Governments must be deadly serious regarding what they tell us

 

Jeremy Laurance
Tuesday 20 November 2012 16:07 EST
Comments
(Getty Images)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Vaccination is the single greatest success story of 20th-century medicine. It has saved millions of lives around the world – including from smallpox, polio, diphtheria, typhoid, tetanus, measles and flu.

Yet throughout history, immunisation campaigns have also inspired suspicion because of the fear that governments may place the interests of the state above those of the individual by exaggerating the benefits and minimising the risks.

It was these fears that triggered the MMR scare, when people believed they were not getting the full facts about the MMR vaccine and its alleged link with autism, causing vaccination rates to plunge and measles infections to soar over the past decade.

Medical experts held firm, the allegations of autism were eventually discredited and public trust has gradually been restored. But the episode illustrates the fragility of that trust.

Now the Government’s position is again under assault from what is claimed to be the most comprehensive review of the efficacy of the flu vaccine published anywhere in the world by the US Centre for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (Cidrap) and, separately, from the Cochrane Collaboration of experts.

They say the vaccine is less effective than has been claimed, especially in the elderly, who are most at risk, because the immune response triggered by it varies in different age groups and because the protection provided depends on how well matched the vaccine is to circulating strains of the virus.

Professor Michael Osterholm, the author of the “gold-standard” Cidrap study, absolves governments of deliberately misleading the public, on the grounds that the information about the vaccine’s effectiveness has only recently become available. But, he says, they need to be “much more cautious” about what they say.

“The single most important currency governments have is public trust. If we lose that, we lose the most important currency for protecting public health,” he says.

Douglas Fleming, the British flu expert, echoes that view. “Governments must give accurate and appropriate information about vaccines.”

It is a difficult message to convey: that the flu vaccine provides limited protection but is the best we have against what can be a deadly illness. However, the consequences of over-promoting it, in a desire to boost vaccination levels, risk doing untold damage to the most potent weapon the world has available against infectious disease.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in