Six Myths About Vaccination

[myturn]

FYI

26 April 2013, 6.42am AEST
Six myths about vaccination – and why they’re wrong


AUTHOR
Rachael Dunlop
Post-doctoral fellow at University of Technology, Sydney

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Rachael Dunlop receives funding from The Institute for Ethnomedicine, WY. She is a Vice President of Australian Skeptics Inc. and an administrator of the Stop the AVN Facebook page




Vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures ever introduced. Image from shutterstock.com
Recently released government figures show levels of childhood vaccination have fallen to dangerously low levels in some areas of Australia, resulting in some corners of the media claiming re-ignition of “the vaccine debate”.


You can check how your postcode rates here.


Well, scientifically, there’s no debate. In combination with clean water and sanitation, vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures ever introduced, saving millions of lives every year.


Those who claim there is a “debate” will cite a series of canards designed to scare people away from vaccinating, but, if you’re not familiar with their claims, you could easily be convinced by anti-vaccine rhetoric.


So what is true and what is not?


Let’s address just a few of the common vaccine myths and explain why they’re wrong.


1. Vaccines cause autism


The myth that vaccines are somehow linked to autism is an unsinkable rubber duck. Initiated in 1998 following the publication of the now notorious Lancet paper, (not-a-Dr) Andrew Wakefield was the first to suggest that the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine might be linked to autism.


What he didn’t reveal was that he had multiple conflicts of interest including that he was being paid by lawyers assembling a class action against the manufacturers of MMR, and that he himself had submitted an application for a patent for a single measles vaccine.


It eventually unravelled for Wakefield when the paper was retracted in 2010. He was struck from the medical register for behaviour classified as “dishonest, unethical and callous” and the British Medical Journal accused him of deliberate fraud.


But once the idea was floated, scientists were compelled to investigate, particularly when it stood to impact public health so dramatically. One of the most powerful pieces of evidence to show that there is no link between vaccines and autism comes from Japan where the MMR was replaced with single vaccines mid-1993. Guess what happened? Autism continued to rise.




We currently don’t know what causes autism. But we do know what doesn’t: vaccines. Image from shutterstock.com
After this door closed, anti-vaxers shifted the blame to thiomersal, a mercury-containing component (not be confused with the scary type that accumulates in the body). Small amounts of thiomersal were used as a preservative in some vaccines, but this never included MMR.


Thiomersal or ethyl-mercury was removed from all scheduled childhood vaccines in 2000, so if it were contributing to rising cases of autism, you would expect a dramatic drop following its removal. Instead, like the MMR in Japan, the opposite happened, and autism continues to rise.


Further evidence comes from a recently published exhaustive review examining 12,000 research articles covering eight different vaccines which also concluded there was no link between vaccines and autism.


Yet the myth persists and probably for several reasons, one being that the time of diagnosis for autism coincides with kids receiving several vaccinations and also, we currently don’t know what causes autism. But we do know what doesn’t, and that’s vaccines.


2. Smallpox and polio have disappeared so there’s no need to vaccinate anymore


It’s precisely because of vaccines that diseases such as smallpox have disappeared.


India recently experienced two years without a single case of polio because of a concerted vaccination campaign.


Australia was declared measles-free in 2005 by the World Health Organization (WHO) – before we stopped being so vigilant about vaccinating and outbreaks began to reappear.


The impact of vaccine complacency can be observed in the current measles epidemic in Wales where there are now over 800 cases and one death, and many people presenting are of the age who missed out on MMR vaccination following the Wakefield scare.


In many ways, vaccines are a victim of their own success, leading us to forget just how debilitating preventable diseases can be – not seeing kids in calipers or hospital wards full of iron lungs means we forget just how serious these diseases can be.


3. More vaccinated people get the disease than the unvaccinated


Although this sounds counter-intuitive, it’s actually true, but it doesn’t mean that vaccines don’t work as anti-vaxers will conflate. Remember that no vaccine is 100% effective and vaccines are not a force field. So while it’s still possible to get the disease you’ve been vaccinated against, disease severity and duration will be reduced.




Those who are vaccinated have fewer complications than people who aren’t. Image from shutterstock.com
With pertussis (whooping cough), for example, severe complications such as pneumonia and encephalitis (brain inflammation) occur almost exclusively in the unvaccinated.


So since the majority of the population is vaccinated, it follows that most people who get a particular disease will be vaccinated, but critically, they will suffer fewer complications and long-term effects than those who are completely unprotected.


4. My unvaccinated child should be of no concern to your vaccinated one


Vaccination is not just a personal issue, it’s a community responsibility, largely because of a concept known as “community immunity”. This describes a level of vaccination that prevents epidemics or outbreaks from taking hold and spreading.


Some people question the validity of this concept, sometimes referred to as herd immunity, but the impact of it breaking down can be easily observed in places where vaccination levels fall dangerously low – take the current measles outbreak in Wales, for example.


The other important factor about community immunity is it protects those who, for whatever reason, can’t be vaccinated or are not fully vaccinated. This includes very young children, immunocompromised people (such as cancer sufferers) and elderly people.


5. Vaccines contain toxins


A cursory search of Google for vaccine ingredients pulls up a mishmash of scary-sounding ingredients that to the uninitiated can sound like “franken-science”.


Some of these claims are patently untrue (there is no anti-freeze in vaccines), or are simple scaremongering (aborted foetuses – in the 1960s some cells were extracted from a foetus to establish a cell line that is still used in labs today). Some of the claimed chemicals (and remember everything is made of chemicals) are present, but are at such low levels as to never reach toxicity.




A pear has 600 times more formaldehyde than a vaccine. Image from shutterstock.com
The simple thing to remember is the poison is in the dose – in high enough doses even water can kill you. And there’s 600 times more formaldehyde in a pear than a vaccine.


Also, if you ever read the claim that “vaccines are injected directly into the blood stream” (they’re not), be sceptical of any other claims made.


6. Vaccines will overwhelm kids’ undeveloped immune systems


The concept of “too many too soon” was recently examined in a detailed analysis of the US childhood immunisation schedule by The Institute of Medicine. Experts specifically looked for evidence that vaccination was linked to “autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders”, including autism. The researchers confirmed that the childhood vaccination schedule was safe.


The amount of immune challenges that children fight every day (between 2,000 to 6,000) in the environment is significantly greater than the number of antigens or reactive particles in all their vaccinations combined (about 150 for the entire vaccination schedule).


So the next time you hear these myths about vaccination, hopefully you’ll have some evidence up your sleeve to debunk them.

http://theconversation.com/six-myths...re-wrong-13556

[Liviam]

Thanks for the article. Was a great read!! Very happy vaccinating mum here.

[wysiwyg]

Funny this comes up today someone on FB shared a good cartoon strip about the whole MMR Doctor Wakefield saga, which outlines the facts.

I think this is in the news again alot due to the measles outbreak in Wales, and the catch up vaccination programs now going on in the UK.

Not sure about linking but - if you google "tallguywrites the facts in the case of Dr Wakefield"

[LizLemon]

Thanks for posting that

[lilima]

Thanks for the post!

[beachsidegoddess]

Great article thanks! Now have something for people to read at work.

[Eenee]

Haha well where is the small pox vaccine on the schedule haven't seen it on there. A bit contradictory lol

[myturn]

Funny this comes up today someone on FB shared a good cartoon strip about the whole MMR Doctor Wakefield saga, which outlines the facts.

I think this is in the news again alot due to the measles outbreak in Wales, and the catch up vaccination programs now going on in the UK.

Not sure about linking but - if you google "tallguywrites the facts in the case of Dr Wakefield"

At some level that is quite an amusing anecdote, and at another level - SOOOO disturbing! I cannot believe that someone who has studied so long to 'help people', could manufacture something with such a potentially detrimental impact on society.... so so wrong...

and he is right... is it too much to ask journalists to do their research properly...

[Eenee]

And if people think they are the only reasons that people that choose not to get their kids vaccinated then they are incredibly misinformed!

I chose not to vaccinate and no amount of convincing me otherwise would change my mind. A friends baby died after vaccinations and another had a severe reaction and was lucky to survive and that is only the tip of the iceberg when it came to making my decision.

[myturn]

Of course eenee, there are lots of reasons, I guess this article is just reflecting those ones that have circulated with incorrect evidence. You are entitled to make your own decision. I'd just personally prefer to risk the vaccinations than the illnesses.

[wysiwyg]

At some level that is quite an amusing anecdote, and at another level - SOOOO disturbing! I cannot believe that someone who has studied so long to 'help people', could manufacture something with such a potentially detrimental impact on society.... so so wrong...

and he is right... is it too much to ask journalists to do their research properly...

Interesting piece on the guardian about MMR and the media - included below. I have no idea about how it was covered over here but in the UK I am not that surprised that many parents chose not to vaccinate.

Also is interesting about you say that about someone studied so long to help people, it is a natural assumption to make but people don't make the same assumptions about pharma companies for example, despite the fact many many of the employees have also studied a long time to help people and that is what they want to do. He was in business too - just no-one knew it, and the fact that the research was all reported in the media as all by a Dr Wakefield and not by Wakefield inc. made a big difference to how much trust people placed in it.

Has the MMR debacle immunised the media against other scare stories?
With the measles outbreak in south Wales showing no sign of abating, British newspapers may finally be learning their lesson

Fiona Fox

Not even Andrew Wakefield can be held responsible for the false impression given by the media that doctors were split over the safety of the jab. Photograph: AFP/Getty
When Jeremy Paxman this week apologised to MMR experts on Newsnight for the shameful role played by parts of the media in the MMR crisis, he joined a chorus of soul searching over who is to blame for the ongoing measles outbreak and whether an unfounded scare story with such far-reaching consequences would get so much media attention today.

While many, like Paxman, blame the media for giving disproportionate coverage to a small study and a maverick doctor, others blame the government for bullying parents into using the combined jab and demonising Wakefield.

Others will never forgive the Lancet. I was reminded of this when questioned on the story by Lord Leveson (in the course of his inquiry into the practices of the British press), who was keen to impress on me that the media reported the claim only after a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal had published it.

For my part I can think of few players in this saga who should not indulge in a little critical self-reflection, but if I have to choose a culprit mine would be the media's serious addiction to amplified debate and controversy in the name of the principle of "journalistic balance". There is much to criticise Wakefield for, but not even he can be held responsible for the completely false impression that medical science was split down the middle on the safety of the jab. Surveys show that is what the public believed.

One senior BBC TV health reporter has told me about stand-up rows in the newsroom over his opposition to the editors' diktat that every package about MMR must feature Wakefield or his supporters alongside the mainstream view. Balanced coverage works beautifully in politics and makes entertaining viewing but when rigidly applied to science and public health it clashes with other journalistic principles like truth-telling and accuracy.

But could it happen again? In some ways the outlook is rosy. Stung by criticism of inaccurate reporting on stories like MMR, many editors now defer more to their specialist science and health reporters, who were sidelined at the height of the MMR frenzy. Like good specialists should, these journalists do battle with news editors on a daily basis over what, where and how new studies are reported – and whether they are covered at all.

Many rightly pride themselves on keeping bad science out of their newspaper just as much as getting great science in. I think there is reason to believe that under their watchful gaze extraordinary claims like those of Wakefield would not now receive such prominence for so long. A few years ago, when a teenage girl died suddenly shortly after receiving the HPV vaccine these journalists reported a possible link while emphasizing the mountain of evidence on safety. When it was discovered that there was no connection, they promptly and prominently reported this, and I am probably one of the few who even remember this short-lived vaccine scare.

The scientific community is also playing a dramatically different role now. When Wakefield made his claim 13 years ago, far too many scientists and institutions lambasted the media coverage in the same breath as refusing to speak to the media. That thousands of research scientists are now prepared to leave their ivory towers to ensure that the media have access to their expertise at times like this will help immunise us against another MMR scare.

However, only a reckless optimist would claim this could never happen again. Just as it took lots of actors to make the MMR debacle, so today the risk of another MMR does not come from the press alone. When Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre was challenged by Leveson about an irresponsible cancer story, Dacre defended it by pinning the blame on an overhyped press release. Scientific journals make me nervous. When I heard that a respected, peer-reviewed toxicology journal had published a study showing that GM food caused cancer in rats I prepared for the biggest science story of the decade. Hours later it became clear that this study was deeply flawed and, in the view of many scientists, should never have passed peer review.

But it is the persistence of a certain culture and practice in newsrooms that worries me most. The media's love affair with mavericks and outliers continues to leave scientists in despair as they watch people with little or no expertise enjoying disproportionate column inches and air time on issues like climate change and child development. And while some journalists have made great strides in weaning themselves off their addiction to overly simplistic "balance" others are finding it harder to kick the habit.

Avoiding another MMR-style scare requires vigilance, which is why the Science Media Centre got together with a group of science reporters, news editors and sub editors to draft guidelines for good science reporting, which we submitted to Leveson. They were recommended in his final report. Perhaps when we finally get our new press regulator the guidelines will be adopted and we can collectively make sure that the vaccine scare we all talk about continues to be MMR.

[Miss.B]

Thanks for posting myturn, that was a great read

[Beach Mama]

Smallpox was eradicated because of vax so is not needed any longer.

I had a hard time deciding but read up and decided for us we agreed with and felt vaccinating was in our children's best interest even with minimal risks of reaction.

Such an emotive topic - thanks for posting!

[Eenee]

Yes but who's to say smallpox wouldn't be here without hour the vaccine not the point I was making but thats ok!

[Beach Mama]

Misunderstood sorry thought you were asking why it's not on the schedule. Considering how many people had small pox and how horribly contagious it was its highly unlikely that it would have eradicated itself somehow.

[Ginger]

Great article. Thanks for posting. I love that we have the choice to vaccinate our children in this country.

[~clover~]

I vax, a lot of my friends don't. Each to their own. The article isn't posted here specifically to change anyone's mind.

[Eenee]

The bubonic plague eradicated itself...

Just saying.

I guess my point is people that vax don't get a hard time, people that don't vax get dragged across hot coals. Yes each to their own. But personally I just find this stuff as a throw in ya face to people that choose not to vax. Like "hey you stupid person that chose not to vax you are so dumb because look at these myths, can't believe you fell for them" when like in truth I doubt these are the reasons people that choose not to vax base their decision making on.

Unless of course it makes people that vax feel less guilty for injecting their children with something they could have an adverse effect from...but I highly doubt that's the case.

Like people say each to their own but society tells me otherwise and I'm given lectures and told I'm bad and so I generally don't tell friends and family that I don't vax as I really not in the mood to be dragged over the hot coals for a highly educated decision I have made.

Oh thought I'd add because tone of voice etc doesn't come across in writing. I'm talking calmly and haven't written this to provoke or upset anyone just writing my thoughts like everyone else.