Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Vaccine controversy

Encyclopedia : V : VA : VAC : Vaccine controversy


The vaccine controversy encompasses many issues over the benefits and risks of vaccines.

Vaccines are widely credited with reducing the prevalence and consequences of many diseases. National and international public health organizations have made vaccination a central part of their strategies. The consensus of health organizations and medical doctors is that mass vaccination campaigns have eradicated or controlled several deadly diseases via individual and herd immunity.

Critics question the claimed efficacy and safety of such programs. See anti-vaccinationist about the individuals involved. The medical community, however, overwhelmingly then and now supports vaccination as an effective and safe means of preventing the spread and reducing the impact of infectious illnesses. Public health advocates overwhelmingly hold the opinion that the benefit to the public justifies mandatory programs.

Research continues both into the development of new vaccines for a broadening array of diseases, and into the efficacy and safety of vaccines already in common use.

The case for widespread vaccines

Public health officials, the medical community and public opinion overwhelmingly agree that children should routinely be vaccinated against a range of diseases, such as measles, polio, diphtheria, rubella, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, and others. Some vulnerable groups are also advised to be vaccinated against influenza. Supporters of widespread vaccine policies contend that:

Criticism of widespread vaccine policy

The practice of vaccination has been opposed by some since its inception in the late 18th century [link], but criticism has become more visible in the US and some other developed countries in recent years partly paralling the widespread availability of information through the web. While positions vary from outright rejection of the practice to calls for more selective and cautious use of vaccination, one or several of the following arguments are typically invoked:

The MMR controversy

Controversy has arisen regarding the safety of the MMR vaccine, because a handful of scientists and parents argue that the vaccine is the cause of the increased incidence of autism noted in western countries and Japan, and bowel disorders such as Crohn's disease. A theory advanced by proponents of the link is that the MMR vaccine overwhelms an immune system they assert is already struggling from the effect of thimerosal contained in previous vaccines. They assert that live measles virus in the formulation of the MMR is detrimental to susceptible individuals in a fashion in which wild measles never was.

During the 1980s and 1990s, a number of lawsuits were brought in the United States against manufacturers of vaccines, alleging the vaccines had caused a variety of physical and mental disorders in children. While these were inconclusive, they did lead to a massive jump in the costs of the MMR vaccine, as pharmaceutical companies sought to cover potential liabilities by lobbying for legislative protection. By 1993, Merck KGaA had become the only company willing to sell MMR vaccines in the United States and the United Kingdom. Two other MMR vaccines were withdrawn in the UK in 1992 on safety grounds arising from the strain of mumps component.

In September 1995, the Legal Aid Board in the UK granted a number of families financial assistance to pursue legal claims against the state health authorities and the vaccine's manufacturers, claiming that their children were killed[[Citing sources citation needed]] or seriously injured by the MMR vaccine. A pressure group called JABS (Justice, Awareness, Basic Support) was established to represent families with children who, their parents said, were "vaccine-damaged."

In 1996, in New Zealand claims by an academic from Melbourne University that MMR contained a human blood product, serum albumin, and could therefore spread Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease caused anxiety.[[Citing sources citation needed]] This did not last, since serum albumin was not an ingredient of the MMR vaccine.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield's report

  1. redirect

1998 Lancet paper

In February 1998, a group led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a paper (which later was subject to a qualified retraction by co-authors; see below), [Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children] in the respected medical journal The Lancet. The report analysed the cases of twelve children with developmental disorders admitted to the Royal Free Hospital in north London in 1996-1997, described a collection of bowel symptoms, which Wakefield asserted was evidence of a possible novel syndrome, which he would later call autistic enterocolitis, and recommended further study into the possible link between the condition and environmental triggers, i.e., the MMR vaccine. The paper proposed links between gastrointestinal symptoms and developmental disorders in twelve children that were alleged to be associated in time with MMR vaccination. No conclusions about causal links, such as that MMR could lead to autism, were reached. However, at a press conference before the paper's publication, Dr Wakefield said that he thought it prudent to use single vaccines instead of the MMR triple vaccine until this could be ruled out as an environmental trigger, given that parents of eight of the twelve children studied were said to have blamed the MMR vaccine, saying that symptoms of autism had set in within days of vaccination at approximately 14 months. He declared, "I can't support the continued use of these three vaccines given in combination until this issue has been resolved." In a video news release, issued by the hospital to broadcasters in advance of the press conference, he called for MMR to be "suspended in favour of the single vaccines." [link]

Controversy following publication of report

The paper, press conference and video sparked a major health scare in the United Kingdom. The subsequent debate became polarised. Wakefield's research was misused by parties from both sides of the argument. The controversy was seized upon by some UK newspapers, which argued that separate vaccines ought to be available on the National Health Service (NHS). It can be argued that these newspapers may have been serving their own interest by promoting this "health scare story" up the news agenda. He became subject to attacks, his critics questioning the validity and the ethics of the research. The UK government and medical authorities, such as the NHS, stressed extensive epidemiological evidence that failed to show any connection between MMR and developmental disorders. These denials were disbelieved by some parents, not least because previous government pronouncements on safety had been faulty, such as in the 'Mad Cow' (BSE) affair. The government was also alleged to be unwilling to support the use of separate vaccines because the NHS could not afford them. As a result, the takeup of MMR dropped sharply, from 92% in 1996 to 84% in 2002. In some parts of London, it was said to be as low as 60% - far below the rate thought to be needed to avoid an epidemic of measles. Although an epidemic has not yet occurred, measles rates have risen and doctors have warned of the likelihood of a future epidemic, because of the failure of the protection offered by herd immunity.

A factor in the controversy is that only the combined vaccine is available through the UK National Health Service; those who do not wish to have it given to their children must either have the separate vaccines given privately, or not vaccinate their children at all. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has refused to state whether his son Leo has received the MMR vaccine, but has strongly supported the vaccine in public. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, has confirmed his son has been immunised[link].

The great majority of doctors prefer to administer the combined vaccine rather than the separate ones, as it is less distressing to the child, and parents are more likely to attend for one vaccination than for three.

Epidemiologic research on hundreds of thousands of children in numerous studies continues to show no link between MMR and autism. Critics of these epidemiology studies, such as retired British clinician John Walker-Smith, although a supporter of the triple vaccine, have pointed out that epidemiology is a 'blunt tool' and may miss causal relationships. [link] For example, it can be difficult to find two populations of sufficient size which differ only in whether they were vaccinated.

Dr. Wakefield left his job at the Royal Free Hospital in 2001. His continued research includes involvement in scientific collaborations in the U.S and Europe, and a report on possible immunologic, metabolic, and pathologic changes occurring in what Wakefield has called "autistic enterocolitis", links between intestinal disease and neurologic disorders in children, and the potential relationship of these disorders to environmental causes, such as vaccines. [link]

Conflict of interest allegations

In February 2004, it emerged that when Wakefield had published The Lancet report, £55,000 funding was received by the Royal Free Hospital from lawyers seeking evidence of any link between autism and the MMR vaccine [link]. According to a Sunday Times investigation, several of the parents quoted as saying that MMR had damaged their children were also litigants. Although Wakefield maintains the funding was properly disclosed from the outset, allegations have been made that the funding was not revealed to either The Lancet or Wakefield's co-researchers. On February 20, 2005, The Lancet said it should have never published Wakefield's study, which was "flawed" because Dr Wakefield had "a fatal conflict of interest." Several of Dr. Wakefield's co-researchers also strongly criticised the lack of disclosure. [link]

Retraction of Lancet paper

The investigation which led to 10 of the 13 authors' of the 1998 Lancet paper formally retracting the claim of having found a possible link between MMR and autism was carried out by Brian Deer for The Sunday Times of London. [link] Deer continued his investigation in a British television documentary, MMR: What They Didn't Tell You, broadcast on November 18 2004. This alleged that Wakefield had applied for patents on a rival vaccine to MMR, and knew of test results from his own laboratory at the Royal Free hospital that contradicted his claims. [link]

General Medical Council Investigation

The General Medical Council, which is responsible for licensing doctors and Supervising Medical Ethics in the UK were reported to be investigating the affair. [link], and in June 2006 was reported to be prepared to accuse Wakefield of four charges: "that he published inadequately founded research, failed to obtain ethical committee approval for the work, obtained funding for it improperly, and subjected children to "unnecessary and invasive investigations." [link] This could result in him being struck off the Medical Register in the UK.

Recent studies

Epidemiological research continues to show a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism, but whether the increase is real, rather than an artifact of diagnosis and reporting, is unknown, and no causal connection has been demonstrated to the MMR vaccine. Since Wakefield's paper, there has been substantial clinical research investigating his claim to have found measles virus located in the gut of proportion of children, much of which has been financed by litigation, with the results not reported on legal grounds.

  • In October 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review of 31 scientific studies, and concluded that "there was no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccination" and "MMR is an important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death .... ". [link] However the authors of the report stated that "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate." Cochrane, based in Oxford, England, is widely regarded by scientists as the most authoritative independent reviewer of medical literature, and the custodian of "evidence-based medicine".
  • Vaccination supporters

    Supporters of vaccination, which includes most medical organizations:

    Organizations

    Vaccination critics

    Organizations

    References

    External links

    Vaccine promotion sites, little or no anti-vaccination viewpoint

    Sites or articles supportive of vaccines

    * [CDC.gov] - 'Mercury and Vaccines (Thimerosal)', US Centers for Disease Control
  • [NYTimes.com] - 'On Autism's Cause, It's Parents vs. Research', Gardiner Harris, Anahad O'Connor, New York Times (front page; June 25, 2005)
  • [OpinionJournal.com] - 'Autism and vaccines: Activists wage a nasty campaign to silence scientists' (editorial), Wall Street Journal (February 16, 2004)
  • [SNHS.com] - 'Anti-vaccine activists get jabbed', Michael Fumento (March 11, 2004)
  • [ZyNet.co.uk] - 'Polio Virus, Vaccine and Eradication', Lincolnshire Post-Polio Network (UK)
  • [iVillage ParentsPlace Vaccine Support Message Board]
  • Sites or articles critical of vaccines

    Sites decidedly or apparently totally against vaccination

    Links related to controversy and specific to MMR

    Vaccination/Vaccine (and Immunization, Inoculation. See also List of vaccine topics and Epidemiology)
    Development: Models - Timeline - Toxoid - Trial

    Administration: ACIP - GAVI - VAERS - Vaccination schedule - VSD

    Specific vaccines: Anthrax - BCG - Cancer - DPT - Flu - HIV - HPV - MMR - Pneumonia - Polio - Smallpox

    Controversy: A-CHAMP - Anti-vaccinationists - NCVIA - Pox party - Safe Minds - Simpsonwood - Thimerosal controversy - Vaccine injury

     


    From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
    All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

    Search Titles
    0123456789
    ABCDEFGHIJ
    KLMNOPQRST
    UVWXYZ?

    E-mail this article to:

    Personal Message: