VACCINES: THE CAUSE OR SOLUTION TO DISEASES?
Most recently, there is a particularly large argument over the link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, spurred by the works of a British doctor, Andrew Wakefield, in 1998 (Gerber and Offit, 2009). His paper describes 8 children who developed symptoms of autism within a month of receiving the MMR vaccine. The children exhibited inflammatory bowel disease in the gut that led to the movement of normally impermeable proteins into the bloodstream, and eventually to the brain, affecting development (Gerber and Offit, 2009). This information alarmed many parents, as it understandably would, and vaccination rates plummeted while cases of measles soared. For example, the vaccination rate in Ireland fell to 72%, compared to the internationally accepted level for controlling disease of 95% (Lavery, 2003). Though Wakefield’s study was later debunked by subsequent studies that revealed many flaws in his study (such as the lack of control subjects and the altering of patient information) and then retracted by Lancet, the medical journal that published his paper (New York Times, 2011), the harm was already done in influencing people’s opinion of vaccines. Lancet did not retract Wakefield’s paper until 2010 (Rabin, 2010), over 10 years after its publication during which the movement grew tremendously based on his conclusion. Once such information is in circulation, it is hard to stop people from reading and believing the information, regardless of its actual truthfulness.
So why do people continue to believe this claim despite the scientific evidence that falsify it? Those who support the anti-vaccine view are among the most influential: parents, celebrities, and doctors. Their words are taken seriously because of their reputation and appeal. Many present their opinions in such a professional and confident manner that I found myself becoming convinced of their points, even though I knew science disproved their “facts.” Even though we would like to believe that all information we come across is credible, in reality not all of it is, so how do we differentiate the truth from lies? There is no easy way to separate them; we can only consider the details given to us from both sides and make a decision about who is more experienced and reliable. So what is it about these parents, celebrities, and doctors that have others convinced they are so well informed and correct?
Parents identify with each other in their concern for their child’s safety and health; if a parent hears about something that will risk their child’s health, even if only the slightest chance exists, he or she will most certainly do everything they can to keep their child healthy. Parents trust each other because they have the same tendency to misrepresent the negative things and to become overprotective, and they will naturally let other parents know of the risks they have heard about. The word of one person can spread exponentially, thriving on parents’ fear and natural instinct to protect their child. In a survey conducted by the University of Michigan on which sources of information about vaccines parents trusted the most, 67% placed some trust in family and friends (Rochman, 2011). In a society where information is constantly being exchanged between individuals, each parent’s decision ultimately affects other parents’ decisions and the health of all children.
In 1991, less than 1% of children in the United States did not receive vaccines based on personal-belief exemptions; by 2004, the percentage had increased to 2.54% (Steinhauer, 2008). Though these statistics seem negligible, the consequences of the growing number of unimmunized people are enormous. These exemptions are detrimental to their own child, who is susceptible to the disease, and those their child comes in contact with (Steinhauer, 2009). Parents who allow their child to skip shots are actually putting other children at risk; no vaccine is completely effective (for example, the measles vaccine is only 95% effective) and if an outbreak starts in unvaccinated children, a vaccinated child is still at some risk of contracting the illness (Stobbe, 2011). Parents who encourage other parents to object to inoculation are feeding the outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses. Many refuse to “sacrifice their children for the greater good,” as Sybil Carlson, a mother of a 6-year-old who attends school with other children who have been hit by a measles outbreak, believes. Her son is not immunized against measles, which makes him extremely susceptible to the disease and its effects (pneumonia and brain swelling), but she refuses to vaccinate him because “when I began to read about vaccines and how they work, I saw medical studies connecting them with neurological disorders, asthma, and immunology.” Decisions like Carlson’s promote false information and expose people to diseases and deaths that are easily preventable. Michele Pereira, a registered nurse and married to an anesthesiologist, is part of the medical field, but her role as a parent definitely affects her attitude on vaccines as she learns about other parents who are questioning vaccines: “I wouldn’t be one to say I am absolutely certain these things are hurting our children. I feel like there are enough questions out there that I don't want to take the chance” (Stobbe, 2011). Small doubts like Pereira’s are enough to encourage a parent to not give their child the full recommended schedule of immunizations and to recommend others against doing so as well.
So why do people continue to believe this claim despite the scientific evidence that falsify it? Those who support the anti-vaccine view are among the most influential: parents, celebrities, and doctors. Their words are taken seriously because of their reputation and appeal. Many present their opinions in such a professional and confident manner that I found myself becoming convinced of their points, even though I knew science disproved their “facts.” Even though we would like to believe that all information we come across is credible, in reality not all of it is, so how do we differentiate the truth from lies? There is no easy way to separate them; we can only consider the details given to us from both sides and make a decision about who is more experienced and reliable. So what is it about these parents, celebrities, and doctors that have others convinced they are so well informed and correct?
Parents identify with each other in their concern for their child’s safety and health; if a parent hears about something that will risk their child’s health, even if only the slightest chance exists, he or she will most certainly do everything they can to keep their child healthy. Parents trust each other because they have the same tendency to misrepresent the negative things and to become overprotective, and they will naturally let other parents know of the risks they have heard about. The word of one person can spread exponentially, thriving on parents’ fear and natural instinct to protect their child. In a survey conducted by the University of Michigan on which sources of information about vaccines parents trusted the most, 67% placed some trust in family and friends (Rochman, 2011). In a society where information is constantly being exchanged between individuals, each parent’s decision ultimately affects other parents’ decisions and the health of all children.
In 1991, less than 1% of children in the United States did not receive vaccines based on personal-belief exemptions; by 2004, the percentage had increased to 2.54% (Steinhauer, 2008). Though these statistics seem negligible, the consequences of the growing number of unimmunized people are enormous. These exemptions are detrimental to their own child, who is susceptible to the disease, and those their child comes in contact with (Steinhauer, 2009). Parents who allow their child to skip shots are actually putting other children at risk; no vaccine is completely effective (for example, the measles vaccine is only 95% effective) and if an outbreak starts in unvaccinated children, a vaccinated child is still at some risk of contracting the illness (Stobbe, 2011). Parents who encourage other parents to object to inoculation are feeding the outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses. Many refuse to “sacrifice their children for the greater good,” as Sybil Carlson, a mother of a 6-year-old who attends school with other children who have been hit by a measles outbreak, believes. Her son is not immunized against measles, which makes him extremely susceptible to the disease and its effects (pneumonia and brain swelling), but she refuses to vaccinate him because “when I began to read about vaccines and how they work, I saw medical studies connecting them with neurological disorders, asthma, and immunology.” Decisions like Carlson’s promote false information and expose people to diseases and deaths that are easily preventable. Michele Pereira, a registered nurse and married to an anesthesiologist, is part of the medical field, but her role as a parent definitely affects her attitude on vaccines as she learns about other parents who are questioning vaccines: “I wouldn’t be one to say I am absolutely certain these things are hurting our children. I feel like there are enough questions out there that I don't want to take the chance” (Stobbe, 2011). Small doubts like Pereira’s are enough to encourage a parent to not give their child the full recommended schedule of immunizations and to recommend others against doing so as well.