Vaccines undergo extensive testing

The argument

The argument locates the safety of vaccines in the process that produces and follows them rather than in any claim about a particular product. Every vaccination must first undergo rigorous testing to assess its effectiveness and safety before it can be placed on the market. That testing is a precondition rather than a formality: a vaccine which fails it does not reach the public at all, so the products available to be taken are by definition those that have already cleared the threshold. Approval is not the end of the scrutiny. Once released, there are also extensive monitoring mechanisms that assess the continued efficacy and safety of the inoculation, and Western countries all have robust reporting mechanisms for identifying side effects. The distinction between the two stages matters, because a trial observes a defined group for a defined period whereas ongoing surveillance observes the whole vaccinated population indefinitely — which is what detecting anything rare or delayed enough to escape a trial would require. What those mechanisms show is minimal side effects from immunisation, of the order of a sore arm at the injection site. Taken together the two stages do the work claimed for them: these tests prevent unsafe vaccinations coming to market and protect the population at large, the first by screening products before release and the second by catching whatever screening could not. The final point addresses the apparent counter-example. Very occasionally a faulty or defective batch of vaccines can reach the general public. However, these are individually tainted products of a vaccine that has already been proven to be safe to use — a failure of manufacturing or handling in one consignment rather than a property of the vaccine itself. A defective batch therefore says nothing about whether the product it was meant to contain is safe, which is exactly what the testing regime has already established.

Context

For accurate information on the efficiency of vaccines, consult the WHO website.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Ultimately, the nation’s business interests are put before safety. Vaccines generate US$25 billion in annual sales. At any one time, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has 271 new vaccines under development. With this sum of money at stake, it is in the national economic interest to approve as many vaccines for sale as possible. In an environment where companies put profits ahead of patient safety, this leads to unsafe vaccinations reaching the market. There are examples of pharmaceutical companies manipulating testing to get their products to market early. Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski, two former Merk virologists, came forward and alleged that the firm faked efficacy tests for its measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Those that carry out the tests have a financial interest in the results. [Rejecting P2] This can sometimes lead to unsafe vaccines entering the market