This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Access to detailed VAERS reports reduces vaccine acceptance
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Recent research in Vaccine found that exposure to detailed reports from the FDA and CDC’s vaccine adverse events reporting system decreased both trust in the CDC and vaccine acceptance.
“One of the issues in vaccine acceptance is trust,” Laura D. Scherer, PhD, assistant professor of psychological sciences at the University of Missouri, said in a press release. “Individuals, parents and vaccine opponents lack trust that doctors and the government have done sufficient research to validate the safety of vaccines. By educating participants about the [vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS)], we thought that this might increase trust that the CDC is doing everything that they can to research and document vaccine harms.”
Laura D. Scherer
The researchers surveyed 1,259 adults aged 18 to 70 years using data regarding serious adverse events related to HPV vaccination from 2013. Study participants were divided into three exposure groups. The first group was presented with the CDC’s standard vaccine information statement, while the second group received data from VAERS, in addition to the standard statement. VAERS information stated that of 10 million HPV vaccinations given, there were 24 vaccine-related disabilities and seven deaths. The third group read detailed reports of every severe adverse event, in addition to receiving the standard statement and VAERS data. Vaccine risks and benefits premeasures were compared with measures taken after exposure to determine the effect of each exposure.
Study results showed that those who received only the standard statement, and those who received VAERS summaries in addition to the standard statement, reported an increase in perceptions of vaccine benefits after exposure (P < .001), and a decrease in perceptions of vaccine-associated risks (P < .05). Conversely, the third group, which received detailed severe adverse events information, reported a decrease in perceived benefits of vaccination (P < .01) and an increase in perceived risks.
“When participants read the incident reports, there was a marked reduction in their willingness to vaccinate — even though most participants believed the vaccines caused few or even none of the deaths,” Scherer said in the release. “Stories about vaccine harms can influence vaccine acceptance even when people don’t completely believe them. This can potentially inform how people react to stories vs. data about vaccine harms and provides a test of publicly available data on vaccine acceptance.” – by David Costill
Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.
Perspective
Back to Top
Paul A. Offit, MD
In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was created, which included the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. I think that those who opposed vaccines thought that this would give them a chance to report what they believed were adverse events associated with vaccination. However, I think the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System program has done far more harm than good, because it has given people the false notion that when a vaccine adverse event is reported, that this adverse event actually occurred because of the vaccine. In fact, most of those adverse events are just coincidentally associated with vaccination and not causally associated with vaccination.
Ironically, the program was created and co-run by both the CDC and the FDA. While it was created in order to enhance trust and openness in the vaccine system, it’s often misunderstood, not only by parents, but by journalists, who think that the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System in any way gives important information about vaccine side effects, when it doesn’t. I think that you could eliminate VAERS and just have the Vaccine Safety Datalink, because the Vaccine Safety Datalink looks at children who did or didn’t receive a vaccine to see whether a vaccine caused a particular adverse event. VAERS, for the most part, is a lot of misleading noise.
However, I think there are some situations in which it can have value: for instance, when it served as a signal to what ended up being a real side effect associated with the rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, introduced in 1998 in the United States and then taken off the market in 1999. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System worked there. It gave a signal that this vaccine might be causing intussusception, and when the study was performed, looking at the children who either did or didn’t receive the vaccine, you saw that, in fact, there was an increased risk. The problem with VAERS is that it doesn’t include a control group, so all you know is someone got vaccinated and then this was reported. You cannot determine whether or not a vaccine caused the problem unless you have a control group, and this system doesn’t include that.
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts