MEPs devise strategy to tackle vaccine hesitancy among public
BMJ 2018; 360 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1378 (Published 23 March 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;360:k1378
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It may be of interest that this letter column [1] has just been featured and BMJ praised on Robert F Kennedy jnr's World Mercury Project [2], which in itself points to the extent to which legitimate comment on these issues is excluded from global media - the other possibility being in so many mainstream media outlets that anyone raising a critical or cautious voice about the increasing grip of the industry on our institutions, or the safety of the products, is simply showered with abuse. I am glad to say that this did not happen here. (I note, however, that WMP are unfortunately mistaken in stating that BMJ's electronic letters are Pubmed listed.) What was more noticeable was the absence of almost any vaccine lobby advocates defending the project, which echoes the position here last year when the British Medical Association opened a debate about vaccine compulsion - when faced with robust criticism, and perhaps the requirement for a modicum of politeness, they apparently preferred to stay away [3,4,5].
I think it is reasonable to remark that the proposition that generically vaccines are safe is scientifically unsound, nor can it be established by, for example, turning Andrew Wakefield into a scapegoat. Their safety in so far as this is technically feasible at all would be dependent on huge caution and the most careful and un-conflicted scrutiny, which is very far from the situation described in the letters below. Unless we escape the ideology of vaccines being safe, and unless we take major steps to ensure the genuine independence of the institutions licensing , monitoring and advising the use of products (and not just engage in pious sentiments), the population will be at risk from both the products and the system.
If the system was working it would be listening respectfully to people who report injury, not trying to shout them down or indeed humiliate them.
[1] Rapid Responses to Rory Watson, 'MEPs devise strategy to tackle vaccine hesitancy among public',
BMJ 2018; 360 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1378 (Published 23 March 2018)
[2] World Mercury Project Team, 'Vaccine Mandate Efforts in Europe Get Pushback' ,https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/vaccine-mandate-efforts-in-europe-g...
[3] Rapid Responses for Moberly, UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination, http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414/rapid-responses
[4] Rapid Responses for Arie, Compulsory vaccination and growing measles threat, http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3429/rapid-responses
[5] Rapid Responses for Cave, Debating the future of mandatory vaccination, http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4100/rapid-responses
Competing interests: No competing interests
On the comments page of another WWW forum (https://theconversation.com/flu-vaccines-for-pregnant-moms-protect-them-...) I encountered a correspondent's statement: "Influenza vaccines seem to be modifying influenza into a dangerous dengue-like disease https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1378/rr-15"
The author is no one that I know, presumably not a medical professional, and I responded with superficial explanation of the issue plus mild encouragement to keep up the vaccinations. Now, I have no quarrel with the article here in the BMJ, but the point is that the title wording: " Influenza vaccines seem to be modifying influenza into a dangerous dengue-like disease" is dangerously misleading. I happened to be unaware of the concern and found the article informative, but until I had assimilated it, I too thought that the intended assertion was that the virus was being modified to be more dengue-like, which I knew to be absurd. Most of the laity are not in a position to take such a sceptical view, and for such a title to appear in the BMJ is very poorly advised, to put it politely. It is late for the closing of stable doors, so I am unsure what to recommend, but at the very least I think that the BMJ should publish some sort of conspicuous indication that the intention had not been to suggest what the title might have conveyed.
Thanks for your attention
Jon Richfield
Competing interests: No competing interests
[Title modified on 11 April 2018 by Sharon Davies, The BMJ]
Last year's influenza vaccine also contained the same H3N2 strain as this year's vaccine (A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus). Many people would have developed long term IgE mediated sensitization to the H3N2 viral proteins due to last year's vaccine [1–4]. Those who received the Flublok vaccine can be expected to have an even stronger IgE response due to its 3X viral protein content [5,4]. This year's vaccine H3N2 proteins would have been neutralized by these IgE antibodies. Thus resulting in the observed low vaccine efficacy. [6]
When a person making anti-H3N2 IgE is infected with H3N2, one can expect the course of the flu to be significantly worse. So the "cytokine storm" being observed in severe cases is likely to be an infection concurrent with an allergic reaction. Death is caused by anaphylactic shock but due to the presence of an infection, it is wrongly classified as septic shock.
In the case of food allergy for example, the allergen exposure can be large enough to cause an immediate hypersensitivity reaction and anaphylactic shock within minutes/hours. In the case of influenza allergy, it may take a day or two for the virus to replicate and produce enough viral exposure for anaphylaxis. So the anaphylaxis unfolds over a couple of days.
“Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.” [7]
This result makes a lot of sense. When you have influenza virus allergy and are infected, you have more mast cell degranulation, more histamine, more mucus, more sneezing, more viral shedding.
Increased hospitalization rates have been observed in asthma patients that have received the influenza vaccine. Again, this is as predicted because asthma patients are likely to produce stronger IgE responses to the viral proteins upon vaccination. [8] On subsequent virus exposure, they can be expected to develop severe IgE mediated asthma.
Consider dengue infection. The initial mosquito bite that injects dengue virus into a person, causes the induction of IgE against dengue proteins. [9] Upon a subsequent bite that introduces the dengue virus again, the person develops hives due to a dengue specific-IgE mediated allergic reaction. As the infection (and thus allergic reaction) progresses and more histamine is released, vascular permeability increases. The result is hypotension and dengue shock syndrome. [10] Basically, a type 1 hypersensitivity reaction caused upon dengue virus exposure following IgE mediated sensitization to dengue viral proteins.
The route of exposure for natural influenza infection is the respiratory tract, not subcutaneous (SC) or intramuscular (IM) injection. Influenza vaccines artificially changed the route of initial viral protein exposure to SC or IM injection thus making it similar to the route of exposure for dengue. The result is an IgE response to influenza proteins, similar to the response for dengue. It should therefore not come as a surprise that we are modifying the course of influenza infection such that it is acquiring characteristics of a dengue infection (hives and shock).
As a result, allergy medications such as antihistamines and anaphylaxis treatments may have to be considered to avoid or treat this man-made influenza shock syndrome.
References
1. Smith-Norowitz T a, Wong D, Kusonruksa M, Norowitz KB, Joks R, Durkin HG, et al. Long term persistence of IgE anti-influenza virus antibodies in pediatric and adult serum post vaccination with influenza virus vaccine. Int J Med Sci. 2011;8(3):239–44.
2. Davidsson A, Eriksson JC, Rudblad S, Brokstad KA. Influenza specific serum IgE is present in non-allergic subjects. Scand J Immunol. 2005 Dec;62(6):560–1.
3. Nakayama T, Kumagai T, Nishimura N, Ozaki T, Okafuji T, Suzuki E, et al. Seasonal split influenza vaccine induced IgE sensitization against influenza vaccine. Vaccine. 2015;
4. Arumugham V. Short sighted influenza control policy based on poorly designed vaccines will sicken more people [Internet]. Available from: https://www.zenodo.org/record/1038445
5. Corporation PS. Flublok Quadrivalent 2017-2018 [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr...
6. McLean HQ, Thompson MG, Sundaram ME, Meece JK, McClure DL, Friedrich TC, et al. Impact of repeated vaccination on vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) and B during 8 seasons. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(10):1375–85.
7. Yan J, Grantham M, Pantelic J, de Mesquita PJ, Albert B, Liu F, et al. Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community. Adamson W, Beato-Arribas B, Bischoff W, Booth W, Cauchemez S, Ehrman S, et al., editors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. National Academy of Sciences; 2018;
8. Joshi AY, Iyer VN, Hartz MF, Patel AM, Li JT. Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: a case-control study. Allergy asthma Proc. United States; 2012;33(2):e23–7.
9. Koraka P, Murgue B, Deparis X, Setiati TE, Suharti C, Van Gorp ECM, et al. Elevated levels of total and dengue virus-specific immunoglobulin E in patients with varying disease severity. J Med Virol. 2003;70(1):91–8.
10. Tuchinda M, Dhorranintra B, Tuchinda P. Histamine content in 24-hour urine in patients with dengue haemorrhagic fever. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. Thailand; 1977 Mar;8(1):80–3.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Most vaccines use aluminum compounds as immunological adjuvants. The US FDA studied the pharmacokinetics of aluminum alone, ignoring immunotoxicity and declared that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are safe! [1,2]
A Cochrane study in 2004 by Jefferson et al., [3] on aluminum adjuvant safety, concluded: “Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”
Cochrane proposes to study the topic once again now. [4] As detailed in the feedback to that proposal, the proposal as it stands today will only kick the can down the road. Meanwhile, people continue to be sickened by this unsafe adjuvant. There is no science behind claims of aluminum adjuvant safety in vaccines. [2]
References
1. Mitkus RJ, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO. Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination. Vaccine. 2011 Nov 28;29(51):9538–43.
2. Arumugham V. Safety studies of aluminum in vaccines lack immunotoxicity analysis of this immunological adjuvant: Ignorance or deception? [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1117241
3. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. United States; 2004 Feb;4(2):84–90.
4. Djurisic S, Jakobsen JC, Petersen SB, Kenfelt M, Gluud C. Aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines versus placebo or no intervention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017;(9).
Competing interests: No competing interests
Noel Thomas [1] may not be aware that Prof Pollard's role as chair of the European Medicines Agency's Scientific Advisory Group has come under censure by Nordic Cochrane [2]:
"Contrary to EMA’s statement in its letter to us, “We would like to assure you that the policy was
correctly applied to the participants of the SAG meeting on HPV vaccines which took place on 21
October 2015,” EMA’s policy about restricting members of its SAG meeting to participate fully in the
meeting was not correctly applied. There were no restrictions for the chair of the meeting, Andrew
Pollard, although he had declared several conflicts of interest in relation to the HPV vaccine
manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur MSD, until 2014 and 2013, respectively. ..
"We asked EMA to inform us of its justification for offering Andrew Pollard, privileges that were
denied others with conflicts of interest. EMA did not respond to this but provided a nonsense reply:
“Finally, with regard to your claim of a potential conflict of interest of the SAG's chair, please note
that the European Medicines Agency takes due care to ensure that its scientific committee members
and experts, including SAG members and experts, do not have any financial or other interests that
could affect their impartiality.”...
"Pollard spoke about the many lives they saved and said there was no evidence of safety problems. The statement about the lack of harms was inappropriate to make for a chairman of an EMA committee in the middle of an ongoing process to assess whether or not there is a safety signal..."
Nordic Cochrane maintained its criticisms subsequent to being rejected not only by the EMA but by the European Ombudsman, which puts into question the very objectivity of European institutions.
[1] Noel Thomas ' Re: MEPs devise strategy to tackle vaccine hesitancy among public' 29 March 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1378/rr-3
[2] Peter C Gøtzsche, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Tom Jefferson, Margrete Auken, Louise Brinth, Nordic Cochrane, 2 November 2017, http://nordic.cochrane.org/sites/nordic.cochrane.org/files/public/upload...
Competing interests: No competing interests
Thanks to Dr. Cunningham for raising the issue of vaccine induced SIDS and Kawasaki disease (KD).
It has been demonstrated that there is molecular mimicry between several bacterial and yeast proteins contained in vaccines and SIDS associated cardiac muscle proteins. [1] Molecular mimicry between the H1N1 nucleoproteins and the human hypocretin receptor caused Pandemrix induced narcolepsy. [2] The molecular match is stronger in the SIDS case than that of narcolepsy.
Sireci et al. [3] show involvement of molecular mimicry between Heat Shock Protein (HSP) 65 of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis and human HSP63, in KD.
Comparing BLASTP protein sequence alignment between vaccine antigens and the epitope identified by Sireci at al., show strong matches (again stronger matches than the narcolepsy case) that can explain the rise in KD occurrence.
BLASTP match scores for KD:
Saccharomyces cerevisiae 39.7, Clostridium tetani 32, Streptococcus pneumoniae 48.1, Corynebacterium diphtheriae 29.5, Bordetella pertussis 35, Haemophilus influenzae 26.9, Neisseria meningitidis 27.8, Mycobacterium tuberculosis (baseline) 29.5, Measles virus 19.7.
As a reference, BLASTP match score between the narcolepsy related H1N1 nucleoprotein epitope and human hypocretin receptor was only 19.3.
As can be expected from the Neisseria meningitidis score above, KD was also reported in meningococcal vaccine (Menveo) recipients. [4]
If vaccine regulators were serious about safety, the entire vaccine fleet would have been grounded following the Pandemrix narcolepsy disaster, to check for the same mechanism of failure in other vaccines. But nothing of that sort happened ...
References
1. Arumugham V. Bioinformatics analysis links Sudden Infant Death Syndrome to vaccine induced autoimmunity against cardiac muscle proteins [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.zenodo.org/record/1038681
2. Ahmed SS, Volkmuth W, Duca J, Corti L, Pallaoro M, Pezzicoli A, et al. Antibodies to influenza nucleoprotein cross-react with human hypocretin receptor 2 (ABSTRACT ONLY). Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(294):294ra105–294ra105.
3. Sireci G, Dieli F, Salerno A. T cells recognize an immunodominant epitope of heat shock protein 65 in Kawasaki disease. Mol Med. United States; 2000 Jul;6(7):581–90.
4. Novartis. Menveo vaccine package insert [Internet]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr...
Competing interests: No competing interests
There can be no defence for any party spreading or contributing to “unreliable, misleading and unscientific information on vaccination.” But nor can there be a defence for any party over simplifying the situation and categorically stating that licensed vaccines “are safe”, as the resolution does.
Dr John Clements, a vaccine safety expert at the World Health Organisation was quoted by Lord Clement Jones as has having said that “there is no perfectly safe or completely effective vaccine but we all benefit from them”. (1) The WHO website states realistically that “there is no such thing as a "perfect" vaccine which protects everyone who receives it AND is entirely safe for everyone”.(2)
The Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST, June 2004, Number 219) publication states that, “as with any other medical intervention, vaccination is not entirely free from risk. All vaccines may have some adverse effects.”(3)
Against that backdrop one has to wonder how the MEP’s could evidence the fact that licensed vaccines “are safe”.
The rigorous testing and “multiple phase trials” they refer to are not infallible either, as evidenced by the serious adverse reactions uncovered following the marketing of the Urabe mumps containing brands of MMR vaccine in the 1980’s and more recently the Pandemrix vaccine.
In both circumstances the serious adverse events which resulted in their removal from use were not detected in the clinical trials prior to them entering the market. In the case of Urabe, subsequent post marketing surveillance failed to detect the scale of the problem with POST later stating in 1995 that the Urabe problem was “exacerbated by the failure of the Yellow Card surveillance system to detect the scale of the problem” (4)
More recently, a number of individuals suffered cataplexy and narcolepsy following administration of the Pandemrix vaccine with neither condition being detected in the pre marketing clinical trials or reported on in the subsequent studies to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the vaccine in children 6 months to 12 years of age in the UK population. (5)
In the case of Pandemrix, a number of claims alleging a link between the vaccine and narcolepsy have recently been awarded a payment by the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme in the UK. (6)
These payments would not have been made had the assessors not been satisfied that on the balance of probability, the claimants had established that the vaccine was the cause of the condition.
MEP’s in tackling what they see as “the worrying phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy” would do well to learn from experience and abandon the age old approach of categorically asserting as fact, that all vaccines are safe. Referenced and reliably sourced material in the public domain evidences the fact that this is not always the case.
They would be of greater service to the communities they serve if, whilst promoting vaccination in a positive light, they were to adopt a more realistic, open and transparent approach to the subject. They would do well to legislate for safer vaccines, more extensive clinical trials and studies prior to licensing with a robust and very sensitive heightened post marketing surveillance system to instantly detect any adverse reactions (which might not have been detected in the trials due to the size of the cohort) and respond immediately with the removal of the product from the market for further investigation. All too often reports of adverse events are dismissed as being in line with what was statistically expected and not indicative of a serious problem or denied altogether on the argument that there is no evidence of causation. Acknowledgements of adverse events in hindsight (sometimes many years later) are of no consolation to the victims.
The implementation of compensatory schemes to provide payments to all vaccine damaged recipients, irrespective of level of disablement, where a link is established, would provide a reassurance that in the event that something does go wrong, financial help and support is available to the victims and their families. Such payments cannot turn the clock back or restore to the individual what they have lost through vaccination but are essential to meet the needs of the disabled person and their families in coping with the difficulties they now encounter in their daily lives. The current practice which exists in the UK whereby assessors can concede that the individual is vaccine damaged but not to the extent required so as to qualify for a payment, has no place in a caring society and is unlikely to encourage people to view vaccination favourably.
MEP’s cannot be ignorant of the reasons why vaccine hesitancy exists in their communities and they cannot realistically place all the responsibility for it on unreliable and misleading information being relayed by the media.
They, more than any other group are excellently placed to initiate change and restore confidence in vaccination but it will require a lot more than a blanket assurance of vaccine safety to achieve it.
In view of the quotes from the vaccine safety expert, Dr Clements, the WHO, POST and others, is there not a case for questioning whether or not the resolution is guilty of spreading “unreliable, misleading and unscientific information on vaccination” if it states absolutely that licensed vaccines are safe?.
(1) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo000628/text/00... Column 982
(2) http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/AEFI/en/
(3) POST June 2004 Number 219
(4) POST 66 July 1995
(5) http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=32010001172
(6) https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy
Competing interests: No competing interests
The HEPLISAV-B [1] hepatitis B vaccine and the SHINGRIX [2] shingles vaccine were recently approved in the US.
Hansenula polymorpha yeast is used to produce HEPLISAV-B. The HEPLISAV-B vaccine thus contains yeast proteins (up to 5% of total protein). HEPLISAV-B uses a new powerful adjuvant, CpG 1018. Clinical trials showed an increase in myocardial infarction among patients who received HEPLISAV-B, compared to controls.
Uniprot [3] lists >5000 proteins for this yeast. I randomly picked one yeast protein "Cation transport ATPase" and ran a BLASTP [4] protein sequence alignment against homo sapiens, to check for molecular mimicry/autoimmunity potential. The top match was for “copper-transporting ATPase 1 isoform 1 [Homo sapiens]”, with a match score of 559. There are also subsequent matches to Menkes’ disease and Wilson's disease associated human proteins. Copper deficiency is associated with these heart diseases. [6]
In contrast, the top BLASTP match score between the H1N1 nucleoprotein (that caused Pandemrix induced narcolepsy [5]), and homo sapiens is only 32.5.
So it seems easily possible that this yeast containing vaccine with a powerful new adjuvant is creating autoantibodies that affect copper transport to the heart, due to molecular mimicry between yeast and human proteins. This can explain the huge increase in myocardial infarction occurrence following the administration of this vaccine. Yet the vaccine has been approved.
The FDA Briefing Document (Sep 13 2017) for the FDA VRBPAC meeting below details supraventricular tachycardia and tachyarrhythmia as serious adverse events (SAE) in SHINGRIX vaccinated subjects, detected during vaccine clinical studies.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMateri...
The vaccine package insert (Revised: 10/2017) [2], omits any reference to supraventricular tachycardia or tachyarrhythmia. Thus doctors who administer this vaccine are being kept in the dark about these SAEs. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) depends on doctors reporting adverse events. Underreporting is a known problem with these passive surveillance methods. Hiding information from doctors only makes the problem worse.
The SHINGRIX vaccine contains Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell proteins used to produce the vaccine. Once again, autoimmunity [7] due to molecular mimicry between human and CHO proteins could be the cause of the SAEs.
Such vaccine approvals despite obvious safety problems detected during clinical trials, prove that vaccine regulators are not serious about safety at all.
References
1. FDA. Heplisav-B package insert [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr...
2. FDA. SHINGRIX vaccine package insert [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr...
3. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D158–69.
4. Arumugham V. Significant protein sequence alignment between peanut allergen epitopes and vaccine antigens [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.zenodo.org/record/1034555
5. Ahmed SS, Volkmuth W, Duca J, Corti L, Pallaoro M, Pezzicoli A, et al. Antibodies to influenza nucleoprotein cross-react with human hypocretin receptor 2 (ABSTRACT ONLY). Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(294):294ra105–294ra105.
6. Nath R. Copper deficiency and heart disease: Molecular basis, recent advances and current concepts. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 1997;29(11):1245–54.
7. Arumugham V. Cancer immunology, bioinformatics and chemokine evidence link vaccines contaminated with animal proteins to autoimmune disease: a detailed look at Crohn’s disease and Vitiligo [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.zenodo.org/record/1034777
Competing interests: No competing interests
TRICKY STATISTICS, VACCINE HESITANCY AND VACCINE SAFETY
I do not agree with all of the assertions made by Stone and Arumughan, but they are right on target where the statistical trickery of vaccine authorities is concerned. Manufacturers and their surrogates have systematically designed small safety studies prone to type 2 errors, allowing them to say that any increases in adverse events are “not significant.” Recent articles highlight the persistent uncertainty about important safety issues that have resulted from this policy.
We were recently reminded of the possible SIDS-vaccine link by Jacob Puliyel and colleagues, who observed a doubling of unexplained deaths within 3 days following pentavalent vaccine (DTP/Hib/hep B), compared with DTP. (Puliyel, Med J DY Patil Vidyapeeth, 3/17/18) This is on top of the SIDS risk associated with DTP alone, primarily due to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. (Walker, AJPH 1987;77:945) US vaccine authorities dismissed DTP as a cause of SIDS many years ago, based on some observational studies, but there are other observational and ecological studies and case reports that suggest otherwise. Only proper randomized trials can resolve this issue, but they have never been done.
Vaccines are potent immune modifiers with general effects on our immune responses; the magnitude of the responses are in proportion to the number of vaccines given. US vaccine authorities have persistently tried to contradict these facts with articles asserting that there is no such thing as immune overload from the US vaccine schedule. (e.g., Glanz, JAMA 2018;319:906) This is manifestly untrue: infants have high fevers and seizures in proportion to the number of vaccines given at one time, and at least one healthy young adult died of a lupus-like syndrome shortly after receiving several vaccines at once. (Roos, “Vaccines might have contributed to death of Army reservist.” CIDRAP News, 11/19/03)…Kawasaki disease may well be the result of vaccine overload. It is an immune disorder of unknown cause occurring in young children getting frequent vaccinations, and its frequency rise has closely paralleled the expansion of the immunization schedules. Once again, there has been no attempt to study this “mystery disease” with a randomized vaccine trial….And then there is autism spectrum disorder….
Heplisav-B is a new vaccine against hepatitis B for adults. Its increased potency is ascribed to a new immunostimulatory adjuvant, CpG1018. The inflammatory response evoked by this adjuvant may account for a 7-fold increase in heart attack risk among vaccine recipients, a fact that is not acknowledged in published information. (Packer, medpagetoday.com, 11/9/17. Medical Letter, JAMA 2018;319:822)
I believe that diphtheria, pertussis, polio, and measles vaccines have been real lifesavers, notwithstanding some adverse effects, but I feel less certain about other vaccines. SIDS is a complex problem, but any vaccine risk could be largely circumvented by delaying vaccinations to 5-6 months of age. The same might also be true for other “mystery diseases.” Meanwhile, we need more honesty and less “window dressing research” from vaccine authorities.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: MEPs devise strategy to tackle vaccine hesitancy among public
The spreading of misinformation and pseudoscience in respect of vaccination on social media etc has been identified over and over as being a major contributory factor to the vaccine hesitancy observed across Europe.
Vytenis Andriukaitis, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, in his recent Opinion published in the BMJ stated that……….
“Myths and pseudoscience that proliferate through the internet and social media are gaining pace …………” (1)
In another BMJ article, Members of the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety Committee noted their condemnation of …….
“the spread of unreliable, misleading and unscientific information on vaccination aggravated by media controversies.”(2)
Some articles have gone even further in blaming “misinformation campaigns” in respect of HPV vaccine for a “huge drop in uptake among teenage girls” (3)
Irish Health Minister, Simon Harris, stated in respect of HPV vaccine uptake that “the decline is partly due to a campaign of misinformation about the vaccine – claims he states are “false” and “unfounded”.(4)
Isabelle Sahinovic, Vaccine Safety Net co-ordinator, with the WHO was quoted in The Independent as saying that “dangerous” misinformation about vaccines continues to spread online.
“Every day, misinformation about vaccines continues to proliferate on the internet,” she said. ”This is dangerous.(5)
So, what is the nature of all the misinformation, myths and pseudoscience said to be circulating in respect of vaccines? For something to be accurately described as “misinformation” it needs to be “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive” and there can be no excuse for anyone indulging in such activities. A myth is “a widely held but false belief or idea”.
MEP’s have recently stated in their resolution that licensed vaccines are safe, and one cannot help but wonder if material in circulation, which does not unconditionally support vaccine safety, could possibly be what is being referred to as “misleading” and “unreliable” misinformation. Is there a danger that viable, accurately portrayed accounts of vaccine adverse events, are being lumped into what is being labelled “misinformation” purely because they threaten an argument for absolute vaccine safety?.
The WHO adopted the more realistic approach of fully endorsing vaccination while being mindful of the fact that there is no entirely safe vaccine for everyone. (6) MEP’s in categorically saying that licensed vaccines are safe, should consider whether or not they themselves are guilty of creating a myth. However supportive of vaccination one is, there is no such thing as an entirely safe vaccine.
And what constitutes a “misinformation campaign?” Is it possible that support groups providing platforms for vaccine damaged individuals to share common experiences, are what is being described as “misinformation campaigns”? Are groups of vaccine damaged individuals publicly campaigning for compensation and the subject of media attention included in this?
A group of healthcare professionals were the subject of a Parliamentary debate on 8th July 2009, seeking compensation for their vaccine induced injuries, with one of their number stating that they were the victims of “permanent serious health problems” as a result of having received a vaccine.
“The injuries we suffered as a result of the Hepatitis B vaccination are devastating. We have permanent serious health problems, lost our jobs, our careers, independence, ambitions, family life and the joy of life.” (7)
In 2010, the Daily Express reported on 200 doctors, nurses, firefighters, binmen, prison officers, forensic scientists, and police officers, all saying that they had suffered serious physical and mental health problems following vaccinations required as a condition of their employment contract. (8)
Since MEP’s argue the absolute safety of licensed vaccines, groups arguing otherwise are unlikely to be met with acknowledgement or credibility. How then do MEP’s account for the fact that compensatory payments to affected individuals and reliably sourced papers, stand testimony to the fact that vaccines are not always entirely safe?
Anyone arguing absolute vaccine safety on the basis that there is no evidence of a link between a reported adverse event and the vaccine, should consider the possibility that it might well be linked, but hasn’t yet been confirmed to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities. This was the case with both the Urabe containing MMR’s and Pandemrix.
However, absolute proof of evidenced causation between an adverse event and a vaccine is no longer required to establish proof of vaccine induced damage in certain circumstances anyway.
On 21st June 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to consider a case of vaccine damage where there was no evidence of causation between the vaccine and the condition complained of by the appellant. The Judgement was quite clear……. where applicable, proof of vaccine damage can be found where there are certain features present, in the absence of evidence.
Judgment in Case C-621/15 N. W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD and Others
“The temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine and the occurrence of a disease, the lack of personal and familial history of the person vaccinated and the existence of a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered may, where applicable, constitute sufficient evidence to make out such proof”
So, in conclusion, I am left wondering, what is the nature of all the pseudoscience, myths, scientific misinformation, unreliable misinformation, and vaccine misinformation said to be negatively impacting on vaccination rates? Confidence in vaccination will never be increased as long as the MEP’s and others, advocate absolute vaccine safety and dismiss the existence of individuals who have suffered because of it. They should learn from the realistic approach and example of the WHO whereby it is possible to both advance an argument in favour of vaccination and acknowledge that it is not an entirely positive experience for everyone.
The key word is trust.
(1) http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/04/26/vytenis-andriukaitis-we-need-to-step...
(2) MEP’s devise strategy to tackle vaccine hesitancy among public (23rd March 2018)
https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1378
(3) https://www.newstalk.com/HSE-warns-womens-lives-at-risk-as-HPV-vaccine-u...
(4) http://www.thejournal.ie/hpv-vaccine-simon-harris-3361692-Apr2017/
(5) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/measles-outbreak-europe-...
(6) http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/AEFI/en/
(7) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090708/halltex...
(8) https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/150804/Fury-at-vaccine-scandal
Competing interests: No competing interests