Pros and Cons in Vaccine debate

A large amount of debate is ongoing both in favor of and against vaccination.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield first promoted his negative views on MMR vaccination in his famously retracted lancet paper from 1998. His so-called documentary "Vaxxed" is not accessible for free streaming.

Dr. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist and his Lancet findings were primarily based on intestinal inflammation (IBD-like symptoms), which where then linked with vaccination based on parental interviews (very subjective). Most importantly the study was performed on 12 children only. Interestingly however, Dr. Wakefields findings (disregarding the vaccine postulations) are well in line with more recent research, showing a link between gut inflammation and diseases affecting the central nervous system (the gut-brain axis). So whereas his scientific findings may very well be true, the main misconception is to try to establish causality with vaccination, which is statistically madness with N=12 and epidemiological madness when based only on parental self-reporting.

Journalist Brian Deer has followed up on the misconceptions promoted by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in a manuscript and a film .



For a funny summary of the debate, watch this: (don't forget to check Donald Trump at 1'40''):



And a bit to read: Vox news and Vox news 2

The causality proclaimed by anti-vaccine lobbyists is typically linked with the adjuvant Alum (not the metal, but the derived aluminium-ion salt) and preservatives (Glutamate and Mercury (Ethylmercury is present in vaccines not the neurotoxic Methylmercury found in certain fish)). Follow the links to realize on which ground these accusations are based. In particular, all of the above compounds are naturally present in our environment and found naturally in our blood stream. The daily Alum intake from environmental sources is approximately 50-100 times higher than the content of one vaccine injection (0.1-0.2 mg). However, that intake is obviously oral so the actual uptake into the blood is much lower (theoretically the vaccine therefore does provide a fairly high dose of Alum compared to environmental sources). Despite this, no change in Alum was observed at 24 hours post vaccination compared to baseline, suggesting very rapid elimination .

The criticism of the adjuvant Alum is also a quit interesting one. Large efforts has gone into developing novel antigens. I have myself developed one such adjuvant ( Larsen et al. JIM 2008) . This adjuvant will induce immunity in the absence of additional adjuvants (I hereby declare my conflict of interest). The reason Alum remains first choice by the vaccine industry is that it is indeed a naturally occurring compound found in the blood of individuals. It is very difficult to argue for the use of a non-naturally occurring compound in this case. Exemplified by my own adjuvant, which is a fragment of a bacterial virus that is naturally occurring in our gut, but not in our blood.

Finally, Dr. Wakefield lobby for the use of single-antigen vaccines rather than combination vaccines and dispersing injections over longer time intervals. The debate around this latter point raises problems with Dr. Wakefields conflict of interest due to various patent applications for single-antigen vaccines. Dr. Wakefield on the other hand accuses the medical industry for conservatism due to financial interests. I have a problem with both arguments. The companies producing vaccines could easily change their vaccines to single-antigen vaccines and would likely be much more competitive than Dr Wakefield. Even if they would have to change adjuvant and preservatives many alternatives exist to the patented ideas by Dr. Wakefield, which I moreover think would not work. The contra-argument that the medical industry refuse to change their vaccines for financial reasons I don't see either. Altering vaccines from combination to single-antigen vaccines would largely increase the number of vaccinations a child should receive (each time being exposed to an adjuvant, e.g. Alum), and the company would thus actually profit from making such a change. The fact that industry aim for combination vaccines is in my opinion rather that it is much more acceptable for parents and their children to receive fewer injections.

Finally, I would like to promote a talk which I find particularly well researched: