Saturday, 6 December 2014

Summarising the Debate

With my research it has been hard to find specific papers or journal articles opposing vaccine use however a retracted study by Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues seems to still be the greatest debate when fighting against vaccine use. This makes little sense due to the fact the study has been retracted and therefore obviously flawed but a lack of knowledge and continued media attention continues to make this a common opposition view in this argument.

Andrew Wakefield’s’ study showed that there was a high correlation between vaccine usage and gastrointestinal disease as well as behavioural issues, mainly autism. He stated that after normal growth and mental development for 2-3 years, all children (12 participants in the study) who had recently had the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella vaccine) began to show signs of intestinal and behavioural abnormalities. After researching this study I feel that Andrew and his colleagues may have come across a chance situation and with the excitement of their findings, published the study rather than perform a fuller scientific study. This ultimately resulted in the loss of Wakefield’s medical license and a huge decrease in vaccination rates worldwide.

An argument promoting vaccine usage is that of, protecting the weak, who are unable to be vaccinated. Those with diseases causing immune suppression or taking drugs which inhibit the activity of the immune system are unable to receive live vaccines. These people are forced to rely on the majority of the population who are able to be vaccinated to do so. Herd immunity means that the majority of people, who are vaccinated, protect the weak who can’t be vaccinated as cases of these diseases are decreased, thus making the likeliness of catching the disease lower. People with a suppressed immune system cannot fight viruses as well as those with unimpaired immune systems which makes the virus is a lot more dangerous to the immunosuppressed. A healthy person has the chance to fight the virus and return to health while a sick person has a much higher chance of dying. I believe the authors of this article took this position as they are passionate about protecting the entire community from disease and care about the health and well-being of every person.

Novella, S. (2010). The Lancet Retracts Wakefield Article. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/lancet-retracts-wakefield-article/

Cardetti, C., Zins, M., & Groskreutz, K. (2010). Herd Immunity and the Necessity of Vaccinations. Cornerstone Minnesota State University Journal of Undergraduate Research, Article 2. Retrieved from : http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/jur/vol10/iss1/2/

2 comments:

Ana Thornton said...

Wakefield’s case only proves how damaging it can be when information that is not fully understood and verified is released to the general public. In this case, it had a direct effect the vaccination rates. Unfortunately, there are much more unreliable sources out there that advocate against vaccination and that creates doubt in the population. Hence, the extreme importance on educating the people about the benefits of immunization and making this information available to everyone.

Nicole Durie said...

It sure does! His study has had a hugely negative effect on the health of people worldwide and is responsible for a 10 year period of lowered vaccination rates