After the introduction of vaccination in 1796, the first anti-vaccination society was formed in 1798. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, various organizations declared their opposition to vaccination. Until Pasteur and Lister demonstrated the basis of infection and how to prevent it, vaccinations were as dangerous as other surgical treatments of the time. The view of the British government throughout was that vaccination was safer than variolation, and this is not generally disputed; variolation was safer than random infection with smallpox, but potentially spread smallpox infection itself.
The medical community overwhelmingly supports vaccination as an effective and safe way to prevent the spread and reduce the impact of infectious illnesses. Public health advocates overwhelmingly consider that the benefit to the public justifies mandatory programs.
In the USA, President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Dr Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population(U.S.) Center for Disease Control. Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox).
Anti-vaccination activity increased again in the USA in the late 19th century. After a visit to New York in 1879 by William Tebb, a prominent British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885.
In a 2002 paper in the British Medical Journal, two medical historians suggest that the arguments made against the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in the 21st century are similar to those of the early anti-vaccinationists.Wolfe RM, Sharp LK. Anti-vaccinationists past and present. ''BMJ 2002;325:430-2. Fulltext. PMID 12193361 Another author in the JRSM(2005) describes the differences between contemporary anti-vaccination campaigns and those before 1907J. Royal Soc Medicine. Review: The Anti-vaccination Movement in England, 1853-1907. Nadja Durbach ISBN 0-8233-3423-2 Duke University Press. Review by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick..
Anti-vaccinationists argue that:
Even before Pasteur's work on the nature of infection, there was evidence that contagions spread from person to person, even though microscopes were not yet available and the nature of the contagion (microorganisms) could not be elucidated. Subsequently, as demonstrated by Ignaz Semmelweis, Joseph Lister and others, the knowledge that there were specific modes of cross-infection and that these could be avoided diffused through the population. One argument presented by some modern anti-vaccinationists (e.g. Whale.to) is that Pasteur's theory was incorrect and Antoine Bechamp's germ theory* better represented the transmission of disease. This view is not widespread, but is not criticised on anti-vaccinationist websites. This view of the genesis of disease provided no rationale for sterilising instruments, and an overlap in those decades between anti-vaccinationist thinking and Bechampist potentially contributed to deaths from infection and cross-infection.
Infection as a complication of vaccination is almost absent in the 20th century in developed countries, but in developing countries re-use of needles has contributed to the spread of HIV. There is an overlap in anti-vaccinationist thought, with the denial both of HIV as the unique causative organism of AIDS and with denial that viruses cause disease. (Viral and bacterial DNA is listed as a dangerous constituent of vaccines by some authors without disagreement visible, from other anti-vaccinationists). These arguments oppose conventional medical arguments that favour expensive public health precautions against HIV infection.
The arguments over which of these occurred were considerable even in the 19th century with only a single vaccination to consider - smallpox. After the Royal Commission, which reported in considerable detail, the Royal Statistical Society devoted a meeting to considering the statistical aspects of the argument. The Royal Commission concluded that smallpox vaccination was effective.
From 1796 to 1905, large changes in English society added to the difficulties of analysis. In later periods, changes in hygiene and sanitation have been much less dramatic, and thus the confounding factors are less around the introduction of measles, rubella and haemophilus B.
It has been suggested that, because the death and illness rate is so low in most first world countries, there is no need for vaccination. This could be interpreted to mean that when a public health measure is effective, it should be discontinued.
In the absence of assertions that contracting infectious diseases is either a necessary part of development, or confers specific benefits apart from specific (to that disease) immunity, it is commonly accepted that surveillance for infectious disease and isolation of individuals contracting an infectious disease are cornerstones of public health policy*. In the 19th century, the city of Leicester in the UK achieved a high level of isolation of smallpox cases and great reduction in spread compared to other areas. The mainstay of Leicester's approach to conquering smallpox was to decline vaccination and put their public funds into sanitary improvements. Bigg's account of the public health procedures in Leicester, presented as evidence to the Royal Commission, refers to erysipelas, an infection of the superficial tissues which was a complication of any surgical procedure.
A component of current-day anti-vaccinationist argument is against the medical establishment . This renders those convinced more likely to avoid reporting illness, and weakens the tracing and control of infection . An imported measles case in Iowa * is one illustration of the problem this might cause.
An outbreak at a religious community and school in The Netherlands * illustrates the effect of measles in an unvaccinated population. The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunisation with the exception of one of the religious denominations who traditionally do not accept vaccination. The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands indicate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries.
There is a considerable overlap with homeopathy and various conspiracy theories, and a subset of the material shades into the appearance of psychosis.Schlafly, Roger (2003) Is Vaccination Dissent Dangerous? Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 8(2):57. Source (pdf) An example, which vaccinationists claim is dishonest, is the dismissal of immunisation by some critics because it has not eliminated any disease. In 1979 the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced that smallpox had been eradicated; WHO described a huge effort involving many people and various public health strategies, of which immunisation was an important one. Anti-vaccinationists present this as an assertion that the result came solely by vaccination, and then assert that instead it came about solely by historical force.
Over each time period, infectious disease mortality has been falling for all common diseases (UK Office for National Statistics); anti-vaccinationists argue that this is because of improvements in nutrition and living conditions, not because of immunisation.
In the USA, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the first to make vaccination mandatory, in 1908*. In the UK, vaccination was provided free from 1840 under the Vaccination Act. In 1873, a further Vaccination Act made vaccination compulsory. Resistance to compulsion grew, and in 1885, after riots in Leicester, a Royal Commission sat and reported 7 years later, recommending the abolition of cumulative penalties. This was accomplished in the 1898 Act, which also introduced a conscience clause, allowing parents who did not believe that vaccination was efficacious or safe to obtain exemption. This extended the concept of the "conscientious objector" in English law. The aims of the protesters and organisations had thus been achieved in 1898.
| Name | Started | Finished | Location | Unique Proposition / Notes |
| Anti-vaccination Society | 1798 | Boston USA | Against the will of god | |
| Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League | 1866 | 1880 (segue) | Mr. R. B. Gibbs (d. 1871) started it . Revived 1876, President: Rev. W. Hume-Rothery | |
| the Anti-Vaccination Society of America | 1879 | |||
| New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League | 1882 | |||
| Anti-Vaccination League of New York City | 1885 | |||
| London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination | 1880 | 1896 (segue) | Victoria Street, Westminster, London | Secretary: Mr William Young. Adopted The Vaccination Inquirer established 1879 William Tebb as the organ of the Society. | Published:
| National Anti-Vaccination League | 1896 (Feb) | before 1970? | England | objectives:— repeal of the Vaccination Acts; disestablishment and disendowment of vaccination; abolition of all regulations in regard to vaccination as conditions of employment in State Departments or of admission to Educational or other Institutions. Added in 1921:— vindication of the legitimate freedom of the subject in matters of medical treatment. |
An organisation with a general anti-vaccination view but other more significant characteristics was the Nazi party. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18725131.600
| Name | Started | Finished | Location | Membership | Unique Proposition / Notes |
| Vaccination Liberation (USA) | Contemporary | Website: www.vaclib.org | |||
| VRAN (Canada) | Website: www.vran.org | ||||
| AVN (Australia) | Website: www.avn.org.au | ||||
Since the reversion from compulsory immunisation in the UK, opposition has continued at a lower level. After 1993, several national organisations appeared on the Web. Continuity with the older organisations is not apparent.
Opposition could no longer focus on the right to determine what is done to one's children, and therefore the primary arguments against vaccination changed. Focus transferred to arguments that immunisation did not have an effect; that it had a negative, rather than beneficial effect; or that although immunisation had a beneficial effect in the short term, any benefit may be negated by long term negative consequences.
These changes have resulted in arguments based upon hypotheses that are susceptible to disproof rather than philosophical questions of the relationship of individuals to state or deity.
"Vaccination is unique among de facto mandatory requirements in the modern era, requiring individuals to accept the injection of a medicine or medicinal agent into their bodies, and it has provoked a spirited opposition. This opposition began with the first vaccinations, has not ceased, and probably never will. From this realisation arises a difficult issue: how should the mainstream medical authorities approach the anti-vaccination movement? A passive reaction could be construed as endangering the health of society, whereas a heavy handed approach can threaten the values of individual liberty and freedom of expression that we cherish." BMJ
Most states in the USA require immunization, or obtaining exemption, before enrolment in public school. Exemptions are typically for people who have compromised immune systems, allergies to the components used in vaccinations or strongly-held objections. The American Academy of Pediatrics considers parental waivers of immunization a form of child abuse and neglect.
Anti-vaccinationist organisations publicise the procedure for obtaining exemption.
Immunizations are often compulsory for military enlistment.*
(See also vaccine controversy)
Thiomersal is being phased out (already in some European countries) and the USA is following. Recently, largely in the USA, it has been suggested that the organic mercury content of thiomersal in child vaccines might contribute to autism*http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002723 WSJ OpEd describing this as anti-vaccinationist activity. The 2004 Institute of Medicine panel favoured rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism. The interests in this are vested, for example, governments wishing public health policies to proceed, pharmaceutical companies preferring not to pay huge damages, and (in the absence of no-fault compensation) large monetary gains for successful litigants and their counsel. Anti-vaccination sites publicise the assertions of danger more prominently than these findings , or the fact that thiomersal has recently (eg Oct 2004 in the UK) been removed from many vaccines for use in the Western world (but not the third world).
Gangarose EJ, Falazka AM, Wolfe CR, Phillips LM, Gangarosa RE, Miller E, Chen RT. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control : the untold story. Lancet 1998, 351: 356-361.
Hanratty B, Holt T, Duffell E, Patterson W, Ramsay M, White JM, Jin L, Litton P. UK measles outbreak in non-immune anthroposophic communities : the implications for the elimination of measles from Europe. Epidemiology & Infection 2000, 125: 377-383.
http://www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/safety/prof/misconcept.htm. Six common misconceptions about immunization. World Health Organization 2000.
Orenstein WA, Hinman AR. The immunization system in the United States - the role of school immunization laws. Vaccine 1999; 17: S19-S24.
Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Loprelato J, Treanor J. Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study. Lancet 2002, 360: 1737.
Poland GA, Jacobson RM. Understanding those who do not understand : a brief review of the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine 2001, 19: 2440-2445.
Salmon DA, Haber M, Gangarose EJ, Phillips L, Smith NJ, Chen RT. Health consequences of religious and philosophical exemptions from immunization laws. : individual and societal risk of measles. Journal of the American Medical Association 1999, 282: 47-53.
Spier RE. Ethical aspects of vaccines and vaccination. Vaccine 1998; 16: 1788-1794.
Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. British Medical Journal 2002, 324: 393-396.
Vermeersch E. Individual rights versus societal duties. Vaccine 1999, 17: S14-S17.
Wolfe RM, Sharp LK, Lipsky MS. Content and design attributes of antivaccination web sites. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 287: 3245-3248.
Wolfe RM, Sharp LK.. Anti-vaccinationists past and present. British Medical Journal 2002, 325: 430-432. Bedford H, Elliman D. Concerns about immunisation. British Medical Journal 2000; 320: 240-243.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the
"Anti-vaccinationist".
Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world