Haylie Garrity

Safety of Childhood Vaccines

Introduction: Vaccines have been around for a couple of hundred of years. Vaccines were

created to defend people’s bodies against diseases and illness. When a vaccine is given, a very

small dosage of the disease and other chemicals are injected in order for the body’s immune

system to respond to it, and know how to get rid of the disease if it is ever encountered again in

the future. Although vaccines were created to protect us, many people are still hesitant in

receiving them or letting their children receive them due to the fear of vaccine related injuries,

other chemicals in the vaccines, or even reasons other than safety issues.

Working Thesis: It is important for parents to vaccinate their children in order to create a

healthier lifestyle for themselves and the people around them.

Bianco, A., Mascaro, V., Zucco, R., & Pavia, M. (2019). Parent perspectives on childhood

vaccination: How to deal with vaccine hesitancy and refusal? ​Vaccine,37(​ 7), 984-990.

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.12.062

This article discusses a study that evaluates the attitudes about childhood vaccines and

vaccine refusal or delay among parents and suggests different ways that can improve childhood

vaccination rates. The study was created to highlight the amount of parents that do not vaccinate

their children and what can be done by media, etc. to gain their trust in vaccinations. The authors

are Aida Bianco, Valentina Mascaro, Rossella Zucco, and Maria Pavia. These authors are
credible because they have health sciences backgrounds. Their credentials are at the Department

of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro ‘‘Magna Græcia”, Catanzaro, Italy. The intended

audience is people who want to know why parents refuse vaccines and how we can increase the

vaccination rate among children. This article is similar to the article, “Aluminum in vaccines:

Does it create a safety problem?” because they both argue for the acceptance of vaccines. This

article argues that something needs to be done to inform anti-vaccine parents that vaccines are

safe. It argues that children should be vaccinated and concerns against them need to be

eliminated.

Immunogenicity and safety of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine at two different potency levels

administered to healthy children aged 12–15 months: A phase III, randomized,

non-inferiority trial. (2018, August 10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.076

This article discusses an experiment done to study the potency between two vaccines.

The study compared the immunogenicity and safety of GSK measles-mumps-rubella vaccine

(MMR-RIT) formulations. The study was to determine which potency level was safer for

humans. The intended audience is parents or people who want to know more about the vaccine

and its safety regarding the two different potencies. The authors are part of the MMR-161 Study

Group. Some examples are Ouzama Henry, who contributed to the conception, design, and

planning of the study and Michael Povey, who contributed as statistician to the method and

selection development, the statistical data analysis, the reporting of data, and the assessment of

robustness of this manuscript. They are credible because they specialize in MMR research and
have the knowledge to understand the safety of the vaccine. This relates to the article, “Incidence

of Outcomes Relevant to Vaccine Safety Monitoring in a US Commercially-Insured Population,”

because they both discuss the monitoring of vaccinations. This article gives a specific example of

a vaccine given to children and which potency is safest.

Incidence of outcomes relevant to vaccine safety monitoring in a US commercially-insured

population. (2018, November 15). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.052

This article discusses the background incidence rates (IRs) of potential safety outcomes.

It explains that the monitoring of vaccine safety often uses claims databases, but the impact of

outcomes on background IR estimates is largely unexplored. The study estimated background

IRs of 32 cardiac, metabolic, allergic, autoimmune, neurologic, hematologic and nephrologic

outcomes among individuals that received pneumococcal vaccination. The authors are Daina

Esposito, Lina Titievsky, Daniel C. Beachler, Jennifer C.L.Hawes, Raul Isturiz, Daniel A. Scott,

Kelsey Gangemi, Robert Maroko, Cassandra K. Hall-Murray, and Stephan Lanes. They are

credible because they have background in a health related industry. Their credentials are

HealthCore Inc., USAbPfizer Inc., and USAcHealthCore Inc. The intended audience is people

who want to know more about vaccine safety monitoring. This article is similar to the article,

“Aluminum in vaccines: Does it create a safety problem?” because safety monitoring was used to

determine if aluminum is safe in vaccines. This article gives the safety outcomes of a specific

vaccine and how they were determined.

Jiménez, Á V., Stubbersfield, J. M., & Tehrani, J. J. (2018). An experimental investigation into

the transmission of antivax attitudes using a fictional health controversy. ​Social Science &

Medicine,215​, 23-27. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.032

This article discusses an experiment that simulated a vaccine controversy in order to

understand which aspects of vaccination-related information are well transmitted and how it

affects the decisions on vaccinations. The result was that the experience-based view held by the

parent was better transmitted than the medical-based view held by the doctor, while the

pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine views were similarly transmitted. The intended audience is people

who are interested in the controversy over vaccines and the different views. The authors are

Ángel V. Jiménez, Joseph M. Stubbersfield, and Jamshid J. Tehrani. These authors are credible

because they have scientific or health specialist backgrounds. Their credentials are Durham

University, Centre for the Coevolution of Biology and Culture, Department of Anthropology,

Durham University, Conspiracy Theories in Health Special Interest Group, Wolfson Research

Institute for Health and Wellbeing, and Human Behaviour and Cultural Evolution Group,

Department of Biosciences, University of Exeter. This article contrasts the other articles

previously discussed because it focuses on the the transmitted information rather than the

physical vaccine and safety. This article helps explain the controversy between vaccines.

Marti, M., de Cola, M., MacDonald, N. E., Dumolard, L., & Duclos, P. (2017). Assessments of

global drivers of vaccine hesitancy in 2014—Looking beyond safety concerns. ​PLoS

ONE​, ​12​(3), 1–12. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0172310

 This article discusses evidence relating to vaccine hesitancy to determine the reasons why

people are hesitant towards them. Two indicators for assessment were developed. ​Three

outcomes were found: the risk-benefit of vaccines, knowledge and awareness issues, and

religious, cultural, gender or socio-economic factors. The authors are Melanie Marti, Monica de

Cola, Noni E. MacDonald, Laure Dumolard, and Philippe Duclos. Their credentials are at the

Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Geneva,

Switzerland, and the Department of Paediatrics, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre and

Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Halifax, Canada. They are qualified to write about this

because they work in the vaccine and health industry. The intended audience is people who want

to know the reasons why some choose not to receive vaccines. This article is similar to the

article, “An Experimental Investigation into the Transmission of Anti-vax Attitudes Using a

Fictional Health Controversy,” because they both discuss the hesitancy of vaccine receival. This

article discusses the three main reasons why people are vaccine hesitant.

McCollum ED, Nambiar B, Deula R, Zadutsa B, Bondo A, et al. (2017) Impact of the 13-Valent

Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine on Clinical and Hypoxemic Childhood Pneumonia

over Three Years in Central Malawi: An Observational Study. PLOS ONE 12(1):

e0168209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168209

This article discusses the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine’s (PCV) impact on childhood

pneumonia in Africa. The rates of childhood pneumonia were evaluated with and without the

PCV vaccine in order to determine its impact on children. The authors are ​McCollum ED,
Nambiar B, Deula R, Zadutsa B, Bondo A, et al.​ They all have the appropriate credentials and

are reliable because they work with the medical field and specialize on the study of breathing

issues. They’re a part of the Italian Pneumococcal Study Group on Asthma. The intended

audience is parents who are curious about the effects of the PCV vaccine and its outcome. This

article relates to the article, “Immunogenicity and safety of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine at

two different potency levels administered to healthy children aged 12–15 months: A phase III,

randomized, non-inferiority trial,” as well because they both discuss a specific vaccine given to

children and the effects of it. This article focuses on a specific issue and the outcome of the

vaccine.

Parasidis, E., & Opel, D. J. (2017). Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccines and Medical Neglect

Laws. ​American Journal of Public Health​, ​107​(1), 68–71.

https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303500

This article discusses the refusal of vaccines by parents and its relationship to medical

child neglect laws. Nine cases were studied in five different states. As a result, four cases showed

religious exemptions, and courts found that vaccine refusal did not constitute neglect in the rest

of the cases. The authors are Efthimios Parasidis, JD, MBioethics, and Douglas J. Opel, MD,

MPH. Their credentials are Efthimios Parasidis is with the Moritz College of Law and the

College of Public Health, The Ohio State University. Douglas J. Opel is with the Department of

Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, and Treuman Katz Center for

Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Hospital. They are reliable because they have a medical
background as well as a law background to discuss the neglect laws in the study. The intended

audience is parents who do not vaccinate their children, health care professionals, child

protective services, or people who are interested in children’s health. This article contrasts the

article, “Parent Perspectives on Childhood Vaccination: How to Deal With Vaccine Hesitancy

and Refusal?” because this article discusses whether or not it is medical neglect to refuse

vaccines for children, while the other one discusses how we can get parents to vaccinate their

children. This article can be used for the opposing side of the argument because it states that not

vaccinating children is okay.

Pottinger HL, Jacobs ET, Haenchen SD, Ernst KC (2018) Parental attitudes and perceptions

associated with childhood vaccine exemptions in high-exemption schools. PLoS ONE

13(6): e0198655. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. Pone.0198655

This article assess attitudes and perceptions towards vaccinations and compares the

pro-vax and anti-vax population in Arizona. It states that assessments have determined that

exemptors are more likely to attend wealthier schools with fewer minorities. As a result,

exemptors believe it is better for their child to develop immunity through illness rather than

vaccination. Exempting parents were also less likely to trust physicians and information about

vaccines. The authors are Mel and Enid Zuckerman. Their credentials are at the College of

Public Health, University of Arizona, and at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, University

of Arizona. They are reliable because they have health and medical backgrounds. The intended

audience is people who want to know the attitude of parents who refuse to vaccinate their
children and why. The article compares to the article, “​Assessments of Global Drivers of

Vaccine Hesitancy in 2014—Looking Beyond Safety Concerns,” because they both explain the

attitudes of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. This article explains why parents

refuse to vaccinate their children and high school exemption issues.

Principi, N., & Esposito, S. (2018). Aluminum in vaccines: Does it create a safety problem?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.036

This article states that children receive several vaccine doses over a reduced period of

time and that they would be most susceptible to any risk that might be associated with vaccines.

The article discusses the risk for children receiving vaccines or other pharmaceutical

preparations containing aluminum. The results showed that aluminum was safe. The only

problem that was found was the suggested relationship between aluminum containing vaccines

and a chronic fatigue syndrome, which did not provide enough support to verify. The audience is

people who have concerns or questions about whether or not aluminum in vaccines is safe. The

authors are Nicola Principi and Susanna Esposito. Their credentials are at ​Emeritus of Pediatrics,

Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy and Pediatric Clinic, Department of Surgical and

Biomedical Sciences, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Italy. The authors are qualified because

they have medical backgrounds. The article agrees that vaccines are safe, similar to what the

article, “Immunogenicity and safety of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine at two different potency

levels administered to healthy children aged 12–15 months: A phase III, randomized,

non-inferiority trial,” which discusses the safety of a specific vaccine for children and its safety.

This argues that vaccines are safe by giving factual evidence.

Wang, E., Baras, Y., & Buttenheim, A. M. (2015). “Everybody Just Wants to do What’s Best for

Their Child”: Understanding how pro-vaccine parents can support a culture of vaccine

hesitancy. ​Vaccine,33​(48), 6703-6709. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.10.090

This article examines how attitudes and beliefs of parents who self-report as pro-vaccine

are developed and contribute to immunization decisions, including delaying or spacing vaccines.

As a result, parents who looked at vaccine information were often overwhelmed when

interpreting the information, and had to rely on their own instinct or judgment to make decisions

on them. While parents in this sample were pro-vaccine, they did frequently delay or space

vaccines. ​The authors are Eileen Wanga, Yelena Baras, and Alison M. Buttenheim. Their

credentials are at the Department of History and Sociology of Science, University of

Pennsylvania and the School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania. They are reliable because

they have science and health backgrounds. The intended audience is people who want to learn

more on why parents decide to vaccinate their children and their attitudes towards it. This article

contrasts the article, “​Parental Attitudes and Perceptions Associated With Childhood Vaccine

Exemptions in High-exemption Schools,” because this article discusses reasons why parents

choose to vaccinate their children whereas the other article discussed why parents decide not to

vaccinate their children. This article can be used to support my side of the argument and why

parents vaccinate their children.