Follow us:
I have immunity blog archive
Posted: March 27, 2012
When we started reaching out to communities around BC for I Have Immunity, we had a simple question: how do you keep your families healthy?
We wanted to hear all the ways people protect themselves and their loved ones from illness and injury, since vaccines are a big part of it. Unlike washing your hands or buckling up when you're in the car, vaccines aren't something you have to think about daily. But like a healthy diet, exercise, and clean air, they protect the health of you and your family all the time.
So we ran a contest asking people to share with us the ways they keep their family healthy. We received some great submissions! Here are a few below:
- I protect my families health by making sure all their vaccinations are current. We eat healthy foods and get plenty of exercise. My daughters play soccer with their friends. I encourage all family members to wash their hands after they come home from school to stop the spread of bacteria and viruses. - Iris
- I make sure that my husband and I have regular screening tests for colon cancer, prostate health, Pap smears, etc. I also make sure we eat right, exercise, take vitamins, and take time for fun to reduce stress. - Cindy
- My family washes often with soap and water and we get our flu shots regularly. - Darlene
- Proper rest, adequate exercise, and a healthy diet to bolster the immune system. - Gary
We were glad to hear from so many folks around the province that regular vaccinations are a part of their plan for health!
To wrap up the contest, we randomly selected a winner. Congratulations to Linda in Osoyoos, who shared her tips for staying healthy in flu season:
Washing my hands frequently. Staying away from others who are sick. And most importantly, I got the flu shot!
Posted: March 16, 2012
A Google search is simple enough: you simply type in "vaccines" and click on the search results, probably starting from the entries at the top of the page, or the ones with reliable-sounding web addresses. But the challenge with online searches is that even websites that look professional and trustworthy might provide inaccurate or unverified information. Here are some questions you should ask yourself when reviewing information found online.
Who is the author?
Information about vaccines should come from a medical or scientific source- a medical researcher, public health nurse, or health organization. Their positions are supported by research that is peer-reviewed and supported by decades of research. You wouldn't ask your mechanic for legal advice (unless your mechanic was also a brilliant lawyer!) and you wouldn't ask a teacher to install your kitchen. Trust the person with training and expertise in the subject to provide you with the best information.
A great tip from the Colorado Children's Immunization Coalition: Look for an "About Us" section on the website. It will often contain information about the site's mission and beliefs. Or Google the author's name to find out more about their affilitations.
What is the purpose of the website?
If the website is encouraging you to buy specific items like books, DVDs, or alternative healing products, it is not a public health website.
Posted: March 8, 2012
Yesterday I Have Immunity presented at Social Media Camp, an event organized by the BC Patient Safety & Quality Council. As a social media campaign, we were excited to share our experiences with the attendees and learn from their insights and projects as well. It was a day of learning and thinking- and also tweeting, as participants were encouraged to tweet updates using the hashtag #SocialMediaCamp. You can view all the tweets here!
I Have Immunity is a storytelling campaign, but social media is an integral part of how we gather and share those stories. Social media tools are invaluable for connecting with people who are interested in immunization, whether they have questions to ask, stories to tell, or information to contribute. In our presentation, we stressed that social media can be overwhelming and time-consuming, but when used strategically it can make a huge difference in disseminating your campaign! We used Cindy's story, which made it's way to use through a nurse and Facebook supporter, as an example of the power of social media networks!
It's not new anymore that people use the internet to research information about health and diseases to help them make choices in their care, but now that health care providers and organizations are getting involved with social media as well, there is huge potential for dialogue and partnership through social media networks! Since we hope to connect health care providers with advocates in their communities all across the province, it was encouraging to hear so many other health care experts talking about using social media to educate and communicate with the public!
Posted: March 5, 2012
A few weeks ago, we got an email from Denise, a nurse in the interior. She had signed up as a supporter I Have Immunity almost a year before, when we were just building this campaign from scratch. As a public health nurse who gives immunizations, Denise was a strong supporter of the campaign, but didn't have a story in mind to share. However, when she met with a mom who did have a story, she put us in touch with one another! We were so grateful, as one of our goals is to build a network of immunization supporters through people like Denise (and you!) who share our campaign with their communities. Without Denise's help, we wouldn't know Cindy's story now!
Cindy is a mom of two girls, whose younger daughter Richelle (pictured here in 2009) has a heart condition called cardiomyopathy. She was placed on the wait list for a heart transplant at only seven months old, before she was able to receive her MMR and varicella immunizations, which are given at twelve months. Cindy was extremely cautious with Richelle's health, because if a heart became available for transplant and Richelle had any signs of infection in her system, she would not be eligible to receive it. The chickenpox, a disease many assume is no big deal, could literally be the difference between life and death for a child awaiting a transplant.
Recently, Richelle was taken off the transplant list as her heart function improved. Cindy immediately took her daughter to be vaccinated, and is glad to know that her daughter is protected. But children and adults who do receive transplants remain vulnerable to serious complications from immuization-preventable disease. While many take their immunity and good health for granted, some are not so lucky. Your immunity protects you and everyone around you too- especially the children and adults who need that protection!
Posted: March 2, 2012
Yesterday we (Chelsea and Michelle) had the pleasure of attending a health fair jointly organized by the Squamish and Teleil-Waututh Nations. Whooping cough vaccinations were also being offered at the health fair, to prevent the spread of the current outbreak in Fraser Valley. We were delighted that nearly everyone we talked to had either received the vaccine or scheduled an appointment to get it! A few people admitted that they were nervous about getting a needle, but agreed that they didn't want to risk infecting any of the babies or elders in their community. It's great to see the members of a community taking precautions to protect one another.
We were also able to hear a few great stories. One nurse stopped by to talk with us about the HPV vaccine. She said when it came out, she didn't know whether or not she should immunize her daughters. She told us, "I prayed to God to give me a sign, and within a few weeks, two members of our family were diagnosed with cervical cancer." She chose the vaccine for her daughters, who are now protected against the viruses that cause 70% of cervical cancers.
Posted: February 17, 2012
A recent article in Pediatrics takes on the middle of the immunization debate: parents who neither fully reject nor accept vaccines, but opt for delayed, alternate, or partial immunizations for their children. Alternate schedules, popularized by famous child-health author Dr Sears, encourage parents to negotiate with their health care providers about what vaccines their children really "need." The result is better than completely unvaccinated children, but partially-vaccinated individuals still risk contracting and spreading diseases that can be life-threatening. Chickenpox is less severe than meningitis, for instance, but it can still result in hospitalization and serious complications for rare unlucky folks.
The article provides an excellent breakdown of the misleading ideas propagated by Dr Sears book, but one that struck me as I read it is Dr Sears encouragement of parents to think of themselves as experts. The article quotes from Dr Sears The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child (2007): "Doctors, myself included, learn a lot about diseases in medical school, but we learn very little about vaccines."
The implication- that a parent who does a Google search for "vaccine side effects" will be more educated than the doctor in vaccination- is problematic and misleading. For one thing, the source of a Google-searching-parent's information is less trustworthy; for another, doctors give medical advice based not only on their own expertise but on the consensus of the medical community. That an individual doctor is not an expert in all details of vaccination matters less than the fact that the medical community is overwhelmingly agreed on the value of vaccination to both individuals and communities.
Another damaging concept suggested in the book is that parents "hide in the herd;" that is, that parents who don't vaccinate their children can assume that their kids are safe anyway, because most other people are. In the past few years, there have been serious outbreaks of preventable diseases such as pertussis, mumps and measles due to decreased immunization coverage. The notion that unvaccinated children are only putting themselves at risk is also false: many children cannot be vaccinated, due to serious health conditions like cancer and autoimmune disease; they are the individuals that the herd is supposed to protect.
Posted: February 10, 2012
This week, NPR's science blog "Shots" posted a great piece on the safety and effectiveness of the rotavirus vaccine! The first rotavirus vaccine, called Rotashield, was introduced in 1998 but pulled off the market in 1999 after it was determined to greatly increase the risk of intussusception, a serious condition that causes twisting of the intestines.
New rotavirus vaccines were developed and released in 2006 and 2008, but fears persist. However, a recent American study surveyed hundreds of thousands of rotavirus immunizations, and found no increased risk with the newer vaccines. NPR writes,
Researchers looked at a big database of American children who had been given the new RotaTeq vaccine (made by Merck) between 2006 and 2010. They looked at 786,725 doses, of which 309,844 were first doses. They found no increase in intussusception. The results were published in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"The benefits of rotavirus vaccine do outweigh risks," says Irene Shui, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School and Harvard-Pilgrim Health Care Institute who is the lead author of the study. This study was funded in part by a contract with the Centers Disease Control and Prevention.
The post at NPR also has a great video interview with Irene Shui, which any parent with questions about rotavirus and the vaccine should watch!
Rotavirus is the most common cause of hospitalization for diarrhea and vomiting in Canada- almost all Canadian children will be infected with rotavirus at least once by 5 years of age. Rotavirus still causes almost 500,000 deaths worldwide, nearly all in children under 5. The rotavirus vaccine is available free to infants, and prevents nearly all of the rotavirus infections that cause hospitalization. Learn more at ImmunizeBC!
Posted: January 25, 2012
Anti-vaccination communities are not new, but online communities have made it easier for immunization opponents to band together. They've also more difficult for people, whether they support or oppose immunizations, to assess the credibility of sources.
These are some of the findings of Anna Kata, an anthropologist with McMaster Unversity in Hamilton. Her paper reviews research into the effect of viewing anti-vaccination websites on decisions to vaccinate and belief in vaccination, and also deconstructs the tactics used by anti-vaccination groups and individuals to attempt to discredit immunizations.
Kata describes the state of the Internet as "Web 2.0," which refers to the user-generated content that proliferates online. This includes blogs, social media tools like Facebook and Twitter, and personal websites. The Internet gives everyone a voice who wants to speak up (and buy a domain name), and does not discriminate between sources. Thus it's just as easy for someone who searches "immunization" to find an unsubstantiated, conspiracy theory-driven personal blog as it is for them to find the World Health Organization site.
Along with the growth of user-generated content, significant changes have also been taking place in the doctor-patient relationship. Some of these changes include "concerns about values, prioritizing risk over benefit, and promoting the well-informed patient" (1714). This last point leads to patients who are what health care providers describe as "graduates of Google University": individuals who think they are as knowledgable (or more) than their health care provider, when it comes to matters of their own health. Kata's paper lists several sobering statistics about "well-informed patients": 80% of Internet users look for medical information on the web; 70% of those say what they find online influences their health decisions. 16% of people who search for medical information online search specifically for information about vaccines, and what they are likely to find-- more than 50% of the time, according to Kata's paper-- is anti-vaccination.
Posted: January 17, 2012
There was a great blog post on Shot of Prevention a few days ago that really inspired us, and we wanted to share it with I Have Immunity! A mom wrote about her personal experience working as a vaccine safety evaluator and how she reconciles it with her natural parenting style and Christian beliefs. Religious or spiritual beliefs are often cited as a reason for not immunizing, but the author of this post explains why regardless of religious beliefs or parenting style, immunizations are important and necessary!
She writes, "I consider myself an “attached” parent since I believe in positive discipline, I co-sleep with my children, and I practice extended breastfeeding. I always try to make natural choices for my children by mashing my own baby food and opting for locally grown produce when possible. However, these characteristics don’t preclude me from having a great deal of respect for the medical field and the value of science." This is a great point! Unfortunately, many parents who oppose immunization don't understand the science behind vaccines and how they are developed and tested. A lack of medical literacy is often a contributing factor in anti-vaccination arguments.
"It’s absolutely absurd to insinuate that my company would actually pay employees to argue for vaccines on social networking sites. I don’t make more, or less, based on the number of parents who vaccinate their children," writes the mom and author. "The truth is, I work with some of the most brilliant and compassionate people I know. Many of my co-workers are parents themselves, and are dedicated to supporting the production of vaccines for the world." It's great to read the perspective of an individual who does work on these immunizations- who knows first-hand how carefully they are developed, tested and controlled to ensure maximum safety. If more individuals had a high level of understanding about immunizations, there would be less opposition. We need more pro-science parents like this writer to set the record straight!
Posted: January 10, 2012
In 2011, Quebec experienced the worst measles outbreak that North America had seen in 20 years. Measles, which has been rare in North America since the introduction of the measles vaccine in the 1970s, and North America was declared measles-free in 2002. But with immunization rates falling, communities with low immunization coverage are left vulnerable to the re-emergence of preventable diseases including measles, mumps, whooping cough, and others.
Across Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada estimates that 62% of 2-year-olds are up to date on their recommended immunizations- far below the 95% coverage that public health specialists estimate is required to maintain herd immunity. As we've discussed on this blog, the low rates are due to several factors. One is that young parents aren't as worried about preventable diseases as previous generations of parents, who grew up with frightening outbreaks of disease. Another is that rumours and speculation about the risks of immunization have led people to skip or avoid immunizations; prior to the now-discredited Wakefield study alleging a link between MMR immunizations and autism, the rates of immunization fell drastically. Today, fear of autism caused by vaccines is one of the top reasons parents delay or refuse immunzations, even though no casual relationship has ever been established.
Unvaccinated individuals put others at risk; the LA Times compares refusing immunizations to drunk driving or smoking in restaurants. If education fails, is the next step enforcement? Should parents who refuse to immunize their children be fined (or, as Australia is doing, refused tax benefits?) Should parents who don't immunize their children be allowed to send those children to public schools? For that matter, should unvaccinated adults be allowed to work in schools, hospitals, or anywhere they put others at risk? The LA Times reminds us that "risk perception is ultimately subjective, a combination of the facts and how those facts feel, and sometimes our fears don't match the evidence. The dangers that sometimes arise because of the way we perceive risk must be managed too. But we must act in the face of this threat to public health."
Currently, the individual's right to refuse immunizations out of fear and speculation is overruling the public's need for safety and security, especially for the most vulnerable: the sick, elderly and very young. Is there a better way to reconcile these differences than strict regulation? Can education make a difference?
Pages
Get immunity!
Find a public health unit and book your vaccination now!
Read it!
Got a question? Ask Us!
Chat with a nurse
Our chatroom is closed.
