My skeptical radar is activated each time I hear a celebrity endorse a product or promote a cause. While generally harmless, celebrities have such large audiences that they have the ability to broadcast their message to a large number of people, and can impact their decisions.

Celebrity endorsements in sports, for example, will take a famous athlete, put their name on a box/bottle, and try to catch the consumer's eye. For substantial amounts of cash, they will lend their name to a product that they may or may not even use, and which may or may not have some benefit to the consumer.

I am concerned, however, when celebrities endorse and promote something that has an obvious negative impact to an individual or to a group of individuals, and when they claim they know the "truth" or "they are the experts" (as if there is some sort of conspiracy and only they have access to the real information).

Case and point, Jenny McCarthy.

Jenny has sipped the antivax Kool Aid, and now spreads her gospel across any media that will let her.  She is a strong believer that autism is a direct result from vaccines. I will not spend any time debunking this myth, as it has been covered in countless articles and science journals, but I will review the common misconception surrounding vaccines, and the impact of these  misconceptions.

You can make an argument that vaccines have saved more lives than any other medical discovery (smallpox alone has killed approximately 500 million people, until its vaccine was developed), and research shows no evidence to indicate a link between vaccines and autism. No matter which evidence or advantage is put forward, the antivax movement will not change their opinion (sure, maybe there are some, but the big names, like Jenny, won't). Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study on autism and vaccines has been formally retracted by the Lancet. Surely, this would sway Jenny's to the rational side?  No, Wakefield is being treated as a martyr.

The fact of the matter is, Jenny McCarthy is not helping people.  She is jeopardizing the lives of children: vaccinated, and not. When the general population loses herd immunity, then very young kids (babies), who aren't old enough to take certain vaccines, are at risk.

Phil Plait, says it best on his blog, Bad Astronomy:

"If you think Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, and the rest of the ignorant antiscience antivax people are right, then read this story. I dare you. David McCaffery writes about his daughter, Dana, who was four weeks old when she died. Too young to get vaccinated herself, she contracted whooping cough because vaccination rates in that part of Australia are too low to provide herd immunity. This poor little girl died in her father’s arms, and the blame rests squarely on the antivaccination movement. That’s not an anecdote, that’s data.

After Dana’s story was told on the Australian TV show "Sunday Night" there was such a reaction that Channel 7 decided to hold a forum about vaccinations. Richard Saunders and Rachael  Dunlop from The Australian Skeptics were there — you can read Rachael’s personal account of the forum — and Richard has posted video from the forum.  (note that the video has been removed off YouTube.  Please read the transcript here.)

This is heartbreaking, and made worse by Meryl Dorey, the biggest antivax mouthpiece in Australia. Listening to her makes my blood boil. She is a typical antivax promoter: she has no real data, so she manipulates and spins. She throws baseless accusations at the doctor on stage, and uses all sorts of tactics like that to convince people she’s right.

She isn’t. Vaccinations do not cause autism. Vaccinations have some small risk, but it’s far, far less than the danger from measles, rubella, whooping cough, and all the other easily preventable diseases.

Then listen (at 6:30 into the video) to the woman who didn’t vaccinate her son. She herself

says she doesn’t know enough about the issue to say much in response to another woman in the audience who was concerned over her own son’s safety. She admitted she doesn’t have all the

 facts, but she still decided not to vaccinate her kid.

Wow. The antivax movement thrives on ignorance like that.

Then, at about 7:00 into the video, the McCafferys speak. It tears my heart apart to hear them talk about their baby daughter.  The only good thing here is that Meryl Dorey had her arguments eviscerated by the doctor on stage. That’s because her arguments have no substance, no science, no real data behind them.

All the antivaxxers have is panic and fear and lies.  (see images below)

Talk to your doctor, and if they recommend it, vaccinate your kids. You may be saving far more than just their lives; the sad truth is that if more parents in Australia had gotten vaccinations for  their children, Dana McCaffery would still be alive today.

If you fight against vaccines, then keep that fact in mind."

The most startling of facts comes from The Jenny McCarthy Body Count, an anti-antivax website.  The author keeps track of the body count associated with people who are not vaccinated:

During the H1N1 scare, I was vaccinated quite early. Others were afraid to do so. They didn't "trust" the formula. They didn't "trust" that it had been tested enough. They didn't want to give more money to "big pharma". The H1N1 vaccine was just another flu vaccine - like the ones that are developed every year. The side effects of the vaccine are minuscule compared to being infected with H1N1. We can thank the H1N1 vaccine for the relatively low impact H1N1 had on our population - it spread quickly, but the infection rate declined steeply once people had access to the vaccine. This is why we don't even hear about H1N1 any more.

The antivax group uses propaganda and rhetoric, fear mongering, and scare tactics to get their point across. Rather than putting forth scientific evidence for their claims, they use images like these:

and this

Credit:  http://www.skepticnorth.com/2009/10/using-facebooks-powers-for-good-part-2.html

Tell me, how can a vaccine cause Shaken Baby Syndrome?  How can a vaccine cause Polio?  The poster creator is simply listing off any disease/syndrome they can think of, without a single point of reference.

It's a sad state of affairs when Jenny McCarthy and the antivax movement has made such an impact that governments around the world have had to update their documentation and try and sway the public back to their proper immunization schedule. For example, the Canadian Government released a document in late 2009 that describes the misconceptions surrounding vaccines.

Misconceptions about vaccine safety may cause a decrease in the number of Canadians who are immunized against vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, polio, and mumps. This could possibly result in epidemics of diseases that are seldom seen these days in developed countries.

The successful use of vaccines in preventing disease means that most parents of young children in Canada today have never seen a life-threatening case of diphtheria or polio. The continued success of immunization programs depends on a high level of public participation due to confidence in the safety of vaccines.

Unfortunately, a small minority of people actively oppose immunization. Their messages, which are often dramatic and misleading, receive wide publicity through print, radio, television, and the Internet. This can cause confusion for people who want to make responsible, informed decisions about immunization for their children and themselves.

Misconception: Vaccines are not safe.

The Facts: Vaccines are among the safest tools of modern medicine. You may have some swelling or tenderness at the spot where you get the needle, or a mild fever, but these reactions are most often minor and temporary. Serious side effects can happen, but are extremely rare. For example, severe allergic reactions occur in Canada less often than once per 100 000 doses of vaccine.

On the other hand, the diseases that vaccines fight pose serious threats. Diseases such as polio, diphtheria, measles, and whooping cough can lead to paralysis, pneumonia, choking, brain damage, heart problems, and even death. The dangers of vaccine-preventable diseases are many times greater than the risk of a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.

Misconception: Vaccines don’t work.

The Facts:  When there is an outbreak of a disease, some people who have been immunized get sick. This can lead to the idea that vaccines don't work. Every individual is different, and about 10 to 15 per cent of people vaccinated will not develop immunity to the disease.  However, immunization does reduce the risk of severe disease. Immunization is the most effective way to prevent illness and to reduce the risk of transmitting infections to those around you.

Misconception:  Vaccines are linked to chronic diseases such as autism, multiple sclerosis (MS), and Crohn’s disease.

The Facts:  These are false claims made by anti-vaccine books and Web sites. Recent research using the best scientific methods, and reviews of studies from around the world, provide strong evidence that:

•  MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine does not cause autism or inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s).

•  Hepatitis B vaccine does not cause multiple sclerosis (MS) or relapses of pre-existing MS.

•  Pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine does not cause brain damage.

•  Childhood vaccines do not increase the risk of asthma.

•  Vaccines do not cause sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Misconception:  Vaccines weaken the immune system.

The Facts: Vaccines strengthen the immune system to protect children and adults from specific diseases. Scientists estimate that the immune system can recognize and respond to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of different organisms. The vaccines recommended for Canadian children and adults use only a small portion of the immune system’s "memory."

Misconception: There are many serious side effects from vaccines.

The Facts:  The vast majority of vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, like a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking acetaminophen. More serious adverse events occur rarely - about one per thousand to one per million doses, and some are so rare that the risk cannot even be accurately assessed.

In Canada, serious side effects, like Guillain-Barré Syndrome, from the flu vaccine occur very rarely – about one for every million shots administered. Influenza infection can also cause Guillain-Barré syndrome. Other serious adverse events of vaccines include severe allergic reactions, low platelets in the blood (making people bleed easily), etc. The vast majority of side effects from vaccines are minor and temporary.

Misconception:  Vaccines are not necessary because the diseases are gone.

The Facts:  You are not safe from a vaccine-preventable disease just because it is uncommon in Canada. Travelers can carry diseases from country to country, and if you are not immunized you could be at serious risk. It is also important to realize that some people cannot have vaccines because of certain medical conditions or severe allergies. When you are vaccinated, you help protect the people who can’t have vaccines.

Experience from other countries shows that diseases return quickly when fewer people are immunized. For example, in 1994 there were 5,000 deaths from diphtheria in Russia after the organized immunization system was suspended. Previously, Russia (like Canada) had only a few cases of diphtheria each year, and no deaths. Unless a disease has completely disappeared, there is a real risk that small outbreaks can turn into large epidemics if most of the community is not protected.

Misconception:  Vaccines contain toxic substances.

The Facts:  Every batch of vaccine in Canada is tested for safety and quality before it is released for public use. The main ingredient in most vaccines is the killed or weakened germ (virus or bacterium), which stimulates the immune system to recognize and prevent future disease. Some vaccines also contain extremely small amounts of preservatives or antibiotics to prevent bacterial contamination.

One preservative called thimerosal has received a lot of attention because it contains a trace amount of mercury. The amount of mercury present in thimerosal is minute, does not accumulate in the body and is much less toxic than other forms of mercury. Today, most vaccines in Canada do not contain thimerosal. Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (which includes recognized experts in the fields of paediatrics, infectious diseases, immunology, medical microbiology, internal medicine and public health) has reviewed the latest science and concluded, "there is no legitimate safety reason to avoid the use of thimerosal-containing products for children or older individuals." The vaccines that Canadian children and adults receive are safe.

Misconception:  Some Vaccines aren’t safe because they are released too soon.

The Facts:  Canada, like many other countries worldwide, exercises tight scrutiny or regulatory oversight over vaccines. All vaccines intended for use by Canadians are subject to the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations. Prior to market authorization of a new vaccine, the manufacturer must file a submission with scientific and clinical evidence that demonstrates that the vaccine’s health benefits outweigh the risks and that the vaccine is effective and of suitable quality for Canadians.

As part of the approval process, Health Canada experts conduct an on-site evaluation of the manufacturer’s facilities to assess the quality of the vaccine manufacturing process and to determine that the manufacturer is able to carry out the necessary quality controls for the vaccine. The manufacturer must also provide samples of at least three batches or "lots" of the vaccine for testing in Health Canada laboratories.

After Health Canada’s evaluation, if the conclusion is that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its risks, then the vaccine is granted market authorization and can be sold in Canada.

Because some vaccines may be needed urgently to deal with outbreaks of a specific disease, such as a pandemic influenza (for example, H1N1), Health Canada has mechanisms to complete the review of submissions for these vaccines in a short period of time. In certain cases requirements for some types of data may be eliminated or reduced. However, regardless of the urgency with which the vaccine is needed, it will not be authorized until Health Canada has completed its review and determined that the benefits of making the vaccine available outweigh any risks.

Authorized vaccines are also subject to ongoing lot evaluations by Health Canada before they are released on the Canadian market for use by Canadians.

There is no reason to suffer from a disease if there is a safe and effective way to prevent it. Take steps to protect your family against vaccine-preventable diseases.  If you have concerns about vaccines, talk to your doctor, pediatrician, or other health care provider. You can also find reliable, science-based information about vaccine safety on Web sites produced by Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Immunization Awareness Program, the Canadian Paediatric Society, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

These organizations have the facts about vaccines and vaccine safety.

Health Canada regulates vaccines through a rigorous licensing process that includes an
extensive pre-market review of information about the product’s quality, safety and effectiveness. Once a vaccine is on the market, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) monitors adverse events following immunization with the help of provinces and territories and works with Health Canada to assess emerging safety concerns. In addition, PHAC monitors and analyzes the incidence of vaccine preventable diseases, identifies risk factors, develops guidelines for the control of vaccine-preventable diseases, and works with the provinces and territories during emergency situations to help ensure that outbreaks of disease are contained.

The Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada also participate in public information initiatives, such as the Canadian Immunization Awareness Program, and work globally with other countries to develop and implement disease-reduction or eradication strategies.

Why Some People Still Hesitate to Vaccinate 

It was over 200 years ago that Jenner was able to protect a man from the dreaded disease smallpox through vaccination. Since that time, through mass immunization efforts, smallpox has been eradicated from the planet. Other miracles have taken place such as the elimination of polio from the Americas (a disease that 40 years ago caused paralytic illness in almost 2,000 Canadians in one year), and the control of diseases that once maimed or killed in large numbers.

Nevertheless, there are individuals who are hesitant about, or outright refuse immunization for themselves or for their children. There are several reasons for this that are important to appreciate:

-  Some patients have religious or philosophic objections;

-  Some see mandatory vaccination as interference by the government into what they believe should be a personal choice;

-  Others are concerned about the safety and/or efficacy of vaccines;

-  Some may believe that vaccine-preventable diseases do not pose a serious health risk;

-  Others believe that immunization is not "natural".

It is important to listen to and try to understand a patient's concerns, fears, and beliefs about vaccination and to take these into consideration when offering vaccines. This will not only help to strengthen the bond of trust between patient and provider but will also help in deciding on the type of information that might be most effective in addressing the concerns.

1. Diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation.

Statements like this (variations include assertions that vaccines had absolutely no effect on disease rates) are very common in anti-vaccine literature, the intent apparently being to suggest that vaccines are not needed. Improved socioeconomic conditions have undoubtedly had an indirect impact on disease. Better nutrition, not to mention the development of antibiotics and other treatments, have increased survival rates among the sick; less crowded living conditions have reduced disease transmission; and lower birth rates have decreased the number of susceptible household contacts. But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times.

Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused the incidence of each disease to drop, coincidentally, just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced?

Here are some examples to illustrate this:

1.  Invasive disease due to "haemophilus influenzae" type b (Hib), such as meningitis, was prevalent until just a few years ago when conjugate vaccines that can be used in infants (in whom most of the disease was occurring) were finally developed. Since sanitation is no better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Hib disease in children in recent years to anything but the introduction of routine immunization. Data from reportable disease surveillance systems revealed that from an estimated 2,000 cases a year prior to the availability of vaccine, there are now less than 52 cases per year being reported (with the majority in infants and children who have not been immunized).

2.  Varicella (chicken pox) can also be used to illustrate the point, since modern sanitation has obviously not prevented cases from occurring each year - with almost all children getting the disease sometime in their childhood, just as they did 20 years ago, or 80 years ago. If diseases were disappearing, we should expect varicella to be disappearing along with the rest of them.

3. We can also look at the experiences of several developed countries that let their immunization levels drop. Three countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back on the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.

It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.

Of more immediate interest is the major epidemic of diphtheria now taking place in the former Soviet Union, where low primary immunization rates in children and lack of booster immunizations in adults have resulted in an increase from 839 cases in 1989 to nearly 50,000 cases and 1,700 deaths in 1994, with the number of cases increasing by 2- to 10-fold each year. There have already been at least 20 imported cases in Europe and two cases in U.S. citizens working in the former Soviet Union.

2. The majority of people getting disease have been fully immunized.

This is another argument frequently found in anti-vaccine literature - the implication being that this proves vaccines are not effective. In fact it is true that in outbreaks occurring in highly vaccinated populations, the cases who were immunized often outnumber those who were not - even with vaccines such as measles, which we know to be about 90% to 95% effective in one dose.

This apparent paradox is explained by two factors. First, no vaccine is 100% effective. To  make vaccines safer than the disease, the bacteria or virus is killed or weakened (attenuated). For reasons related to the individual, not all persons vaccinated will develop immunity. Most routine childhood vaccines have efficacy in the 85-90% range. Therefore, over the years there is a buildup of susceptible individuals (each year contributing 10% -15% of its cohort). Second, in a country like Canada with high immunization coverage, people who have been vaccinated vastly outnumber those who have not.

How these two factors work together to result in outbreaks where the majority of cases have been vaccinated can be more easily understood by looking at a hypothetical example:

In a high school of 1,000 students, none has ever had measles. All but 30 of the students have had their dose of measles vaccine, and so are considered vaccinated. However, among these 970, there would be about 97 who are not protected by the vaccine. When the student body is exposed to measles, every susceptible student becomes infected because measles is highly contagious.

The 30 unvaccinated students will be infected, of course. But of the 970 who have been vaccinated, we would expect the 97 who are not protected to fall ill. Therefore 97/127, or about 76% of the cases are fully vaccinated.

As you can see, this doesn't prove the vaccine didn't work - only that most of the children in the class had been vaccinated, so the vaccine failures outnumbered the unvaccinated susceptibles. Looking at it another way, 100% of the children who were not vaccinated got measles, compared with only 10% of those who were. Measles vaccine protected most of the class; if nobody in the class had been vaccinated, there would have been 1,000 cases of measles. In this example, the vaccine was in fact 90% effective in preventing measles.

The implication here is that the number of side effects reported is related to the safety of the product, and that the more adverse event reports received, the more dangerous the vaccine. In addition, since not all adverse events are reported, this implies that vaccines are even more dangerous than the number of cases reported leads us to believe.

This is misleading because reports of adverse events are only suspicions that are temporally associated with receipt of vaccine; reports should not be interpreted to imply that the vaccine caused the event. Statistically, a certain number of serious illnesses, even deaths, can be expected to occur by chance alone among children recently vaccinated. While vaccines are known to cause minor, temporary side effects like soreness or fever, there is little, if any, evidence linking vaccination with permanent health problems or death. The point is that just because an adverse event has been reported, it does not mean it was caused by a vaccine.

This fact is often, if not always overlooked by the media when adverse events are mentioned.

In the United States, some anti-immunization groups also focus on so-called "hot lots" of vaccine. They counsel parents to avoid certain lots of vaccine because more adverse events had been reported involving those lots than others. This is misleading because vaccine lots may vary in size from several thousand doses to several hundred thousand, and some are in distribution longer than others. Naturally a larger lot or one that is in distribution longer will be associated with more adverse events, simply by chance. Also, more coincidental deaths are associated with vaccines given in infancy than later in childhood since the background death rates in children are highest during the first year of life. So knowing that lot A has been associated with x number of adverse events while lot B has been associated with y number would not necessarily tell you anything about the relative safety of the two lots, even if the vaccine did cause the events.

If the number and type of reports for a particular vaccine lot suggested that it was

associated with more serious adverse events or deaths than are expected by chance, the federal government has not only the responsibility and will, but the legal authority to immediately recall that lot.

Every vaccine manufacturing facility and vaccine product is licensed. In addition, every vaccine lot is safety-tested by the manufacturer and by the federal Bureau of Biologics of the Drugs Directorate. A vaccine lot would be recalled at the first sign of problems. There is no benefit to anyone in allowing unsafe vaccine to remain on the market - since vaccines are given to otherwise healthy children, the public would not tolerate them if they did not have to conform to the most rigorous safety standards.

Further, there will always be articles in the press or medical journals that report possible bad outcomes as a result of vaccination. Reports in medical journals are sometimes just preliminary findings to stimulate further work and provide an opportunity for exchange of information. It is necessary to assess many sources before drawing final conclusions. As well, articles in some newspapers and magazines are written from a very biased standpoint. Their manner of presenting the data can be misleading, and must be interpreted with caution.

Assertions about the link between vaccines and bad outcomes are rarely corroborated.

4. Vaccines cause many harmful side effects, illnesses, and even death - not to mention possible long-term effects we don't even know about.

Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in much anti-vaccine literature. The vast majority of vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, like a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking acetaminophen before or after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousand to one per million doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. This is the case for severe neurological illness (including encephalopathy). Most often, the illness attributed to a vaccine occurs much more frequently in individuals with no recent vaccination.

As to vaccines causing death, again there are so few deaths that could plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. Each death reported to the Canadian vaccine-associated adverse events surveillance system is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem.

As to long term effects, many vaccines have been in use for decades with no evidence of any long-term adverse effects. The requirements for licensing vaccines in Canada are stringent and ensure that excellent research into potential adverse effects has been done prior to widespread use. No long term effects have been associated with any vaccine currently in use.

Any such claims have not been substantiated.

But looking at risk alone is not enough - you must always look at both risks and benefits.

Even one serious adverse effect in a million doses of vaccine cannot be justified if there is no benefit from the vaccination. If there were no vaccines, there would be many more cases of disease, and along with them, more serious side effects, including death. The examples from those countries who have stopped or decreased their immunization programs has illustrated this time and again. In fact, to have a medical intervention as effective in preventing disease as vaccination and not use it would be unconscionable. 

5. Vaccine-preventable diseases have been virtually eliminated from Canada, so there is no need for my child to be vaccinated.

 

It's true that vaccination has enabled us to reduce most vaccine-preventable diseases to very low levels. However, some of them are still quite prevalent - even epidemic - in other parts of the world. Travelers can unknowingly bring these diseases into the country, and if we were not protected by vaccinations these diseases could quickly spread throughout the population, causing epidemics here. At the same time, the relatively few cases we currently have could very quickly become tens of thousands of cases without the protection we get from vaccines. 

We should still be vaccinated, then, for two reasons. The first is to protect ourselves. Even if we think our chances of getting any of these diseases is small, the diseases still exist and can still infect anyone who is not protected.

The second reason to get vaccinated is to protect those around us. There is a small number of people who cannot be vaccinated (because of severe allergies to vaccine components, for example), and a small percentage of vaccine failures. These people are susceptible to disease, and their only hope of protection is that people around them are immune and cannot pass disease along to them. A successful vaccination program, like a successful society, depends on the cooperation of every individual to ensure the good of all. We would think it irresponsible of a driver to ignore all traffic regulations on the presumption that other drivers will watch out for him. In the same way we shouldn't rely on people around us to stop the spread of disease without doing what we can as well. One important example is vaccination against rubella. A woman who contracts rubella during pregnancy is at high risk of having a baby with congenital rubella syndrome, a devastating illness. Children who are not immunized against rubella can infect those around them.

Children are exposed to many foreign antigens every day. Routine consumption of food introduces new bacteria into the body, and numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. An upper respiratory viral infection exposes a child to between 4 and 10 antigens, and a case of "strep throat" to between 25 and 50. According to a 1994 report by the Institute of Medicine in the United States entitled Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines, "In the face of these normal events, it seems unlikely that the number of separate antigens contained in childhood vaccines...would represent an appreciable added burden on the immune system that would be  immunosuppressive."

And, indeed, available scientific data show no adverse effects of simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines on the normal childhood immune system.

A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. In fact, simultaneous administration of any vaccine would not be recommended by Health Canada or its national expert advisory committee until such studies showed the combinations to be both safe and effective. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations cause no greater risk for adverse side effects. Research is currently under way to find ways to combine more antigens in a single vaccine injection. This will assure all the advantages of the individual vaccines, but require fewer shots.

There are two practical factors in favour of giving a child several vaccinations during the same visit. First, we want to immunize children as early as possible to give them protection during the vulnerable early months of their lives. This generally means giving inactivated vaccines beginning at 2 months and live vaccines at 12 months. Therefore, doses of the various vaccines tend to fall due at the same time. Second, if we can give several vaccinations at the same time it will mean fewer office visits for vaccinations, which saves parents both time and money and may be less traumatic for the child. 

It is morally irresponsible and unethical for celebrities to take advantage of their audience when they promote something that has not been proven by science. It is equally disappointing, that, when faced with compelling evidence against their argument, they refuse to think otherwise. The sad fact is that the rise in autism rates could be caused by something entirely different, but until the antivax movement picks their next target, money and resources will be wasted on proving that vaccines do not, in fact, cause autism.

If you disagree, read each of the references/articles below.