In defence of vaccinations
One author and researcher explains why he supports vaccination programs—and how we've forgotten the terrible diseases that preceded them
By Joe Schwarcz, PhD
AVOID! One of the most common words of advice heard these days. Avoid tap water. Avoid bottled water. Avoid butter. Avoid margarine. Avoid the sun. Avoid sweeteners. Avoid genetically modified foods. Avoid plastic bags. Avoid paper bags. Avoid preservatives. Avoid dairy. Avoid meat. Avoid soy. Avoid—ah, never mind. I could go on and on with a litany of such “avoids.” There are some valid points to be made with some of these, but there is one avoid that I cannot stomach. Advising parents to avoid childhood vaccination is scientifically unjustified and dangerous.
Vaccination just may be the most significant medical advance in history. It is difficult to estimate the number of lives saved, but it is in the many millions, to say nothing of the countless number of people who have been spared the misery of mumps, measles, whooping cough and polio. I can vouch for the agony of whooping cough myself. Feeling as if you are going to cough your lungs out is a memory that doesn’t leave you easily. I survived, but one of my classmates in grade two did not. And how often can one say that a disease has been completely wiped off the face of the earth by a medical intervention? The last case of smallpox was recorded in 1978. The World Health Organization estimates that smallpox killed as many as 500 million people in the twentieth century and that as recently as 1967 it was responsible for two million annual deaths.
Other vaccines may not have eradicated diseases, but they have curbed their incidence very significantly. Cases of whooping cough in North America have declined from a pre-vaccination peak rate of about 300,000 per year to 10,000. Measles from a million cases a year to a hundred. Diphtheria and polio are almost nonexistent today in developed countries. The incidence of hepatitis B and tetanus have been reduced by a factor of forty, rubella by two hundred and mumps by four hundred. The effectiveness of immunization is simply beyond argument. How can there be an issue here? How can some parents choose not to vaccinate their children?
It really is a conundrum. But the answer likely lies in a growing distrust of the “medical establishment,” a discredited but widely publicized scientific study, inaccurate information being spread on the Internet, and a lack of understanding of the difference between an association and a cause-and-effect relationship. Although we may not think of it in such terms, the decisions we make in life often come down to a risk-benefit analysis. Whether it is flying in airplanes, eating smoked meat, taking cholesterol lowering medication, or vaccination, there are always pluses and minuses to consider. There is no denying that immunization does come with some risk. Rashes, joint pain and fever are well documented, as are occasional lapses in the speed with which safety issues concerning vaccines have been addressed. Oral polio vaccines, which were more convenient to administer than the injected form, were responsible for actually causing the disease in rare cases. Yet some twenty years were allowed to pass before switching back to the safer, injectable form. An infant vaccine against an intestinal infection that struck roughly four million babies a year in North America was found to cause an increase in life-threatening cases of bowel collapse and had to be abandoned. Although there is no scientific evidence linking the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal to any disease, it probably should have been removed from vaccines more speedily when ill effects attributed to mercury in other contexts became apparent.
Vaccines, in a sense, are becoming victims of their own success. As memories fade of the horrors of the original diseases that they prevent, more attention is being focused on possible harmful side effects. Indeed, one can judge the progress of society by looking at its worries. Instead of having to be concerned about millions dying from smallpox or coming down with measles or whooping cough, we worry about the possibility of vaccination being linked with some cases of autism. That suggestion was raised in 1998 by a paper published in the British medical journal The Lancet. Andrew Wakefield and twelve colleagues claimed that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) caused a bowel disease that then caused autism.
The report received extensive publicity and triggered public demonstrations against mandatory vaccination. Most scientists were skeptical of the Wakefield study, and their skepticism was borne out by the results of an investigation published in 2002 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Danish researchers had examined immunization records and autism diagnoses for all children born between 1991 and 1998 and found that unvaccinated children were just as likely to be diagnosed with autism as those who had received immunizations. The Lancet study was further discredited when it was revealed that Wakefield had failed to disclose he had received a large grant from a group of lawyers who were looking for ammunition in a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers. In the end, ten of Wakefield’s co-authors retracted their support for the original research, saying that in retrospect the results as reported were not valid.
Other studies around the world also refuted the link between vaccines and autism, but a vocal group of anti-vaccine advocates maintains that a witch hunt has been organized against Wakefield to protect vaccination interests. Humbug. The fact is that autism commonly shows up at roughly the same age that vaccines are given, and an association can readily be mistaken for a cause-and effect relationship. But even if there really were a link between autism and vaccination, the anti-vaccine movement would still not be justified. The benefits overwhelm the risks.
In Britain, the consequences of the vaccine scare are already being seen in rising rates of mumps, rubella and measles. And Britain faces another problem: homeopaths are recommending that tourists travelling to malaria-stricken destinations use homeopathic remedies instead of well-tested prescription prophylaxis. This is ludicrous. Homeopathic products contain no active ingredient of any kind, so it comes as no surprise that a number of travellers have already paid for their folly with their health. Many homeopaths also advise their patients to avoid vaccines in lieu of a cacophony of implausible homeopathic medications. If indeed you are looking for something to avoid, how about this silly and dangerous advice?
What do you think? Share your point of view in the comments.
Excerpted from Science, Sense and Nonsense Copyright © 2009 by Dr. Joe Schwarcz. Excerpted by permission of Doubleday Canada, a division of Random House of Canada Limited. All rights reserved.
As a natural health care practitioner I wanted to comment a little bit about natural remedies and the difference in philosophy that is used compared to conventional medicine. First of all I believe that the author was talking about naturopathic remedies and not just homeopathic remedies, big difference here. Often we have people in the conventional health care field saying that there isn't any data or there isn't enough info that proves the efficacy of natural remedies. First of all I believe this to be false, if you go to pubmed.com and search for natural remedies used for infections you will come accross hundreds of hits. Second, when looking at natural remedies and their efficacy you need to be aware of the different approach that is used. For example when a doctor says that an herb has nowhere near the same potency of an atibiotic, this is very true. At killing bacteria, an herb isn't as powerful as a drug but a drug does not support the immune system, nor does it improve lymphtic circulation, stimulate peripheral blood flow, stimulate HCL in the stomach(we often swallow germs when we're sick), has a broader range of antimicrobial activity, has antioxidant chemicals to help reduce oxidative damage, and a variety of other mechanisms that when all working together ends up being a very effective means of suporting the body agaisnt infections. I believe that the answer lies in cooperation and developing a sense of teamwork. I believe that we could accomplish so much more if both sides were to acknowledge each other strenghts and begin to work together. For example there things we can do to help reduce the possible side effects of vaccinations, is this ever mentioned?
Very well said!! I agree that people have forgotten about the diseases that are now eradicated by immunizations!
I think that living a healthy lifestyle, taking supplements reasonably, (after researching them), and getting vaccinations can all work together to keep us as healthy as possible for our lifespan. We all do die some day, but let's live healthy while we are here.
we got a slight reaction from the hini shot..swelling the site of injection and some dizziness..for five days and felt unwell..but compared to the virus there is always a downside to medication...it worth not suffering this potentionally devestating illness..take the shot and relax
WOW! That was a long winded last comment from JacQueline but very helpful and insightful, so Thank you! I took my 18mth old son and 62yr old mother to get their shots yesterday and waited in a 3hr long line up to do so, just to have that peace of mind, because they both have asthma. I opted out to get the shot for the simple fact there is a shortage right now of it, and it should be given to the priority people first I believe. I have opted on the other hand to go the homoepathic route of boosting my 8yr old daughter's and my own immune system with Echinchea, Vitamin D and C. So we will see what comes about from each. Live Long & Prosper Everyone!
Hello,
Below is some information on both regarding the H1N1 vaccine taken from the Public Health Canada Website http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/index-eng.php as well as some researched information in response to a circulating email on Squalene MF-59, an ingredient in the H1N1 vaccine.
A short fyi: Europe has been using Squalene in its vaccine adjuvents for 22 years...with no known OR reported side effects.
The email on Squalene derived from what I believe was A paper studying the effects of Squalene, the HYPOTHESIS was that Squalene had side effects mentioned in that email. That particular paper resulted in no proven side effects derived from Squalene...in otherwords they proposed the issue and were unable to prove Squalene was detrimental in any way and so the hypothesis was never proven....and in the email it never mentioned that there are more than 30+ papers (easily many more than that) that have been published proving that Squalene did not initiate any known diseases or autoimmune reactions etc, that paper resulted in all kinds of unfounded information being circulated, much like the email that is currently circulating. These sorts of email can scare people into making decisions based on inaccurate and unfounded information, they believe vaccines are a conspiracy theory initiated by the government and drug companies, while I can see its important to consider all sides of the issue
I would encourage you to research all information yourselves, and dont depend on just one site but utilize several (accurate)sites, these sites should not include You-Tube...anyone could dress in a lab coat and recite inaccurate information for the masses and post it or circulate fear mongering emails, this doesnt make it a good idea.
Other than our own Canadian Sites I have found that U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health is a great resource for peer reviewed and validates research papers many of which are not drug sponsored:
I have included one paragraph in response to the the circulating Squalene Oil email from Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Vaccines with the MF59 adjuvant do not stimulate antibody responses against squalene.
Del Giudice G, Fragapane E, Bugarini R, Hora M, Henriksson T, Palla E, O'hagan D, Donnelly J, Rappuoli R, Podda A.
Research Center, Novartis Vaccines, Via Fiorentina 1, 53100 Siena, Italy. giuseppe_del_giudice@chiron.com
Squalene is a naturally occurring oil which has been used in the development of vaccine adjuvants, such as the oil-in-water emulsion MF59. In past years, by use of noncontrolled and nonvalidated assays, a claim was made that antisqualene antibodies were detectable in the sera of individuals with the so-called Gulf War syndrome. Using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the quantitation of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM antibodies against squalene, we demonstrated that antisqualene antibodies are frequently detectable at very low titers in the sera of subjects who were never immunized with vaccines containing squalene. More importantly, vaccination with a subunit influenza vaccine with the MF59 adjuvant neither induced antisqualene antibodies nor enhanced preexisting antisqualene antibody titers. In conclusion, antisqualene antibodies are not increased by immunization with vaccines with the MF59 adjuvant. These data extend the safety profile of the MF59 emulsion adjuvant.
PMID: 16960112 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I myself was concerned about the information I was hearing about the Mercury in the H1N1 vaccine and wondered if I was missing some information since I have researched the mercury values in other vaccines that we provide for our children as well as seasonal vaccines and after attending a Primary Care Network Forum in Edmonton recently where Dr. Gerry Predy, senior medical officer of health,was discussing the H1N1 vaccine I went to speak with Brian Daudlin the Manager of our Acute Care Respiratory Department here at the Medicine Hat Regional and called on several physicians for their input and I decided that the benefits far outweigh the risks of getting the H1N1 Vaccine.
I have cut and pasted the Myth Buster Section of our Public Health Canada site www.publichealth.gc.ca
Myth Busting
Thimerosal is a form of mercury used in the H1N1 flu vaccine to stabilize it and maintain its quality during storage. Thimerosal is a different form of mercury than the mercury known to cause health problems. The amount in flu vaccines is much less than the daily limit recommended - for example a can... of tuna fish has more mercury than the thimerosal in the H1N1 flu vaccine.
Antivirals are not appropriate for for everyone. Talk to your health care provider about whether taking antivirals to treat the flu is appropriate for you. If you receive the H1N1 flu vaccine you are at no greater risk of acquiring Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a neurological condition that occurs in approximately two in 100,000 people per year and is most often associated with foodborne infections. The possible risk of acquiring GBS from the flu or the flu vaccine is very small.
Getting the H1N1 Flu Vaccine: Taking antivirals after getting the H1N1 flu. Benefits / Facts:
Vaccines have proven benefits. Getting the H1N1 vaccine is the single best way to protect yourself and those around you from the H1N1 flu virus. Antivirals may decrease the severity of sickness. You cannot get the flu f...rom the flu vaccine. Antivirals MUST be taken within the first 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. Vaccines are safe. The dangers from vaccine-preventable diseases (like the flu) are many times greater than the risk of a serious reaction to the vaccine. If you have the flu, talk to your health care provider about treatment options. Antivirals may be one of many treatment options that they might recommend. With the H1N1 flu vaccine you will have some immunity to the current strain of the H1N1 flu virus within 10 days. Recently Health Canada approved the use of antivirals (oseltamivir) for children less than one year of age
Antivirals are taken in pill form (oseltamivir) or as an inhaled medication (zanamivir). They are not given by injections. An adjuvanted vaccine is a vaccine that includes a substance that boosts an individual's immune system and increases their response to a vaccine. An unadjuvanted vaccine has no “booster” ele...ment. Adjuvanted vaccines are included in common vaccines such as tetanus and Hep B. The adjuvant in Canada’s H1N1 flu vaccine is made up of natural ingredients such as water, squalene oil and vitamin E. Unadjuvanted vaccines are preferred for pregnant women when the flu virus is not yet in the community. This is because there are less safety data available on adjuvanted vaccine use during pregnancy. Antiviral drugs given for treatment of the flu usually need to be taken for five days.
Risks:Vaccine can have side effects but they are usually mild. You need to weigh the risks of side effects with the risks of serious health problems if you catch the flu. There is a risk of side effects with any medication including antivirals.The most common side effects of the antiviral oseltamivir include nausea, ...vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and headaches. The most common side effects of the flu vaccine are soreness in the arm where the vaccine was given, sore or red eyes, itchiness and for some a mild fever.Most people experience no serious side effects from the flu vaccine. The flu virus can adapt and develop resistance to antiviral drugs - this means that the drugs would no longer be effective in treating the H1N1 flu. About one person for every 100,000 doses of vaccine distributed will have a severe reaction to a flu vaccine, including anaphylaxis or Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Rare cases of anaphylaxis and serious skin reactions, including toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and erythema multiform, have been reported with the antiviral oseltamivir.
everyone.
Here are some great sites for additional information/research articles:
Canadian Medical Association Journal has published a lot on the H1N1 vaccine as well as the seasonal vaccines:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/search
Medscape
http://www.medscape.com
The Harvard School of Public Health
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/now/05152009/panel-puts-h1n1-flu-in-historical-perspective.html
I hope this information is helpful for you and your family,
I found this article very interesting and helpful but I do wish it went a little more in depth about the squalene adjuvant that is part of this vaccine. There is research out there that clearly states the risk of squalene and autoimmune diseases. Then why is it used? I think your statement of " There is no denying that immunization does come with some risk" is right on the money. Unfortunately a concerned parent who searches for "truths" can drown in all this misinformation and finger pointing.
I wouldn't slam homeopathic remedies, it makes more sense to me that our bodies should be able to provide us with what we need if we treat them properly. Everything is about personal choice, you were kind enough to back up your proof with the vaccination vs autism, how about backing up that homeopathic remedies don't work?
Sounds to me that you are slamming homeopathic treatments....I agree that vaccinations have their place but not all things are for all people. It's once again a personal choice.