The broadcast by the Franco-German television channel Arte on Tuesday, October 18 of the documentary entitled “Vaccines and men” sparked many reactions on social networks. This film, which claims to present a reasoned and detached reflection on the subject of vaccination, gives the floor without hindsight to defenders of theses which feed the vaccination opposition. Because the health crisis has shown how harmful anti-vax theories are, we asked Professor Alain Fischer, former president of the Vaccine Strategy Orientation Council and columnist for L’Express, to watch this program and put it on. in perspective.
We can only agree with the conclusions of this documentary, which advocates open science, the possibility of questioning and debate, an attitude conducive to promoting the confidence of our fellow citizens in vaccination. To do so, however, must still be based on solid analysis and established facts. Unfortunately, despite the participation of some eminent scientists (such as Mark Davis or Heidi Larson), this document contains a large number of inaccuracies and sometimes uncritically repeats fake news. Below are a number of them.
1/ Smallpox eradication would be linked to targeted vaccination campaigns around cases rather than mass vaccination campaigns. In reality, the latter, as the WHO reminds us, have played a decisive role in the eradication of this disease, even if targeted campaigns also have their interest. Similarly, the virtual disappearance of poliomyelitis is the result of massive vaccination campaigns throughout the world.
2/ A general practitioner claims in the documentary that childhood illnesses such as measles or rubella are benign and therefore would not justify the use of vaccination (now compulsory). While it is true that they are generally mild, it is probably useful to remember that 1) measles still kills 135,000 (unvaccinated) children each year worldwide, that 2) the decline in vaccination coverage in France as in certain other countries led to a rise in the number of cases and some deaths of immunocompromised patients who could not be vaccinated and who should have been protected by general vaccination. The principle of solidarity in vaccination, to protect oneself and thus protect the most vulnerable, generally did not really catch the attention of the authors of this documentary! 3) Rubella causes a high risk of fetal malformations when an unvaccinated pregnant woman contracts this disease. Thanks to vaccination, congenital rubella has practically disappeared from our country.
Against Covid, vaccination reduces the risk of infection
3/ This documentary develops the idea that vaccination against Covid does not protect against infection and therefore that mass vaccination was not justified. This assertion is inaccurate, vaccination reduces the risk of infection even if it does not eliminate it. This cannot be neglected once again for the indirect protection of the most fragile (elderly people, immunocompromised people), hence the current recommendation of booster vaccination for people living in contact with those at risk.
4/ It is indicated that vaccines are not subject to the same test rules (preclinical, randomized trial, etc.) that prevail for drugs. The recent period, with the development of anti-Covid vaccines, shows that this is no longer the case today, which could (should) have been indicated!
5/ By relating what is happening in the United States, the authors suggest that mass vaccination against influenza is abusive. If the United States recommends vaccination from 6 months, it is with the objective not to protect children against a minimal risk, but to protect their grandparents, a logic of solidarity. This strategy can be discussed – it is not in force in France – but this rational could (should) have been indicated.
6/ The documentary takes uncritical fake news about vaccination against papillomaviruses. The documentary does not mention – contrary to what is claimed – that the vaccine protects against the risk of cancer of the cervix (90% protection if the vaccination is carried out before the start of sexual activity), as the demonstrate several publications based on risk analysis in millions of women in several countries. It is therefore wrong to suggest that vaccination increases the risk of this cancer, based on data concerning unvaccinated women! Finally, if the plea for monitoring by cervical smear is legitimate, remember that this screening then induces the practice of a medical procedure (conization) while the vaccine prevents the occurrence of lesions. Do not oppose the two but combine them. There are 6,000 cases of cancer caused by papillomaviruses in France each year, which cause approximately 2,000 deaths. Vaccination can prevent 9/10ths, it is a public health measure! The floor is given in this documentary to a gynecologist unfavorable to vaccination, which is far from reflecting the attitude of this medical community which, in its vast majority, promotes this vaccination. This could (should) have been recalled in the documentary.
Complications related to aluminum salts have never crossed our borders!
7/ This documentary takes up the allegations of Romain Gherardi on the risks of aluminum adjuvants. A risk that no serious team in the world has seen! As if myofasciitis and neurological complications induced by aluminum salts did not cross our borders! Remember 1) that (even according to R Gherardi) this complication has not been reported in children, the main recipients of vaccines containing aluminum salts and 2) that these adjuvants have been used for nearly 100 years, billions people have received them without damage. These notions could (should) have been recalled in the documentary. It should be added that the evaluation of the side effects of vaccines is, contrary to the words of R Gherardi, subject to great vigilance. Thus, the exceptional thrombotic complications (approximately 1/100,000), induced by adenoviral anti-Covid vaccines were detected very quickly, leading to modification of the use of these vaccines and were made public immediately.
8/ The documentary skilfully gives the floor to Mark Davis, a first-rate immunologist who rightly evokes the importance of the microbiota. However, the tone of the documentary is to suggest that this notion contradicts the principle of vaccination and an (absurd) desire to eradicate all germs. The comparison is surprising to say the least.
9/ Jean Dausset, co-discoverer of HLA tissue groups, is also staged to suggest that, rather than blindly vaccinating the entire population against this or that microbe, one could target those most likely to develop a serious infection. This proposition calls for two remarks: 1) it is true that there is an individual susceptibility but whose mechanisms are complex (genetic, environmental) and cannot be measured in the current state of knowledge; 2) for certain vaccinations, as discussed above, the notion of collective protection justifies the vaccination of all (cf. the example, among others, of measles). Nor should we suggest that all vaccinations are recommended indiscriminately for the entire population. For example, vaccinations against influenza and against shingles are recommended for the elderly, vaccination against whooping cough for parents of newborns to protect them.
10/ Finally, the increase in the frequency of allergic, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases in rich countries is reported to be balanced against the decrease in the frequency of infectious diseases (hygiene theory) to suggest that this could be a consequence of mass vaccination. Remember that the risk of induction or flare-ups of autoimmune diseases post-vaccination is extremely low. The observation did not lead to stop washing hands, nor should it lead to questions about the principle of vaccination!
We can also regret that this documentary, which aims to be complete, does not mention harmful fake news on the practice of vaccination, such as the deliberately erroneous assertion by Dr Wakefield, in Great Britain, claiming that vaccination against measles/mumps/rubella caused autism or the assertion contradicted by numerous studies that vaccination against hepatitis B caused multiple sclerosis. This fake news has seriously affected confidence in vaccination. This could (should) have been mentioned in the documentary. Heidi Larson, the great specialist in vaccine hesitancy, whose meaning is somewhat manipulated in this documentary, constantly reminds us of the need for complete information (benefit/risk analysis), clear and intelligible to improve the confidence of our fellow citizens in vaccination. This is clearly not the objective of this documentary.