Getting In A Froth

The anti-vaxxer outcry & rationale

Are unvaccinated people healthier than the vaccinated? Since the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, controversy has raged over the efficacy of the mRNA technology, the unprecedented speed at which it was developed for the SARS-CoV-2 virus by Big Pharma, and whether we should actually regard it as gene therapy or possibly even a "bioweapon" rather than a vaccine. Almost by default this scrutiny has called into question the safety of more traditional vaccines.

The idea that unvaccinated individuals are inherently healthier than those who are vaccinated has been getting vaccine sceptics in a froth. However, the claim is not supported by any credible scientific evidence. Vaccines have been extensively studied for their safety and effectiveness, and the overwhelming body of research demonstrates that they prevent serious illnesses, reduce mortality, and improve public health. To understand why this is the case, it's important to examine evidence going back decades, address the most common misconceptions, and explore the broader implications of vaccination.

Before the invention of vaccines, a practice known as variolation was used as protection against smallpox. Variolation involved deliberately exposing an individual to material from smallpox sores, either by inhaling dried scabs or introducing pus into a small cut on the skin. This often gave rise to a mild infection, and that provided immunity to the disease. While variolation reduced the severity of smallpox and undoubtedly did save many lives, it carried significant risks and could still lead to severe smallpox and spread the disease to others.

The first true vaccine was developed by Edward Jenner in 1796. Jenner's work marked the start of modern immunology. He noted that milkmaids who had contracted cowpox, a less severe disease, were generally immune to smallpox. This led him to hypothesize that exposure to cowpox could protect against smallpox. Testing his theory, Jenner took material from a cowpox sore and inoculated an 8-year-old boy who later, exposed to smallpox, did not develop the disease.

Jenner called his method vaccination, derived from the Latin word "vacca" for cow. This ground-breaking discovery eventually led to the eradication of smallpox in 1980, one of the greates achievements in public health. It remains the only human disease to have been officially stamped out globally. While efforts have been made to eliminate other diseases, such as polio and guinea worm disease, none have yet been completely successful.

Vaccines are designed to protect against potentially serious diseases such as measles, polio, tetanus and influenza. These illnesses have historically caused significant harm, including severe complications and death. Vaccines work by training the immune system to recognize and destroy specific pathogens without the individual having to endure the full effects of the disease. Many studies have shown that vaccinated individuals are far less likely to contract these illnesses than their unvaccinated counterparts. For example, a 2019 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that unvaccinated individuals were 35 times more likely to contract measles than those who were vaccinated. Measles, in particular, can result in life-threatening complications such as pneumonia and encephalitis, underscoring the life-saving benefits of immunization.

Despite these well-documented benefits, anti-vaxxers claim that the unvaccinated are healthier than the vaccinated. These assertions are nonsense. Often based on anecdotal evidence or poorly designed studies they invariably lack scientific rigour. Anti-vaccine advocates argue that unvaccinated children experience fewer allergies or chronic conditions. Again, these are claims that are not substantiated by the research. In fact, studies that examine these issues systematically—such as a 2019 review published in Vaccine—have found no evidence that vaccines compromise immune function or increase susceptibility to non-vaccine-related illnesses.

One more common misconception is that natural immunity, acquired by surviving an illness, is superior to vaccine-induced immunity. While it is true that natural immunity can provide robust protection in certain cases, it can come at a significant cost: for one thing the individual must withstand the full effects of the disease, which can lead to severe complications and even death. Vaccines, on the other hand, provide immunity without exposing individuals to these risks. Diseases like measles and polio, for example, often cause permanent disabilities, while the vaccines for these illnesses are effective in preventing such results.

Another myth to knock on the head, one that I take personally given that both myself and four of my nine children are on the spectrum, is the supposed link to autism. This claim originated from a fraudulent and discredited 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield, which falsely suggested a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. This study was based on only 12 children. It was riddled with flaws, conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. Thankfully it was later retracted, and Wakefield lost his medical license. Despite this, the myth took root and continues to persist, fuelled by fear, half-truths, and a healthy distrust of the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry.

Extensive scientific research has debunked the vaccine-autism link. Large studies involving millions of children consistently show no connection between vaccines and autism. For example, a 2019 Danish study involving over 650,000 children found no increased risk of autism in those who received the MMR vaccine. Allegations about thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative once used in some vaccines, have also been thoroughly disproven, with no evidence linking it to autism. Importantly, autism diagnoses have continued to rise even after thimerosal was removed from most vaccines, further disproving any causal relationship.

This silly myth persists partly because autism is usually diagnosed around the same age children receive vaccines, leading some parents to conflate timing with causation. Rising autism diagnoses, largely due to improved awareness and diagnostic criteria, have also fuelled speculation. Anti-vaccine advocates and a few high-profile public figures have amplified these fears, spreading misinformation that resonates with many parents' anxieties.

This has had grave consequences. Vaccine hesitancy, driven by unsubstantiated fears, has led to declining vaccination rates in some communities, resulting in outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles. It also perpetuates the stigma around neurodivergent conditions, framing autism in particular as something to be feared and prevented, rather than understood and accepted. Furthermore, it diverts much-needed attention and resources away from understanding the actual causes of autism, which seem to be primarily genetic, with some potential environmental factors worthy of continuing investigation.

But what of vaccines today? The rapid deployment of mRNA-based vaccines, such as those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna during the COVID-19 pandemic, has given rise to doubts as to their safety. Critics have argued that these vaccines differ so significantly from traditional vaccines that they should not be classified as such, with some even labeling them as gene therapy. Such characterization reflects a basic misunderstanding of how the mRNA technology works.

Traditional vaccines often introduce a weakened or inactive form of a pathogen, or a bit of the pathogen such as a protein, directly into the body to stimulate an immune response. In contrast, mRNA vaccines use a small piece of genetic material—messenger RNA—to instruct cells to produce a harmless viral protein, such as the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This protein triggers an immune response, allowing the body to recognize and attack the virus in the future. Crucially, the mRNA in these vaccines does not enter the cell's nucleus or interact with DNA. It is rapidly degraded by the body after delivering its instructions. Gene therapy, by contrast, is designed to alter or replace an individual’s genetic material to treat or cure a disease. This involves introducing new DNA into the nucleus of a cell, resulting in long-term or permanent genetic changes.

Some concerns surrounding mRNA vaccines stem from their apparent novelty. While this technology was first widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic, its evolution actually goes back decades. Early research into mRNA-based therapies began in the 1990s, while advances in the field have gradually improved the technology’s safety and efficacy. The perceived urgency of the pandemic accelerated the manufacture of mRNA vaccines, but their development was built on a robust foundation of scientific research.

Safety has been a central focus of mRNA vaccine studies, both in clinical trials and real-world applications. Billions of doses of mRNA vaccines have been administered globally, with data illustrating a strong safety profile. Common side effects, such as fatigue, fever, and soreness at the injection site, are temporary and similar to those experienced with traditional vaccines. While long-term data collection is unending, the short-lived nature of mRNA in the body, combined with ongoing post-marketing surveillance, provides reassurance about its safety.

It is also important to consider the broader benefits of vaccination beyond individual health. Vaccines contribute to herd immunity, which protects the most vulnerable members of society, such as infants, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. When vaccination rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases become more likely, endangering not only the unvaccinated but also those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

The erroneous perception that unvaccinated people are healthier than the vaccinated typically arises from a misunderstanding of science or a reliance on subjective sources. Some anti-vaccine narratives have been bolstered by analyses with significant methodological flaws, including selection bias or a reliance on self-reported data from anti-vaccine communities. These studies frequently fail to meet the standards of peer-reviewed research.

Nevertheless the issue of public safety has been an ongoing dilemma for me personally, given that a close friend has been in the forefront of claims that mRNA vaccines are unsafe, that the Covid-19 "plandemic" was a coordinated event in population control, and that the World Health Organisation and figures like Dr Anthony Fauci, are corrupt liars. Fortunately, it's fairly obvious that these extraordinary claims depend on on partial evidence, a blatant cherry-picking of data, and misreadings of technical details. Overwhelmingly, the scientific consensus supports the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines. With mistrust in institutions running at an all time high, however, it's hardly surprising that high profile conspiracy theorists with an air of self-confidence, and the incessant use of technical jargon along with references to patents, can easily create the impression of infallible expertise while they pull the wool over their own and our eyes.

A comprehensive review of peer-reviewed scientific papers reveals no credible evidence to support the notion that unvaccinated individuals are healthier than those who are vaccinated. On the contrary, the evidence points to vaccines protecting individuals and communities from serious illnesses, reducing the spread of infectious diseases, and aiding better health outcomes overall.

The advent of mRNA vaccines adds a new dimension to immunization, offering innovative approaches that are safe, effective, and can be adapted to emerging health challenges. While it's normal to have questions about new technologies, the rigorous scientific research behind these vaccines, as well as ongoing global monitoring, provide strong reassurance of their safety and efficacy.

There seem to be no valid reasons to get in such a froth. To paraphrase William Shakespeare, these are tales told by a conspiracy theorist, full of sound and intrigue, signifying nothing.