A Harvard immunologist corrects a common misconception on the
part of vaccine advocates:
Do
unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
- IPV (inactivated poliovirus
vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wild poliovirus has
been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild
poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with
IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild
poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine,
OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing
wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the
USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.
- Tetanus is not a contagious
disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with
C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination
vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to
render personal protection only.
- While intended to prevent the
disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid
vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent
colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for
diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise
intended for personal protection only.
- The acellular pertussis (aP)
vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in
the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s,
which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An
experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that
the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission
of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial
finding.[1]
- Furthermore, the 2013 meeting
of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional
alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently
circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who
are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are
up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than
people who are not vaccinated.
- Among numerous types of H.
influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention
to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the
introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance
towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f).These types have
been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in
adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children. The general
population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was
prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against
children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense
in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.
- Hepatitis B is a blood-borne
virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among
children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle
sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly
alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not
prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit
school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even
carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical
discrimination.
In
summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines
due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person
who is. No discrimination is warranted.
Well,
that would appear to settle that. No doubt the vaccine enthusiasts will soon be
rushing to apologize to Jenny McCarthy for incorrectly charging her with murder.
That being said, I note that she didn't say anything about the measles vaccine,
which presumably does help reduce the incidence of the disease - although not
as much as travel and immigration bans would.
My personal opinion is that the entire debate is a charade. If people actually cared about public health, they would not permit any immigration from the third world. As long as mass migration is permitted, relying on vaccines to combat imported diseases will be a losing battle. So, unless and until the mass migrations are stopped, don't even think about trying to force vaccines on anyone who doesn't want them for them or their children.
My personal opinion is that the entire debate is a charade. If people actually cared about public health, they would not permit any immigration from the third world. As long as mass migration is permitted, relying on vaccines to combat imported diseases will be a losing battle. So, unless and until the mass migrations are stopped, don't even think about trying to force vaccines on anyone who doesn't want them for them or their children.
