We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Vaccines for some diseases, like cholera, are not given in Australia because of how rare they are. Nonetheless, I don't see the harm in giving a cholera vaccine to every child like we do got Hepatitis B. If there's no harm, why not just give children vaccination against every single disease we can? Just for safety's sake. What if a child happened to get cholera whilst playing in a bin and caused an outbreak?
Is the reason why this is not done just because of cost?
Every public health decision is a cost-benefit decision involving at least two considerations:
- Will the positive benefits of this intervention outweigh the potential harms?
- Will the money spent on this intervention produce more benefit if spent on a different intervention?
Some vaccines, like the measles vaccine, are extremely safe and long-lasting, so it makes sense to give them universally. Others are less effective, less safe, or last for a shorter time, and so it just isn't worth it to give it to people who aren't likely to be exposed to the disease.
In the particular case of the cholera vaccine, it appears that it rapidly decreases in efficacy, even over the course of a single year. Mass inoculation of a population unlikely to encounter cholera before the vaccine becomes ineffective thus is not a particularly good use of resources.
Why we need to make it harder for parents to refuse vaccines
When I talk to parents who are hesitant about vaccines, what they most want to talk to me about are possible side effects of the vaccine. They worry about everything from fevers and soreness to additives to possible links to autism. They rarely worry about the diseases that vaccines prevent&mdashand that&rsquos what worries me most of all.
It is the inconvenient truth of vaccine refusal: when you don&rsquot get vaccinated against an illness, you are more likely to catch it.
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) made this very clear. Researchers looked at information about recent measles and pertussis outbreaks. They found that unvaccinated people made up the majority of those who caught measles and a large proportion of those who caught pertussis (waning immunity from the pertussis vaccine plays a role in those outbreaks). Some weren&rsquot old enough to be vaccinated&mdashbut of those who were old enough, most came from families who had chosen not to vaccinate.
We developed vaccines for a reason: to stop children from getting sick and dying. This was not a money-making stunt by drug companies, as some claim. Here in the United States, vaccines have done such a great job that we have literally forgotten about the ravages of measles, polio, pertussis, diphtheria, and the many other illnesses that we can now prevent.
They truly were ravages. Who even remembers diphtheria? Between 1936 and 1945, there were about 21,000 cases and 1,800 deaths a year of diphtheria. In those same years, paralytic polio affected 16,000 and killed 1,900 each year. And for measles and pertussis, the numbers are even higher. Every year 530,000 people caught measles and 440 people died from it 200,000 caught pertussis and 4,000 died from it.
Four thousand died every year from pertussis. In 2014, that number was 13. We simply cannot ignore that vaccines are incredibly effective, and save thousands and thousands of lives.
It&rsquos the scarcity of the illnesses that has made some parents comfortable with the decision not to vaccinate. If you are unlikely to run into anyone with measles or chickenpox, why take any chances with side effects?
There are two problems with that argument. First, as more people have chosen not to vaccinate, there have been more outbreaks. And when those who choose not to vaccinate live in the same communities, as a study out of Kaiser Permanente showed was the case in California, it can create the perfect environment for a vaccine-preventable germ to spread.
Second, we live in a global community. Travel is relatively easy, and lots of people do it. And while we may have done a great job eradicating vaccine-preventable diseases here in the U.S., they certainly haven&rsquot been eradicated from the world.
People are often contagious before they even know they are sick. Someone could bring measles to a community without knowing it&mdashand 90% of the unvaccinated people who are exposed to the measles virus will get sick (the virus can even hang out in a room for two hours after the person with measles leaves). Half of the babies who catch pertussis end up hospitalized&mdashand of those who are hospitalized, three out of five have trouble breathing, and one in 100 die despite the best possible care.
We just can&rsquot say that it&rsquos safe to be unvaccinated. It&rsquos not safe for the child whose parents choose not to vaccinate&mdashand it&rsquos really not safe for the infants or people with immune problems who cannot be vaccinated, who need vaccinated people around them to keep them well.
Vaccines are a medical treatment, and like any medical treatment, they can have risks and side effects. So much has been done, and is still being done, to make vaccines as safe as possible. It&rsquos always important to ask questions and be careful in making decisions.
But when making those decisions, it&rsquos crucial to think not just about the vaccine&mdashbut about the disease it can protect you from.
“The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine contains the following ingredients: messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), lipids (SM-102, polyethylene glycol [PEG] 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol [DMG], cholesterol, and 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine [DSPC]), tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, acetic acid, sodium acetate, and sucrose.”
“The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine will be given to you as an injection into the muscle. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine vaccination series is 2 doses given 1 month apart. If you receive one dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, you should receive a second dose of the same vaccine 1 month later to complete the vaccination series.”
Why flu vaccines don’t protect people for long
The annual influenza vaccine saves lives and spares many people from severe disease, which is why governments and employers promote and subsidize its use. But it’s hardly an ideal vaccine, offering so-so protection that wears off rapidly. A new, one-of-its-kind study, published today in Science , helps explain those shortcomings: A key cell type hidden in bone marrow that quickly kicks into activity after vaccination fades within a few months, researchers found. The discovery could lead to new strategies to increase the vaccine’s durability.
The best vaccines—such as the ones for measles, rubella, and diphtheria—provide almost 100% protection for life. Flu vaccines, however, often don’t exactly match the rapidly evolving influenza virus, so their effectiveness changes each year: In the United States between 2009 and 2019, it ranged from a low of 19% to a high of 60%. And protection wanes quickly: If you live in a temperate region of the world and receive the shot in the early fall, immunity can disappear before the end of that winter.
To better understand the durability problem, Rafi Ahmed, an immunologist at Emory University School of Medicine, homed in on a type of B cell that resides in the bone marrow and whose role Ahmed helped uncover in 1996. B cells make antibodies that can attach to and disable viruses. Ahmed focused on a type of B cell called bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs), which continuously produce antibodies after an infection or vaccination. So-called memory B cells also produce antibodies and are created the same way, but in contrast to BMPCs, they do not steadily pump out the protective proteins. Instead, as their name implies, memory B cells that are trained to recognize a specific virus kick into gear only when they’re re-exposed to it. It takes them several days after an infection to produce high levels of antibodies—a disadvantage in influenza, which can cause disease rapidly.
To the surprise and disbelief of many, Ahmed’s group showed in 1996 that some BMPCs can live for many years, meaning they could, in theory, confer long-lasting immunity. Whether influenza vaccines trigger high levels of BMPCs and if so, whether the cells are the long-lived variety was a mystery, however.
Ahmed and colleagues repeatedly examined the bone marrow and blood of 53 volunteers aged between 20 and 45 years old in the weeks and months before and after they received influenza vaccines. (Some people participated over more than one flu season.) The study was no fun for the participants: Removing fluid from within a bone is a challenging and painful procedure that involves piercing the pelvic bone with a special needle. “The logistics … were very difficult, and I think nobody will ever try to do the same thing again,” Ahmed says.
Rino Rappuoli, chief scientist at GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines, says he knows of no other study that sampled bone marrow for vaccine research. “Rafi’s work is great and pioneering,” Rappuoli says.
The researchers found spikes of BMPCs specific for influenza 4 weeks after immunization. But after 1 year, the new cells were virtually gone. Rappuoli and others aren’t particularly surprised by this but welcome the evidence. “This finding tracks nicely with the observed rapidly waning [blood] antibody titers and decreasing protection in humans after getting the flu vaccine,” says Adam Wheatley, an immunologist at the University of Melbourne. “It’s a really nice piece of work.”
The study “helps define the landscape” of the flu vaccine’s lousy durability, says Mark Slifka, an immunologist at Oregon National Primate Research Center who earned his Ph.D. with Ahmed more than 20 years ago but was not involved with this work. “They chipped away at the stone in terms of understanding why the immune response is short-lived,” Slifka says.
But Slifka thinks the BMPC population stimulated by vaccines likely has a small proportion of long-lived cells, undetected in this study, that could offer more enduring protection. The way to boost their presence is to goose the system so that it makes more BMPCs overall, he says. One possible way to do this is with adjuvants, additives to vaccines that act as irritants, ramping up the immune response. It also may help to increase the amount of viral proteins in the vaccines, he says.
The first influenza vaccines, developed in the 1940s, used adjuvants. They contained killed flu viruses mixed it with a water-in-oil emulsion called “incomplete Freund’s.” But the adjuvant caused ulcers at the injection site, so it was dropped from later vaccines. To further reduce unwanted reactions, researchers also stopped injecting the entire killed virus, replacing it with only the surface proteins from the virus. The resultant vaccines had fewer viral proteins and no immune-boosting agents. These vaccines, used widely today, cause far fewer side effects—but they came at a steep cost, says Slifka, who last year published a review article that hammered in these points. “We’ve damaged the immunogenicity and the durability of the response.”
But for the past 2 decades, improved adjuvants have found their way into licensed vaccines. A revamped influenza vaccine that has an oil-in-water adjuvant—the water shields the oil and makes it safer—has been used in Italy since 1997 and was approved by European and U.S. regulators in 2000 and 2015, respectively. But whether it’s able to trigger long-lasting BMPCs is unclear. No one in Ahmed’s study received this product—when the project began, it wasn’t even licensed in the United States—which is “a pity,” Rappuoli says.
“It’s totally crazy” that most commonly used influenza vaccines don’t include an adjuvant, Ahmed says. “I’m hoping that things will change in the influenza vaccine world, and 10 years from now, you will not be getting any nonadjuvanted vaccines. This has been going on for years. It’s hard to change the industry.”
A breakdown of the Pfizer vaccine and why most people will qualify for the injection
Most people won't experience allergic reactions to the vaccine, experts insist.
Member of FDA advisory committee discusses COVID-19 vaccine authorization
The Food and Drug Administration late Friday authorized Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 16 and up, but warned that those with known severe allergic reactions to any of the vaccine's components should avoid taking it.
But this begs the question -- what is in the vaccine?
The good news is that Pfizer's mRNA vaccine doesn't contain any known allergens like eggs or metals.
"There are no derivatives of food allergies, there is no aluminum or mercury or anything like that," Dr. David Stukus, director of the Food Allergy Treatment Center at Nationwide Children's Hospital, said in an interview with ABC. "There is nothing in there that is inherently allergenic."
In fact, to allergy experts, most of the ingredients don't raise any alarm bells. Pfizer's vaccine has genetic material known as mRNA, as well as fats, salts and other ingredients commonly found in everyday medications that help maintain stability.
Because we already have mRNA in nearly every cell of our bodies naturally, it's harmless, experts explained. The lipids, or fat lobules, and salts found in the vaccine add stability and structure to the mRNA and also help the mRNA slide into our cells. This way, our immune system's cells can appropriately respond and learn to attack the virus when exposed to it naturally in the real world.
There is only one ingredient in the vaccine, called PEG, that could potentially cause an allergic reaction, but experts agree it is unlikely to be a problem for the vast majority of people.
PEG "is a very common inactive ingredient found in a lot of over-the-counter things and in a lot of injectable medications," Dr. Erin L. Reigh, a staff physician in the Section of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, told ABC News.
"I have seen a few cases of allergies to this in my career, but it is very rare," she added.
In fact, PEG is so commonly found around us that "you probably ate it this morning," said Stukus. "It is in many different foods and medications. It's in in MiraLAX, for when people are constipated. It's present in some other vaccines as well."
Concerns about allergic reactions were raised when two people in the United Kingdom who received the vaccine in the first day it was distributed experienced severe allergic reactions known as anaphylaxis. But both of these people had a history of severe reactions, and both carried devices like an Epi Pen.
"We lack details about these people including their own medical history of allergy and anaphylaxis or their exact symptoms," Stukus said.
"What struck me about the cases in the U.K. was that they already had carried EpiPens," Reigh said. It is most probable that these two persons already had a history of and predisposition to anaphylaxis.
Dr. Anthony Fauci Thursday said people who are prone to these types of severe allergic reactions might want to get their vaccine at a medical facility that's equipped to take care of them, in case they experience a severe reaction.
But for everyone else -- even those with a history of less severe allergies -- the vaccine should be of no concern, experts say.
"People with just run of the mill seasonal allergies in general, I don't expect them to have problems with this," Reigh said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's independent advisory committee, known as ACIP, also discussed the issue of possible vaccine allergies on Friday at a meeting with experts. During the meeting, Dr. William Gruber emphasized that Pfizer's clinical trial already included more than 5,000 people with a history of allergies to foods and substances. Gruber is senior vice president of vaccine clinical research and development at Pfizer.
The clinical trial did not include anyone with a prior history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines nevertheless, among the more than 5,000 people with allergies who were studied in the trial, none experienced anything beyond mild allergic symptoms.
This is reassuring news, but hardly surprising as "allergic reactions to vaccines are [found at a rate of] 1.31 per million doses for all vaccines," Stukus said. He added that it is "out of abundance of caution" that the U.K. is recommending that people with a history of anaphylaxis avoid the vaccine.
Regulators will continue to examine what happened with the allergic reactions. Eventually, they might be able to identify a specific ingredient that some people are allergic to, and then develop a test to screen people who might have a bad reaction to that ingredient.
"We can screen for allergy against the particular antigens [or ingredients of the vaccine] and people with that allergy should avoid it," Dr. Akiko Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale, said in an interview with ABC.
Pfizer's conditions of use, announced Friday night, instruct health care staff to administer the shots in an environment where medical treatment is readily available in case the patient has a reaction -- which is a protocol clinicians follow with all vaccines.
We are still waiting for the official FDA guidelines on who is eligible and who is recommended to get the vaccine, "but if you are healthy and have no allergies, you should not be afraid of getting the vaccine," Iwasaki said.
“That evening was rough. I mean, I developed a low-grade fever and fatigue and chills,” Batalvi said.
But by the next morning, he “felt ready to go.”
He said he encourages everyone to get vaccinated because the benefits greatly outweigh any side effects.
“I think mass scale vaccination is really the only realistic way out of the pandemic,” he said. “I took the vaccine — it was all right. I think we can get through this.”
™ & © 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.
“I hope nobody thinks that because vaccines are being made on annual basis, they are of inferior quality.” — Pedro Pietra, Baylor College of Medicine
This system works well enough when seasonal flu strains change only slightly, because our immune system can still recognize the virus, even though the changes cause the antibodies to be less effective. Pietra points out that it’s a whole different ballgame when a completely novel influenza virus arises. “That can cause a pandemic, because we haven’t seen it,” he said. “Something similar to what happened in 2009 and 2010, with the novel H1N1.” Even so, the new influenza virus behaves basically the same way, and a vaccine can be made using the same systems, but incorporating the novel antigens.
After months of studying the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, researchers know that the so-called “spike protein” on its surface induces antibody production. So why can’t vaccine makers use the same strategy they use for the seasonal flu shot, but substituting the spike protein?
Starting from scratch with the spike protein
The coronavirus is covered in spike proteins, and scientists had to learn how to isolate those . [+] proteins before they could make an effective vaccine
“They’re worlds apart,” Pietra said. A coronavirus is completely different than an influenza virus, so first, the virus had to be studied in an animal model to understand how it behaves inside the body. Once the spike protein was identified as an antigen, researchers had to learn how to purify it.
Even under identical laboratory conditions, Pietra said, different proteins behave differently. “You have to optimize the conditions for that particular antigen.”
The end product must contain large amounts of antigens, with no impurities — and it has to stimulate the immune system.
Antigens may fold into a certain shape under conditions inside the body, but fold differently when they’re isolated in the laboratory. If the purified antigen differs too much in shape from the antigen as it’s attached to the live virus, it won’t be effective as a vaccine. More testing is done to ensure that the antigen will generate plenty of antibodies.
Finally, there are different delivery systems, or platforms, that can be used to make the vaccine. These can use killed or inactivated viruses, or they can use just certain proteins isolated from the virus. New, more efficient platforms are always being developed, and several different coronavirus vaccines are currently in development using different platforms.
“It’s being developed very rapidly, because it’s unprecedented, the pandemic that we’re having,” Pietra said. “Many things are being done at super speed.” It’s worth noting that when a new vaccine is being developed over the course of a decade, not all of that time is needed for development and safety testing. Mass-producing a vaccine requires significant logistical planning to develop appropriate manufacturing systems.
Normally, companies won’t commit millions of dollars to establish these systems until they’re certain the vaccine will be safe and effective, and in demand. To speed things up, the government has committed funding to kickstart manufacturing on several vaccine candidates, so that distribution can begin quickly after safety and efficacy testing wraps up.
Even after a coronavirus vaccine is brought to market, vaccine researchers will keep working to design new and better versions of the vaccine. We don’t yet know how long immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will last, although some evidence suggests antibodies stick around for months or even a year. It’s possible that booster shots will be needed, to maintain immunity year after year, and we can’t rule out that new strains may emerge. Whatever happens, vaccine technology continues to improve, and new advances will keep coming.
Texans don't need to prove they're eligible to get a COVID vaccine. Here's why.
Before Texans in groups 1A, 1B and 1C finally reach the point where they can roll up their sleeve and get the COVID-19 vaccine in their arm, they have to make an appointment and often times wait in line. But there's no step or checkpoint before vaccination that requires proof of eligibility.
With many folks skipping the line to get their vaccine before their turn, it begs the question&mdashwhy aren't vaccine providers requiring proof of eligibility to make sure vaccines are going to prioritized individuals?
For starters, the Texas Department of State Health Services wants to keep it that way. In their Guidance for Vaccine Provider HUBs, lucky number seven on the list is, "DON'T require documentation of medical condition. Self-disclosure is sufficient."
The guideline goes hand in hand with its counterparts, which ask vaccine providers not to limit vaccine eligibility by location, race, ethnicity or income level. The DSHS does not want any vaccines to be wasted. If there is no one in the priority groups available for an expiring vaccine, providers are instructed to "vaccinate any willing person rather than let it go to waste."
"We don&rsquot want to create barriers that would prevent people from getting vaccinated, and every person who is vaccinated slows the spread of the disease and relieves pressure on the hospital system," said Lara Anton, a spokesperson for Texas Department of State Health Services.
Vaccine providers can check medical records if they have access, according to Anton. Otherwise, folks should not need to bring any kind of medical record to receive a vaccine. Austin Public Health's policy does not even want to ask for identification when it comes to vaccine appointments so immigration status is not a deterrent. Rather, they accept any individual who, according to the registration questionnaire, qualifies for the vaccine.
"Our hope is that individuals are truthful and are not line jumping to help us ensure the most vulnerable members continue to have access to the vaccine," an Austin Public Health spokesperson said.
Outside of Texas, there's the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a federal statute that works to protect people's health information. With COVID-19 scheduling apps and websites, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) had to lighten some restrictions to allow them to function without penalty. In doing so, they still recommend scheduling sites and applications to take in as minimal protected health information as possible in addition to other safeguarding measures.
So far, roughly 4.5 million Texans have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, which translates to about 15% of the state's population.
Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of large-scale vaccination campaigns is well established.  Two to three million deaths are prevented each year worldwide due to vaccination and an additional 1.5 million deaths could be prevented each year if all recommended vaccines were used.  Vaccination campaigns helped eradicate smallpox, which once killed as many as one in seven children in Europe,  and have nearly eradicated polio.  As a more modest example, infections caused by Haemophilus influenzae (Hib), 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.  It is estimated that full vaccination, from birth to adolescence, of all US children born in a given year would save 33,000 lives and prevent 14 million infections. 
There is anti-vaccine literature that argues that reductions in infectious disease result from 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 and Prevention website aimed at countering common misconceptions about vaccines argued, "Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused the incidence of each disease to drop, just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced?" 
Other critics argue that the immunity granted by vaccines is only temporary and requires boosters, whereas those who survive the disease become permanently immune.  As discussed below, the philosophies of some alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective. 
Incomplete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated, because it reduces herd immunity. For example, the measles vaccine is given to children 9–12 months old, and the short window between the disappearance of maternal antibody (before which the vaccine often fails to seroconvert) and natural infection means that vaccinated children are frequently still vulnerable. Herd immunity lessens this vulnerability if all the children are vaccinated. Increasing herd immunity during an outbreak or risk of an outbreak is perhaps the most widely accepted justification for mass vaccination. When a new vaccine is introduced mass vaccination helps increase coverage rapidly. 
If enough of a population is vaccinated, herd immunity takes effect, decreasing risk to people who cannot receive vaccines because they are too young or old, immunocompromised, or have severe allergies to the ingredients in the vaccine.  The outcome for people with compromised immune systems who get infected is often worse than that of the general population. 
Commonly used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the US during 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs, including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5. 
When a vaccination program successfully reduces the disease threat, it may reduce the perceived risk of disease as cultural memories of the effects of that disease fade. At this point, parents may feel they have nothing to lose by not vaccinating their children.  If enough people hope to become free-riders, gaining the benefits of herd immunity without vaccination, vaccination levels may drop to a level where herd immunity is ineffective.  According to Jennifer Reich, those parents who believe vaccination to be quite effective but might prefer their children to remain unvaccinated, are those who are the most likely to be convinced to change their mind, as long as they are approached properly. 
While some anti-vaccinationists openly deny the improvements vaccination has made to public health or believe in conspiracy theories,  it is much more common to cite concerns about safety.  As with any medical treatment, there is a potential for vaccines to cause serious complications, such as severe allergic reactions,  but unlike most other medical interventions, vaccines are given to healthy people and so a higher standard of safety is demanded.  While serious complications from vaccinations are possible, they are extremely rare and much less common than similar risks from the diseases they prevent.  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,  and it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs. 
The overwhelming success of certain vaccinations has made certain diseases rare and consequently this has led to incorrect heuristic thinking, in weighing risks against benefits, among people who are vaccine-hesitant.  Once such diseases (e.g., Haemophilus influenzae B) decrease in prevalence, people may no longer appreciate how serious the illness is due to a lack of familiarity with it and become complacent.  The lack of personal experience with these diseases reduces the perceived danger and thus reduces the perceived benefit of immunization.  Conversely, certain illnesses (e.g., influenza) remain so common that vaccine-hesitant people mistakenly perceive the illness to be non-threatening despite clear evidence that the illness poses a significant threat to human health.  Omission and disconfirmation biases also contribute to vaccine hesitancy.  
Various concerns about immunization have been raised. They have been addressed and the concerns are not supported by evidence.  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 an inadequate methodology, typically a poorly controlled or uncontrolled case series. A premature announcement is made about the alleged adverse effect, resonating with individuals suffering from the condition, and underestimating the potential harm of forgoing vaccination to those whom the vaccine could protect. Other groups attempt to replicate the initial study but fail to get the same results. Finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.  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.  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. 
The idea of a link between vaccines and autism has been extensively investigated and conclusively shown to be false.   The scientific consensus is that there is no relationship, causal or otherwise, between vaccines and incidence of autism,    and vaccine ingredients do not cause autism. 
Nevertheless, the anti-vaccination movement continues to promote myths, conspiracy theories, and misinformation linking the two.  A developing tactic appears to be the "promotion of irrelevant research [as] an active aggregation of several questionable or peripherally related research studies in an attempt to justify the science underlying a questionable claim". 
Thiomersal (called "thimerosal" in the US) is an antifungal preservative used in small amounts in some multi-dose vaccines (where the same vial is opened and used for multiple patients) to prevent contamination of the vaccine.  Despite thiomersal's efficacy, the use of thiomersal is controversial because it can be metabolized or degraded in the body to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg + ) and thiosalicylate.   As a result, in 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible on the precautionary principle. Thiomersal is now absent from all common US and European vaccines, except for some preparations of influenza vaccine.  Trace amounts remain in some vaccines due to production processes, at an approximate maximum of one microgramme, around 15% of the average daily mercury intake in the US for adults and 2.5% of the daily level considered tolerable by the WHO.   The action sparked concern that thiomersal could have been responsible for autism.  The idea is now considered disproven, as incidence rates for autism increased steadily even after thiomersal was removed from childhood vaccines.  Currently there is no accepted scientific evidence that exposure to thiomersal is a factor in causing autism.   Since 2000, parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund arguing that thiomersal caused autism in their children.  A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee favored rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.  The concentration of thiomersal used in vaccines as an antimicrobial agent ranges from 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000).  A vaccine containing 0.01% thiomersal has 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose, roughly the same amount of elemental mercury found in a three-ounce can of tuna.  There is robust peer-reviewed scientific evidence supporting the safety of thiomersal-containing vaccines. 
In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after the publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield and others reporting case histories of twelve children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.  At a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.  It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that he had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest.  Had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.  Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific and ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted  and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates, which fell in the UK to 80% in the years following the study.   In 2004, the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by ten of its thirteen coauthors,  and in 2010 The Lancet ' s editors fully retracted the paper.  Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register, with a statement identifying deliberate falsification in the research published in The Lancet,  and is barred from practicing medicine in the UK. 
The CDC, the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences, Australia's Department of Health, and the UK National Health Service have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.     A Cochrane review concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that the design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.  Additional reviews agree, with studies finding that vaccines are not linked to autism even in high risk populations with autistic siblings. 
In 2009, The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.  A 2011 article in the British Medical Journal described how the data in the study had been falsified by Wakefield so that it would arrive at a predetermined conclusion.  An accompanying editorial in the same journal described Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud" that led to lower vaccination rates, putting hundreds of thousands of children at risk and diverting energy and money away from research into the true cause of autism. 
A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on February 12, 2009, that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children. 
Vaccine overload, a non-medical term, is the notion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immature immune system and lead to adverse effects.  Despite scientific evidence that strongly contradicts this idea,  there are still parents of autistic children that believe that vaccine overload causes autism.  The resulting controversy has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.  Such parental misperceptions are major obstacles towards immunization of children. 
The concept of vaccine overload is flawed on several levels.  Despite the increase in the number of vaccines over recent decades, improvements in vaccine design have reduced the immunologic load from vaccines the total number of immunological components in the 14 vaccines administered to US children in 2009 is less than ten percent of what it was in the seven vaccines given in 1980.  A study published in 2013 found no correlation between autism and the antigen number in the vaccines the children were administered up to the age of two. Of the 1,008 children in the study, one quarter of those diagnosed with autism were born between 1994 and 1999, when the routine vaccine schedule could contain more than 3,000 antigens (in a single shot of DTP vaccine). The vaccine schedule in 2012 contains several more vaccines, but the number of antigens the child is exposed to by the age of two is 315.   Vaccines pose a very small immunologic load compared to the pathogens naturally encountered by a child in a typical year  common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle-ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines,  and studies have shown that vaccinations, even multiple concurrent vaccinations, do not weaken the immune system  or compromise overall immunity.  The lack of evidence supporting the vaccine overload hypothesis, combined with these findings directly contradicting it, has led to the conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not "overload" or weaken the immune system.    
Any experiment based on withholding vaccines from children is considered unethical,  and observational studies would likely be confounded by differences in the healthcare-seeking behaviors of under-vaccinated children. Thus, no study directly comparing rates of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children has been done. However, the concept of vaccine overload is biologically implausible, as vaccinated and unvaccinated children have the same immune response to non-vaccine-related infections, and autism is not an immune-mediated disease, so claims that vaccines could cause it by overloading the immune system go against current knowledge of the pathogenesis of autism. As such, the idea that vaccines cause autism has been effectively dismissed by the weight of current evidence. 
There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a sevenfold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, simple hygiene, and, in the case of toxoplasmosis, antibiotics.  Based on studies in animal models, theoretical concerns have been raised about a possible link between schizophrenia and maternal immune response activated by virus antigens a 2009 review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of trivalent influenza vaccine during the first trimester of pregnancy, but that the vaccine was still recommended outside the first trimester and in special circumstances such as pandemics or in women with certain other conditions.  The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons: 
- their risk for serious influenza-related medical complications during the last two trimesters
- their greater rates for flu-related hospitalizations compared to non-pregnant women
- the possible transfer of maternal anti-influenza antibodies to children, protecting the children from the flu and
- several studies that found no harm to pregnant women or their children from the vaccinations.
Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant US women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu. 
Aluminum compounds are used as immunologic adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of many vaccines.  The aluminum in vaccines simulates or causes small amounts of tissue damage, driving the body to respond more powerfully to what it sees as a serious infection and promoting the development of a lasting immune response.   In some cases these compounds have been associated with redness, itching, and low-grade fever,  but the use of aluminum in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.   In some cases, aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminum salts that persist for up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminum-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.   Infants are exposed to greater quantities of aluminum in daily life in breastmilk and infant formula than in vaccines.  In general, people are exposed to low levels of naturally occurring aluminum in nearly all foods and drinking water.  The amount of aluminum present in vaccines is small, less than one milligram, and such low levels are not believed to be harmful to human health. 
Vaccine hesitant people have also voiced strong concerns about the presence of formaldehyde in vaccines. Formaldehyde is used in very small concentrations to inactivate viruses and bacterial toxins used in vaccines.  Very small amounts of residual formaldehyde can be present in vaccines but are far below values harmful to human health.   The levels present in vaccines are minuscule when compared to naturally-occurring levels of formaldehyde in the human body and pose no significant risk of toxicity.  The human body continuously produces formaldehyde naturally and contains 50–70 times the greatest amount of formaldehyde present in any vaccine.  Furthermore, the human body is capable of breaking down naturally occurring formaldehyde as well as the small amount of formaldehyde present in vaccines.  There is no evidence linking the infrequent exposures to small quantities of formaldehyde present in vaccines with cancer. 
Sudden infant death syndrome
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is most common in infants around the time in life when they receive many vaccinations.  Since the cause of SIDS has not been fully determined, this led to concerns about whether vaccines, in particular diphtheria-tetanus toxoid vaccines, were a possible causal factor.  Several studies investigated this and found no evidence supporting a causal link between vaccination and SIDS.   In 2003, the Institute of Medicine favored rejection of a causal link to DTwP vaccination and SIDS after reviewing the available evidence.  Additional analyses of VAERS data also showed no relationship between vaccination and SIDS.  In fact, evidence is mounting that vaccination may protect children against SIDS.   
In the mid-1990s media reports on vaccines discussed the Gulf War Syndrome, a multi-symptomatic disorder affecting returning US military veterans of the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf War. Among the first articles of the online magazine Slate was one by Atul Gawande in which the required immunizations received by soldiers, including an anthrax vaccination, were named as one of the likely culprits for the symptoms associated with the Gulf War Syndrome. In the late 1990s Slate published an article on the "brewing rebellion" in the military against anthrax immunization because of "the availability to soldiers of vaccine misinformation on the Internet". Slate continued to report on concerns about the required anthrax and smallpox immunization for US troops after the September 11 attacks and articles on the subject also appeared on the Salon website.  The 2001 anthrax attacks heightened concerns about bioterrorism and the Federal government of the United States stepped up its efforts to store and create more vaccines for American citizens.  In 2002, Mother Jones published an article that was highly skeptical of the anthrax and smallpox immunization required by the United States Armed Forces.  With the 2003 invasion of Iraq a wider controversy ensued in the media about requiring US troops to be vaccinated against anthrax.  From 2003 to 2008 a series of court cases were brought to oppose the compulsory anthrax vaccination of US troops. 
Swine flu vaccine
The US swine flu immunization campaign in response to the 1976 swine flu outbreak has become known as "the swine flu fiasco" because the outbreak did not lead to a pandemic as US President Gerald Ford had feared and the hastily rolled out vaccine was found to increase the number of Guillain-Barré Syndrome cases two weeks after immunization. Government officials stopped the mass immunization campaign due to great anxiety about the safety of the swine flu vaccine. The general public was left with greater fear of the vaccination campaign than the virus itself and vaccination policies, in general, were challenged. 
During the 2009 flu pandemic, significant controversy broke out regarding whether the 2009 H1N1 flu vaccine was safe in, among other countries, France. Numerous different French groups publicly criticized the vaccine as potentially dangerous.  Because of similarities between the 2009 influenza A subtype H1N1 virus and the 1976 influenza A/NJ virus many countries established surveillance systems for vaccine-related adverse effects on human health. A possible link between the 2009 H1N1 flu vaccine and Guillain-Barré Syndrome cases was studied in Europe and the United States. 
Other safety concerns
Other safety concerns about vaccines have been promoted on the Internet, in informal meetings, in books, and at symposia. These include hypotheses that vaccination can cause epileptic seizures, allergies, multiple sclerosis, and autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes, as well as hypotheses that vaccinations can transmit bovine spongiform encephalopathy, hepatitis C virus, and HIV. These hypotheses have been investigated, with the conclusion that currently used vaccines meet high safety standards and that criticism of vaccine safety in the popular press is not justified.     Large well-controlled epidemiologic studies have been conducted and the results do not support the hypothesis that vaccines cause chronic diseases. Furthermore, some vaccines are probably more likely to prevent or modify than cause or exacerbate autoimmune diseases.   Another common concern parents often have is about the pain associated with administering vaccines during a doctor's office visit.  This may lead to parental requests to space out vaccinations however, studies have shown a child's stress response is not different when receiving one vaccination or two. The act of spacing out vaccinations may actually lead to more stressful stimuli for the child. 
CIA fake vaccination clinic
In Pakistan, the CIA ran a fake vaccination clinic in an attempt to locate Osama bin Laden.   As a direct consequence, there have been several attacks and deaths among vaccination workers. Several Islamist preachers and militant groups, including some factions of the Taliban, view vaccination as a plot to kill or sterilize Muslims.  Efforts to eradicate polio have furthermore been disrupted by American drone strikes.  This is part of the reason Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only countries where polio remained endemic as of 2015. 
Several vaccination myths contribute to parental concerns and vaccine hesitancy. These include the alleged superiority of natural infection when compared to vaccination, questioning whether the diseases vaccines prevent are dangerous, whether vaccines pose moral or religious dilemmas, suggesting that vaccines are not effective, proposing unproven or ineffective approaches as alternatives to vaccines, and conspiracy theories that center on mistrust of the government and medical institutions. 
Vaccination during illness
Many parents are concerned about the safety of vaccination when their child is sick.  Moderate to severe acute illness with or without a fever is indeed a precaution when considering vaccination.  Vaccines remain effective during childhood illness.  The reason vaccines may be withheld if a child is moderately to severely ill is because certain expected side effects of vaccination (e.g. fever or rash) may be confused with progression of the illness.  It is safe to administer vaccines to well-appearing children who are mildly ill with the common cold. 
Another common anti-vaccine myth is that the immune system produces a better immune protection in response to natural infection when compared to vaccination.  In some cases, actual infection with the illness may produce lifelong immunity. However, natural disease carries a higher risk of harming a person's health than vaccines.  For example, natural varicella infection carries a higher risk of bacterial superinfection with Group A streptococci. 
The idea that the HPV vaccine is linked to increased sexual behavior is not supported by scientific evidence. A review of nearly 1,400 adolescent girls found no difference in teen pregnancy, incidence of sexually transmitted infection, or contraceptive counseling regardless of whether they received the HPV vaccine.  Thousands of Americans die each year from cancers preventable by the vaccine. 
Other concerns have been raised about the vaccine schedule recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The immunization schedule is designed to protect children against preventable diseases when they are most vulnerable. The practice of delaying or spacing out these vaccinations increases the amount of time the child is susceptible to these illnesses.  Receiving vaccines on the schedule recommended by the ACIP is not linked to autism or developmental delay. 
In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality.   According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent a resurgence of diseases that have been nearly eliminated.  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 hesitancy has contributed to the resurgence of preventable disease. For example, in 2019, the number of measles cases increased by thirty percent worldwide and many cases occurred in countries that had nearly eliminated measles. 
Stockholm, smallpox (1873–74)
An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, concerns about effectiveness, and concerns about individual rights led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic began there in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic. 
UK, pertussis (1970s–80s)
In a 1974 report ascribing 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31%, and pertussis epidemics followed, leading to the deaths of some children. The mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90%, and disease incidence declined dramatically. 
Sweden, pertussis (1979–96)
In the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, 60% of the country's children contracted the disease before the age of 10 close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year. 
Netherlands, measles (1999–2000)
An outbreak at a religious community and school in the Netherlands resulted in three deaths and 68 hospitalizations among 2,961 cases.  The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunization, with the exception of one of the religious denominations, which traditionally does not accept vaccination. Ninety-five percent of those who contracted measles were unvaccinated. 
UK and Ireland, measles (2000)
As a result of the MMR vaccine controversy, vaccination rates dropped sharply in the United Kingdom after 1996.  From late 1999 until the summer of 2000, there was a measles outbreak in North Dublin, Ireland. At the time, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in parts of North Dublin the level was around 60%. There were more than 100 hospital admissions from over 300 cases. Three children died and several more were gravely ill, some requiring mechanical ventilation to recover. 
Nigeria, polio, measles, diphtheria (2001–)
In the early first decade of the 21st century, conservative religious leaders in northern Nigeria, suspicious of Western medicine, advised their followers not to have their children vaccinated with the oral polio vaccine. The boycott was endorsed by the governor of Kano State, and immunization was suspended for several months. Subsequently, polio reappeared in a dozen formerly polio-free neighbors of Nigeria, and genetic tests showed the virus was the same one that originated in northern Nigeria. Nigeria had become a net exporter of the poliovirus to its African neighbors. People in the northern states were also reported to be wary of other vaccinations, and Nigeria reported over 20,000 measles cases and nearly 600 deaths from measles from January through March 2005.  In Northern Nigeria, it is a common belief that vaccination is a strategy created by the westerners to reduce the Northerners' population. As a result of this belief, a large number of Northerners reject vaccination.  In 2006, Nigeria accounted for over half of all new polio cases worldwide.  Outbreaks continued thereafter for example, at least 200 children died in a late-2007 measles outbreak in Borno State. 
United States, measles (2005–)
In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the United States because the internal transmission had been interrupted for one year the remaining reported cases were due to importation. 
A 2005 measles outbreak in the US state of Indiana was attributed to parents who had refused to have their children vaccinated. 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that the three biggest outbreaks of measles in 2013 were attributed to clusters of people who were unvaccinated due to their philosophical or religious beliefs. As of August 2013, three pockets of outbreak – New York City, North Carolina, and Texas – contributed to 64% of the 159 cases of measles reported in 16 states.  
The number of cases in 2014 quadrupled to 644,  including transmission by unvaccinated visitors to Disneyland in California.   Some 97% of cases in the first half of the year were confirmed to be due directly or indirectly to importation (the remainder were unknown), and 49% from the Philippines. More than half the victims (165 out of 288, or 57%) during that time were confirmed to be unvaccinated by choice 30 (10%) were confirmed to have been vaccinated.  The final count of measles in 2014 was 668 cases in 27 states. 
From January 1 to June 26, 2015, 178 people from 24 states and the District of Columbia were reported to have measles. Most of these cases (117 cases [66%]) were part of a large multi-state outbreak linked to Disneyland in California, continued from 2014. Analysis by the CDC scientists showed that the measles virus type in this outbreak (B3) was identical to the virus type that caused the large measles outbreak in the Philippines in 2014.  On July 2, 2015, the first confirmed death from measles in twelve years was recorded. An immunocompromised woman in Washington State was infected and later died of pneumonia due to measles. 
By July 2016, a three-month measles outbreak affecting at least 22 people was spread by unvaccinated employees of the Eloy, Arizona detention center, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility owned by for-profit prison operator CoreCivic. Pinal County's health director presumed the outbreak likely originated with a migrant, but detainees had since received vaccinations. However convincing CoreCivic's employees to become vaccinated or demonstrate proof of immunity was much more difficult, he said. 
In spring 2017, a measles outbreak occurred in Minnesota. As of June 16, 78 cases of measles had been confirmed in the state, 71 were unvaccinated and 65 were Somali-Americans.      The outbreak has been attributed to low vaccination rates among Somali-American children, which can be traced back to 2008, when Somali parents began to express concern about disproportionately high numbers of Somali preschoolers in special education classes who were receiving services for autism spectrum disorder. Around the same time, disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield visited Minneapolis, teaming up with anti-vaccine groups to raise concerns that vaccines were the cause of autism,     despite the fact that multiple studies have shown no connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. 
From fall 2018 to early 2019, New York State experienced an outbreak of over 200 confirmed measles cases. Many of these cases were attributed to ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities with low vaccination rates in areas within Brooklyn and Rockland County. State Health Commissioner Howard Zucker stated that this was the worst outbreak of measles in his recent memory.  
In January 2019, Washington state reported an outbreak of at least 73 confirmed cases of measles, most within Clark County, which has a higher rate of vaccination exemptions compared to the rest of the state. This led state governor Jay Inslee to declare a state of emergency, and the state's congress to introduce legislation to disallow vaccination exemption for personal or philosophical reasons.      
Wales, measles (2013–)
In 2013, an outbreak of measles occurred in the Welsh city of Swansea. One death was reported.  Some estimates indicate that while MMR uptake for two-year-olds was at 94% in Wales in 1995, it had fallen to as low as 67.5% in Swansea by 2003, meaning the region had a "vulnerable" age group.  This has been linked to the MMR vaccine controversy, which caused a significant number of parents to fear allowing their children to receive the MMR vaccine.  June 5, 2017, saw a new measles outbreak in Wales, at Lliswerry High School in the town of Newport. 
United States, tetanus
Most cases of pediatric tetanus in the U.S. occur in unvaccinated children.  In Oregon, in 2017, an unvaccinated boy had a scalp wound that his parents sutured themselves. Later the boy arrived at a hospital with tetanus. He spent 47 days in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and 57 total days in the hospital, at a cost of $811,929, not including the cost of airlifting him to the Oregon Health and Science University, Doernbecher Children's Hospital, or the subsequent two-and-a-half weeks of inpatient rehabilitation he required. Despite this, his parents declined the administration of subsequent tetanus boosters or other vaccinations.  Due to privacy regulations, publicly identifying the payer of the costs was prohibited. 
As of September 2017, a measles epidemic was ongoing across Europe, especially Eastern Europe. In Romania, there were about 9300 cases, and 34 people (all unvaccinated) had died.  This was preceded by a 2008 controversy regarding the HPV vaccine. In 2012, doctor Christa Todea-Gross published a free downloadable book online, this book contained misinformation about vaccination from abroad translated into Romanian, which significantly stimulated the growth of the anti-vaccine movement.  The government of Romania officially declared a measles epidemic in September 2016 and started an information campaign to encourage parents to have their children vaccinated. By February 2017, however, the stockpile of MMR vaccines was depleted, and doctors were overburdened. Around April, the vaccine stockpile had been restored. By March 2019, the death toll had risen to 62, with 15,981 cases reported. 
Samoa, measles (2019)
The 2019 Samoa measles outbreak began in October 2019 and as of December 12, there were 4,995 confirmed cases of measles and 72 deaths, out of a Samoan population of 201,316.     A state of emergency was declared on November 17, ordering all schools to be closed, barring children under 17 from public events, and making vaccination mandatory.  UNICEF has sent 110,500 vaccines to Samoa. Tonga and Fiji have also declared states of emergency. 
The outbreak has been attributed to a sharp drop in measles vaccination from the previous year, following an incident in 2018 when two infants died shortly after receiving measles vaccinations, which led the country to suspend its measles vaccination program.  The reason for the two infants' deaths was incorrect preparation of the vaccine by two nurses who mixed vaccine powder with expired anesthetic.  As of November 30, more than 50,000 people were vaccinated by the government of Samoa. 
Vaccine hesitancy is challenging and optimal strategies for approaching it remain uncertain.  Many interventions designed to address vaccine hesitancy have been based on the information deficit model.  This model assumes that vaccine hesitancy is due to a person lacking the necessary information and attempts to provide them with that information to solve the problem.  Despite many educational interventions attempting this approach, ample evidence indicates providing more information is often ineffective in changing a vaccine-hesitant person's views and may, in fact, have the opposite of the intended effect and reinforce their misconceptions.  
Several communication strategies are recommended for use when interacting with vaccine-hesitant parents. These include establishing honest and respectful dialogue acknowledging the risks of a vaccine but balancing them against the risk of disease referring parents to reputable sources of vaccine information and maintaining ongoing conversations with vaccine-hesitant families.  The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends healthcare providers directly address parental concerns about vaccines when questioned about their efficacy and safety.  Additional recommendations include asking permission to share information maintaining a conversational tone (as opposed to lecturing) not spending excessive amounts of time debunking specific myths (this may have the opposite effect of strengthening the myth in the person's mind) focusing on the facts and simply identifying the myth as false and keeping information as simple as possible (if the myth seems simpler than the truth, it may be easier for people to accept the simple myth).  Storytelling and anecdote (e.g., about the decision to vaccinate one's own children) can be powerful communication tools for conversations about the value of vaccination.  A New Zealand-based General Practitioner has used a comic, Jenny & the Eddies, both to educate children about vaccines and address his patients' concerns through open, trusting, and non-threatening conversations, concluding [that] "I always listen to what people have to say on any matter. That includes vaccine hesitancy. That's a very important opening stage to improving the therapeutic relationship. If I'm going to change anyone's attitude, first I need to listen to them and be open-minded."  The perceived strength of the recommendation, when provided by a healthcare provider, also seems to influence uptake, with recommendations that are perceived to be stronger resulting in higher vaccination rates than perceived weaker recommendations. 
Limited evidence suggests that a more paternalistic or presumptive approach ("Your son needs three shots today.") is more likely to result in patient acceptance of vaccines during a clinic visit than a participatory approach ("What do you want to do about shots?") but decreases patient satisfaction with the visit.  A presumptive approach helps to establish that this is the normative choice.  Similarly, one study found that the way in which physicians respond to parental vaccine resistance is important.  Nearly half of initially vaccine-resistant parents accepted vaccinations if physicians persisted in their initial recommendation.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released resources to aid healthcare providers in having more effective conversations with parents about vaccinations. 
Parents may be hesitant to have their children vaccinated due to concerns about the pain of vaccination. Several strategies can be used to reduce the child's pain.  Such strategies include distraction techniques (pinwheels) deep breathing techniques breastfeeding the child giving the child sweet-tasting solutions quickly administering the vaccine without aspirating keeping the child upright providing tactile stimulation applying numbing agents to the skin and saving the most painful vaccine for last.  As above, the number of vaccines offered in a particular encounter is related to the likelihood of parental vaccine refusal (the more vaccines offered, the higher the likelihood of vaccine deferral).  The use of combination vaccines to protect against more diseases but with fewer injections may provide reassurance to parents.  Similarly, reframing the conversation with less emphasis on the number of diseases the healthcare provider is immunizing against (e.g., "we will do two injections (combined vaccinations) and an oral vaccine") may be more acceptable to parents than "we're going to vaccinate against seven diseases". 
It is unclear whether interventions intended to educate parents about vaccines improve the rate of vaccination.  It is also unclear whether citing the reasons of benefit to others and herd immunity improves parents' willingness to vaccinate their children.  In one trial, an educational intervention designed to dispel common misconceptions about the influenza vaccine decreased parents' false beliefs about the vaccines but did not improve uptake of the influenza vaccine.  In fact, parents with significant concerns about adverse effects from the vaccine were less likely to vaccinate their children with the influenza vaccine after receiving this education.  Multicomponent initiatives which include targeting undervaccinated populations, improving the convenience of and access to vaccines, educational initiatives, and mandates may improve vaccination uptake.  
Cultural sensitivity is important to reducing vaccine hesitancy. For example, pollster Frank Luntz discovered that for conservative Americans, family is by far the "most powerful motivator" to get a vaccine (over country, economy, community, or friends).  Luntz "also found a very pronounced preference for the word 'vaccine' over 'jab.'" 
It is recommended that healthcare providers advise parents against performing their own web search queries since many websites on the Internet contain significant misinformation.  Many parents perform their own research online and are often confused, frustrated, and unsure of which sources of information are trustworthy.  Additional recommendations include introducing parents to the importance of vaccination as far in advance of the initial well-child visit as possible presenting parents with vaccine safety information while in their pediatrician's waiting room and using prenatal open houses and postpartum maternity ward visits as opportunities to vaccinate. 
Internet advertising, on Facebook and elsewhere, is purchased by both public health authorities and anti-vaccination groups. In the United States, the majority of anti-vaccine Facebook advertising in December 2018 and February 2019 had been paid for one of two groups: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Children's Health Defense and Stop Mandatory Vaccination. The ads targeted women and young couples and generally highlighted the alleged risks of vaccines, while asking for donations. Several anti-vaccination advertising campaigns also targeted areas where measles outbreaks were underway during this period. The impact of Facebook's subsequent advertising policy changes has not been studied.  
The World Health Organization (WHO) published a paper in 2016 intending to aid experts on how to respond to vaccine deniers in public. The WHO recommends for experts to view the general public as their target audience rather than the vaccine denier when debating in a public forum. The WHO also suggests for experts to make unmasking the techniques that the vaccine denier uses to spread misinformation as the goal of the conversation. The WHO asserts that this will make the public audience more resilient against anti-vaccine tactics. 
Several countries have implemented programs to counter vaccine hesitancy, including raffles, lotteries and rewards.     In the US State of Washington, authorities have given the green light to licensed cannabis dispensaries to offer free joints as incentives to get COVID-19 vaccination in an effort dubbed "Joints for Jabs". 
Early attempts to prevent smallpox involved deliberate inoculation with the milder form of the disease (Variola Minor) in the expectation that a mild case would confer immunity and avoid Variola Major. Originally called inoculation, this technique was later called variolation to avoid confusion with cowpox inoculation (vaccination) when that was introduced by Edward Jenner. Although variolation had a long history in China and India, it was first used in North America and England in 1721. Reverend Cotton Mather introduced variolation to Boston, Massachusetts, during the 1721 smallpox epidemic.  Despite strong opposition in the community,  Mather convinced Zabdiel Boylston to try it. Boylston first experimented on his 6-year-old son, his slave, and his slave's son each subject contracted the disease and was sick for several days until the sickness vanished and they were "no longer gravely ill".  Boylston went on to variolate thousands of Massachusetts residents, and many places were named for him in gratitude as a result. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu introduced variolation to England. She had seen it used in Turkey and, in 1718, had her son successfully variolated in Constantinople under the supervision of Charles Maitland. When she returned to England in 1721, she had her daughter variolated by Maitland. This aroused considerable interest, and Sir Hans Sloane organized the variolation of some inmates in Newgate Prison. These were successful, and after a further short trial in 1722, two daughters of Caroline of Ansbach Princess of Wales were variolated without mishap. With this royal approval, the procedure became common when smallpox epidemics threatened. 
Religious arguments against inoculation were soon advanced. For example, in a 1722 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".  It was customary at the time for popular preachers to publish sermons, which reached a wide audience. This was the case with Massey, whose sermon reached North America, where there was early religious opposition, particularly by John Williams. A greater source of opposition there was William Douglass, a medical graduate of Edinburgh University and a Fellow of the Royal Society, who had settled in Boston.  : 114–22
After Edward Jenner introduced the smallpox vaccine in 1798, variolation declined and was banned in some countries.   As with variolation, there was some religious opposition to vaccination, although this was balanced to some extent by support from clergymen, such as Reverend Robert Ferryman, a friend of Jenner's, and Rowland Hill,  : 221 who not only preached in its favour but also performed vaccination themselves. There was also opposition from some variolators who saw the loss of a lucrative monopoly. William Rowley published illustrations of deformities allegedly produced by vaccination, lampooned in James Gillray's famous caricature depicted on this page, and Benjamin Moseley likened cowpox to syphilis, starting a controversy that would last into the 20th century.  : 203–05
There was legitimate concern from supporters of vaccination about its safety and efficacy, but this was overshadowed by general condemnation, particularly when legislation started to introduce compulsory vaccination. The reason for this was that vaccination was introduced before laboratory methods were developed to control its production and account for its failures.  Vaccine was maintained initially through arm-to-arm transfer and later through production on the skin of animals, and bacteriological sterility was impossible. Further, identification methods for potential pathogens were not available until the late 19th to early 20th century. Diseases later shown to be caused by contaminated vaccine included erysipelas, tuberculosis, tetanus, and syphilis. This last, though rare – estimated at 750 cases in 100 million vaccinations  – attracted particular attention. Much later, Charles Creighton, a leading medical opponent of vaccination, claimed that the vaccine itself was a cause of syphilis and devoted a book to the subject.  As cases of smallpox started to occur in those who had been vaccinated earlier, supporters of vaccination pointed out that these were usually very mild and occurred years after the vaccination. In turn, opponents of vaccination pointed out that this contradicted Jenner's belief that vaccination conferred complete protection.  : 17–21 The views of opponents of vaccination that it was both dangerous and ineffective led to the development of determined anti-vaccination movements in England when legislation was introduced to make vaccination compulsory. 
Because of its greater risks, variolation was banned in England by the 1840 Vaccination Act, which also introduced free voluntary vaccination for infants. Thereafter Parliament passed successive acts to enact and enforce compulsory vaccination.  The 1853 act introduced compulsory vaccination, with fines for non-compliance and imprisonment for non-payment. The 1867 act extended the age requirement to 14 years and introduced repeated fines for repeated refusal for the same child. Initially, vaccination regulations were organised by the local Poor Law Guardians, and in towns where there was strong opposition to vaccination, sympathetic Guardians were elected who did not pursue prosecutions. This was changed by the 1871 act, which required Guardians to act. This significantly changed the relationship between the government and the public, and organized protests increased.  In Keighley, Yorkshire, in 1876 the Guardians were arrested and briefly imprisoned in York Castle, prompting large demonstrations in support of the "Keighley Seven".  : 108–09 The protest movements crossed social boundaries. The financial burden of fines fell hardest on the working class, who would provide the largest numbers at public demonstrations.  Societies and publications were organized by the middle classes, and support came from celebrities such as George Bernard Shaw and Alfred Russel Wallace, doctors such as Charles Creighton and Edgar Crookshank, and parliamentarians such as Jacob Bright and James Allanson Picton.  By 1885, with over 3,000 prosecutions pending in Leicester, a mass rally there was attended by over 20,000 protesters. 
Under increasing pressure, the government appointed a Royal Commission on Vaccination in 1889, which issued six reports between 1892 and 1896, with a detailed summary in 1898.  Its recommendations were incorporated into the 1898 Vaccination Act, which still required compulsory vaccination but allowed exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection on presentation of a certificate signed by two magistrates.   These were not easy to obtain in towns where magistrates supported compulsory vaccination, and after continued protests, a further act in 1907 allowed exemption on a simple signed declaration.  Although this solved the immediate problem, the compulsory vaccination acts remained legally enforceable, and determined opponents lobbied for their repeal. No Compulsory Vaccination was one of the demands of the 1900 Labour Party General Election Manifesto.  This was done as a matter of routine when the National Health Service was introduced in 1948, with "almost negligible" opposition from supporters of compulsory vaccination. 
Vaccination in Wales was covered by English legislation, but the Scottish legal system was separate. Vaccination was not made compulsory there until 1863, and a conscientious objection was allowed after vigorous protest only in 1907.  : 10–11
In the late 19th century, Leicester in the UK received much attention because of how smallpox was managed there. There was particularly strong opposition to compulsory vaccination, and medical authorities had to work within this framework. They developed a system that did not use vaccination but was based on the notification of cases, the strict isolation of patients and contacts, and the provision of isolation hospitals.  This proved successful but required acceptance of compulsory isolation rather than vaccination. C. Killick Millard, initially, a supporter of compulsory vaccination was appointed Medical Officer of Health in 1901. He moderated his views on compulsion but encouraged contacts and his staff to accept vaccination. This approach, developed initially due to overwhelming opposition to government policy, became known as the Leicester Method.   In time it became generally accepted as the most appropriate way to deal with smallpox outbreaks and was listed as one of the "important events in the history of smallpox control" by those most involved in the World Health Organization's successful Smallpox Eradication Campaign. The final stages of the campaign generally referred to as "surveillance containment", owed much to the Leicester method.  
In the US, President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Benjamin Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to the vaccination of a large portion of the population. Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the late 19th century. 
After an 1879 visit to New York by prominent British anti-vaccinationist William Tebb, The Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded.   The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885.  Tactics in the US largely followed those used in England.  Vaccination in the US was regulated by individual states, in which there followed a progression of compulsion, opposition, and repeal similar to that in England.  Although generally organized on a state-by-state basis, the vaccination controversy reached the US Supreme Court in 1905. There, in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled that states have the authority to require vaccination against smallpox during a smallpox epidemic. 
John Pitcairn, the wealthy founder of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (now PPG Industries), emerged as a major financier and leader of the American anti-vaccination movement. On March 5, 1907, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he delivered an address to the Committee on Public Health and Sanitation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly criticizing vaccination.  He later sponsored the National Anti-Vaccination Conference, which, held in Philadelphia in October 1908, led to the creation of The Anti-Vaccination League of America. When the league organized later that month, members chose Pitcairn as their first president. 
On December 1, 1911, Pitcairn was appointed by Pennsylvania Governor John K. Tener to the Pennsylvania State Vaccination Commission and subsequently authored a detailed report strongly opposing the commission's conclusions.  He remained a staunch opponent of vaccination until his death in 1916.
In November 1904, in response to years of inadequate sanitation and disease, followed by a poorly explained public health campaign led by the renowned Brazilian public health official Oswaldo Cruz, citizens and military cadets in Rio de Janeiro arose in a Revolta da Vacina, or Vaccine Revolt. Riots broke out on the day a vaccination law took effect vaccination symbolized the most feared and most tangible aspect of a public health plan that included other features, such as urban renewal, that many had opposed for years. 
Later vaccines and antitoxins
Opposition to smallpox vaccination continued into the 20th century and was joined by controversy over new vaccines and the introduction of antitoxin treatment for diphtheria. Injection of horse serum into humans as used in antitoxin can cause hypersensitivity, commonly referred to as serum sickness. Moreover, the continued production of the smallpox vaccine in animals and the production of antitoxins in horses prompted anti-vivisectionists to oppose vaccination. 
Diphtheria antitoxin was serum from horses that had been immunized against diphtheria, and was used to treat human cases by providing passive immunity. In 1901, antitoxin from a horse named Jim was contaminated with tetanus and killed 13 children in St. Louis, Missouri. This incident, together with nine deaths from tetanus from contaminated smallpox vaccine in Camden, New Jersey, led directly and quickly to the passing of the Biologics Control Act in 1902. 
Robert Koch developed tuberculin in 1890. Inoculated into individuals who have had tuberculosis, it produces a hypersensitivity reaction and is still used to detect those who have been infected. However, Koch used tuberculin as a vaccine. This caused serious reactions and deaths in individuals whose latent tuberculosis was reactivated by the tuberculin.  This was a major setback for supporters of new vaccines.  : 30–31 Such incidents and others ensured that any untoward results concerning vaccination and related procedures received continued publicity, which grew as the number of new procedures increased. 
In 1955, in a tragedy known as the Cutter incident, Cutter Laboratories produced 120,000 doses of the Salk polio vaccine that inadvertently contained some live poliovirus along with inactivated virus. This vaccine caused 40,000 cases of polio, 53 cases of paralysis, and five deaths. The disease spread through the recipients' families, creating a polio epidemic that led to a further 113 cases of paralytic polio and another five deaths. It was one of the worst pharmaceutical disasters in US history. 
Later 20th-century events included the 1982 broadcast of DPT: Vaccine Roulette, which sparked debate over the DPT vaccine,  and the 1998 publication of a fraudulent academic article by Andrew Wakefield  which sparked the MMR vaccine controversy. Also recently, the HPV vaccine has become controversial due to concerns that it may encourage promiscuity when given to 11- and 12-year-old girls.  
Arguments against vaccines in the 21st century are often similar to those of 19th-century anti-vaccinationists. 
In mid-2020, surveys on whether people would be willing to take a potential COVID-19 vaccine estimated that 67% or 80% of people in the US would accept a new vaccination against COVID-19.  
In the United Kingdom, a 16 November 2020 YouGov poll showed that 42% said they were very likely to take the vaccine and 25% were fairly likely (67% likely overall) 11% would be very unlikely and 10% fairly unlikely (21% unlikely overall) and 12% are unsure.  There have been a number of reasons expressed why people might not wish to take COVID-19 vaccines, such as concerns over safety, self-perception of being "low risk", or questioning the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in particular. 8% of those reluctant to take it say it is because they oppose vaccinations overall this amounts to just 2% of the British public. 
A December 2020 Ipsos/World Economic Forum 15-country poll asked online respondents whether they agreed with the statement: "If a vaccine for COVID-19 were available, I would get it." Rates of agreement were smallest in France (40%), Russia (43%) and South Africa (53%). In the United States, 69% of those polled agreed with the statement rates were even higher in Britain (77%) and China (80%).  
A March 2021 NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found the difference between white and black Americans to be within the margin of error, but 47% of Trump supporters said they would refuse a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to 30% of all adults. 
In May 2021, a report titled 'Global attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccine' from the Institute of Global Health Innovation and Imperial College London, which included detailed survey data from March to May 2021 including survey data from 15 countries Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US. It found that in 13 of the 15 countries more than 50% of people were confident in covid-19 vaccines. In the UK 87% of survey respondents said they trusted the vaccines, which showed a significant increase in confidence following earlier less reliable polls. The survey also found trust in different vaccine brands varied, with the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being the most trusted across all age groups in most countries and particularly the most trusted for under 65s.  
Vaccine hesitancy is becoming an increasing concern, particularly in industrialized nations. For example, one study surveying parents in Europe found that 12–28% of surveyed parents expressed doubts about vaccinating their children.  Several studies have assessed socioeconomic and cultural factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Both high and low socioeconomic status as well as high and low education levels have all been associated with vaccine hesitancy in different populations.        Other studies examining various populations around the world in different countries found that both high and low socioeconomic status are associated with vaccine hesitancy.  An Australian study that examined the factors associated with vaccine attitudes and uptake separately found that under-vaccination correlated with lower socioeconomic status but not with negative attitudes towards vaccines. The researchers suggested that practical barriers are more likely to explain under-vaccination among individuals with lower socioeconomic status. 
Studies have demonstrated that children of parents who refused the pertussis vaccine, varicella vaccine, and pneumococcal vaccine are 23 times more likely to contract pertussis (whooping cough), nine times more likely to catch varicella (chickenpox), and six times more likely to be hospitalized with severe pneumonia from Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus). 
Multiple major medical societies including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics support the elimination of all nonmedical exemptions for childhood vaccines. 
Compulsory vaccination policies have been controversial as long as they have existed, with opponents of mandatory vaccinations arguing that governments should not infringe on an individual's freedom to make medical decisions for themselves or their children, while proponents of compulsory vaccination cite the well-documented public health benefits of vaccination.   Others argue that, for compulsory vaccination to effectively prevent disease, there must be not only available vaccines and a population willing to immunize, but also sufficient ability to decline vaccination on grounds of personal belief. 
Vaccination policy involves complicated ethical issues, as unvaccinated individuals are more likely to contract and spread disease to people with weaker immune systems, such as young children and the elderly, and to other individuals in whom the vaccine has not been effective. However, mandatory vaccination policies raise ethical issues regarding parental rights and informed consent. 
In the United States, vaccinations are not truly compulsory, but they are typically required in order for children to attend public schools. As of January 2021, five states – Mississippi, West Virginia, California, Maine, and New York – have eliminated religious and philosophical exemptions to required school immunizations. 
Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan argues that children have a right to the best available medical care, including vaccines, regardless of parental feelings toward vaccines, saying "Arguments about medical freedom and choice are at odds with the human and constitutional rights of children. When parents won't protect them, governments must."  
A review of court cases from 1905 to 2016 found that, of the nine courts that have heard cases regarding whether not vaccinating a child constitutes neglect, seven have held vaccine refusal to be a form of child neglect. 
To prevent the spread of disease by unvaccinated individuals, some schools and doctors' surgeries have prohibited unvaccinated children from being enrolled, even where not required by law.   Refusal of doctors to treat unvaccinated children may cause harm to both the child and public health, and may be considered unethical, if the parents are unable to find another healthcare provider for the child.  Opinion on this is divided, with the largest professional association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, saying that exclusion of unvaccinated children may be an option under narrowly defined circumstances. 
Since most religions were started far before vaccinations were invented, scriptures do not specifically address the topic of vaccination.  However, vaccination has been opposed on religious grounds ever since it was first introduced. Some Christian opponents argued, when vaccination was first becoming widespread, that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God's will via vaccination.  Religious opposition continues to the present day, on various grounds, raising ethical difficulties when the number of unvaccinated children threatens harm to the entire population.  Many governments allow parents to opt out of their children's otherwise mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions. 
Many Jewish community leaders support vaccination.  Among early Hasidic leaders, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772–1810) was known for his criticism of the doctors and medical treatments of his day. However, when the first vaccines were successfully introduced, he stated: "Every parent should have his children vaccinated within the first three months of life. Failure to do so is tantamount to murder. Even if they live far from the city and have to travel during the great winter cold, they should have the child vaccinated before three months." 
Although gelatin can be derived from many animals, Jewish and Islamic scholars have determined that since the gelatin is cooked and not consumed as food, vaccinations containing gelatin are acceptable.  However, in 2015 and again in 2020, the possible use of porcine-based gelatin in vaccines raised religious concerns among Muslims and Orthodox Jews about the halal or kosher status of several vaccinations against COVID-19.  The Muslim Council of Britain argued against the use of intranasal influenza vaccine in 2019 due to the presence of gelatin in the vaccine and consider such vaccines to be non-halal (unclean). 
In India, in 2018, a three-minute doctored clip circulated among Muslims claiming that the MR-VAC vaccine against measles and rubella was a "Modi government-RSS conspiracy" to stop the population growth of Muslims. The clip was taken from a TV show that exposed the baseless rumors.  Hundreds of madrassas in the state of Uttar Pradesh refused permission to health department teams to administer vaccines because of rumors spread using WhatsApp. 
Some Christians have objected to the use of cell cultures of some viral vaccines, and the virus of the rubella vaccine,  on the grounds that they are derived from tissues taken from therapeutic abortions performed in the 1960s. The principle of double effect, originated by Thomas Aquinas, holds that actions with both good and bad consequences are morally acceptable in specific circumstances.  The Vatican Curia has said that for vaccines originating from embryonic cells, Catholics have "a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection", but concluded that it is acceptable for Catholics to use the existing vaccines until an alternative becomes available. 
In the United States, some parents falsely claim religious exemptions when their real motivation for avoiding vaccines is supposed safety concerns.  For a number of years, only Mississippi, West Virginia, and California did not provide religious exemptions. Following the 2019 measles outbreaks, Maine and New York repealed their religious exemptions, and the state of Washington did so for the measles vaccination. 
According to a March 2021 poll conducted by The Associated Press/NORC, vaccine skepticism is more widespread among white evangelicals than most other blocs of Americans. Forty percent of white evangelical Protestants said they were not likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19. 
Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination (including germ theory denialism) and have practitioners who voice their opposition. As a consequence, the increase in popularity of alternative medicine in the 1970s planted the seed on the modern anti-vaccination movement.  More specifically, some elements of the chiropractic community, some homeopaths, and naturopaths developed anti-vaccine rhetoric.  The reasons for this negative vaccination view are complicated and rest at least in part on the early philosophies that shaped the foundation of these groups. 
Historically, chiropractic strongly opposed vaccination based on its belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine and therefore could not be affected by vaccines. Daniel D. Palmer (1845–1913), the founder of chiropractic, wrote: "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."  Vaccination remains controversial within the profession.  Most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects.  A 1995 survey of US chiropractors found that about one third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.  While the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination,  a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% advised against, vaccinations for patients or for their children. 
Although most chiropractic colleges try to teach about vaccination in a manner consistent with scientific evidence, several have faculty who seem to stress negative views.  A survey of a 1999–2000 cross-section of students of Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), which does not formally teach anti-vaccination views, reported that fourth-year students opposed vaccination more strongly than did first-year students, with 29.4% of fourth-year students opposing vaccination.  A follow-up study on 2011–12 CMCC students found that pro-vaccination attitudes heavily predominated. Students reported support rates ranging from 84% to 90%. One of the study's authors proposed the change in attitude to be due to the lack of the previous influence of a "subgroup of some charismatic students who were enrolled at CMCC at the time, students who championed the Palmer postulates that advocated against the use of vaccination". 
The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws.  In March 2015, the Oregon Chiropractic Association invited Andrew Wakefield, chief author of a fraudulent research paper, to testify against Senate Bill 442,  "a bill that would eliminate nonmedical exemptions from Oregon's school immunization law".  The California Chiropractic Association lobbied against a 2015 bill ending belief exemptions for vaccines. They had also opposed a 2012 bill related to vaccination exemptions. 
Several surveys have shown that some practitioners of homeopathy, particularly homeopaths without any medical training, advise patients against vaccination.  For example, a survey of registered homeopaths in Austria found that only 28% considered immunization an important preventive measure, and 83% of homeopaths surveyed in Sydney, Australia, did not recommend vaccination.  Many practitioners of naturopathy also oppose vaccination. 
Homeopathic "vaccines" (nosodes) are ineffective because they do not contain any active ingredients and thus do not stimulate the immune system. They can be dangerous if they take the place of effective treatments.  Some medical organizations have taken action against nosodes. In Canada, the labeling of homeopathic nosodes require the statement: "This product is neither a vaccine nor an alternative to vaccination." 
Alternative medicine proponents gain from promoting vaccine conspiracy theories through the sale of ineffective and expensive medications, supplements, and procedures such as chelation therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, sold as able to cure the 'damage' caused by vaccines.  Homeopaths in particular gain through the promotion of water injections or 'nosodes' that they allege have a 'natural' vaccine-like effect.  Additional bodies with a vested interest in promoting the "unsafeness" of vaccines may include lawyers and legal groups organizing court cases and class action lawsuits against vaccine providers.
Conversely, alternative medicine providers have accused the vaccine industry of misrepresenting the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, covering up and suppressing information, and influencing health policy decisions for financial gain.  In the late 20th century, vaccines were a product with low profit margins,  and the number of companies involved in vaccine manufacture declined. In addition to low profits and liability risks, manufacturers complained about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other US government agencies.  In the early 21st century, the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar, along with a small number of other high-priced blockbuster vaccines, such as Gardasil and Pediarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.  Despite high growth rates, vaccines represent a relatively small portion of overall pharmaceutical profits. As recently as 2010, the World Health Organization estimated vaccines to represent 2–3% of total sales for the pharmaceutical industry. 
The United States has a very complex history with compulsory vaccination, particularly in enforcing compulsory vaccinations both domestically and abroad to protect American soldiers during times of war. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of soldier deaths that were not the result of combat wounds but were instead from disease.  Among wars with high death tolls from disease is the Civil War where an estimated 620,000 soldiers died from disease. American soldiers in other countries have spread diseases that ultimately disrupted entire societies and healthcare systems with famine and poverty. 
The Spanish–American War began in April 1898 and ended in August 1898. During this time the United States gained control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines from Spain. As a military police power and as colonizers the United States took a very hands-on approach in administering healthcare particularly vaccinations to natives during the invasion and conquest of these countries.  Although the Spanish–American War occurred during the era of "bacteriological revolution" where knowledge of disease was bolstered by germ theory, more than half of the soldier casualties in this war were from disease.  Unknowingly, American soldiers acted as agents of disease transmission, fostering bacteria in their haphazardly made camps. These soldiers invaded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines and connected parts of these countries that had never before been connected due to low population density, thereby beginning epidemics.  The mobility of American soldiers around these countries encouraged newfound mobility of disease that quickly infected natives.
Military personnel used Rudyard's Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden" to explain their imperialistic actions in Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico and the need for the United States to help the "dark-skinned Barbarians"  reach modern sanitary standards. American actions abroad before, during, and after the war emphasized a need for proper sanitation habits especially on behalf of the natives. Natives who refuse to oblige with American health standards and procedures risked fines or imprisonment.  One penalty in Puerto Rico included a $10 fine for a failure to vaccinate and an additional $5 fine for any day a person continued to be unvaccinated refusal to pay resulted in ten or more days of imprisonment. If entire villages refused the army's current sanitation policy at any given time they risked being burnt to the ground to preserve the health and safety of soldiers from endemic smallpox and yellow fever.  Vaccines were forcibly administered to the Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Filipinos. Military personnel in Puerto Rico provided Public Health services that culminated in military orders that mandated vaccinations for children before they were six months old and a general vaccination order.  By the end of 1899 in Puerto Rico alone the U.S. military and other hired native vaccinators called practicantes, vaccinated an estimated 860,000 natives in a five-month period. This period began the United States' movement toward an expansion of medical practices that included "tropical medicine" in an attempt to protect the lives of soldiers abroad. 
During the Vietnam War, vaccination was necessary for soldiers to fight overseas. Because disease follows soldiers,  they had to receive vaccines preventing cholera, influenza, measles, meningococcemia, Bubonic plague, poliovirus, smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, typhoid, typhus, and yellow fever. However, the diseases mainly prevalent in Vietnam at this time were measles and polio. After arriving in Vietnam, the United States Military conducted the "Military Public Health Assistance Project".  This public health program was a joint United States Military and Government of Vietnam concept to create or expand public medical facilities throughout South Vietnam.  Local villages in Vietnam were inoculated. The United States military screened patients, dispensed medication, distributed clothing and food, and even passed out propaganda such as comic books. 
An analysis of tweets from July 2014 through September 2017 revealed an active campaign on Twitter by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll farm accused of interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, to sow discord about the safety of vaccines.   The campaign used sophisticated Twitter bots to amplify polarizing pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine messages, containing the hashtag #VaccinateUS, posted by IRA trolls. 
Confidence in vaccines varies over place and time and among different vaccines. The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Vaccine Confidence Project in 2016 found that confidence was lower in Europe than in the rest of the world. Refusal of the MMR vaccine has increased in twelve European states since 2010. The project published a report in 2018 assessing vaccine hesitancy among the public in all the 28 EU member states and among general practitioners in ten of them. Younger adults in the survey had less confidence than older people. Confidence had risen in France, Greece, Italy, and Slovenia since 2015 but had fallen in the Czech Republic, Finland, Poland, and Sweden. 36% of the GPs surveyed in the Czech Republic and 25% of those in Slovakia did not agree that the MMR vaccine was safe. Most of the GPs did not recommend the seasonal influenza vaccine. Confidence in the population correlated with confidence among GPs.  A study of vaccine-hesitant U.S. college students found that after they interviewed survivors of vaccine-preventable diseases, they were more likely to become pro-vaccine than a control group. 
Parties opposed to the use of vaccines frequently refer to data obtained from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This is a database of reports of issues associated with vaccines which has been useful for investigation, but since any claim can be entered into the VAERS, its data is not all reliable. Dubious claims about vaccines against hepatitis B, HPV and other diseases have been propagated based on misuse of data from VAERS. 
Is a Covid vaccine against all variants possible? Immunologist Lbachir BenMohamed believes soImmunologist Lbachir BenMohamed © University of California
Moroccan-born American researcher Lbachir BenMohamed, director of the immunology research laboratory at the University of California-Irvine, is working on developing a universal vaccine that will be effective against all forms of Covid-19.
CNN, ABC News, Fox… For the past two months, Professor Lbachir BenMohamed has been omnipresent in US media and comes up in all discussions centred around Covid. This is due to the fact that he is leading a team at the University of California, Irvine that is currently developing a universal vaccine that would protect against all forms of Covid-19, as well as possible new variants.
No one could have foreseen that this man from Tagante, an Amazigh village 18km from Guelmim, Morocco, would become an expert in the field of immunology and the head of one of the most important research laboratories in the US.
Born in 1968 into a working-class family, his father — Lahcen — was a shepherd and then a miner in northern France for 10 years before he opened a small grocery shop in Guelmim. BenMohamed first wanted to become a doctor like the Moroccan-American researcher Moncef Slaoui.
An ode to perseverance
But after failing the entrance exam for the faculty of medicine in Casablanca in 1984, he decided to study biology at the Ibn Zohr University in Agadir. He then joined the Pasteur Institute in Paris as an intern and eventually defended a doctoral thesis in immunology, on a vaccine against malaria.
A brilliant researcher and hard worker, he completed his post-doctoral thesis in the US. He rose through the ranks at the University of California beginning as a teacher, then becoming an assistant professor, associate professor, professor and finally, director of the cellular and molecular immunology laboratory. His story is a formidable success story and an ode to perseverance.
Today, he is leading a team of nine researchers tasked with developing this universal vaccine, which the US has invested $4m in, as well as a revolutionary vaccine patch device. He also hasn’t forgotten his roots: he hopes to open Africa’s first immunology institute in Morocco.
You are currently developing a universal vaccine that would protect against all forms of Covid-19, including its future variants. How did you come up with this idea?
Lbachir BenMohamed: Covid-19 is neither the first nor the last pandemic caused by a coronavirus. Before that there was SARS-CoV-1, MERS, etc. Less than a year after the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, at least three variants have appeared in South Africa, Brazil and the UK.
These new variants have already developed ‘immunity’ which protects them from existing vaccines. Covid-19 is a highly malignant virus that is constantly mutating in order to ensure its survival. Immunologists and virologists refer to this as ‘immune invasion.’
In this battle between humans and Covid-19, we must therefore be smarter than the latter and anticipate its ‘defence strategies’ by developing a vaccine capable of targeting all its strains and variants, even those that have not yet appeared.
Indeed, it is very possible that a Covid-25 or Covid-30 will emerge in the next few years. So the question is not ‘Will there be another pandemic?’ but rather, ‘When will the next pandemic be?’
How would this universal vaccine work? How does it differ from current vaccines?
Most of the current vaccines — Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson — target the spike protein on the surface of the Covid-19 envelope, which allows it to bind to a cell receptor and then enter the cells of the lungs. The virus then replicates and causes lung damage, which we have already observed.
However, if a mutation occurs, these vaccines are no longer sufficient. This is why we have chosen — in order to develop our universal vaccine — to target not just the spike protein, but the entire genetic make-up common to all known strains and variants of this virus: some 10 proteins which will not only make it possible to fight the current pandemic, but also to deal with future mutations.
The article continues below
Get your free PDF: Top 200 banks 2019
Complete the form and download, for free, the highlights from The Africa Report’s Exclusive Ranking of Africa’s top 200 banks from last year. Get your free PDF by completing the following form
We are in preclinical studies right now. We are testing 15 universal candidate vaccines on mice, which we vaccinate and then expose to Covid-19 variants, to see which of these 15 vaccines will protect them best. The most effective one will be tested in human clinical trials [the last phase before marketing] in late 2021 or early 2022 at the latest.
Since Covid-19 will mutate, are the current vaccines useless? In a way, they are protecting against a version that is already obsolete…
We are in a race against time to prevent the possible appearance of new variants of Covid-19, which is still circulating and mutating a lot. So the faster we vaccinate, the less likely it is that new, more dangerous variants will appear.
Vaccination is not only an act of individual protection, but also an act of citizenship, which allows each country to achieve herd immunity more quickly and in addition, save the economy. This is a very important issue because every day, jobs are lost and companies go bankrupt.
When did you start working on Covid-19?
As soon as the first cases were reported in Wuhan, China and the genomic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was published, my team and I became interested in its structure, particularities and its mode of operation. As early as July 2020, we published an article predicting the emergence of more virulent variants and stressing the need to find a universal vaccine.
This is a major project, which we are working on around the clock and which the US government has allocated $4m towards, plus private funding. These significant resources allow us to focus on obtaining results quickly.
How do you explain the fact that France, where you defended your doctoral thesis in immunology and which is historically a pioneer in this field, has not yet found a vaccine?
France has excellent researchers and cutting-edge research centres — such as the Pasteur Institute — but they are, in a way, restricted in their approach. The problem with research in France is that they don’t take risks. In fact, they only finance a project if they are sure it will succeed.
Unlike the US, there is no culture of risk-taking yet this is the basis of all discoveries. When you start a research project, you don’t know if it will succeed but if you don’t try, you won’t find out.
Furthermore, there is a lack of flexibility in decision-making. Even when a research subject gets support, the administrative procedures to organise this are often slow.
Is this what prompted you to move to the US?
Among other things. The US is a paradise for researchers: as soon as you have an innovative idea and a promising subject, very substantial resources are made available to you. Public and private funders are ready to invest in a research topic as long as they are presented with the right arguments and understand how it will be applied.
Within the universities themselves, there is a whole framework that allows you to go from basic to applied research and commercialisation for example, by encouraging people to set up companies when the projects are particularly innovative. I moved to the US because of this research environment.
Another factor in my decision was the opportunities for advancement that were available to me. In France, in addition to the administrative hassle of obtaining a residence permit, your chances are not the same depending on whether your name is Ahmed or Stéphane.
With a name like Lbachir BenMohamed, I was starting out with a serious handicap, which condemned me to a form of invisibility. Despite one’s talent and skills, it is very difficult for a north African to find a place within the French research world.
Is the French scientific community closed in on itself?
No, the picture is not so black and white. France offers high-quality training to students from all over the world. I have benefited from this myself and my time spent at the University of Jussieu and the Pasteur Institute was invaluable, to say the least. I also met brilliant and inspiring French researchers who were very open minded. Some of them became my friends.
Nevertheless, one cannot deny that there is an element of co-optation and networking in this environment which I believe is incompatible with science. This does not only apply to foreigners but also — to a lesser extent — those who come from the provinces and do not have a large number of contacts.
Beyond the networks, French society still rejects those who want to break out of the assigned role of the ‘token Arab’ and move forward. It’s very difficult to navigate your way out of this obstacle course, and some never do. I am thinking of fellow scientists — of Arab or sub-Saharan origin –who are very capable but have remained in France and not advanced as far as they deserve to, professionally.
It’s a real shame. The French should realise that diversity is an excellent thing and a source of wealth, especially in fields such as science and art.
For example, at the university where I teach in California — beyond strictly technical skills or scientific knowledge — we are encouraged to cultivate a lot of diversity, whether it is linked to gender or origin, when it comes to recruiting students and researchers. A good research group is a heterogeneous and multi-ethnic group, where ideas are able to flow.
It is these diverse ideas, coming from students and researchers from all over the world, that often lead to innovation and success. While it is true that in France things have started to change in recent years, and that minorities are becoming more and more visible, there is still a lot of work to be done.
What do you think of France’s anti-coronavirus strategy? This series of semi-lockdowns?
This approach of lockdown, reopening, and then lockdown is unfortunately ineffective. The number of new cases of Covid-19 will continue to remain high until the population has been widely vaccinated and social distancing measures are respected. However, this seems to be far from the case, according to statistics and various incidents — such as secret parties — that have been reported in the press.
Furthermore, these semi-confinements encourage family and friends to gather at home, which gives the virus more chance to circulate. The majority of virus transmissions take place indoors, not outdoors.
To be successful, total lockdowns must be introduced and accompanied by an active vaccination campaign, so as not to give the more dangerous variants a chance to emerge. Today, in the US, three million people are vaccinated every day. It is expected that herd immunity will be achieved in the coming months. It is hoped that this will also be the case in France and other countries around the world, in order to eradicate this killer virus from the planet.
We must act quickly and proceed rapidly with a large-scale vaccination campaign. Let’s not forget that the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 — which killed more than 50 million people — was caused by the emergence of a single variant of the flu virus, resulting from mutations that made it more deadly and contagious. It is important to accelerate the pace of vaccination to avoid the same scenario.
In addition to the universal vaccine that you are working on, you have developed a patch device to administer it. This technique could revolutionise how vaccines are administered.
Yes, my team and I are working on developing a patch to administer the vaccine, similar to the nicotine patch used by people who want to stop smoking.
Distributing a traditional vaccine is very costly in terms of transport, storage conditions, mobilising health care staff, etc. In total, distributing and administering a vaccine is six times more expensive than manufacturing the vaccine itself.
Thanks to this patch technology — which we have patented — it will be very easy to distribute and deliver these vaccines, even to the most remote areas where there are no facilities or medical staff, and to the poorest of countries, since it can be sent in a simple envelope. It could even be self-administered by the patient, as it is so easy to use.
You seem very concerned about the fate of developing countries. Is this a way of staying true to your roots?
There is probably a point to all this. I was born in an Amazigh village in Tagante, near Guelmim. I don’t come from a wealthy background, quite the contrary. But I am where I am today, thanks not only to my family but also to a whole village and entourage that believed in me, very early on, when I was a child and came back from school with good results.
Then later, once I had completed my secondary studies, the inhabitants of the douar used to say: “Lbachir, he will be a doctor”, “Lbachir, he will go far”, “Lbachir is destined for a great future”…
These phrases expressed the faith that the villagers had in me: they inspired me for years and continue to do so. It was like a prophecy, and at the same time, it nourished a form of loyalty and gratitude within me. I was determined never to disappoint these people.
At the time, I didn’t know exactly where to go, but I knew that I had to advance as much as possible in what I was doing. I wanted to do something great, something that would live up to the trust they had in me and what they had dreamed of, foreseen for me, and which had become my destiny. I am eternally grateful to them.
How can the son of a grocer from Guelmim become the head of a large research laboratory in California?
With confidence, determination and perseverance, success is within everyone’s reach. Well, I want to give hope to all young Africans — whether Moroccan, Tunisian or Senegalese — who are talented but often without hope, believing they are doomed because they were not dealt a good hand when they were born.
As far as I am concerned, I am not the son of a minister or a CEO and I did all my schooling at Moroccan public schools: Sidi Ahmed Derkaoui primary school in the Tagante douar secondary school at the El Hassan El Hadrami college in Guelmim and Bab Sahra high school. Finally, I obtained my degree in biology at the Ibn Zohr Faculty of Sciences in Agadir.
I had no model of success, just a love of studying and the conviction that I had to move forward as much as possible. This is what led me to pursue my studies in France, where I did my doctorate, and then a post-doctorate in the US.
What is the secret of your success?
There is no secret, just work, work and more work. I spend three-quarters of my time on it. I believe in the saying: ‘The bigger you dream, the bigger you get.’ I believe in setting the most ambitious goal possible and sticking to it. Be persistent, patient and courageous. Stay focused, attentive and on the lookout. To do this, you must avoid unnecessary distractions and addictions of all kinds, be they video games or drugs.
You are working on setting up an institute of vaccinology and immunotherapy in Morocco. Do you think the kingdom could become a hub for the manufacture of vaccines and immunotherapies in Africa?
Absolutely. Morocco has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries on the continent and competent human resources. During this pandemic, we saw how capable this industry is of adapting and responding quickly. We saw this particularly with regards to masks and respirators, as well as in the country’s rapid vaccination rollout. All these factors prove that Morocco is a country that is capable of developing and manufacturing vaccines as well as immunotherapies.
Will this be a public, private or mixed institute?
This has not yet been decided. Discussions with Moroccan officials are underway, and all options are being considered.
Last December, Morocco and Israel re-established their diplomatic relations. Do you think a partnership in vaccine research is possible between the two countries?
Why not… Everything is possible. Research and development have no origin or religion.
In recent years, there has been a resurgence of epidemics: Ebola, SARS, MERS, and now Covid-19. Can we expect new global epidemics in the future?
Due to the accelerated development of the last 20 years, coupled with environmental degradation, deforestation and over-industrialisation, humans are constantly conquering territories previously occupied by wild animals.
In order to defend themselves and their territory, these animals — such as bats, pangolins and certain primates — spread all kinds of pathogens that can be transmitted to humans. Some 75% of these new viruses come from animals. Bats are reservoirs for coronaviruses, mosquitoes for dengue fever and primates for Ebola and AIDS.
These emerging diseases are causing an increase in epidemics, as we have seen over the last 20 years. The Covid-19 pandemic may just be a harbinger of things to come.
People need to realise that they do not live alone on this planet and that there is no ‘Planet B.’ To prevent the transmission of new pathogens, we must improve our relationship with animals and respect their habitat. Otherwise, the worst is yet to come and new epidemics will emerge.
Understand Africa's tomorrow. today
We believe that Africa is poorly represented, and badly under-estimated. Beyond the vast opportunity manifest in African markets, we highlight people who make a difference leaders turning the tide, youth driving change, and an indefatigable business community. That is what we believe will change the continent, and that is what we report on. With hard-hitting investigations, innovative analysis and deep dives into countries and sectors, The Africa Report delivers the insight you need.