Louis Pasteur, who lived in the 19th century, is considered the founder of modern immunology. He developed a method of prophylactic vaccination against anthrax in 1881 and rabies (hydrophobia) in 1885. Modern medicine is unthinkable without the use of vaccines—preparations made from live, inactivated, or killed microorganisms. However, as in any endeavor, it's important to strike a happy medium when it comes to vaccination.
Some time ago, at a press conference, I listened to a speech by Moscow's chief pediatrician. He spoke at length about the boundless benefits of all kinds of vaccinations. Generally speaking, this was nothing new; I personally had heard the dazzling sagas about vaccinations back in Soviet times. But surely something must have changed in medicine over the past two decades, including in the area of vaccination?
In the Soviet Union, it was widely believed that vaccinations would save the world from infectious diseases. The USSR led the world in mass vaccinations. However, such blind vaccinations never existed, nor do they exist, in the civilized world. This can be seen by examining the vaccination methodology in the United States, Great Britain, and European countries. There, an individual's immunological status is always assessed before deciding on the need for vaccination. After all, vaccines do not act on the pathogen, but rather artificially modulate (restructure) the body's functional state.
We're still being told that vaccinations are practically a panacea for preventing a wide variety of diseases. They cite smallpox vaccination and its worldwide success. They also point to the relative cheapness of mass vaccination. I can believe that a flu shot costs as much as a bottle of vodka, but that vaccinations are a panacea is a bit much. This is because there are so many different diseases, and the human body's response is highly individual. If we recall the smallpox vaccination campaign, it's well known that it's not a suitable model for other infectious diseases. For example, it's completely unsuitable for diphtheria due to persistence—the chronic carriage of the diphtheria bacillus by healthy individuals.
Europeans say the devil is in the details. Let's take a closer look! The details are as follows. Any vaccination is a kind of “risk/benefit” tradeoff. Complications are possible, and vaccines can be of poor quality. We can also mention the occasional errors by medical personnel, as well as the negative pain associated with parenteral administration.
At the same time, there are other ways to prevent diseases (besides vaccinations). Strictly speaking, a comprehensive approach is needed. Besides vaccination, this includes monitoring sporadic cases and non-specific prevention, i.e., sanitary and hygienic measures. It's also useful to know the immunological status of the region's population and strive to maintain it at the highest possible level. Many of our epidemiologists and pediatricians deliberately “forget” all this. It's understandable, after all, it's much easier to vaccinate and forget about the patient than to systematically and painstakingly improve their immune status.
It can also be added that complications following vaccination should be considered a type of iatrogenic pathology. The parenteral route of vaccine administration is the most significant contributor here, especially when it comes to young patients. The issue of the inherent shortcomings of the transdermal route of vaccination is a serious problem. The ethical implications of this approach have, for some reason, disappeared from the horizons of Russian medicine.
However, this issue is not only ethical but also legal. Article 32 of the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on the Protection of Citizens' Health states: “A necessary prerequisite for medical intervention is the informed voluntary consent of the citizen.” For minors, consent to medical intervention must be given by their legal representatives—parents or guardians. Article 33 of the same law also enshrines the right to refuse medical intervention. However, for some medical institutions in Russia, patient consent is a mere formality; often, patients (or their legal representatives) are not informed of contraindications and the risk of possible complications, nor of the right to refuse vaccinations.
The situation with vaccinations in civilized countries is well-known: yes, complications can occur; companies pay tens of millions of dollars for post-vaccination complications and damage to health caused by vaccination. This, incidentally, also constitutes official recognition of the dangers of vaccination.
Here, for example, a diagnosis of “post-vaccination encephalitis” is given, and there's no compensation. Well, you have to go to court. Then some respected doctor will attend the court hearings and maybe stop prescribing flu shots worth a bottle of vodka to just anyone.
Patients need to know the truth about vaccination. And everyone should decide for themselves whether to get a particular vaccination (or not) for themselves (and their children). That's what the law says.