Review of Academic Literature
Noelle Darts
There are four different types of vaccines: live-attenuated vaccines, inactivated vaccines, toxoid vaccines and subunit vaccines; live-attenuated vaccines involve injecting a weakened form of the virus, inactivated vaccines are composed of the dead form of the pathogen, toxoid vaccines create immunity towards the toxin itself rather than the pathogen and subunit vaccines target a key organelle of the virus. The wide range of specialized vaccines available illustrates the improvement that vaccines have undergone over two centuries of work and research; Edward Jenner’s live-attenuated smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century has formed the basis of modern vaccines which have undeniably caused many millions of lives to be saved, placing the invention of vaccines as a revolutionary discovery in the world of medicine. Yet, unavoidably, this great feat has not come without controversy regarding their composition and safety. From the National Anti-Vaccination League in the late 19th century to the modern-day Green Our Vaccines rallies, vaccines have faced a great amount of backlash since their creation in 1798. This paper will reflect upon the Anti-Vaccine movement and look at claims from both modern epidemiologists and those opposed to vaccines to create a balanced argument regarding the usage of immunization.
Throughout the past 200 years there have been many instances in which vaccines have caused problems, with the 1955 Cutter Crisis and the 1976 Swine Flu Outbreak playing key roles in the Anti-Vaccine campaign. In 1955, over 200,000 children received a vaccine containing defectively inactivated polio virus which caused more than 250 cases of polio and several cases of polio induced paralysis. In 1976, following the release of a swine flu vaccine, scientists noticed an increase in cases of vaccine induced Guillain-Barré Syndrome by an additional 1 case per 100,000 vaccinated people. Many consider these medical disasters to have influenced the modern Anti-Vaccine Movement, which was initially created for freedom and religion related reasons, to shift focus towards the health dangers associated with vaccines. The campaign further developed upon the findings of Wakefield et al. (1998) which drew conclusions between the MMR vaccine and autism. With the history of these medical disasters and discoveries, many felt that vaccines were unsafe and should not be used.
In contradiction to these arguments, many will point out that modern vaccines no longer give rise to these problems at the same scale that they have in the past. The issues caused by vaccines in the past are not applicable to modern vaccines as modern vaccines are more rigorously tested and their development is further understood as, over time, we have learned to improve vaccine manufacturing technology and safety; throughout the 1950’s, the time of the the Cutter Crisis, there was no system or policy to compensate people who were harmed by vaccines nor was there a committee to provide guidance upon the safe manufacturing of the vaccine, yet now we have the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to ensure that vaccines are as safe as possible. Furthermore, many in the scientific community reject the evidence behind the modern-day Anti-Vaccine Movement; the study of by Wakefield et al. (1998) has been retracted due to its small sample size, weak correlations and lack of supporting evidence. For these reasons the backing arguments of the Anti-Vaccine Movement can be criticized for lacking both reliable evidence and generalizability to modern vaccines.
Many people often point out that the chemicals found in vaccines, such as formaldehyde, ethylmercury and glutaraldehyde provide dangers ranging from conjunctivitis to cancer. Formaldehyde is classified as a probable carcinogen in humans by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, glutaraldehyde is toxic and ethylmercury can move freely through the body meaning that the toxin can pass through both the placental barrier and the blood brain barrier. Some also argue that aluminum and thiomersal source health related threats to humans so medical devices containing them should not be used.
Despite this, it can be argued that the dangers of these chemicals are inapplicable to their usage in vaccines. Formaldehyde, which is a necessary component of various vaccines ranging from Polio to Hepatitis A, is only used in minuscule concentrations; an infant’s blood naturally contains 1500 times more formaldehyde than is present in any vaccine. A three ounce can of tuna contains the same amount of ethylmercury as the average vaccine and aluminum can be easily found in drinking water, fruits and meats. It is clear that the opposition that vaccines face surrounding their composition is due to common misunderstandings and a general distrust in science, present in both the government and society, rather than the easily researchable contents of vaccines themselves.
To conclude, it can be deduced that the main arguments of the Anti-Vaccine Movement lack factual data and are primarily based on common misinterpretations of vaccinal science that are not applicable to modern vaccines. In order to combat this extensive spread of misinformation it is vital that both the scientific process and knowledge are further integrated into human culture by increasing funding towards education systems and professional journalism and by an active effort to avoid misinformation in the public discourse.
Citations:
Dubé, Eve, et al. “Vaccine Hesitancy, Vaccine Refusal and the Anti-Vaccine Movement: Influence, Impact and Implications.” Expert Review of Vaccines, vol. 14, no. 1, 2014, pp. 99–117., doi:10.1586/14760584.2015.964212.
Lombard, M., et al. “A Brief History of Vaccines and Vaccination.” Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L'OIE, vol. 26, no. 1, 2007, pp. 29–48., doi:10.20506/rst.26.1.1724.
O'hagan, Derek T., and Rino Rappuoli. “The Safety of Vaccines.” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 9, no. 19, 2004, pp. 846–854., doi:10.1016/s1359-6446(04)03234-9.
Poland, Gregory A., and Robert M. Jacobson. “Understanding Those Who Do Not Understand: a Brief Review of the Anti-Vaccine Movement.” Vaccine, vol. 19, no. 17-19, 2001, pp. 2440–2445., doi:10.1016/s0264-410x(00)00469-2.
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. “Formaldehyde.” Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 6 Nov. 2014, www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/formaldehyde.
Wakefield, Aj, et al. “RETRACTED: Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children.” The Lancet, vol. 351, no. 9103, 1998, pp. 637–641., doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11096-0.
Edited by: Simoni Shah and Ashna Chaturvedi
Comments