Hubbry Logo
VaccinationVaccinationMain
Open search
Vaccination
Community hub
Vaccination
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Vaccination
Vaccination
Vaccination
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Vaccination
Girl about to be vaccinated in her upper arm
ICD-9-CM99.3-99.5
Part of a series on
Vaccination
General
Vaccines
Issues

Vaccination is the administration of a vaccine to help the immune system develop immunity from a disease. Vaccines contain a microorganism or virus in a weakened, live or killed state, or proteins or toxins from the organism. In stimulating the body's adaptive immunity, they help prevent sickness from an infectious disease. When a sufficiently large percentage of a population has been vaccinated, herd immunity results. Herd immunity protects those who may be immunocompromised and cannot get a vaccine because even a weakened version would harm them.[1]

The effectiveness of vaccination has been widely studied and verified.[2][3][4] Vaccination is the most effective method of preventing infectious diseases;[5][6][7][8] widespread immunity due to vaccination is largely responsible for the worldwide eradication of smallpox and the elimination of diseases such as polio and tetanus from much of the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), vaccination prevents 3.5–5 million deaths per year.[9] A WHO-funded study by The Lancet estimates that, during the 50-year period starting in 1974, vaccination prevented 154 million deaths, including 146 million among children under age 5.[10] However, some diseases have seen rising cases due to relatively low vaccination rates attributable partly to vaccine hesitancy.[11]

The first disease people tried to prevent by inoculation was most likely smallpox, with the first recorded use of variolation occurring in the 16th century in China.[12] It was also the first disease for which a vaccine was produced.[13][14] Although at least six people had used the same principles years earlier, the smallpox vaccine was invented in 1796 by English physician Edward Jenner. He was the first to publish evidence that it was effective and to provide advice on its production.[15] Louis Pasteur furthered the concept through his work in microbiology. The immunization was called vaccination because it was derived from a virus affecting cows (Latin: vacca 'cow').[13][15] Smallpox is a contagious and deadly disease, causing the deaths of 20–60% of infected adults and over 80% of infected children.[16] When smallpox was finally eradicated in 1979, it had already killed an estimated 300–500 million people in the 20th century.[17][18][19]

Vaccination and immunization have a similar meaning in everyday language. This is distinct from inoculation, which uses unweakened live pathogens. Vaccination efforts have been met with some reluctance on scientific, ethical, political, medical safety, and religious grounds, although no major religions oppose vaccination, and some consider it an obligation due to the potential to save lives.[20] In the United States, people may receive compensation for alleged injuries under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Early success brought widespread acceptance, and mass vaccination campaigns have greatly reduced the incidence of many diseases in numerous geographic regions. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists vaccination as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century in the US.[21]

Mechanism of function

[edit]
In Sweden, polio vaccination started in 1957.
A mobile medicine laboratory providing vaccinations against diseases spread by ticks
COVID-19 Vaccination Center of the Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland

Vaccines are a way of artificially activating the immune system to protect against infectious disease. The activation occurs through priming the immune system with an immunogen. Stimulating immune responses with an infectious agent is known as immunization. Vaccination includes various ways of administering immunogens.[22]

Most vaccines are administered before a patient has contracted a disease to help increase future protection. However, some vaccines are administered after the patient already has contracted a disease. Vaccines given after exposure to smallpox are reported to offer some protection from disease or may reduce the severity of disease.[23] The first rabies immunization was given by Louis Pasteur to a child after he was bitten by a rabid dog. Since its discovery, the rabies vaccine has been proven effective in preventing rabies in humans when administered several times over 14 days along with rabies immune globulin and wound care.[24] Other examples include experimental AIDS, cancer[25] and Alzheimer's disease vaccines.[26] Such immunizations aim to trigger an immune response more rapidly and with less harm than natural infection.[27]

Most vaccines are given by injection as they are not absorbed reliably through the intestines. Live attenuated polio, rotavirus, some typhoid, and some cholera vaccines are given orally to produce immunity in the bowel. While vaccination provides a lasting effect, it usually takes several weeks to develop. This differs from passive immunity (the transfer of antibodies, such as in breastfeeding), which has immediate effect.[28]

A vaccine failure is when an organism contracts a disease in spite of being vaccinated against it. Primary vaccine failure occurs when an organism's immune system does not produce antibodies when first vaccinated. Vaccines can fail when several series are given and fail to produce an immune response. The term "vaccine failure" does not necessarily imply that the vaccine is defective. Most vaccine failures are simply due to individual variations in immune response.[29]

Measles infection rate vs. vaccination rate, 1980–2011. Source: WHO

Vaccination versus inoculation

[edit]

The term "inoculation" is often used interchangeably with "vaccination." However, while related, the terms are not synonymous. Vaccination is treatment of an individual with an attenuated (i.e. less virulent) pathogen or other immunogen, whereas inoculation, also called variolation in the context of smallpox prophylaxis, is treatment with unattenuated variola virus taken from a pustule or scab of a smallpox patient into the superficial layers of the skin, commonly the upper arm. Variolation was often done 'arm-to-arm' or, less effectively, 'scab-to-arm', and often caused the patient to become infected with smallpox, which in some cases resulted in severe disease.[30][31]

Vaccinations began in the late 18th century with the work of Edward Jenner and the smallpox vaccine.[32][33][34]

Preventing disease versus preventing infection

[edit]

Some vaccines, like the smallpox vaccine, prevent infection. Their use results in sterilizing immunity and can help eradicate a disease if there is no animal reserve. Other vaccines, including those for COVID-19, help to (temporarily) lower the chance of severe disease for individuals, without necessarily reducing the probability of becoming infected.[35]

Safety

[edit]
Further information: Vaccine hesitancy and Vaccine adverse event
Global smallpox cases from 1920 to 2010. Source: WHO

Vaccine development and approval

[edit]

Just like any medication or procedure, no vaccine can be 100% safe or effective for everyone because each person's body can react differently.[36][37] While minor side effects, such as soreness or low grade fever, are relatively common, serious side effects are very rare and occur in about 1 out of every 100,000 vaccinations and typically involve allergic reactions that can cause hives or difficulty breathing.[38][39]

However, vaccines are the safest they ever have been in history and each vaccine undergoes rigorous clinical trials to ensure their safety and efficacy before approval by authorities such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).[40]

Prior to human testing, vaccines are tested on cell cultures and the results modelled to assess how they will interact with the immune system.[38][40] During the next round of testing, researchers study vaccines in animals, including mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, and monkeys.[38] Vaccines that pass each of these stages of testing are then approved by the public health safety authority (FDA in the United States) to start a three-phase series of human testing, advancing to higher phases only if they are deemed safe and effective at the previous phase. The people in these trials participate voluntarily and are required to prove they understand the purpose of the study and the potential risks.[40]

During phase I trials, a vaccine is tested in a group of about 20 people with the primary goal of assessing the vaccine's safety.[38] Phase II trials expand the testing to include 50 to several hundred people. During this stage, the vaccine's safety continues to be evaluated and researchers also gather data on the effectiveness and the ideal dose of the vaccine.[38] Vaccines determined to be safe and efficacious then advance to phase III trials, which focuses on the efficacy of the vaccine in hundreds to thousands of volunteers. This phase can take several years to complete and researchers use this opportunity to compare the vaccinated volunteers to those who have not been vaccinated to highlight any true reactions to the vaccine that occur.[40]

If a vaccine passes all of the phases of testing, the manufacturer can then apply for license of the vaccine through the relevant regulatory authorities such as the FDA in US. Before regulatory authorities approve use in the general public, they extensively review the results of the clinical trials, safety tests, purity tests, and manufacturing methods and establish that the manufacturer itself is up to government standards in many other areas.[38][41]

After regulatory approval, the regulators continue to monitor the manufacturing protocols, batch purity, and the manufacturing facility itself. Additionally, vaccines also undergo phase IV trials, which monitor the safety and efficacy of vaccines in tens of thousands of people, or more, across many years.[38][41]

Side effects

[edit]

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has compiled a list of vaccines and their possible side effects.[39]

Notable vaccine investigations

[edit]

Dengvaxia, the only approved vaccine for Dengue fever, was found to increase the risk of hospitalization for Dengue fever by 1.58 times in children of 9 years or younger, resulting in the suspension of a mass vaccination program in the Philippines in 2017.[42]

Pandemrix – a vaccine for the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 given to around 31 million people[37] – was found to have a higher level of adverse events than alternative vaccines resulting in legal action.[43] In a response to the narcolepsy reports following immunization with Pandemrix, the CDC carried out a population-based study and found the FDA-approved 2009 H1N1 flu shots were not associated with an increased risk for the neurological disorder.[44]

Ingredients

[edit]

The ingredients of vaccines can vary greatly from one to the next and no two vaccines are the same. The CDC has compiled a list of vaccines and their ingredients that is readily accessible on their website.[45]

Aluminium

[edit]

Aluminium is an adjuvant ingredient in some vaccines. An adjuvant is a type of ingredient that is used to help the body's immune system create a stronger immune response after receiving the vaccination.[46] Aluminium is in a salt form (the ionic version of an element) and is used in the following compounds: aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, and aluminium potassium sulfate. For a given element, the ion form has different properties from the elemental form. Although it is possible to have aluminium toxicity, aluminium salts have been used effectively and safely since the 1930s when they were first used with the diphtheria and tetanus vaccines.[46] Although there is a small increase in the chance of having a local reaction to a vaccine with an aluminium salt (redness, soreness, and swelling), there is no increased risk of any serious reactions.[47][48]

Mercury

[edit]

Certain vaccines once contained a compound called thiomersal or thimerosal, which is an organic compound containing mercury. Organomercury is commonly found in two forms. The methylmercury cation (with one carbon atom) is found in mercury-contaminated fish and is the form that people might ingest in mercury-polluted areas (Minamata disease), whereas the ethylmercury cation (with two carbon atoms) is present in thimerosal, linked to thiosalicylate.[49] Although both are organomercury compounds, they do not have the same chemical properties and interact with the human body differently. Ethylmercury is cleared from the body faster than methylmercury and is less likely to cause toxic effects.[49]

Thimerosal was used as a preservative to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungi in vials that contain more than one dose of a vaccine.[49] This helps reduce the risk of potential infections or serious illness that could occur from contamination of a vaccine vial. Although there was a small increase in risk of injection site redness and swelling with vaccines containing thimerosal, there was no increased risk of serious harm or autism.[50][51] Even though evidence supports the safety and efficacy of thimerosal in vaccines, thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001 as a precaution.[49]

Monitoring

[edit]

CDC Immunization Safety Office initiatives[52]

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)[53] |Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)[54] |Immunization Action Coalition (IAC)[55]

Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)[56] |Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA)[57] |Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP)[58]

Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project National Institutes of Health (NIH)[59]

National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO)[60]

The administration protocols, efficacy, and adverse events of vaccines are monitored by organizations of the US federal government, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.[52] Independent agencies are constantly re-evaluating vaccine practices.[52][61] As with all medications, vaccine use is determined by public health research, surveillance, and reporting to governments and the public.[52][61]

Environmental effects

[edit]

Vaccination from COVID-19, as a large scale industrial process, have significant environmental effects, including creation of hazardous waste, CO2 emission during the manufacture and storage of vaccines. Biodegradable materials and development of green technologies for waste management is suggested to mitigate it. Vaccination require single use personal protective equipment (PPE) like masks, kits, gloves wgich are thrown away after use, and the vaccination from the virus increased the amount of this waste. Ocean Asia, reported presence of 1.56 billion surgical masks in an ocean in Hong Kong, which would take 450 years to degrade. Such waste release dioxins, vinyl chloride. Contaminated PPE have the ability to sustain the SARS-COV-2 up to 21 days in the soil. The impact on climate due to refrigeration of COVID-19 vaccines vary between different types of vaccines - cold storage of Pfizer vaccines generated 35-times more CO2 emission than AstraZeneca, Janseen/Ad26.COV2, and Corona Vac.[62] One study estimated the energy required for produce 15.6 billion vaccines as ~10.8 billion kWh resulting in the emissions of ~5.13 million tons in CO2eq.[63]

Usage

[edit]
Share of children who received key vaccines in 2016[64]
Global vaccination coverage among one year olds (1980–2019)[65]

Vaccination has saved 154 million lives, 95% of whom are children younger than five years of age.[66][67]

The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that vaccination prevents 3.5–5 million deaths per year,[9] and up to 1.5 million children die each year due to diseases that could have been prevented by vaccination.[68] They estimate that 29% of deaths of children under five-years-old in 2013 were vaccine preventable. In other developing parts of the world, they are faced with the challenge of having a decreased availability of resources and vaccinations. Countries such as those in Sub-Saharan Africa cannot afford to provide the full range of childhood vaccinations.[69]

In 2024, a WHO/UNICEF report found "the number of children who received three doses of the vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) in 2023 – a key marker for global immunization coverage – stalled at 84% (108 million). However, the number of children who did not receive a single dose of the vaccine increased from 13.9 million in 2022 to 14.5 million in 2023. More than half of unvaccinated children live in the 31 countries with fragile, conflict-affected and vulnerable settings."[70]

United States

[edit]

Vaccines have led to major decreases in the prevalence of infectious diseases in the United States. In 2007, studies regarding the effectiveness of vaccines on mortality or morbidity rates of those exposed to various diseases found almost 100% decreases in death rates, and about a 90% decrease in exposure rates.[71] Vaccination adoption is reduced among some populations, such as those with low incomes, people with limited access to health care, and members of certain racial and ethnic minorities. Distrust of health-care providers, language barriers, and misleading or false information also contribute to lower adoption, as does anti-vaccine activism.[72]

Most government and private health insurance plans cover recommended vaccines at no charge when received by providers in their networks.[73] The federal Vaccines for Children Program and the Social Security Act are among the major sources of financial support for vaccination of those in lower-income groups.[74][75]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes uniform national vaccine recommendations and immunization schedules, although state and local governments, as well as nongovernmental organizations, may have their own policies.[76]

History

[edit]
Further information: Inoculation § Origins
An 1802 testimonial to the efficacy of vaccination, presented to its pioneer, Edward Jenner, and signed by 112 members of the Physical Society, London

The earliest hints of the practice of variolation for smallpox in China date back to the 10th century.[77] The oldest documented use of variolation comes from Wan Quan's Douzhen Xinfa (痘疹心法), published in 1549. They implemented a method of "nasal insufflation" administered by blowing powdered smallpox material, usually scabs, up the nostrils. Various insufflation techniques have been recorded throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries within China.[78]: 60  Two reports on the Chinese practice of inoculation were received by the Royal Society in London in 1700; one by Martin Lister who received a report by an employee of the East India Company stationed in China and another by Clopton Havers.[79] In France, Voltaire reports that the Chinese have practiced variolation "these hundred years".

In 1796, Edward Jenner, a doctor in Berkeley in Gloucestershire, England, tested a common theory that a person who had contracted cowpox would be immune from smallpox. To test the theory, he took cowpox vesicles from a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes, with which he infected an eight-year-old boy named James Phipps. Two months later he inoculated the boy with smallpox, and smallpox did not develop. In 1798, Jenner published An Inquiry Into the Causes and Effects of the Variolæ Vaccinæ which created widespread interest. He distinguished 'true' and 'spurious' cowpox (which did not give the desired effect) and developed an "arm-to-arm" method of propagating the vaccine from the vaccinated individual's pustule. Early attempts at confirmation were confounded by contamination with smallpox, but despite controversy within the medical profession and religious opposition to the use of animal material, by 1801 his report was translated into six languages and over 100,000 people were vaccinated.[80] The term vaccination was coined in 1800 by the surgeon Richard Dunning in his text Some observations on vaccination.[81]

Queens of Mysore: left, king Krishnaraja Wadiyar III's first wife, Devajammani, right, the king's second wife, also named Devajammani, center: Lakshmi Ammani, the king's grandmother. Thomas Hickey, 1805. The two queens in the painting are thought to advertise vaccination over variolation, as they display the respective traces on their skin: discoloration around the nose and mouth (left, variolation), or a small hidden scar (right, vaccination).[82][83][84]

In 1802, the Scottish physician Helenus Scott vaccinated dozens of children in Bombay against smallpox using Jenner's cowpox vaccine.[85] In the same year Scott penned a letter to the editor in the Bombay Courier, declaring that "We have it now in our power to communicate the benefits of this important discovery to every part of India, perhaps to China and the whole eastern world".[86]: 243  Subsequently, vaccination became firmly established in British India. A vaccination campaign was started in the new British colony of Ceylon in 1803. By 1807 the British had vaccinated more than a million Indians and Sri Lankans against smallpox.[86]: 244  Also in 1803 the Spanish Balmis Expedition launched the first transcontinental effort to vaccinate people against smallpox.[87] Following a smallpox epidemic in 1816 the Kingdom of Nepal ordered smallpox vaccine and requested the English veterinarian William Moorcroft to help in launching a vaccination campaign.[86]: 265–266  In the same year a law was passed in Sweden to require the vaccination of children against smallpox by the age of two. Prussia briefly introduced compulsory vaccination in 1810 and again in the 1920s, but decided against a compulsory vaccination law in 1829. A law on compulsory smallpox vaccination was introduced in the Province of Hanover in the 1820s. In 1826, in Kragujevac, future prince Mihailo of Serbia was the first person to be vaccinated against smallpox in the principality of Serbia.[88] Following a smallpox epidemic in 1837 that caused 40,000 deaths, the British government initiated a concentrated vaccination policy, starting with the Vaccination Act 1840, which provided for universal vaccination and prohibited variolation.[86]: 365  The Vaccination Act 1853 introduced compulsory smallpox vaccination in England and Wales.[89]: 39  The law followed a severe outbreak of smallpox in 1851 and 1852. It provided that the poor law authorities would continue to dispense vaccination to all free of charge, but that records were to be kept on vaccinated children by the network of births registrars.[89]: 41  It was accepted at the time, that voluntary vaccination had not reduced smallpox mortality,[89]: 43  but the Vaccination Act 1853 was so badly implemented that it had little impact on the number of children vaccinated in England and Wales.[89]: 50 

A 1979 poster from Lagos, Nigeria, to promote the worldwide eradication of smallpox[90]: 116 

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld compulsory vaccination laws in the 1905 landmark case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, ruling that laws could require vaccination to protect the public from dangerous communicable diseases. However, in practice the U.S. had the lowest rate of vaccination among industrialized nations in the early 20th century. Compulsory vaccination laws began to be enforced in the U.S. after World War II. In 1959, the WHO called for the eradication of smallpox worldwide, as smallpox was still endemic in 33 countries. In the 1960s six to eight children died each year in the U.S. from vaccination-related complications. According to the WHO there were in 1966 about 100 million cases of smallpox worldwide, causing an estimated two million deaths. In the 1970s there was such a small risk of contracting smallpox that the U.S. Public Health Service recommended for routine smallpox vaccination to be ended. By 1974 the WHO smallpox vaccination program had confined smallpox to parts of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Somalia. In 1977 the WHO recorded the last case of smallpox infection acquired outside a laboratory in Somalia. In 1980 the WHO officially declared the world free of smallpox.[90]: 115–116 

In 1974 the WHO adopted the goal of universal vaccination by 1990 to protect children against six preventable infectious diseases: measles, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and tuberculosis.[90]: 119  In the 1980s only 20 to 40% of children in developing countries were vaccinated against these six diseases. In wealthy nations the number of measles cases had dropped dramatically after the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963. WHO figures demonstrate that in many countries a decline in measles vaccination leads to a resurgence in measles cases. Measles are so contagious that public health experts believe a vaccination rate of 100% is needed to control the disease.[90]: 120  Despite decades of mass vaccination polio remains a threat in India, Nigeria, Somalia, Niger, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. By 2006 global health experts concluded that the eradication of polio was only possible if the supply of drinking water and sanitation facilities were improved in slums.[90]: 124  The deployment of a combined DPT vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus in the 1950s was considered a major advancement for public health. But in the course of vaccination campaigns that spanned decades, DPT vaccines became associated with large number of cases with side effects. Despite improved DPT vaccines coming onto the market in the 1990s DPT vaccines became the focus of anti-vaccination campaigns in wealthy nations. As immunization rates fell outbreaks of pertussis increased in many countries.[90]: 128 

In 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization was established to strengthen routine vaccinations and introduce new and underused vaccines in countries with a per capita GDP of under US$1,000.[91]

UNICEF has reported on the extent to which children missed out on vaccinations from 2020 onwards due to the COVID-19 pandemic. By summer 2023, the organisation described vaccination programs as getting "back on track".[92]

Vaccination policy

[edit]
Main article: Vaccination policy
Vaccination rate by US state, including exemptions allowed by state in 2017

To eliminate the risk of outbreaks of some diseases, at various times governments and other institutions have employed policies requiring vaccination for all people. For example, an 1853 law required universal vaccination against smallpox in England and Wales, with fines levied on people who did not comply.[93] Common contemporary U.S. vaccination policies require that children receive recommended vaccinations before entering public school.[94]

Beginning with early vaccination in the nineteenth century, these policies were resisted by a variety of groups, collectively called antivaccinationists, who object on scientific, ethical, political, medical safety, religious, and other grounds.[95] Common objections are that vaccinations do not work, that compulsory vaccination constitutes excessive government intervention in personal matters, or that the proposed vaccinations are not sufficiently safe.[96] Many modern vaccination policies allow exemptions for people who have compromised immune systems, allergies to the components used in vaccinations or strongly held objections.[97]

In countries with limited financial resources, limited vaccination coverage results in greater morbidity and mortality due to infectious disease.[98] More affluent countries are able to subsidize vaccinations for at-risk groups, resulting in more comprehensive and effective coverage. In Australia, for example, the Government subsidizes vaccinations for seniors and indigenous Australians.[99]

Public Health Law Research, an independent US based organization, reported in 2009 that there is insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of requiring vaccinations as a condition for specified jobs as a means of reducing incidence of specific diseases among particularly vulnerable populations;[100] that there is sufficient evidence supporting the effectiveness of requiring vaccinations as a condition for attending child care facilities and schools;[101] and that there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of standing orders, which allow healthcare workers without prescription authority to administer vaccine as a public health intervention.[102]

Fractional dose vaccination

[edit]

Fractional dose vaccination reduces the dose of a vaccine to allow more individuals to be vaccinated with a given vaccine stock, trading societal benefit for individual protection. Based on the nonlinearity properties of many vaccines, it is effective in poverty diseases[103] and promises benefits in pandemic waves, e.g. in COVID-19,[104] when vaccine supply is limited.

Litigation

[edit]

Allegations of vaccine injuries in recent decades have appeared in litigation in the U.S. Some families have won substantial awards from sympathetic juries, even though most public health officials have said that the claims of injuries were unfounded.[105] In response, several vaccine makers stopped production, which the US government believed could be a threat to public health, so laws were passed to shield manufacturers from liabilities stemming from vaccine injury claims.[105] The safety and side effects of multiple vaccines have been tested to uphold the viability of vaccines as a barrier against disease. The influenza vaccine was tested in controlled trials and proven to have negligible side effects equal to that of a placebo.[106] Some concerns from families might have arisen from social beliefs and norms that cause them to mistrust or refuse vaccinations, contributing to this discrepancy in side effects that were unfounded.[107]

Opposition

[edit]
Global survey across 67 countries responding to the question: "Overall I think vaccines are safe". This image depicts the distribution of responses that replied "Strongly disagree" or "Tend to disagree" with the previous statement.[108]
Main article: Vaccine hesitancy

Opposition to vaccination, from a wide array of vaccine critics, has existed since the earliest vaccination campaigns.[96] It is widely accepted that the benefits of preventing serious illness and death from infectious diseases greatly outweigh the risks of rare serious adverse effects following immunization.[109] Some studies have claimed to show that current vaccine schedules increase infant mortality and hospitalization rates;[110][111] those studies, however, are correlational in nature and therefore cannot demonstrate causal effects, and the studies have also been criticized for cherry picking the comparisons they report, for ignoring historical trends that support an opposing conclusion, and for counting vaccines in a manner that is "completely arbitrary and riddled with mistakes".[112][113]

Various disputes have arisen over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination. Some vaccination critics say that vaccines are ineffective against disease[114] or that vaccine safety studies are inadequate.[114] Some religious groups do not allow vaccination,[115] and some political groups oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of individual liberty.[96] In response, concern has been raised that spreading unfounded information about the medical risks of vaccines increases rates of life-threatening infections, not only in the children whose parents refused vaccinations, but also in those who cannot be vaccinated due to age or immunodeficiency, who could contract infections from unvaccinated carriers (see herd immunity).[116] Some parents believe vaccinations cause autism, although there is no scientific evidence to support this idea.[117] In 2011, Andrew Wakefield, a leading proponent of the theory that MMR vaccine causes autism, was found to have been financially motivated to falsify research data and was subsequently stripped of his medical license.[118] In the United States people who refuse vaccines for non-medical reasons have made up a large percentage of the cases of measles, and subsequent cases of permanent hearing loss and death caused by the disease.[119]

Many parents do not vaccinate their children because they feel that diseases are no longer present due to vaccination.[120] This is a false assumption, since diseases held in check by immunization programs can and do still return if immunization is dropped. These pathogens could possibly infect vaccinated people, due to the pathogen's ability to mutate when it is able to live in unvaccinated hosts.[121][122]

Vaccination and autism

[edit]
Main article: Vaccines and autism

The notion of a connection between vaccines and autism originated in a 1998 paper whose lead author was the physician Andrew Wakefield. His study concluded that eight of the twelve patients, aged three years of age to 10 years of age, developed behavioral symptoms consistent with autism following the administration of the MMR vaccine (an immunization against measles, mumps, and rubella).[123] The article was widely criticized for lack of scientific rigor and it was proven that Wakefield falsified data in the article.[123] In 2004, 10 of the original 12 co-authors (not including Wakefield) published a retraction of the article and stated the following: "We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient."[124] In 2010, The Lancet officially retracted the article, stating that several elements of the article were incorrect, including falsified data and protocols. The article has sparked a much greater anti-vaccination movement, particularly in the United States, and even though the article was shown to be fraudulent and was heavily retracted, one in four parents still believe that vaccines can cause autism.[125]

All validated and definitive studies have shown that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism.[126] One of the studies published in 2015 confirms there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Infants were given a health plan, that included an MMR vaccine, and were continuously studied until they reached five years old. There was no link between the vaccine and children who had a normally developed sibling or a sibling that had autism making them a higher risk for developing autism themselves.[127]

It can be difficult to correct the memory of humans when wrong information is received prior to correct information. Even though there is much evidence to go against the Wakefield study and retractions were published by most of the co-authors, many people continue to believe and base decisions on the study as it still lingers in their memory. Studies and research are being conducted to determine effective ways to correct misinformation in the public memory.[128]

Routes of administration

[edit]
See also: Vaccination schedule

A vaccine administration may be oral, by injection (intramuscular, intradermal, subcutaneous), by puncture, transdermal or intranasal.[129] Several recent clinical trials have aimed to deliver the vaccines via mucosal surfaces to be up-taken by the common mucosal immunity system, thus avoiding the need for injections.[130]

Economics of vaccination

[edit]

Health is often used as one of the metrics for determining the economic prosperity of a country. This is because healthier individuals are generally better suited to contributing to the economic development of a country than the sick.[131] There are many reasons for this. For instance, a person who is vaccinated for influenza not only protects themselves from the risk of influenza, but simultaneously also prevents themselves from infecting those around them.[132] This leads to a healthier society, which allows individuals to be more economically productive. Children are consequently able to attend school more often and have been shown to do better academically. Similarly, adults are able to work more often, more efficiently, and more effectively.[131][133]

Costs and benefits

[edit]

On the whole, vaccinations induce a net benefit to society. Vaccines are often noted for their high Return on investment (ROI) values, especially when considering the long-term effects.[134] Some vaccines have much higher ROI values than others. Studies have shown that the ratios of vaccination benefits to costs can differ substantially—from 27:1 for diphtheria/pertussis, to 13.5:1 for measles, 4.76:1 for varicella, and 0.68–1.1: 1 for pneumococcal conjugate.[132] Some governments choose to subsidize the costs of vaccines, due to some of the high ROI values attributed to vaccinations. The United States subsidizes over half of all vaccines for children, which costs between $400 and $600 each. Although most children do get vaccinated, the adult population of the US is still below the recommended immunization levels. Many factors can be attributed to this issue. Many adults who have other health conditions are unable to be safely immunized, whereas others opt not to be immunized for the sake of private financial benefits. Many Americans are underinsured, and, as such, are required to pay for vaccines out-of-pocket. Others are responsible for paying high deductibles and co-pays. Although vaccinations usually induce long-term economic benefits, many governments struggle to pay the high short-term costs associated with labor and production. Consequently, many countries neglect to provide such services.[132]

According to a 2021 paper, vaccinations against haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, rotavirus, rubella, streptococcus pneumoniae, and yellow fever have prevented an estimated 50 million deaths from 2000 to 2019.[135] The paper "represents the largest assessment of vaccine impact before COVID-19-related disruptions".[135] According to a June 2022 study, COVID‑19 vaccinations prevented an additional 14.4 to 19.8 million deaths in 185 countries and territories from 8 December 2020 to 8 December 2021.[136][137]

They estimated that it would cost between $2.8 billion and $3.7 billion to develop at least one vaccine for each of them. This should be set against the potential cost of an outbreak. The 2003 SARS outbreak in East Asia cost $54 billion.[138]

Game theory uses utility functions to model costs and benefits, which may include financial and non-financial costs and benefits. In recent years, it has been argued that game theory can effectively be used to model vaccine uptake in societies. Researchers have used game theory for this purpose to analyse vaccination uptake in the context of diseases such as influenza and measles.[139]

[edit]
  • Dr Jenner performing his first vaccination on James Phipps, a boy of age 8. 14 May 1796. Painting by Ernest Board (early 20th century)
    Dr Jenner performing his first vaccination on James Phipps, a boy of age 8. 14 May 1796. Painting by Ernest Board (early 20th century)
  • James Gillray's The Cow-Pock—or—the Wonderful Effects of the New Inoculation!, an 1802 caricature of vaccinated patients who feared it would make them sprout cowlike appendages
    James Gillray's The Cow-Pock—or—the Wonderful Effects of the New Inoculation!, an 1802 caricature of vaccinated patients who feared it would make them sprout cowlike appendages
  • La vaccine or Le préjugé vaincu by Louis-Léopold Boilly, 1807
    La vaccine or Le préjugé vaincu by Louis-Léopold Boilly, 1807
  • A doctor vaccinating a small girl, other girls with loosened blouses wait their turn apprehensively by Lance Calkin
    A doctor vaccinating a small girl, other girls with loosened blouses wait their turn apprehensively by Lance Calkin
  • German caricature showing von Behring extracting the serum with a tap
    German caricature showing von Behring extracting the serum with a tap
  • Les Malheurs de la Vaccine (The history of vaccination seen from an economic point of view: A pharmacy up for sale; an outmoded inoculist selling his premises; Jenner, to the left, pursues a skeleton with a lancet)
    Les Malheurs de la Vaccine (The history of vaccination seen from an economic point of view: A pharmacy up for sale; an outmoded inoculist selling his premises; Jenner, to the left, pursues a skeleton with a lancet)

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Vaccination

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Vaccination is the process of administering a —a biological preparation containing antigens derived from a —to elicit an adaptive that confers protection against subsequent infection by that . This response typically involves the production of antibodies and memory cells by B and T lymphocytes, mimicking natural infection but without causing disease, thereby enabling the to recognize and neutralize the more rapidly upon future exposure. Originating from observations of milkmaids immune to due to prior exposure, the practice was pioneered by in 1796 through the inoculation of material into an 8-year-old boy, demonstrating cross-protection against variolation. Subsequent advancements expanded vaccination to numerous diseases, culminating in the global eradication of in 1980 after a WHO-led campaign that vaccinated billions and eliminated the last natural cases by 1977. Vaccines have similarly reduced incidence by over 99% since 1988, from hundreds of thousands of cases annually to fewer than 100 in recent years, and have averted an estimated 154 million deaths over the past 50 years through routine programs targeting , , , and other pathogens. These achievements stem from causal mechanisms where vaccines interrupt transmission chains, lowering thresholds and preventing outbreaks, as evidenced by correlations between vaccination coverage and disease decline in peer-reviewed analyses. Despite these successes, vaccination remains contentious, with historical and ongoing debates over rare adverse effects such as , Guillain-Barré , or intussusception linked to specific vaccines in empirical studies, though population-level data indicate benefits far exceed risks for most approved formulations. Opposition has included concerns about over-vaccination, waning immunity requiring boosters, and policy mandates that raise issues, amplified by isolated cases of vaccine-enhanced or manufacturing errors, prompting scrutiny of regulatory oversight and long-term safety monitoring. Empirical assessments, including post-licensure surveillance, underscore the need for rigorous determination beyond , balancing individual risks against communal gains in control.

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Principles

Vaccination refers to the process of administering a —a biological preparation containing antigens derived from a —to elicit an active in the recipient, thereby conferring against subsequent or disease caused by that . This response mimics the immunological effects of natural but in a controlled manner that avoids the pathogen's full pathogenic potential, typically through , inactivation, or isolation of immunogenic components. The term originates from Edward Jenner's 1796 use of material to protect against , establishing the practice's empirical foundation in inducing cross-protective immunity. At its core, vaccination operates on the principle of priming the to generate specific, long-lasting defenses without causing illness. Antigens in the are processed by antigen-presenting cells, activating T helper cells that orchestrate production of pathogen-specific antibodies and cytotoxic T cells for cellular clearance. This leads to immunological memory, enabling rapid secondary responses—such as high-affinity antibody secretion and effector cell mobilization—upon re-exposure, often preventing severe outcomes even if occurs. Unlike passive , which transfers exogenous antibodies for short-term protection, induces endogenous, self-sustaining immunity that can persist for years or decades, depending on the , design, and host factors. Key principles include specificity, ensuring targeted responses to minimize off-target effects, and balanced against safety, where formulations are engineered to trigger sufficient innate immune activation (via receptors) without excessive . Protection is not absolute; reduce incidence and severity through probabilistic immune recall rather than guaranteed sterilization of , with efficacy measured via clinical trials assessing endpoints like symptom prevention or transmission blockade. Empirical validation requires rigorous testing, as immune correlates of protection—such as neutralizing antibody titers—vary across , underscoring the need for ongoing surveillance of waning immunity and evolution.

Vaccination Versus Inoculation and Natural Immunity

historically denotes the deliberate introduction of pathogenic material from an infected individual to stimulate immunity, as in for , a practice documented in , , and centuries before the . This method involved abrading the skin and applying dried scabs or pus containing live variola virus, conferring partial protection but with a case-fatality rate of 1-2% and risk of disseminating the disease to contacts. Vaccination, coined after Edward Jenner's 1796 experiment using vesicle fluid to protect against , represents a safer variant of by employing a , attenuated that cross-protects without . Jenner's approach reduced mortality risks near zero while achieving comparable immunity, leading to the term's expansion in modern usage to describe administration of any processed —live-attenuated, inactivated, subunit, or mRNA-encoded—to elicit targeted responses. Although "" and "vaccination" are sometimes used interchangeably today, the latter emphasizes engineered safety over crude transfer. Natural immunity, acquired via survival of wild-type , differs fundamentally by exposing the host to the complete repertoire, generating broad humoral, cellular, and mucosal responses often durable for life. For , natural yields sterilizing, lifelong immunity in nearly all cases, whereas two doses of live-attenuated prevent severe outcomes in 97% but permit waning antibody titers over 20-30 years, with breakthrough infections possible amid high exposure. Tetanus exemplifies limitations of natural exposure: rarely induces protective levels due to low yields in wounds, necessitating toxoid vaccination for reliable defense, as serological surveys show <10% seropositivity post- without immunization. Empirical comparisons reveal natural immunity's edge in breadth and duration for respiratory pathogens like SARS-CoV-2, where a 2021 cohort study of 687,000 individuals found prior infection associated with 13.06-fold lower reinfection risk versus two-dose vaccination over six months, attributed to diverse epitope recognition absent in spike-focused vaccines. Hybrid immunity—combining infection and vaccination—further enhances neutralization against variants, outperforming either alone in durability up to 20 months. Yet natural acquisition incurs acute risks, including 0.5-1% mortality for measles pre-vaccination and long-term sequelae like encephalitis, underscoring vaccination's causal advantage in averting pathology while approximating key immune effectors. For toxin-mediated diseases, vaccines uniquely provide causal protection infeasible via natural routes.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Practices

Practices antecedent to modern vaccination primarily involved variolation, a technique of deliberate infection with smallpox (Variola major) material to induce a milder form of the disease and subsequent immunity, though with inherent risks of full-blown infection and transmission. This method emerged independently in multiple regions, with the earliest documented evidence from China in the mid-16th century, though oral traditions suggest practices dating back centuries earlier, potentially to the 10th century or before. Variolation conferred protection against severe smallpox in survivors, with case-fatality rates estimated at 1-2% compared to 20-30% in natural infections, but it required careful selection of mild-case donors to minimize dangers. In China, the predominant technique by the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) entailed grinding dried smallpox scabs into powder and insufflating it into the nostrils via a bamboo tube, often combined with herbal preparations to modulate the response. This nasal method, described in Wan Quan's 1549 treatise Douzhen Xinfa, aimed to provoke a localized pustular reaction leading to immunity, succeeding in approximately 95% of cases among healthy recipients, primarily children. Empirical observation drove its adoption, as families noted reduced household mortality from recurrent epidemics, though uncontrolled outbreaks occasionally resulted from variolated individuals developing virulent strains. Similar scarification-based variolation appeared in India, where practitioners rubbed pulverized scabs or vesicular fluid into superficial skin incisions or applied it to the tongue, a method potentially traceable to ancient Ayurvedic traditions but without pre-16th-century textual corroboration. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, such as among the Fulani and other pastoral groups, the process involved lancing the skin and introducing pus from active lesions, leveraging communal knowledge of attenuated exposure to mitigate seasonal epidemics. These regional variants shared a causal logic: controlled viral exposure harnessed the body's adaptive response, evidenced by post-variolation scarring and resistance to reinfection, yet lacked standardization and carried variable efficacy tied to viral strain virulence and host factors. By the 17th century, variolation had diffused through trade routes to the and Central Asia, where it was observed by European travelers, setting the stage for Western adoption in the early 1700s. Despite successes in lowering incidence—such as in Qing Dynasty China, where imperial edicts promoted it amid devastating outbreaks—the practice's risks, including iatrogenic epidemics, underscored limitations absent rigorous isolation of avirulent agents. Pre-modern efforts thus represented pragmatic empirical interventions, prioritizing survival in endemic zones over safety, with no evidence of systematic application to other pathogens beyond smallpox.

18th-19th Century Breakthroughs

In 1796, English physician Edward Jenner developed the first vaccine against smallpox by leveraging observations that milkmaids exposed to cowpox appeared protected from the more lethal human smallpox. On May 14, Jenner inoculated eight-year-old James Phipps with pus extracted from cowpox lesions on the hand of milkmaid Sarah Nelmes, who had contracted the milder disease from a cow named Blossom. Six weeks later, on July 1, Jenner variolated Phipps with smallpox material, observing no disease development, thus demonstrating immunity transfer from cowpox to smallpox. Jenner coined the term "vaccine" from the Latin vacca (cow) and published his findings in 1798 as An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae, a seminal work detailing 23 successful cases. Jenner's method rapidly disseminated across Europe and the Americas, supplanting riskier variolation practices, though early arm-to-arm human transmission of vaccine material raised contamination concerns, prompting shifts to calf lymph production by the early 19th century for safer, standardized supply. By 1801, vaccination reached as far as the and India, with British physician Edward Daniel Clarke introducing it to the . Governments mandated smallpox vaccination in places like Denmark (1810) and Sweden (1811), marking early public health interventions, while opposition arose over fears of bovine traits manifesting in humans, as satirized in James Gillray's 1802 caricature The Cow-Pock. In the late 19th century, French microbiologist advanced vaccine science by developing attenuated pathogen techniques applicable to bacterial and viral diseases. In 1881, Pasteur demonstrated an anthrax vaccine at Pouilly-le-Fort, France, where 25 vaccinated sheep survived injection with virulent Bacillus anthracis, while 25 unvaccinated controls perished, validating oxygen-based attenuation for livestock protection. Building on this, Pasteur pioneered a in 1885 using desiccated rabbit spinal cord to progressively weaken the neurotropic virus; on July 6, he administered the first human series to nine-year-old Joseph Meister, bitten by a rabid dog, saving him from near-certain death through 14 escalating doses over 10 days. These innovations established pasteurization-attenuation principles, influencing subsequent vaccines like those for (1896) and (1896), though Pasteur's rabies method carried risks of post-vaccination neurological complications in some cases.

20th Century Expansion and Eradication Efforts

The early 20th century saw the development of vaccines against bacterial diseases, including diphtheria toxoid in 1923, pertussis in 1926, and tetanus toxoid in 1927, which were later combined into the DTP vaccine in the 1940s for widespread childhood immunization programs. These advances built on prior work and facilitated routine vaccination in developed nations, reducing incidence of these illnesses through national campaigns. Mid-century breakthroughs included Jonas Salk's inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) licensed in 1955 following large-scale field trials involving over 1.8 million children, which dramatically curbed polio epidemics in the United States and elsewhere. Albert Sabin's live oral polio vaccine (OPV), introduced in the early 1960s, further expanded global accessibility due to its ease of administration in mass campaigns. Viral vaccines proliferated in the 1960s, with John Enders' measles vaccine licensed in 1963, mumps in 1967, and rubella in 1969, culminating in the combined in 1971, which targeted multiple childhood diseases simultaneously. These developments coincided with international efforts to scale vaccination globally; the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) in 1974, initially focusing on six diseases—tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, and measles—to achieve universal childhood coverage in developing countries where immunization rates were below 5%. By integrating vaccination into primary health care, EPI enabled mass immunization drives, averting an estimated 154 million deaths over the subsequent decades through improved coverage and logistics. Eradication efforts marked a pinnacle of 20th-century vaccination achievements, particularly for smallpox. The WHO intensified its global campaign in 1967, shifting from mass vaccination to targeted surveillance and containment strategies, vaccinating over 80% of populations in endemic areas and isolating cases with ring vaccination. The last naturally occurring case was reported in Somalia on October 26, 1977, leading to the WHO's declaration of smallpox eradication on May 8, 1980, after verification of no transmission for two years. This success, the first for a human infectious disease, relied on coordinated international funding, standardized freeze-dried vaccines, and bifurcated needles for efficient delivery, reducing annual global cases from millions to zero. Polio campaigns advanced similarly, with OPV drives in the Americas and Europe eliminating indigenous transmission by the late 20th century, though full global eradication remained elusive into the 21st century. These initiatives demonstrated vaccination's potential for disease elimination when supported by robust surveillance, political commitment, and equitable distribution.

21st Century Innovations and Setbacks

![Anti-COVID-19 Vaccination Center GUMed Gdansk Poland][float-right] The 21st century witnessed significant advancements in vaccine technology, including the introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in 2006, which target the primary cause of cervical cancer and other HPV-associated malignancies. Gardasil, approved by the FDA on June 8, 2006, demonstrated over 90% efficacy in preventing HPV types 16 and 18 infections, leading to substantial reductions in precancerous cervical lesions among vaccinated populations; by 2016, HPV prevalence in U.S. females aged 14-19 dropped by 86%. Similarly, rotavirus vaccines like RotaTeq, licensed in 2006, reduced severe gastroenteritis hospitalizations by 85-98% in infants, averting millions of deaths globally from diarrheal disease. Conjugate pneumococcal vaccines evolved from PCV7 in 2000 to PCV13 in 2010, expanding serotype coverage and decreasing invasive pneumococcal disease incidence by up to 90% in children under 5 in high-income countries. A landmark innovation was the deployment of mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, building on research from the 1960s through lipid nanoparticle delivery systems refined in the 2000s. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received emergency use authorization on December 11, 2020, followed by on December 18, 2020, enabling rapid production and initial efficacy rates of 94-95% against symptomatic infection in trials. This platform's flexibility allowed adaptation to variants, though real-world data revealed limited prevention of transmission and the need for boosters due to waning antibody responses within months. Viral vector vaccines, such as , authorized in late 2020, complemented mRNA approaches but faced manufacturing scale-up challenges. Setbacks included heightened vaccine hesitancy, amplified by social media and lingering distrust from early-century controversies like unsubstantiated claims of -induced infertility and autoimmune disorders, despite extensive safety monitoring showing no causal links beyond rare events. The COVID-19 response exacerbated divisions, with mandates in various countries correlating with public backlash and declining trust; surveys indicated a rise in beliefs that vaccines are unsafe, from 10-20% pre-pandemic to higher in some demographics post-2021. Adverse events, though rare, gained prominence: mRNA vaccines linked to myocarditis/pericarditis at rates of approximately 1-10 per 100,000 doses, highest in males aged 12-29 after the second dose (up to 70 cases per million). Viral vector vaccines like Janssen's were associated with thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) at 3-15 cases per million doses, prompting usage restrictions. These issues, combined with variant-driven breakthrough infections and equitable distribution failures—where high-income nations secured 70% of early doses—underscored limitations in global coordination and overreliance on novel platforms without long-term immunogenicity data.

Vaccine Technologies

Types and Mechanisms of Action

Vaccines are categorized by their composition and method of inducing an immune response, primarily through mimicking pathogen exposure to stimulate antibody production, T-cell activation, and immunological memory without causing full disease. The core mechanism across types involves presenting antigens—proteins, polysaccharides, or nucleic acids derived from pathogens—to the immune system, triggering B-cell maturation into plasma cells for humoral immunity and cytotoxic T-cells for cellular immunity. This process relies on antigen-presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, processing and displaying epitopes via major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules to naive lymphocytes, leading to clonal expansion and affinity maturation in germinal centers. Efficacy depends on the vaccine's ability to generate long-lived memory cells, though duration varies by type and pathogen. Live attenuated vaccines use weakened pathogens that replicate at low levels in the host, closely replicating natural infection to elicit robust, balanced humoral and cellular responses. Examples include the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, derived from passaged viruses adapted to non-human cells, and the oral polio vaccine (OPV), which contains Sabin strains mutated to reduce neurovirulence. These induce secretory IgA at mucosal sites and systemic IgG, with lifelong immunity often achieved after one or two doses, as seen in measles where two doses confer 97% efficacy against infection. However, they pose rare risks of reversion to virulence, as in OPV-associated paralytic polio (1 in 2.4 million doses).70243-7/fulltext) Inactivated vaccines contain killed whole pathogens or extracts, unable to replicate, thus safer for immunocompromised individuals but often requiring adjuvants and boosters for sustained immunity focused more on humoral responses. The inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), developed by Salk in 1955 using formalin-inactivated Mahoney strain, prevents viremia via circulating antibodies but less effectively mucosal immunity compared to OPV. Hepatitis A vaccine, using formalin-inactivated virus grown in cell culture, achieves 94-100% seroprotection after two doses, waning minimally over decades. These primarily stimulate Th2-biased responses with IgG production, though cellular immunity is weaker without replication. Subunit, recombinant, and conjugate vaccines target specific pathogen components, avoiding whole-organism risks and enabling precise immunity. Recombinant protein vaccines, like hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) produced in yeast via plasmid expression, induce anti-HBs antibodies protective against chronic infection, with 95% efficacy in healthy adults after three doses. Polysaccharide conjugate vaccines, such as pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13), link bacterial capsular polysaccharides to carrier proteins (e.g., CRM197 diphtheria toxoid) to convert T-independent antigens into T-dependent ones, boosting memory B-cells and efficacy in infants from 60-80% for non-conjugates to over 90%. These mechanisms enhance opsonophagocytosis via complement-fixing antibodies. Toxoid vaccines inactivate bacterial toxins with formaldehyde, as in tetanus toxoid, neutralizing toxin-mediated pathology through antitoxin IgG, effective at 95% with boosters every 10 years. Nucleic acid and viral vector vaccines represent newer platforms delivering genetic instructions for antigen production. mRNA vaccines, such as those for SARS-CoV-2 using lipid nanoparticles to encapsulate nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding spike protein, enable host cells to translate antigen in situ, eliciting both humoral (neutralizing antibodies) and cellular (CD8+ T-cells) responses; phase 3 trials showed 95% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 in 2020. Viral vector vaccines, like the adenovirus-26 (Ad26) vectored Ebola vaccine (rVSV-ZEBOV), insert pathogen genes into replication-incompetent vectors for transient expression, inducing strong CD8+ responses; it demonstrated 100% efficacy in a 2019-2020 ring vaccination trial. DNA vaccines use plasmid DNA electroporated or injected to transfect cells, though less immunogenic in humans, requiring adjuvants. These bypass pathogen cultivation but may face pre-existing immunity to vectors reducing efficacy.

Routes of Administration and Delivery Innovations

Vaccines are administered via several primary routes to optimize immune response while minimizing risks, with intramuscular (IM) injection being the most common for inactivated and subunit vaccines such as those for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP), human papillomavirus (HPV), and influenza, delivering antigens directly into muscle tissue for efficient uptake by antigen-presenting cells. Subcutaneous (SC) administration, used for live vaccines like measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella, involves injection into the fatty layer beneath the skin, providing slower absorption suitable for replicating antigens. Intradermal (ID) delivery targets the skin's dermis, rich in immune cells, enabling dose-sparing effects—up to 80% reduction in antigen volume for rabies and hepatitis B vaccines—while eliciting comparable or superior antibody responses due to enhanced dendritic cell activation, as demonstrated in trials for influenza and BCG tuberculosis vaccines. Oral (PO) and intranasal (NAS) routes offer mucosal immunity advantages, mimicking natural infection paths; the oral polio vaccine (OPV), administered as drops, induces gut immunity critical for interrupting fecal-oral transmission, though it carries a rare reversion risk leading to vaccine-derived poliovirus. The live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), given nasally as a spray, stimulates respiratory mucosal IgA responses, providing equivalent protection to IM formulations in children but with variable efficacy in adults due to factors like pre-existing immunity. These non-injectable routes reduce needle phobia and sharps injuries but require intact mucosal barriers and may face stability challenges in antigen formulation. Delivery innovations aim to enhance accessibility, thermostability, and immunogenicity while addressing injection-related barriers. Microneedle (MN) patches, arrays of micron-scale projections (50-900 μm), dissolve or coat-deliver vaccines painlessly through the stratum corneum into the viable epidermis, achieving dose-sparing and robust T-cell responses comparable to IM routes in preclinical models for and , with 3D-printed variants improving scalability for global distribution. Needle-free systems, such as jet injectors using high-pressure liquid streams, penetrate skin without hypodermics, boosting DNA vaccine immunogenicity via broader dispersion and eliminating needlestick risks, as shown in enhanced protective efficacy against viral challenges. Recent non-invasive advances include stabilized nasal formulations for broader pathogens and nanocarrier-enhanced oral delivery to overcome gastrointestinal degradation, potentially expanding to self-administered formats for pandemics, though clinical translation lags due to manufacturing and regulatory hurdles. These technologies prioritize empirical immunogenicity data over unproven equity claims, with efficacy verified through randomized trials rather than modeling alone.

Efficacy Evaluation

Clinical and Pre-Licensure Assessment

Vaccine candidates undergo rigorous pre-licensure assessment through phased clinical trials following investigational new drug (IND) application approval by regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Phase 1 trials involve 20 to 100 healthy volunteers to evaluate initial safety, dosage, and immunogenicity, focusing on immune response markers like antibody levels rather than clinical disease prevention. These trials identify acute adverse reactions but are limited in detecting rarer events due to small sample sizes. Phase 2 trials expand to hundreds of participants, refining dosing regimens, assessing immunogenicity in target populations, and monitoring safety over longer periods, often including placebo or active controls. Efficacy signals emerge here through surrogate endpoints, such as serological correlates of protection (e.g., neutralizing antibodies), which may substitute for direct clinical outcomes when established historical data links them to disease prevention, as seen in approvals for certain influenza or hepatitis vaccines. However, reliance on immunogenicity assumes a predictive correlation, which varies by pathogen and may not fully capture real-world protection against infection or transmission. Phase 3 trials, the pivotal stage for licensure, enroll thousands to tens of thousands in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs to measure clinical efficacy—typically reduction in confirmed cases—and broader safety profiles. Primary endpoints prioritize relative risk reduction in symptomatic illness, with statistical powering aimed at common outcomes; for instance, trials must demonstrate statistically significant efficacy (often >50% against endpoints like or severe ) while tracking adverse events at rates exceeding background incidence. Manufacturing consistency and facility inspections occur concurrently, culminating in a biologics license application (BLA) review by the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which verifies and benefit-risk balance before approval. Despite these assessments, pre-licensure trials face inherent constraints: they are underpowered for adverse events rarer than 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 doses, as sample sizes prioritize detection over exhaustive enumeration, necessitating post-licensure for events like or Guillain-Barré syndrome observed at population scales. Trials often span months to a few years, limiting insight into long-term effects or waning immunity, and may exclude vulnerable subgroups (e.g., immunocompromised individuals) or real-world confounders like comorbidities, potentially overestimating generalizability. Ethical constraints prevent use indefinitely in high-burden diseases, shortening comparative arms and relying on non-inferiority designs against existing vaccines.

Real-World Effectiveness Data

![Global-smallpox-cases.png][float-right] Real-world effectiveness of is assessed through post-licensure observational studies, including cohort, case-control, and test-negative designs, which measure effectiveness (VE) as the reduction in disease incidence among vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. For , vaccination campaigns led to a dramatic decline in cases; global incidence fell from an estimated 50 million cases annually in the early 1950s to zero by 1977, culminating in eradication certified by the in 1980, with VE estimates exceeding 95% against severe disease in controlled studies. Polio vaccines demonstrated high real-world efficacy, particularly the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and oral polio vaccine (OPV); in the United States, widespread vaccination reduced annual cases from over 35,000 in 1952 to fewer than 100 by 1965, with VE against paralytic polio reaching 90-100% for full-dose series in population-level data. Globally, polio cases dropped 99% from 350,000 in 1988 to 22 wild poliovirus cases in 2017, attributed to vaccination coverage exceeding 80% in most regions, though OPV-associated vaccine-derived poliovirus cases highlight rare reversion risks. Measles vaccination has shown VE of 93% with one dose and 97% with two doses against in outbreak settings, correlating with reduced global cases; prior to widespread use, the U.S. reported 3-4 million cases yearly, dropping to 86 cases in 2016 amid 91% coverage, while worldwide, a 57% increase in first-dose coverage from 2000-2017 averted an estimated 23.2 million deaths. However, outbreaks persist in low-coverage areas, with R0 values indicating thresholds around 95%, underscoring coverage gaps. For pertussis, real-world VE wanes over time; initial acellular vaccine efficacy is 80-90% against mild disease but drops to 40-60% after 4-5 years, contributing to resurgent epidemics despite high coverage, as seen in the U.S. with cases rising from 1,010 in 1976 to 48,277 in 2012. mRNA vaccines exhibited initial VE of 88-95% against symptomatic infection in 2021 observational data from and the , but effectiveness against infection waned to 20-50% within 6 months against variants like Delta and , while protection against hospitalization remained 70-90% with boosters in high-risk groups through 2022.00089-7/fulltext)
DiseaseKey Real-World VE MetricPopulation Impact ExampleSource
Smallpox>95% against severe diseaseEradication by 1980WHO
Polio90-100% against paralysis (full series)U.S. cases <100 by 1965CDC
Measles97% (two doses) against infection23.2M deaths averted (2000-2017)WHO
Pertussis40-60% after 4-5 yearsU.S. resurgence to 48K cases (2012)NCBI
COVID-1970-90% vs. hospitalization (boosted)Waning vs. infection to 20-50%NEJM/Lancet00089-7/fulltext)

Limitations and Influencing Factors

Vaccine efficacy is limited by the phenomenon of waning immunity, wherein protective effects diminish over time following immunization. For instance, studies on vaccines have shown that effectiveness against infection declines significantly within months, with antibody levels dropping and breakthrough infections increasing, though protection against severe disease persists longer. Similar patterns occur with acellular pertussis vaccines, where efficacy against infection wanes to near zero within 4-5 years post-vaccination, contributing to outbreaks despite high coverage. Influenza vaccines also exhibit waning, with effectiveness against infection reducing by up to 50% or more over a single season due to immune decay and strain mismatches. Pathogen evolution further constrains efficacy through immune escape variants, which reduce neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies. In SARS-CoV-2, variants like demonstrated substantially lower vaccine effectiveness against infection—dropping to as low as 10-30% for mRNA vaccines in some populations—while retaining partial protection against hospitalization. Respiratory viruses such as influenza and coronaviruses frequently evolve to evade prior immunity, necessitating annual reformulations, as fixed vaccine compositions fail to match circulating strains. This escape is driven by mutations in key epitopes, allowing transmission despite vaccination, and underscores that vaccines rarely confer sterilizing immunity that fully blocks infection or onward spread. Host factors profoundly influence vaccine response and effectiveness. Immunosenescence in older adults leads to diminished antibody production and T-cell responses; for example, influenza vaccine efficacy in those over 65 is often below 50%, compared to over 70% in younger groups. Genetic variations, such as polymorphisms in HLA genes or cytokine pathways, can result in non-responders, with up to 10-20% of individuals failing to mount adequate titers to or measles vaccines. Comorbidities like obesity, diabetes, or immunosuppression further impair immunogenicity, reducing effectiveness by 20-50% in affected populations.30121-5/fulltext) Environmental and behavioral elements also modulate outcomes. High exposure doses or co-infections can overwhelm vaccine-induced immunity, while seasonal variations affect pathogen stability and host susceptibility. Vaccination strategy factors, including dosing intervals and boosters, impact durability; suboptimal schedules accelerate waning. Real-world effectiveness often trails controlled trial efficacy due to these variables, population heterogeneity, and confounding behaviors like non-compliance, highlighting the gap between idealized measures and practical performance.

Safety and Risk Assessment

Regulatory Approval Processes

Vaccine regulatory approval processes evaluate safety, efficacy, and manufacturing quality prior to licensure, typically involving phased clinical trials to assess risks such as adverse reactions and immune responses. In the United States, the oversees approvals through a Biologics License Application (BLA), requiring preclinical animal studies followed by an application for human trials. Phase 1 trials test safety in small groups (20-100 participants), Phase 2 assesses dosing and efficacy in hundreds, and Phase 3 confirms effectiveness and monitors side effects in thousands to tens of thousands, with data submitted in the BLA for FDA review, which can take 10 months or more. For emergencies, the FDA may issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), allowing use based on interim data showing benefits outweigh risks when no approved alternatives exist, with only two months of safety follow-up required versus six for full approval. EUAs facilitated rapid COVID-19 vaccine deployment under , which compressed timelines through parallel manufacturing and funding but maintained core trial phases, though critics noted potential under-detection of rare long-term risks due to abbreviated monitoring. In the European Union, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) handles centralized Marketing Authorisation Applications (MAA), involving similar phased trials and a benefit-risk assessment by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), with standard reviews lasting up to 210 days but accelerated to 150 days for urgent needs like pandemics. Conditional marketing authorisations permit approval with partial data, renewable annually pending confirmatory studies, as applied to initial COVID-19 vaccines. The World Health Organization (WHO) provides prequalification for vaccines used in global programs, assessing data from national regulators like FDA or EMA, manufacturing consistency, and post-approval stability to ensure suitability for low-resource settings, without independent trials but relying on originator data. These processes prioritize empirical safety signals from controlled trials, yet real-world risks may emerge post-licensure due to broader populations and interactions not captured in pre-approval cohorts.

Adverse Event Profiles

Adverse events following vaccination are categorized as mild, moderate, or serious, with the vast majority being mild and self-limiting, such as injection-site pain, erythema, or swelling occurring in up to 80% of recipients for certain vaccines like DTaP, and systemic reactions including fever, irritability, and fatigue reported in 20-40% of doses. These local and systemic effects typically resolve within 1-2 days and are attributed to the immune response elicited by vaccine antigens or adjuvants. For HPV vaccines, injection-site reactions were reported by 46.5% after the first dose and 31.9% after subsequent doses in clinical surveillance data. Serious adverse events, defined as those requiring hospitalization, causing disability, or resulting in death, occur at rates below 1 per 10,000 doses across routine vaccines, with causality confirmed for only a subset through epidemiological studies. Anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, is estimated at 1.3 cases per million doses administered for vaccines overall, though rates can reach 11-12 per million for specific mRNA formulations based on early post-authorization data. Other rare events include febrile seizures following MMR vaccination, occurring in approximately 1 in 3,000-4,000 doses, primarily in children aged 12-23 months. Vaccine-specific profiles highlight elevated risks for certain conditions; for inactivated influenza vaccines, the attributable risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome is 1-3 excess cases per million doses in adults, confirmed via large cohort studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. For rotavirus vaccines, intussusception risk stands at 1-5 cases per 100,000 infants, leading to enhanced post-licensure monitoring. Co-administration of routine childhood vaccines, such as MMR with PCV, has been associated with modestly increased reporting of fever (relative incidence ratio 1.91) and rash, but without elevated serious event rates in population-based analyses of over 3 million doses. Overall, peer-reviewed reviews conclude that while no vaccine is devoid of risk, confirmed serious adverse events remain exceedingly rare relative to background population rates.

Surveillance Systems and Reporting Biases

Vaccine safety surveillance in the United States primarily relies on a combination of passive and active systems to detect potential adverse events following immunization (AEs). The (VAERS), established in 1990 and co-administered by the (CDC) and the (FDA), functions as a passive surveillance mechanism. It accepts voluntary reports from healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public on any health event post-vaccination, serving as an early warning tool for rare or novel signals, particularly with new vaccines. However, VAERS lacks denominators of vaccinated individuals, cannot establish causality, and is prone to reporting artifacts, including coincidental events and unverified claims. Complementing VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), managed by the CDC since 1990, employs active surveillance through electronic health records from nine integrated healthcare organizations covering approximately 3% of the U.S. population. This system enables calculation of background event rates and relative risks via cohort and case-control studies, facilitating signal verification identified in VAERS. For instance, VSD has been used to monitor outcomes in pregnant women and evaluate new vaccines, though it may miss events outside participating networks or those not routinely coded in records. Other systems, such as the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project and Best System for Thrombosis and Immunologic Monitoring (BEST), provide specialized active monitoring for targeted populations or events like clotting disorders post-COVID-19 vaccination. Passive systems like VAERS are limited by significant underreporting, with studies estimating that fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are captured. A 2007-2010 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, implemented automated electronic medical record screening in a pediatric population and identified potential serious events at a rate implying VAERS captured only about 0.3-1% of such occurrences when relying on voluntary clinician reports. Underreporting is exacerbated for mild or non-serious events, as well as in routine vaccination settings without media attention, contrasting with stimulated reporting during high-profile vaccine rollouts (Weber effect). CDC analyses acknowledge higher efficiency for severe events but confirm underreporting as a systemic issue in passive surveillance. Reporting biases further complicate interpretation, including selection bias where events temporally linked to vaccination are disproportionately reported regardless of causation, and healthcare-seeking bias inflating associations for conditions prompting medical visits. Outcome reporting bias in studies evaluating vaccine safety can also occur, as evidenced by discrepancies in COVID-19 vaccine trials where selective emphasis on favorable endpoints overshadowed broader adverse profiles. Government-operated systems like VAERS and VSD, while instrumental in past actions such as the 1999 withdrawal of the first rotavirus vaccine due to intussusception signals, face criticism for potential conflicts, as CDC and FDA dual roles in promotion and regulation may incentivize conservative signal thresholds to preserve public confidence. Independent analyses underscore that unadjusted VAERS data cannot quantify incidence risks without active follow-up, and biases in source reporting—such as underemphasis in pro-vaccination academic literature—necessitate cross-validation with multiple datasets.

Component-Specific Concerns

Aluminum salts, such as aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate, serve as adjuvants in many vaccines to enhance immune responses by prolonging antigen exposure and stimulating innate immunity. Typical doses range from 0.125 to 0.85 milligrams per vaccine dose, far below levels associated with toxicity in animal models, which require over 100 milligrams per kilogram body weight. A 2023 Danish nationwide cohort study of over 800,000 children found no increased risk of autoimmune, neurodevelopmental, or allergic disorders linked to aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines. However, aluminum is a known neurotoxin at high exposures, and some preclinical studies suggest that injected aluminum nanoparticles may persist in the body longer than ingested forms, potentially crossing the blood-brain barrier in susceptible individuals. Regulatory bodies like the FDA maintain that vaccine aluminum levels are safe based on pharmacokinetic models showing rapid clearance, though critics argue these models undervalue chronic retention in infants with immature renal function. Thimerosal, an ethylmercury-containing preservative used in some multi-dose vials to prevent bacterial contamination, has been largely phased out of U.S. childhood vaccines since 2001 as a precautionary measure following 1999 concerns about cumulative mercury exposure. Ethylmercury differs from environmental methylmercury in faster metabolism and excretion, with half-lives of about 7 days versus 50 days. Multiple epidemiological studies, including a 2003 JAMA analysis of 140,000 Danish children and a 2004 Institute of Medicine review of 10 cohorts, found no causal link between thimerosal exposure and autism spectrum disorders or neurodevelopmental issues beyond rare hypersensitivity reactions. Despite this consensus from large-scale data, some researchers have raised mechanistic questions about mercury's potential to induce oxidative stress or immune dysregulation, though no peer-reviewed evidence supports population-level harm from vaccine doses, which peaked at 187.5 micrograms by 6 months of age pre-2001. Formaldehyde, a residual byproduct from inactivating viruses or detoxifying toxins in vaccines like DTaP and influenza, is present in trace amounts of less than 0.1 milligrams per dose. Human bodies naturally produce and metabolize about 50-70 milligrams daily via endogenous pathways, exceeding vaccine contributions by orders of magnitude; a single pear contains roughly 60 times more. Pharmacokinetic studies confirm that vaccine-derived formaldehyde is rapidly oxidized to formate and excreted, with no evidence of accumulation or toxicity at these levels, even in modeling for infants. While formaldehyde is classified as a carcinogen at industrial exposure levels (e.g., 1-2 ppm chronic inhalation), vaccine quantities are deemed implausibly linked to cancer risk by toxicological assessments, though hypersensitivity has been reported in isolated cases. Other excipients, including emulsifiers like polysorbate 80 and stabilizers like gelatin, address formulation needs such as preventing ingredient separation or degradation during storage. Polysorbate 80, used in vaccines like HPV and some COVID-19 formulations, occurs in microgram quantities and mirrors levels in common foods like ice cream, with no substantiated evidence of infertility or systemic toxicity despite online claims. Gelatin, derived from porcine or bovine sources, stabilizes live-virus vaccines but can trigger anaphylaxis in individuals with alpha-gal syndrome or pre-existing allergies, accounting for rare immediate hypersensitivity reactions (approximately 1 per million doses). These components undergo rigorous purity testing under FDA good manufacturing practices, yet debates persist over potential cumulative effects in multi-vaccine schedules, particularly for neonates whose detoxification pathways are underdeveloped. Overall, while empirical surveillance data indicate low adverse event rates attributable to excipients, first-principles scrutiny highlights the need for ongoing biodistribution studies given injection bypasses gastrointestinal barriers present in dietary exposures.

Controversies and Opposition

Historical and Philosophical Objections

Opposition to vaccination emerged shortly after Edward Jenner's introduction of the smallpox vaccine in 1796, with critics expressing concerns over the procedure's safety and origins from animal matter, fearing it could transmit bovine diseases or cause deformities such as sprouting horns or tails, as satirized in James Gillray's 1802 caricature The Cow-Pock. Early objectors, including some medical professionals, cited anecdotal reports of severe reactions, including deaths, and argued that variolation—scraping smallpox pus directly—posed fewer risks despite its higher mortality rate of about 1-2%. These fears were compounded by impure vaccine lymph and improper administration techniques prevalent in the early 19th century, leading to documented outbreaks of erysipelas and syphilis from contaminated batches. By the mid-19th century, compulsory vaccination laws intensified resistance, particularly in Britain following the Vaccination Acts of 1840 and 1853, which mandated infant inoculation and marked the state's first major intervention into personal medical choices, viewed by opponents as an infringement on civil liberties. Anti-vaccination societies formed in England and the United States, advocating sanitation, hygiene, and quarantine over vaccination, asserting that smallpox declined due to improved living conditions rather than immunization. The 1885 Leicester demonstration, attended by over 100,000 people, exemplified this resistance; the city's deliberate boycott reduced vaccination coverage to under 10%, prompting reliance on isolation and cleanliness, though subsequent smallpox epidemics in 1892-1893 resulted in 19 deaths among 400 cases, lower than comparable vaccinated areas but still highlighting disease persistence without broad immunity. Philosophically, objections centered on individual bodily autonomy and the right to refuse state-imposed medical interventions, framing vaccination mandates as coercive violations of personal liberty akin to other forms of government overreach. Libertarian arguments emphasized informed consent and natural immunity through exposure, positing that artificial immunization bypassed the body's innate defenses and ignored variability in human susceptibility. Religious critiques invoked divine providence, contending that vaccination demonstrated distrust in God's protection and interfered with natural order, with some denominations historically prohibiting it on grounds of defilement from animal or human-derived materials. Moral concerns also arose over the use of calf lymph or later human cell lines, seen as unethical commodification of life or violation of sanctity principles. These positions persisted, influencing legal challenges that secured exemptions in various jurisdictions by the early 20th century.

Specific Scientific Disputes

One major scientific dispute centers on the alleged causal link between vaccines, particularly the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and thimerosal-containing formulations, and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). A 1998 Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield et al. suggested a connection based on 12 children, but it was retracted in 2010 after revelations of ethical violations, undeclared conflicts of interest, and data falsification; Wakefield lost his medical license. Subsequent large-scale studies, including a 2019 Danish cohort analysis of 657,461 children followed for over a decade, demonstrated no increased ASD risk among MMR-vaccinated versus unvaccinated children (hazard ratio 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02). A 2004 Institute of Medicine review of 14 studies rejected the hypothesis, citing biological implausibility and lack of mechanistic evidence. Despite this consensus from epidemiological data, a minority of researchers, including some citing subgroup analyses or temporal associations in small cohorts, continue to advocate for further investigation into potential genetic susceptibilities or cumulative exposures, though no peer-reviewed evidence supports causation. Debates persist regarding vaccine adjuvants like aluminum salts, used to enhance immune response in vaccines such as hepatitis B and DTaP, with cumulative infant exposure reaching up to 4.4 mg by 18 months. Critics, drawing from animal models showing neuroinflammatory effects at high doses, argue that aluminum's poor excretion in infants could contribute to neurodevelopmental issues, potentially synergizing with other metals like mercury from thimerosal (ethylmercury). Human studies, however, including a 2011 CDC analysis of over 1,000 children, found no association between aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes. Thimerosal, phased out of most U.S. childhood vaccines by 2001 as a precaution despite no proven harm, has been scrutinized for ethylmercury's half-life (3-7 days) differing from methylmercury's (50 days), with a 2010 IOM report affirming safety based on neurodevelopmental assessments in exposed cohorts. Ongoing disputes highlight pharmacokinetic modeling gaps, particularly for preterm infants, but meta-analyses of millions of doses show no excess neurotoxicity signals. For mRNA-based vaccines, introduced prominently with COVID-19 platforms like Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna authorized in December 2020, disputes focus on long-term safety amid accelerated development under emergency use. Phase 3 trials emphasized prevention of symptomatic disease (efficacy >90% against original ), but did not primarily assess transmission reduction, leading to debates when real-world data revealed vaccinated individuals could still transmit, especially post-Delta in mid-2021. A 2022 study of household contacts estimated two-dose vaccination reduced Delta transmission by 50% from index cases but less for Alpha (65%), with effects waning over 3-6 months. Concerns include rare / (incidence 1-10 per 100,000 doses in young males, per 2021-2023 VAERS analyses), frameshifting in mRNA translation potentially yielding aberrant proteins, and theoretical persistent expression beyond expected 48-72 hours due to nanoparticle biodistribution. Longitudinal data through 2024 show no excess long-term events beyond known risks, with mRNA degradation confirmed rapid , but critics note insufficient multi-year follow-up for rare oncogenic or autoimmune signals in genetically diverse populations. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, licensed since 2006, face disputes over adjuvant-related adverse events beyond common injection-site reactions. Reports of chronic fatigue, autonomic dysfunction, and (POTS) in temporal association prompted investigations; a 2017 Japanese study of 4,000+ girls found higher POTS-like symptoms post-vaccination ( 1.3-2.0), attributed possibly to aluminum or HPV proteins triggering . Global surveillance, including a 2020 WHO review of 100 million doses, identified no causal excess beyond background rates, emphasizing psychogenic amplification in aware cohorts. Efficacy against cervical precancers remains robust (70-90% reduction in vaccinated cohorts per 2023 meta-analyses), but debates underscore challenges in distinguishing rare events from confounders like surveillance bias. These disputes often arise from discrepancies between pre-licensure trials (focused on and short-term efficacy) and post-marketing , where underreporting in passive systems like VAERS (estimated 1-10% capture) intersects with causal attribution difficulties. Empirical resolution favors ' net benefits, as evidenced by disease reductions (e.g., 99% U.S. drop post-1963 ), yet unresolved questions on variant escape, booster durability, and adjuvant persist, informing calls for enhanced mechanistic studies over correlative .

Policy and Ethical Debates

Vaccination policies often spark debates over the tension between individual autonomy and collective benefits, with proponents of mandates arguing that compulsory measures are justified when vaccines demonstrably reduce severe disease transmission and mortality in highly contagious outbreaks. For instance, utilitarian ethical frameworks posit that mandates maximize overall well-being by achieving thresholds, estimated at 70-90% coverage for diseases like , thereby protecting vulnerable populations unable to vaccinate. However, critics contend that such policies infringe on fundamental rights to and , principles enshrined in post-World War II codes like the , which emphasize voluntary participation in medical interventions absent coercion. from mandates in , implemented in countries like and starting in early 2022, showed limited boosts in uptake—often below 5% increases—while correlating with heightened public distrust and legal challenges, suggesting mandates may erode long-term compliance rather than enhance it. Informed consent remains a core ethical flashpoint, as vaccination programs must disclose risks, benefits, and alternatives to enable autonomous , yet school and mandates can undermine voluntariness by imposing penalties like exclusion from or job loss. Peer-reviewed analyses indicate that while consent processes for routine childhood vaccines often meet basic legal standards, they frequently omit detailed adverse event probabilities—such as the 1 in 1 million risk of from MMR—potentially skewing perceptions toward overemphasized benefits. In the U.S., the Supreme Court's 1905 ruling upheld fines for refusing vaccination during an , establishing a precedent for limited overrides of when facing imminent threats, but modern applications face scrutiny under stricter reviews, as seen in successful 2021-2023 challenges to federal COVID mandates for and contractors citing inadequate longitudinal safety data. Ethicists argue mandates are ethically defensible only if alternatives like targeted incentives fail, the vaccine's exceeds 80% against transmission, and equitable access minimizes disproportionate burdens on low-income groups. Equity and justice further complicate debates, particularly in global contexts where policy coercion risks exacerbating disparities; for example, during the 2021 initiative, wealthier nations' export restrictions delayed doses to , prompting ethical critiques of over cosmopolitan duties to aid the global poor. Opponents highlight how mandates can discriminate against those with natural immunity or contraindications, as evidenced by post-mandate data showing unvaccinated recovery rates from comparable to vaccinated in low-risk cohorts, challenging blanket policies' proportionality. Conversely, advocates for pediatric mandates emphasize parental duties to prevent harm to others, given children's limited agency, though studies underscore that over-reliance on compulsion ignores behavioral science showing and trust-building yield higher sustained uptake without alienating communities. Ultimately, policy design must weigh causal evidence of net benefits against risks of backlash, with voluntary approaches succeeding in nations like , where 2022 opt-out policies maintained over 85% coverage for key vaccines amid minimal mandates.

Implementation and Policy

Global and National Strategies

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) in 1974, building on the intensified smallpox eradication campaign that began in 1967 and achieved global certification of eradication in 1980 through targeted surveillance, ring vaccination, and mass campaigns in endemic areas. The EPI initially focused on vaccinating children against six preventable diseases—diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, and tuberculosis—via routine immunization services integrated into national health systems, emphasizing cold-chain logistics, training of health workers, and community outreach to achieve high coverage. By 2023, this framework had expanded to include vaccines against hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, rotavirus, and others, though global coverage for the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP3) vaccine stalled at 84%, leaving approximately 14.5 million children with zero doses amid disruptions from conflicts, supply issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Complementing WHO efforts, the GAVI Alliance, established in 2000 as a public-private partnership involving WHO, , the World Bank, governments, and vaccine manufacturers, has prioritized introduction and supply in low-income countries through co-financing, bulk procurement, and health system strengthening. GAVI's strategies include the , which in 2024 approved support for against over 20 diseases, targeting 500 million children from 2026 to 2030 to avert more than 8 million future deaths, with a focus on equity in fragile states and integration with . Disease-specific initiatives, such as the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) launched in 1988, employ synchronized strategies including routine , supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) with oral and inactivated polio , outbreak response, and genomic surveillance; these reduced wild poliovirus cases by over 99% since inception, though transmission persists in and under the 2022–2026 strategy aiming for full interruption by integrating with other health programs. National strategies adapt global frameworks to local contexts, often combining federal recommendations with state or provincial mandates to enforce compliance via school entry requirements, workplace policies, or incentives. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes an annual childhood schedule recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), covering 16 vaccines by age 18, while all 50 states require certain vaccinations (e.g., , , ) for school attendance, with exemptions varying by state—medical in all, religious/philosophical in 44 as of 2023—resulting in coverage rates exceeding 90% for many antigens but with pockets of lower uptake due to non-medical exemptions. In , the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP), initiated in 1985 and aligned with EPI, provides free vaccines against 12 diseases to over 26 million infants annually through a network of 9 million health facilities and frontline workers, emphasizing mission-mode campaigns like Intensified since 2014 to reach underserved populations, achieving DTP3 coverage of about 85% by 2023 despite logistical challenges in rural and tribal areas. In the , the (NHS) oversees a routine schedule starting at 8 weeks with vaccines for , , pertussis, , Haemophilus influenzae type b, , , , and others, delivered via general practitioners and schools without federal mandates but with targeted catch-up campaigns; MMR coverage hovered around 85% in 2023, prompting alerts for resurgence. These approaches highlight trade-offs: mandatory policies correlate with higher coverage but raise enforcement costs and legal challenges, while voluntary systems rely on and education, with empirical data showing alone insufficient without addressing access barriers.
Global vaccination coverage data underscore strategy outcomes, with DTP3 rates rising from under 5% in 1974 to 84% by 2023, though stagnation post-2019 reflects vulnerabilities in supply chains and hesitancy. National programs often incorporate pharmacovigilance and digital tracking, such as India's Co-WIN platform adapted from COVID-19 efforts, to monitor uptake and adverse events, ensuring adaptive responses to outbreaks. Overall, successful strategies emphasize multi-stakeholder coordination, sustained funding—GAVI mobilized $4.1 billion for 2021–2025—and integration with broader health goals, yet persistent zero-dose children (6.7% globally in 2023) indicate gaps in reaching marginalized groups.

Usage Patterns and Equity Issues

Global vaccination coverage for routine childhood immunizations has plateaued in recent years, with the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP3) reaching 84% among infants in 2023, marking no significant improvement from pre-pandemic levels despite recovery efforts. This stagnation follows a dip during the , where disruptions led to an additional 1.4 million zero-dose children by 2021, a figure that rose to 14.3 million unvaccinated infants under age one in 2024, concentrated in low-coverage regions like and . Measles-containing first-dose coverage stands at 83%, correlating with resurgent outbreaks in under-vaccinated areas, while high-income countries maintain rates above 90% for most antigens but face localized declines due to exemption increases. In the United States, kindergarten DTP coverage fell to 92.1% in the 2024-2025 year from 92.3% the prior year, driven by non-medical exemptions rising in states with permissive policies. contributes to uneven usage patterns, with surveys indicating persistent doubts about safety and necessity influencing 10-20% of parents globally, though rates vary by context; for instance, philosophical objections predominate among higher socioeconomic groups in affluent nations, while access barriers affect lower-income populations. In and , hesitancy has shifted from low- to high-socioeconomic strata over decades, with upper-income families citing concerns over vaccine ingredients or over-medicalization, reversing earlier patterns where affluence correlated with higher uptake. Lower often links to lower uptake due to logistical challenges rather than outright refusal, though trust deficits—exacerbated by historical medical mistrust in some communities—play a role independent of income. Equity issues manifest starkly in access disparities, particularly between urban and rural areas, where rural residents exhibit 10-15% lower vaccination rates owing to fewer clinics, transportation barriers, and provider shortages; in the U.S., rural uptake lagged urban by 17 percentage points as of early 2022, a gap persisting in routine data. Globally, low- and middle-income countries bear 80% of zero-dose children, with coverage in the poorest quintiles 20-30% below national averages due to failures and conflict disruptions, though some studies reveal counterintuitive reversals where wealthier subgroups in upper-middle-income nations show lower full . These patterns underscore causal factors like deficits over purely attitudinal ones in underserved regions, while in high-resource settings, policy exemptions amplify inequities by allowing opt-outs that cluster in specific demographics, potentially undermining thresholds.

Alternative Vaccination Approaches

Alternative vaccination approaches refer to strategies and technologies that diverge from conventional prophylactic , which typically involve intramuscular administration of inactivated, subunit, or live-attenuated antigens to prevent initial . These alternatives include therapeutic administered after to modulate progression, novel delivery routes targeting mucosal surfaces, and advanced platforms such as nucleic acid-based systems that enable faster adaptation to emerging pathogens. Therapeutic vaccines differ fundamentally from prophylactic ones by focusing on eliciting targeted immune responses—often cell-mediated—against persistent infections, cancers, or established diseases rather than priming for prevention. For instance, they introduce antigens associated with the illness to redirect a dysregulated , as seen in developments for chronic viral infections like or human papillomavirus-related conditions. In compensated cirrhosis patients, alternative hepatitis B vaccination protocols, such as administering four doses of double-strength vaccine, achieved seroprotection rates of up to 70%, compared to 30-50% with standard three-dose regimens. Novel delivery systems aim to overcome limitations of needle-based injection, including pain, needle phobia, and poor mucosal immunity induction. Intranasal and mucosal routes, for example, stimulate secretory IgA antibodies at entry sites of respiratory pathogens, potentially offering superior protection against viruses like ; clinical trials have demonstrated enhanced local immunity with intranasal formulations. Microneedle patches, which dissolve into the skin to deliver antigens painlessly, have shown comparable or higher immunogenicity to intramuscular shots in preclinical models for and , while facilitating self-administration and cold-chain independence. Needle-free jet injectors and ballistic particle delivery further reduce biohazard risks and improve equity in resource-limited settings by minimizing trained personnel needs. Advanced platforms like mRNA, DNA, and self-amplifying RNA vaccines represent alternatives to protein-based methods, allowing in vivo antigen production for broader, tunable responses without culturing pathogens. These nucleic acid approaches accelerated COVID-19 vaccine development, with mRNA platforms eliciting robust T-cell and antibody responses in trials as early as 2020. Virus-like particles (VLPs) and conjugate vaccines mimic pathogen structure without replication risk, enhancing efficacy against complex targets like polysaccharides in bacterial vaccines; HPV VLP vaccines, approved in 2006, reduced precancerous lesions by over 90% in vaccinated cohorts. For tuberculosis, alternatives to the BCG vaccine include heterologous prime-boost regimens with viral vectors and mucosal boosting via adenovirus or modified vaccinia Ankara, which improved protection in animal models by 50-70% over BCG alone. Heterologous vaccination strategies, combining different vaccine types or doses (e.g., followed by mRNA), have emerged as adaptive alternatives, particularly during supply constraints; studies from 2021 showed such mixing increased titers by 2-4 fold against variants without excess adverse events. These approaches prioritize empirical data over historical precedents, though long-term durability remains under evaluation in ongoing trials.

Economic Analysis

Development and Distribution Costs

The development of new vaccines typically requires 10 to 15 years and incurs substantial research and development (R&D) costs, estimated to average between $200 million and over $2 billion per successful product, with variability depending on the vaccine type, failure rates in pipelines, and inclusion of capitalized opportunity costs. A 2024 analysis by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation pegged the average cost at $886.8 million for preventive vaccines reaching the U.S. market, emphasizing clinical trials as the dominant expense, which can constitute up to 94% of total R&D outlays in modeled scenarios. Phase I trials alone average $12 million, scaling to hundreds of millions across phases II and III due to large-scale safety and efficacy testing requirements. These figures reflect high attrition rates—often 90% or more of candidates fail—necessitating capitalization of sunk costs from unsuccessful projects to derive per-success estimates. Manufacturing costs post-approval involve facility investments of $50 million to $500 million per antigen, driven by stringent bioprocessing needs like sterile environments and quality controls, though per-dose production can drop to $2–$3 for scalable platforms such as mRNA vaccines once at volume. Public subsidies, as seen in Operation Warp Speed for COVID-19 vaccines, can accelerate timelines and offset risks, with U.S. federal purchases totaling $25.3 billion for Pfizer and Moderna doses at an average of $20.69 per dose, though marginal production costs were lower. Patent protections and market exclusivity enable cost recovery, but low demand for rare-disease vaccines or those targeting low-income markets often deters private investment without guarantees like advance purchase agreements. Distribution costs add logistical layers, particularly for temperature-sensitive vaccines requiring cold-chain , with global delivery estimates ranging from $0.85 to $3.70 per dose in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), encompassing , wastage , and fixed-site operations that comprise about 57% of in-country expenses. For programs, total LMIC delivery costs approached $3.7 billion, influenced by volume efficiencies that reduced per-dose economic costs from $3.56 to $0.84 as campaigns scaled. In resource-constrained settings, these expenses are amplified by inequities in supply chains, though equitable global allocation models suggest potential savings through optimized surge capacity. Overall, while R&D dominates upfront , distribution challenges underscore the need for subsidized international mechanisms like to achieve broad coverage without prohibitive per-country burdens.

Cost-Benefit Evaluations and Critiques

Cost-benefit evaluations of vaccination programs typically employ frameworks such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which quantifies both costs and health/economic benefits in monetary terms, and (CEA), which assesses incremental costs per (QALY) gained or (DALY) averted. These approaches account for direct costs like production, administration, and management, alongside indirect benefits such as reduced productivity losses from illness and avoided treatment expenditures. Empirical data from high-burden diseases demonstrate substantial net benefits; for instance, the global eradication campaign from 1967 to 1980 cost approximately $300 million, but post-eradication savings exceeded $1 billion annually in avoided healthcare and vaccination expenses worldwide. In the United States alone, eradication yielded nearly $17 billion in savings by 1997, primarily through discontinued routine vaccinations. Routine childhood schedules provide another example of favorable . Among the 2009 U.S. birth cohort, vaccinations against 10 diseases prevented about 42,000 premature deaths and 20 million cases of illness, averting 10.5 million lifetime hospitalizations and generating $1.38 trillion in net societal savings when including gains. Systematic reviews confirm that vaccines against pathogens like in low- and middle-income countries often yield benefit-cost ratios exceeding 1, with meta-analyses showing cost-effectiveness thresholds met in resource-limited settings. For eradicated or near-eradicated diseases, long-term benefits compound through and eliminated resurgence risks, as evidenced by global analyses projecting $1070 million in annual benefits for developing countries from avoidance alone. Critiques of these evaluations emphasize methodological flaws that may inflate perceived benefits or understate costs. Many CEAs exclude or undervalue rare adverse events, with surveys of authors revealing common rationales like low incidence or data scarcity, potentially skewing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) toward favorability. Generalizability challenges arise from trial-based estimates that fail to reflect real-world waning immunity, variant emergence, or population heterogeneity, leading to optimistic projections in models. impacts are inconsistently modeled, often overlooking opportunity costs of vaccination campaigns or long-term sequelae from side effects. For adult vaccinations, fewer interventions demonstrate outright cost-savings—56% for , 31% for pneumococcal, and 23% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis—highlighting diminished returns in low-incidence groups where baseline disease risk is low. Recent evaluations of vaccination reveal context-dependent outcomes, with 2023-2024 mRNA boosters deemed cost-saving for U.S. adults aged 65 and older (ICER below willingness-to-pay thresholds) due to reduced hospitalizations, but only cost-effective for ages 50-64. Systematic reviews note variability across European programs, with ICERs influenced by coverage levels and discounting rates, though critiques question reliance on short-term data amid evolving variants. In Spain's national immunization program, expanding coverage for additional vaccines yielded positive CBAs, but rising per-dose costs—outpacing healthcare for many U.S. routine vaccines—raise concerns about sustainability in low-burden scenarios. Overall, while supports net benefits for vaccines targeting high-mortality diseases, rigorous inclusion of all risks and real-world dynamics is essential to avoid overgeneralization, particularly in critiques from independent economic modelers who argue for individualized rather than population-level assumptions.

References

  1. https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization
  2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00479-7
  3. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/history-of-vaccination/a-brief-history-of-vaccination
  4. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/history-of-vaccination/history-of-smallpox-vaccination
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4024226/
  6. https://www.who.int/news/item/24-04-2024-global-immunization-efforts-have-saved-at-least-154-million-lives-over-the-past-50-years
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7482790/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1113535/
  9. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp020125
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3068582/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4257027/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1200696/
  13. https://historyofvaccines.org/history/vaccine-timeline/overview/
  14. https://www.dictionary.com/e/vaccinate-vs-inoculate-vs-immunize/
  15. https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/human-immune-system/immune-system-and-vaccines
  16. https://journals.lww.com/pidj/fulltext/2023/04000/reported_history_of_measles_and_long_term_impact.19.aspx
  17. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
  18. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/natural-immunity-vs-vaccine-induced-immunity-to-covid-19
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10198735/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3407399/
  21. https://historyofvaccines.org/blog/the-history-of-variolation/
  22. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/variolation-to-vaccine-smallpox-inoculation-travels-east-to-west-and-back-again/
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/variolation
  24. https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/about/history.html
  25. https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/science-history/vaccine-history/developments-by-year
  26. https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/articles/jenner.htm
  27. https://historyofvaccines.org/history/louis-pasteur-formemrs/timeline/
  28. https://www.sciencehistory.org/education/scientific-biographies/louis-pasteur/
  29. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000572.htm
  30. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Louis-Pasteur/Vaccine-development
  31. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1400472111
  32. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm
  33. https://historyofvaccines.org/blog/68-years-oral-polio-vaccination/
  34. https://polioeradication.org/about-polio/history-of-polio/
  35. https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2024/01/01/default-calendar/50th-anniversary-of-the-expanded-programme-on-immunization-%28epi%29
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12197319/
  37. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-smallpox-eradication-programme---sep-%281966-1980%29
  38. https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/about/spread-and-eradication.html
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11331487/
  40. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/game-changing-vaccine-developments
  41. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/encouraging_vaccine_innovation_2018_final_report.pdf
  42. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines
  43. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/decades-making-mrna-covid-19-vaccines
  44. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01728-z
  45. https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/Suppl_2/e004898
  46. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/vaccines/covid-19.html
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10732239/
  49. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/admin/administer-vaccines.html
  50. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/administration/during.html
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8144901/
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5027705/
  53. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-6-vaccine-administration.html
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11843882/
  55. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-666X/12/4/435
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9964240/
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16564111/
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12474429/
  59. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.757761/full
  60. https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines%252C%2520blood%2520%2526%2520biologics/published/Ensuring-the-Safety-of-Vaccines-in-the-United-States.pdf
  61. https://www.fda.gov/media/81715/download
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8954083/
  63. https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines%252C%2520blood%2520%2526%2520biologics/published/Guidance-for-Industry--Clinical-Data-Needed-to-Support-the-Licensure-of-Seasonal-Inactivated-Influenza-Vaccines.pdf
  64. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/how-developed-approved.html
  65. https://www.fda.gov/media/151716/download
  66. https://www.vaccinesafety.edu/monitoring-vaccine-safety/
  67. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-4-vaccine-safety.html
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4596394/
  69. https://www.who.int/health-topics/smallpox
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6495011/
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9828372/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10788359/
  73. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-022-01143-7
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8863680/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3901832/
  76. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00797-19
  77. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6431125/
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277253592200004X
  80. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/vaccine-development-101
  81. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/what-does-eua-mean
  82. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-319.pdf
  83. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/marketing-authorisation
  84. https://extranet.who.int/prequal/vaccines
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935460/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11002100/
  87. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/possible-side-effects.html
  88. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/vaccines-and-immunization-vaccine-safety
  89. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/13/8/812
  90. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-adverse-effects-of-vaccines
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6580415/
  92. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm
  93. https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/9/e008215
  94. https://www.vaccinesafety.edu/do-vaccines-cause-guillain-barre-syndrome/
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9516064/
  96. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-systems/vaers/index.html
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X99001322
  98. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6727851/
  100. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/covid-19-vaccine-safety-surveillance
  101. https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system
  102. https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
  103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232983/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9585808/
  105. https://www.ajmc.com/view/challenges-in-the-us-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11252891/
  107. http://www.globalvaccinedatanetwork.org/news/VAERS_misuse_The_zombie_practice_that_keeps_coming_back
  108. https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum
  109. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997
  110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21568886/
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0162013411002212
  112. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/thimerosal-and-vaccines
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X19305784
  114. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/thimerosal.html
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3018252/
  116. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/197365
  117. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14519711/
  118. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078187
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X16300931
  120. https://www.chop.edu/sites/default/files/vaccine-education-center-vaccine-ingredients.pdf
  121. https://magazine.brighamandwomens.org/departments/whats-in-vaccines
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X13004179
  123. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/whats-really-vaccines-and-how-do-we-know-theyre-safe
  124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3203331/
  125. https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/polysorbate-80
  126. https://vaccineknowledge.ox.ac.uk/vaccine-ingredients
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8355062/
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213219821003020
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12080585/
  130. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8976473_Addressing_Parents%27_Concerns_Do_Vaccines_Contain_Harmful_Preservatives_Adjuvants_Additives_or_Residuals
  131. https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/misconceptions-about-vaccines/history-anti-vaccination-movements/
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1123944/
  133. https://histmed.collegeofphysicians.org/the-anti-vaccination-movement/
  134. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991
  135. https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/freedom/our-medical-liberties
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8802588/
  137. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250905-the-strange-history-of-the-anti-vaccine-movement
  138. https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/ethical-issues-and-vaccines/cultural-perspectives-vaccination/
  139. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/new-media-old-messages-themes-history-vaccine-hesitancy-and-refusal/2012-01
  140. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25349/
  141. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/69/4/726/5316263
  142. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120306277
  143. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223724/
  144. https://www.factcheck.org/2022/10/scicheck-its-not-news-nor-scandalous-that-pfizer-trial-didnt-test-transmission/
  145. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597
  146. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2836670
  147. https://www.cdc.gov/acip/downloads/slides-2025-09-18-19/06-el-deiry-kuperwasser-covid-508.pdf
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11540079/
  149. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0508-z
  150. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467922006874
  151. https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2821%2900028-7/fulltext
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8784578/
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11598722/
  154. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X2301472X
  155. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2025/07/14/jme-2025-110950
  156. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-law-and-medicine/article/informed-consent-to-vaccination-theoretical-legal-and-empirical-insights/62A0A868A81A5013F5C981A48D25BF79
  157. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/when-are-vaccine-mandates-appropriate/2020-01
  158. https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2773&context=thestmaryslawjournal
  159. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8633920/
  160. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-023-09237-6
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9136690/
  162. https://academic.oup.com/phe/article/16/2/127/7152399
  163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X23004619
  164. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X23003201
  165. https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals/essential-programme-on-immunization
  166. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/immunization-coverage
  167. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/global-childhood-immunization-levels-stalled-2023-leaving-many-without-life-saving
  168. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/science-innovation-technology/vaccine-delivery-development
  169. https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/strategy/vaccine-investment-strategy-2024
  170. https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/strategy/phase-6-2026-2030
  171. https://polioeradication.org/who-we-are/our-strategy/
  172. https://www.cdc.gov/global-polio-vaccination/about/index.html
  173. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7343a4.htm
  174. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8306513/
  175. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-health/immunization/
  176. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2025-global-childhood-vaccination-coverage-holds-steady-yet-over-14-million-infants-remain-unvaccinated-who-unicef
  177. https://www.cdc.gov/global-immunization/fast-facts/index.html
  178. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/ivac/2025/across-the-us-childhood-vaccination-rates-continue-to-decline
  179. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-025-01143-8
  180. https://jphe.amegroups.org/article/view/9493/html
  181. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-14420-1
  182. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/6107
  183. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7109a2.htm
  184. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12390534/
  185. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370%2823%2900219-5/fulltext
  186. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379720303950
  187. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6468175/
  188. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32133000/
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11554974/
  190. https://www.aaps.ca/blog/prophylactic-vs-therapeutic-vaccines-explained-for-students-in-pharmaceutical-courses
  191. https://www.gastroenterologyadvisor.com/reports/alternative-hepatitis-b-vaccination-strategies-improve-protection-in-cirrhosis/
  192. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11946764/
  193. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11436249/
  194. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8119203/
  195. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5287301/
  196. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8049514/
  197. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9804121/
  198. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5562290/
  199. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7088827/
  200. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/cost-preventive-vaccine-development
  201. https://blog.drugbank.com/the-economics-of-vaccine-development/
  202. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5518734/
  203. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Breakdown-of-cost-structure-of-the-vaccine-megafund-Clinical-trial-costs-constitute-94_fig2_369508918
  204. https://peoplesmedicines.org/resources/media-releases/moderna-vaccine-price-hike-would-be-4000-mark-up-above-cost/
  205. https://www.kff.org/covid-19/how-much-could-covid-19-vaccines-cost-the-u-s-after-commercialization/
  206. https://data.undp.org/insights/vaccine-equity
  207. https://thinkwell.global/projects/costing-the-delivery-of-covid-19-vaccines/
  208. https://www.corecommitments.unicef.org/kp/covax-delivery-cost.pdf
  209. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X23010538
  210. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-024-11645-1
  211. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37075-x
  212. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11136847/
  213. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X99004648
  214. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1400475111
  215. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/archive/doc/millions/CGD-MillionsSaved_Case1.pdf
  216. https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-nsiad-98-183.pdf
  217. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/133/4/577/32731/Economic-Evaluation-of-the-Routine-Childhood
  218. https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/6/4/ofz117/5371529
  219. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3720047/
  220. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X25006383
  221. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9233035/
  222. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2021.1881484
  223. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/79086
  224. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2837344
  225. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9838689/
  226. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2024.2385175
  227. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11822687/
  228. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4871927/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.