Let's talk vaccines: ᵀʰᵉ ᵛᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉ⁻ᵃᵘᵗⁱˢᵐ ᵐʸᵗʰ

Since the quest for a smallpox vaccine started there has been a certain amount of pushback. The modern wave of vaccine skepticism has its origins in the 1970s. That was when concerns (later determined to be unfounded) about the safety of a whole-cell vaccine against pertussis, or whooping cough, came to the fore in many high-income countries. In the 1980s and 1990s, a few organized groups opposed to vaccines emerged in many countries, including the United Kingdom. And so it was in 1998 that Andrew Wakefield, MD, and two colleagues published a study in the UK publication, The Lancet. 

The 1998 study was a case series of 12 child patients that reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event,” the researchers wrote. The truth is that the patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation. It has been proven that Wakefield and his colleagues altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories to support the claim. Additionally, Wakefield’s institution, the Royal Free Hospital and Medical School in London, supported him and had knowledge of his intentional deceit in order to profit. 

This 1998 paper wasn't the first study Wakefield had attempted to gain traction with or force a correlation between various health issues.  For example, Wakefield authored a paper in 1995, also in The Lancet, claiming that measles vaccination was associated with inflammatory bowel disease. That paper compared disease occurrence in two unrelated cohorts — a child-health study from before measles vaccines were introduced, and a study of another group after its introduction. The cohorts were selected using dissimilar recruitment and follow-up methods, and from different populations. This apples-with-brussels-sprouts comparison was criticized at the time by scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration and at the Department of Health in England, and by others with expertise in statistics, epidemiology, virology, and related disciplines. 

Following the 1998 publication, two things happened. One, MMR vaccination rates dramatically decreased in the UK, and two, the scientific community said "whaaaaaaa?" Those who already had some kind of vaccine hesitancy allowed the "study" to bolster their bias, and others started doing research of their own. During the next 10 years, epidemiological studies consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. 

In 2003, Brian Deer, a British journalist, became interested in Wakefield's claims after a discrepancy between an interview with the mother of one of the children included in the 1998 study and the descriptions in the paper itself gave him one of the first clues that something sinister was afoot. In 2010 Deer, through the British Medical Journal (BMJ), published a series of articles exposing the fraud he had uncovered through several years of investigative work. Deer's deep dive into Wakefield and the supposed study conducted to establish the link between the MMR vaccine and autism resulted in the following conclusion, "the original Wakefield study was not only conducted 'dishonestly' and 'irresponsibly,' but that the data are 'bogus.'" 

The BMJ's publication of Deer's work led to the U.K. General Medical Council doing their own investigation which confirmed Brian Deer's research and led to Andrew Wakefield being stripped of his medical license in 2012. The Lancet retracted the 1998 publication. The paper has since been completely discredited due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. 

Due to the numerous studies conducted between 1998 and 2008 that found no evidence of a link between the MMR and autism, Brian Deer's investigation, the U.K. General Medical Council's investigation the door should be clearly closed on this fraudulent and damaging vaccine scare tactic. Unfortunately, some still stubbornly cling to this myth, this lie, that has been the cause of unnecessary illness and in some cases, death. 

For the numerous sources discussing this topic please click here. 

Let's talk vaccines: ⱽᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉ ᴹʸᵗʰˢ

Fears over the safety of vaccines are understandable. Research, however, shows that most of our biggest fears about vaccinations are unfounded. Let's look at some of the most popular myths circulating.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ¹: ⱽᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉˢ ᶜᵃᵘˢᵉ ᵃᵘᵗⁱˢᵐ.

This is a popular myth that anti-vaxxers love to cite over and over. The problem is, it's not true and never was. Did you catch that? It never was. This particular myth is so important to the cause of anti-vaxxers that I'm going to give it a post of its own so for now let this summary of the myth tide you over. 

The widespread fear that vaccines increase risk of autism originated with a 1997 study published by Andrew Wakefield, a British surgeon. The article was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, suggesting that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was increasing autism in British children.

The paper has since been completely discredited due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license and the paper was retracted from The Lancet.

Nonetheless, the hypothesis was taken seriously, and several other major studies were conducted. None of them found a link between any vaccine and the likelihood of developing autism.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ²: ᴵⁿᶠᵃⁿᵗ ⁱᵐᵐᵘⁿᵉ ˢʸˢᵗᵉᵐˢ ᶜᵃⁿ'ᵗ ʰᵃⁿᵈˡᵉ ˢᵒ ᵐᵃⁿʸ ᵛᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉˢ.

Based on the number of antibodies present in the blood, a baby would theoretically have the ability to respond to around 10,000 vaccines at one time. Even if all 14 scheduled vaccines were given at once, it would only use up slightly more than 0.1% of a baby's immune capacity. And scientists believe this capacity is purely theoretical. The immune system could never truly be overwhelmed because the cells in the system are constantly being replenished.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ³: ᴺᵃᵗᵘʳᵃˡ ⁱᵐᵐᵘⁿⁱᵗʸ ⁱˢ ᵇᵉᵗᵗᵉʳ ᵗʰᵃⁿ ᵛᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉ⁻ᵃᶜqᵘⁱʳᵉᵈ ⁱᵐᵐᵘⁿⁱᵗʸ.

In some cases, natural immunity — meaning actually catching a disease and getting sick– results in a stronger immunity to the disease than a vaccination. However, the dangers of this approach far outweigh the relative benefits. If you wanted to gain immunity to measles, for example, by contracting the disease, you would face a 1 in 500 chance of death from your symptoms. In contrast, the number of people who have had severe allergic reactions from an MMR vaccine, is less than one-in-one million.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ⁴: ⱽᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉˢ ᶜᵒⁿᵗᵃⁱⁿ ᵘⁿˢᵃᶠᵉ ᵗᵒˣⁱⁿˢ.

People have concerns over the use of formaldehyde, mercury or aluminum in vaccines. It's true that these chemicals are toxic to the human body in certain levels, but only trace amounts of these chemicals are used in FDA approved vaccines. In fact, according to the FDA and the CDC, formaldehyde is produced at higher rates by our own metabolic systems and there is no scientific evidence that the low levels of this chemical, mercury or aluminum in vaccines can be harmful.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ⁵: ᴮᵉᵗᵗᵉʳ ʰʸᵍⁱᵉⁿᵉ ᵃⁿᵈ ˢᵃⁿⁱᵗᵃᵗⁱᵒⁿ ᵃʳᵉ ᵃᶜᵗᵘᵃˡˡʸ ʳᵉˢᵖᵒⁿˢⁱᵇˡᵉ ᶠᵒʳ ᵈᵉᶜʳᵉᵃˢᵉᵈ ⁱⁿᶠᵉᶜᵗⁱᵒⁿˢ, ⁿᵒᵗ ᵛᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉˢ.

Vaccines don't deserve all the credit for reducing or eliminating rates of infectious disease. Better sanitation, nutrition, and the development of antibiotics helped a lot too. But when these factors are isolated and rates of infectious disease are scrutinized, the role of vaccines cannot be denied.

One example is measles in the United States. When the first measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, rates of infection had been holding steady at around 400,000 cases a year. And while hygienic habits and sanitation didn't change much over the following decade, the rate of measles infections dropped precipitously following the introduction of the vaccine, with only around 25,000 cases by 1970.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ⁶: ⱽᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉˢ ᵃʳᵉⁿ'ᵗ ʷᵒʳᵗʰ ᵗʰᵉ ʳⁱˢᵏ.

Despite parent concerns, children have been successfully vaccinated for decades. In fact, there has never been a single credible study linking vaccines to long-term health conditions.

As for immediate danger from vaccines, in the form of allergic reactions or severe side effects, the incidence of death are so rare they can't even truly be calculated. For example, only one death was reported to the CDC between 1990 and 1992 that was attributable to a vaccine. The overall incidence rate of severe allergic reaction to vaccines is usually placed around one case for every one or two million injections.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ⁷: ⱽᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉˢ ᶜᵃⁿ ⁱⁿᶠᵉᶜᵗ ᵐʸ ᶜʰⁱˡᵈ (or me) ʷⁱᵗʰ ᵗʰᵉ ᵈⁱˢᵉᵃˢᵉ ⁱᵗ'ˢ ᵗʳʸⁱⁿᵍ ᵗᵒ ᵖʳᵉᵛᵉⁿᵗ.

Vaccines can cause mild symptoms resembling those of the disease they are protecting against. A common misconception is that these symptoms signal infection. In fact, in the small percentage (less than 1 in one million cases) where symptoms do occur, the vaccine recipients are experiencing a body's immune response to the vaccine, not the disease itself. There is only one recorded instance in which a vaccine was shown to cause disease. This was the Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) which is no longer used in the U.S.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ⁸: ᵂᵉ ᵈᵒⁿ'ᵗ ⁿᵉᵉᵈ ᵗᵒ ᵛᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵃᵗᵉ ᵇᵉᶜᵃᵘˢᵉ ⁱⁿᶠᵉᶜᵗⁱᵒⁿ ʳᵃᵗᵉˢ ᵃʳᵉ ᵃˡʳᵉᵃᵈʸ ˢᵒ ˡᵒʷ ⁱⁿ ᵗʰᵉ ᵁⁿⁱᵗᵉᵈ ˢᵗᵃᵗᵉˢ.

If too many people don't vaccinate themselves or their children, they contribute to a collective danger, opening up opportunities for viruses and bacteria to establish themselves and spread.

Not to mention, as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warn, international travel is growing quickly, so even if a disease is not a threat in your country, it may be common elsewhere. If someone were to carry in a disease from abroad, an unvaccinated individual will be at far greater risk of getting sick if he or she is exposed.

ᴹʸᵗʰ ⁹: ⱽᵃᶜᶜⁱⁿᵉˢ ᴾʳᵒᵈᵘᶜᵉ ᵂᵒʳˢᵉ ⱽᵃʳⁱᵃⁿᵗˢ.

One key way to cut down on the odds of a nasty mutant popping up is to just keep the virus from reproducing so much. Cut down on the number of people it infects. When it does infect people, cut down on the amount of time it spends reproducing inside the body. These countermeasures are exactly what a mass vaccination program does. Fewer people get infected in the first place, and when they do get infected, their disease course tends in the great majority of cases to be shorter and milder. Click here to read a great article dissecting this myth. 

Sources: publichealth.org, science.org