Despite learning about it and trying to come to terms with its existence for years on end, the “anti-vaxxer” movement is a topic that automatically vexes me. As a person of science and a future health care professional, it is my belief that vaccination should not just be considered an option but a requirement in the U.S. During my time as an undergraduate student, I was fortunate enough to capture a glimpse into and develop an appreciation for the scientific process that research is built upon within my immunology lab. Witnessing such hard, meticulous work be dismissed and dismantled by fabricated information and opinions of a few individuals and have the negative impact manifest within population health has been one of the greatest points of frustration during my career.
Although the paper has now been pulled, what still perplexes me to this day was, how Andrew Wakefield was able such a controversial article into such a highly renowned journal, such as The Lancet. If I were part of the review board for approving such an article for publication, a much more thorough investigation into Wakefield’s study would've have been called for, knowing the possible ramifications publishing such findings could have. Although The Lancet has retracted the article, the damage has been done and continues. Although many myths exist “substantiating” the “antivaxxer” movement, some of the more widely held myths I have found or heard about are as follows:
- So many vaccines at once will overwhelm by child’s immune system.
- Vaccines contain harmful substances, such mercury and formaldehyde.
- Vaccines aren’t effective anyways, I still got sick after getting the flu vaccine.
- There wouldn’t be vaccine courts if vaccines weren’t dangerous.
- Vaccines are just a way for pharmaceutical companies and doctors to make a lot of money.
- The side effects of some vaccines actually seem worse than the actual disease.
- Forcing me to vaccinate is a violation of my rights.
While I can write a ridiculously long blog post about debunking each one of these myths, I have chosen to focus on the myth #5, as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry,; another topic in which I feel greatly conflicted about currently. While pharmaceutical companies do make profits from vaccine sales, the gross majority of vaccines are not blockbuster treatments, such as Lipitor for example. In addition, these companies rarely receive funding for such from the federal government. Thus, a larger percentage of the profits is circumvented into research for the company's vaccine development. In fact, many pharmaceutical companies are gradually abandoning vaccine development due to a smaller market with vaccines versus drug development. In the case of physicians, contrary to belief, practices rarely make money off giving vaccines, with most cases either breaking even or losing money from vaccinations. This is due to the fact that not only are vaccines expensive to purchase but expensive to store, maintain, and administer.
Despite how ridiculous some arguments are made against vaccinations, it is important to recognize that vaccinations are not appropriate in some cases. Contraindications due to hypersensitivity, HIV/AID positive status, pregnancy status, or age are some general situations /conditions where vaccinations are not recommended. However, unlike other arguments recommending against vaccinations, contraindications put forth are substantiated by bodies of evidence.
Taking the current political climate into consideration, it is unnervingly unpredictable how vaccination advocacy and scientific research will be impacted. While I can continue to express my frustrations about the how such a movement not only still exists but is gradually gaining support and flourishing, I can come up with with very few good solutions to resolve this threat to not just population health but science overall.
No comments:
Post a Comment