The Vaccine-Autism Connection: A Public Health Crisis Caused by Unethical Medical Practices and Fraudulent Science
"In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, described a new autism phenotype called the regressive autism-enterocolitis syndrome triggered by environmental factors such as measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination. The speculative vaccination-autism connection decreased parental confidence in public health vaccination programs and created a public health crisis in England and questions about vaccine safety in North America. After 10 years of controversy and investigation, Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of ethical, medical, and scientific misconduct in the publication of the autism paper. Additional studies showed that the data presented were fraudulent. The alleged autism-vaccine connection is, perhaps, "
the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years."
The Vaccine-Autism Connection: A Public Health Crisis Caused by Unethical Medical Practices and Fraudulent Science
Vaccine controversies
Effectiveness
Rubella fell sharply when universal immunization was introduced. CDC
Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of large-scale vaccination campaigns is well established. Vaccination campaigns helped eradicate
smallpox, which once killed as many as one in seven children in
Europe,
[38] and have nearly
eradicated polio.
[39] As a more modest example, infections caused by
Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of
bacterial meningitis and other serious diseases in children, have decreased by over 99% in the US since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988.
[40] Full vaccination, from birth to adolescence, of all US children born in a given year saves an estimated 33,000 lives and prevents an estimated 14 million infections.
[41]
Some opponents of vaccination argue that these reductions in infectious disease are a result of improved sanitation and hygiene (rather than vaccination), or that these diseases were already in decline before the introduction of specific vaccines. These claims are not supported by scientific data; the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases tended to fluctuate over time until the introduction of specific vaccines, at which point the incidence dropped to near zero. A
Centers for Disease Control website aimed at countering common misconceptions about vaccines argued, "Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused incidence of each disease to drop, just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced?"
[42]
Other critics argue that the immunity granted by vaccines is only temporary and requires boosters, whereas those who survive the disease become permanently immune.
[2] As discussed below, the philosophies of some
alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective.
[43]
"
Few deny the vast improvements vaccination has made to public health; a more common concern is their safety.
[67] As with any medical treatment, there is a potential for vaccines to cause serious complications, such as severe allergic reactions,
[68] but unlike most other medical interventions, vaccines are given to healthy people and so a higher standard of safety is expected.
[69] While serious complications from vaccinations are possible, they are extremely rare and much less common than similar risks from the diseases they prevent.
[42] As the success of immunization programs increases and the incidence of disease decreases, public attention shifts away from the risks of disease to the risk of vaccination,
[1] and it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs.
[70]
Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern. First, some investigators suggest that a medical condition of increasing prevalence or unknown cause is an adverse effect of vaccination. The initial study and subsequent studies by the same group have inadequate methodology—typically a poorly controlled or uncontrolled
case series. A premature announcement is made about the alleged adverse effect, resonating with individuals suffering the condition, and underestimating the potential harm to those whom the vaccine could protect. The initial study is not reproduced by other groups. Finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.
[1] Adverse effects ascribed to vaccines typically have an unknown origin, an increasing
incidence, some
biological plausibility, occurrences close to the time of vaccination, and dreaded outcomes.
[71] In almost all cases, the public health effect is limited by cultural boundaries: English speakers worry about one vaccine causing autism, while French speakers worry about another vaccine causing multiple sclerosis, and Nigerians worry that a third vaccine causes infertility.
[72]
Events following reductions in vaccination
In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality.
[46][47] According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent resurgence of diseases that have been nearly eliminated.
[48] Pertussis remains a major health problem in developing countries, where mass vaccination is not practiced; the World Health Organization estimates it caused 294,000 deaths in 2002.
Vaccine controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia