from harm by not wearing seat belts. I know of at least one person who firmly believes that not wearing a seat belt is safer than wearing one, but I have not yet seen her anti-seat belt view used to provide balance in a car accident story.

Reporters who include opinions from parents who believe their children were adversely affected by vaccines, and who include junk science from those pretending to be scientists, all in the name of having a “balanced” piece on vaccines, simply haven’t done their homework.

They are behind on the science, and the stories they write end up creating fear and confusion on the part of parents.

If a reporter feels that it is important to present views not substantiated by science, they should do an opinion piece rather than a news story.

At PKIDs, we sincerely appreciate those writers who look for and use the facts. As parents of children affected by disease, it’s easy for us to have lab work done and determine by the results that our child is infected with a particular disease.

If there is a vaccine to prevent that particular disease, we can say that it’s probable that, had our child been vaccinated, he or she would not have become infected. But, since not all vaccines work for everyone, we cannot say for certain. We can only talk about what vaccine-preventable diseases have done to our families.

We’re not painting all reporters with the same brush. Many reporters follow the science and come back with a fact-based story.

For those who do not, we ask that you make clear in your next story which parts are unsubstantiated, and which are based on fact.

Let’s stop the unnecessary scaremongering of the public.

 
By Trish Parnell





Healthcare Professionals: Thanks for Vaccinating Yourselves!

3 12 2012

nurseI like nurses and doctors and technicians and assistants and all the folks who, one way or another, try to keep me healthy.

That needed to be said because, in a second, it’s going to seem like I don’t much care for them.

Every year, a few healthcare professionals complain when the order comes down to get a flu shot or wear a mask when seeing patients.

They don’t wanna. Not only don’t they wanna, but their excuses sound, well, uninformed is the most polite way I can think of to say it.

The vaccine isn’t necessary.
The masks scare people.
Nobody can tell them what to do.
The vaccine doesn’t prevent flu.
The vaccine is more dangerous than the flu.
The masks are stuffy.
They don’t wanna.

Kids are required to get certain vaccines to attend public school, and if they don’t, they can’t attend.

The CDC recommends everyone over the age of six months get an annual flu shot.

You can’t get influenza from the flu shot.

It’s puzzling to know what to say to people who are supposed to be more educated than you are about disease prevention.

Granted, there are people at work or shopping in the grocery store who didn’t get the flu shot. They are therefore at risk of getting influenza and passing it on to those who couldn’t get the shot. But, the risk we have to take out here in the big old world isn’t the same as the risk we should be expected to encounter in a healthcare setting.

I say yahoo for the hospitals and clinics holding firm on this issue. To the few in healthcare who skipped the classes on disease prevention: follow the science and provide the minimum standard of care by getting vaccinated or wearing a mask around patients.

Please.

By Trish Parnell

Image courtesy of Lower Columbia College (whose students and staff are all vaccinated, as far as I know)








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers