The truth about combination vaccines

The campaign to sow doubt and confusion around vaccines uses several different lies. One is the facially absurd notion that combination vaccines can overwhelm the immune system. A healthy infant's immune system responds to thousands of antigens from their environment daily, far exceeding the number found in modern vaccines. Moreover, decades of experience the world over testifies to the safety and efficacy of combination vaccines. 

 ‘For Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, a former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's immunization program who recently resigned, the proposal reflects politics rather than science. 

 

"This isn't about safety. It's about ideology," he said. "We've already seen directives issued without data to back them up." 

 

“Dr. Debra Houry, who recently resigned as the CDC's chief science and medical officer, echoed the concern. 

 

"The talk about separating MMR into individual components wasn't coming from scientists," she said. "It was being driven by political operatives with no public health expertise."

 

‘According to Moss: "It's not necessary, and monovalent vaccines aren't even available in the United States. There's no reason to go down that path."

 

What are the benefits of combining vaccines like measles, mumps and rubella?

“Research from multiple countries shows that combination vaccines improve uptake and timeliness by reducing missed appointments and the number of injections required. Children receiving combination formulations are more likely to complete their full schedule on time, and low-income parents are less likely to fall behind when multiple protections are delivered in a single shot.”

So basically plenty of upside and no downside. Opposition to combined vaccines comes from superstition, conspiracy theories and outright lies.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-split-up-mmr-vaccine-long-settled-debate/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The ruble is collapsing

In 1998, I traveled to Moscow for the first time to teach in a summer course at the Russian Academy. The week before, we were on vacation and I heard on the radio “Today, the ruble lost 100% of its value.” This news was arresting—it meant that the ruble was worthless. That seemed unlikely. Indeed, the next day, the announcer apologized and said she meant to say that the ruble lost 50% of its value.  In the event, by the time I arrived at the Hotel Sputnik in Moscow, all the cash machines in the city were shut down. Restaurant prices changed hourly during my five-day stay, and there were sidewalk signs posting exchange rates that were written in chalk so they could easily be edited. Certainly puts our recent experience with inflation in perspective.   Over at jabberwocking.com, Kevin Drum notes that the ruble is down 30% since the war started and 20% just since September.   From the comment thread: “The problem with the Russian economy at this point is that it is basically...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

The big C

Nobody wants to get cancer. And there is no sure path to avoiding cancer. There are a number of gene alleles that predispose to cancer risk. If you inherit one of these alleles, your risk of cancer is higher than average. That doesn’t mean you can’t do anything. Knowing you’re at higher risk means you should undergo more frequent testing (breast imaging, colonoscopy, prostate exams, etc). Early detection improves survival. There are a number of other “lifestyle” risk factors for cancer: smoking, alcohol, sun exposure, obesity and aging. Of course, if your goal is a long life, you’ll have to confront an increased risk of cancer as you age. Again, surveillance is an important way to increase survival. Diet is probably the most modifiable cancer risk factor.  “ The most recent research uses different indices to assess dietary patterns without specifying the amount of animal-based foods that participants consumed. A   2023 meta-analysis   included assessment of 22 prospective...
Read more