Disease Prevention Programs

             Disease prevention programs are a great intervention to provide patients who could potential develop a disease. Currently, there are two very well known and supported disease prevention programs. Emory created a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program / HeartWise Risk Reduction Program (HeartWise) that helps patients reduce their risk of heart disease. Cardiac Rehabilitation / HeartWise serves patients who currently suffer from heart disease and those who could potentially be candidates for problems in the future such as smokers, individuals who don’t exercise, individuals with high blood pressure. Their aim is to lead participants towards a healthier lifestyle.  The Center for Disease Control (CDC) created the CDC Diabetes Prevention Program (CDC DPP). This educational program is based on the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) that was as study in 2002 led by the National Institutes of Health and supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This curriculum put out by the CDC is for lifestyle coaches and organizations that provides lifestyle change programs in the community.

            The two well established programs by the CDC and Emory address two major health risks by teaching and implementing preventative efforts. Another disease that would benefit from a prevention program is obesity. Healthy lifestyle programs could address making good eating choices and could prevent from these individuals from becoming diabetic. Also, this preventative measure could address hypertension issues from arising and conditions such as slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE ).

            Not only would disease prevention programs benefit pre-disposed individuals to certain illness, but to those who could be saved from two illnesses at once. There are many potential benefits to the implementation of programs created to prevent disease such as less heath care costs and an overall healthier community. I have been a part of a healthy lifestyle team assembled to educate children with obesity on healthier choices and have seen participants truly benefit from this program. If this program is successful and others such as Emory’s cardiac program, then more programs should be too.

References

The Center for Disease Control, The CDC Diabetes Prevention Program (CDC DPP) Curriculum www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/recognition/curriculum

Emory, Cardiac Rehabilitation Program / HeartWise Risk Reduction Program http://www.emoryhealthcare.org/heart-disease-prevention/about-us/index.html

Lindström, J., Ilanne-Parikka, P., Peltonen, M., Aunola, S., Eriksson, J. G., Hemiö, K., ... & Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group. (2006). Sustained reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention: follow-up of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. The Lancet, 368(9548), 1673-1679.

Whole Body Scans are A Bad Idea

        In early 2000, advertisements were spanning all across United States advocating for computed tomography (CT) whole body scanning and was being marketed as a way to diagnose cancer and other diseases early on. Due to the fact that whole body CT screening scans are elected by people with no symptoms, they are not covered by insurance and scans have been known to lead to further unnecessary testing. Whole body scans cost anywhere up to 1,000 dollars. This trend could increase health care and health insurance premiums even more due to further testing that may not be neccessary. Not only that, but this could expose individuals to great amounts of  radiation. A  whole-body scan will expose patients radiation equal to 500 chest x-rays (Fishman, 2002). Whole body scans contain a higher risk that outweighs the small potential benefits of early diagnosis. Whole body CT scans and the multitude of tests that come with it are harmful to the body and often misdiagnose illnesses.  Experts oppose whole body scans that are self-referred. Interestingly enough, the FDA has never approved any CT system for use in screening patients.
       The FDA’s position is that any alleged benefit of whole-body CT scanning for individuals without symptoms is “currently uncertain,” and that any benefit of this practice “may not be great enough to offset the potential harms such screening could cause.” Many other organizations disagree with use of whole-body scanning as a screening process. Organizations such as the American College of Radiology (American College of Radiology, 2002), the United States Food and Drug Administration (United States Center for Food and Drug Administration, 2002) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine do not agree with whole body scanning in asymptomatic individuals (American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2002) The American College of Radiology (ACR) also feels the same way. The ACR’s position is that there is no evidence based practice to rely on in which to support whole-body CT scanning for asymptomatic patients. 

      “The ACR, at this time, does not believe there is sufficient evidence to justify recommending total-body CT screening for patients with no symptoms or a family history suggesting disease. To date there is no evidence that total-body CT screening is cost-efficient or effective in prolonging life" (American College of Radiology, 2002). The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), a professional association of state and local regulators of radiation has advised to its members to "actively discourage self-referral CT screening through the individual state authority” Oncology Times, 2005). The Food and Drug Administration and expert professional groups agree that self-referral for whole-body scanning by well people is not advised and should be discouraged by physicians

        A lot of the advertising involved with whole body scans indicates that this measure could “save lives.” However, there is no scientific evidence to prove this. According to Dr. Zeman, whole body scanning may lead to many “incidental lesions” that might indicate nothing harmful in the big picture. He states, “One test begets another, so that initial scan can lead to many more tests, more exposure to radiation, and more costs.” He has also expressed concern to the community about the cumulative doses of radiation. Dr. Zeman states that the follow-up scans are the biggest concern for massive exposures to radiation. (Oncology Times, 2005). I side with Dr. Zeman and the many physicians that have expressed concerns related to this topic. I feel as though every exam and diagnostic test should be justified in the world of medicine.

References

American College of Radiology. (2000) The American College of Radiology statement on total body CT screening.  Available at: http://www.acr.org/departments/pub_rel/press_releases/total-bodyCT.html.

American Association of Physicists in Medicine. (2002) CT body scanning not scientifically justified for asymptomatic patients. Available at: http://www.aapm.org/announcements/CT.html.

Eastman, Peggy (2005) Whole‐body scanning for patients with no symptoms: what are the pros and cons? Oncology Times UK, 2 (3) 20-2.

Napoli M. (2002). Why whole-body scans are a bad idea. Health Facts. Center for Medical Consumers. Available at:http://www.medicalconsumers.org/pages/why_whole_body_scans.html.

United States Center for Food and Drug Administration (2002). Whole body scanning: using computed tomography (CT). Center for Devices and Radiological Health. April 17, 2002. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/. Accessed September 15, 2002.

Fishman E (2002). Whole body CT scanning. The Advanced Medical Imaging Laboratory (AMIL), Department of Radiology at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. February 26, 2002. Available at:http://www.screeningctisus.com/index.html. 

Are Genetically Modified Foods a Good Idea?

Genetically modified foods are a contentious topic in healthcare today. However, the engineering of modifying food is nothing new and has been around for the past 25 years. Several studies discovered that consumers in the United States are optimistic about potential benefits of genetically modified food, yet show resistance related to the possibility of health, safety and environmentally harmful consequences. (Hossain et al. 2002, 2003, Onyango et al. 2003, Onyango and Govindasamy 2004).

Although US citizens are displaying skepticism related to fear of health risks and distrust, there are many potential benefits that outweigh uncertainties. Not only does genetically modifying food create tastier food, it generates more nutritious food. Also, genetically modified foods use a reduced amount of pesticides and require fewer environmental resources such as fertilizer and water. Moreover, the plants and animals grow faster and will increase the supply of food. Not only that, but these foods will cost less and have the ability to last longer. Lastly, medicinal foods can serve as vaccines and treat illness.

Scientific evidence suggests that behaviors of individuals are determined by perceptions or views about risks in lieu of the risk assessments performed by experts (Frewer et al., 1998). As far as the public’s safety concerns, there are regulations in place by the Federal Department of Agriculture’s (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for developers of the foods to submit scientific and safety related information four months before the product is sold. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also regulate genetically modified foods

Genetically modified foods are considered safe. There are no known reports related to illness in relation to genetically modified foods. Accurate perceptions and knowledge related to genetically modified foods will address ambiguity and are what will bring greater acceptance of this technology. Loureiro and Bugbee (2005) showed that the most valued benefits of genetically modified foods are: the “enhanced flavor” modification ,“enhanced nutritional value” and “pesticide reduction”. These three advantages should serve as the sole focus of educational efforts within the public health sector to  truly benefit America’s health and economy.

Food and Drug Administration. Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants. FDA.gov. http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm. Last updated July 22, 2014. Accessed Nov. 3, 2014.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Aaron, J. I. (1998). Consumer acceptance of transgenic crops. Pesticide Science, 52(4), 388-393.

Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Adelaja, A., Schilling, B., & Hallman, W. (2002). Uncovering factors influencing public perceptions of food biotechnology. Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Schilling, B., Hallman, W., & Adelaja, A. (2003). Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(5), 353-365.

Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM. Genetically modified plants and human health. J R Soc Med. 2008;101:290-298.

Loureiro, M. L., & Bugbee, M. (2005). Enhanced GM foods: are consumers ready to pay for the potential benefits of biotechnology?. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 52-70.

Onyango, B. M., Govindasamy, R., & Nayga Jr, R. M. (2004). Measuring US consumer preferences for genetically modified foods using choice modeling experiments: the role of price, product benefits and technology (No. 18181).

Onyango, B. (2004). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods in Korea: factor and cluster analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Bioscience).

United States Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Biotechnology. Aphis.usda.gov. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Regulation of Biotechnology for Use in Pest Management, May 2014. Epa.gov. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/reg_of_biotech/eparegofbiotech.htm.

          

Should disturbing images be placed on cigarette packs?

         According to the World Health Organization, up to one half of all smokers will die from a tobacco-related disease, and half of these will die prematurely. Cigarette packaging and their design are a valuable communication vehicle for cigarette brands and a vital form of advertising for tobacco companies. Many smokers are misled by designs on cigarette packages and are misinformed that a particular package may be “safer” (Wakefield et al., 2002 ). There is a serious need to consider regulation of the packaging of cigarettes.

            Smoking is a known risk factor for respiratory, cardiovascular, and malignant diseases. In addition, some studies have also shown a strong association between smoking and ocular diseases that may lead to blindness. (Ng et al., 2010). However, most people are unaware of this link in comparison to well-known conditions such as lung cancer an heart attacks.  A recent study in Britain involving teenagers showed that teenagers would stop smoking on developing early signs of blindness over signs of heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke (Moradi et al, 2007).

            Therefore, it is evident that individuals need to be further educated on the effects of smoking on health in order to encourage the cessation of smoking. In efforts to dissuade smoking, a number of countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Singapore have used graphic warning labels to inform the public about the hazards of smoking on health. In 2001, a study in Canada showed that graphic health warning labels were effective in discouraging smokers from smoking. The study showed that close to one-fifth of smokers decreased their cigarette consumption as a result of the labels (Hammond et al., 2004). In Singapore, 28 percent of smokers said they consumed fewer cigarettes as a result of the warning. (Ng et al., 2010)

According to the World Health Organization, there are many reasons that images on cigarette packages would be beneficial. First of all, health warnings on cigarette packages that include images are an influential and cost-effective outlet for communicating health risks. Cigarette companies take on virtually all of the cost. Images make health risks more noticeable, effectively communicate risk, and motivate behavioral change. In addition, images engage people on an emotional level, and deter original cigarette branding. Finally, images reduce discrepancies in health knowledge to those who are illiterate. Overall, other countries have successfully implemented pictorial messages on cigarette packages to further inform the public with no litigation from tobacco companies and an increase in smoking cessation. I think it is time we so the same.

Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Brown KS, Cameron R. Graphic Canadian cigarette warning labels and adverse outcomes: evidence from Canadian smokers. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 1442–1445.

Liefeld, J. P. The relative importance of the size, content and pictures on cigarette package warning message (Research prepared for Health Canada–Office of Tobacco Control), September 1999. Available on-line at http://www. hc-sc. gc. ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/pdf/liefeld-eng. pdf.

Moradi, P., Thornton, J., Edwards, R., Harrison, R. A., Washington, S. J., & Kelly, S. P. (2007). Teenagers’ perceptions of blindness related to smoking: a novel message to a vulnerable group. British journal of ophthalmology, 91(5), 605-607.

Ng, D. H. L., Roxburgh, S. T. D., Sanjay, S., & Eong, K. A. (2010). Awareness of smoking risks and attitudes towards graphic health warning labels on cigarette packs: a cross-cultural study of two populations in Singapore and Scotland. Eye, 24(5), 864-868.

Slade, J. (1997). Cover essay: the pack as advertisement. Tobacco Control, 169-170.

Wakefield, M., Morley, C., Horan, J. K., & Cummings, K. M. (2002). The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents.Tobacco Control, 11(suppl 1), i73-i80.

West, R. (2004). Warnings on cigarettes' destroying brand value'. Daily Telegraph (online edition), 28.

World Health Organization (2011). WHO urges more countries to require large, graphic health warnings on tobacco packaging. Saudi Medical Journal, 32(11), 1215-1216.

World Health Organization (2009). Showing the Truth, Savings Lives: The Case for Pictorial Health Warnings.

Who Framework Conventions on Tobacco Control (2003). Geneva, World Health Organization.

Marijuana Legalization: What’s the Cost?         Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance. Marijuana abuse and dependence are widespread in the United States (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Compton et al., 2007; Johnston et al., 2009, 2010; Office of Applied Studies, 2008). Marijuana is a topic of significant public discussion, and while many are familiar with the debates, there are many facets to examine further to determine if it should be legalized.  Moreover, there is not much evidence-based information that is relevant and readily available on the topic.  When trying to decide if our state legislature should legalize marijuana, it is important to highlight the stance the federal government’s take on this issue and consider which approach would make improvements to public health and safety in our community. The federal government opposes legalization of marijuana because it would “increase the availability and use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks to all Americans, particularly young people.” (The White House, 2015)           Marijuana poses substantial risks to public health and significant danger to the health and safety of society.  (The White House, 2015) Close to 4.2 million people met the criteria for abuse or dependence on marijuana in 2011, which has been associated with addition, respiratory conditions, and cognitive impairment. In addition, research shows that increasing the accessibility of drugs can increase use and in turn, bring about greater consequences. Greater consumption of marijuana leads to greater public health and financial costs for the general public. It has been shown that alcohol and tobacco, which are legal and taxed, already cause much higher social costs than the returns they generate.        Benefits of legalization may include pain management and nausea control for cancer and HIV/AIDS patients, decreased costs of the criminal justice system, and tax revenue from sales (Levine and Reinarman, 1991; van den Brink, 2008; Wodak, 2002). It has also been pointed out that those with seizure disorders may benefit from marijuana. Marijuana may also contain an anti-inflammatory effect (Nagarkatti, et al. 2009) and may bring relief to some patients with inflammatory bowel disease.(Esposito et al., 2013). However, there is currently no consensus on the effectiveness of marijuana as a treatment for symptoms of pain, nausea, and other symptoms caused by sicknesses or treatment (Joy et al., 1999; MacCoun and Reuter, 2001a; Martín-Sánchez et al., 2009). Due to the lack of medical consensus at present means that both positive and negative promoters of medical marijuana laws can find research to support their positions. (Cerdá et al., 2012)       Colorado has experienced healthy system effects due to legalization. There has been an increase in visits to hospitals due to marijuana intoxication associated with anxiety, panic attacks, and vomiting to name a few.The legalization has also resulted in an increased prevalence of burns, cyclic vomiting syndrome, The most concerning health effects have the rate of ingestion among children. Fifteen children were seen for ingestion over the past two years at Children’s Hospital of Colorado. (Wang, Roosevelt, & Hears, 2013).      Although marijuana legalization has been shown by some to be successful, there have also been unfortunate and unpleasant health effects. There are many risks surrounding the use of marijuana. Additional research is needed to examine the benefits and hazards of marijuana use to determine if it is beneficial to healthcare before that can be a valid reason to examine legalization further. Cerdá, M., Wall, M., Keyes, K. M., Galea, S., & Hasin, D. (2012). Medical marijuana laws in 50 states: investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and dependence. Drug and alcohol dependence, 120(1), 22-27. Compton, W.M., Conway, K.P., Stinson, F.S., Colliver, J.D., Grant, B.F. (2005). Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity of DSM-IV antisocial personality syndromes and alcohol and specific drug use disorders in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J. Clin. Psychiatry 66, 677–685. Esposito, G., Filippis, D. D., Cirillo, C., Iuvone, T., Capoccia, E., Scuderi, C., & Steardo, L. (2013). Cannabidiol in inflammatory bowel diseases: a brief overview. Phytotherapy Research, 27(5), 633-636. Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., Schulenberg, J.E. (2009). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2008. In: Volume II: College Students. NIH Publication No. 10-7586. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, MD. Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., Schulenberg, J.E. (2010). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2009. In: Volume I: Secondary School Students. NIH Publication No. 10-7584. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, MD. Joy, J., Watson Jr., S., Benson, J. (Eds.), (1999). Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Levine, H.G., Reinarman, C. (1991). From prohibition to regulation—lessons from alcohol policy for drug policy. Milbank Q. 69, 461–494. MacCoun, R., Reuter, P. (Eds.), 2001a. Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Martín-Sánchez, E., Furukawa, T., Taylor, J., Martin, J. (2009). Systematic review and meta-analysis of cannabis treatment for chronic pain. Pain Med. 10, 1353–1368. Nagarkatti, P., Pandey, R., Rieder, S. A., Hegde, V. L., & Nagarkatti, M. (2009). Cannabinoids as novel anti-inflammatory drugs. Future medicinal chemistry, 1(7), 1333-1349. Office of Applied Studies ( 2008). Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. DHHS Publication No. SMA 08-4343, NSDUH Series H-34. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD. Monte, A. A., Zane, R. D., & Heard, K. J. (2014). The Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado. JAMA. van den Brink, W. (2008). Forum: decriminalization of cannabis. Curr. Opin. Psychiatr. 21, 122–126. Wang, G. S., Roosevelt, G., & Heard, K. (2013). Pediatric marijuana exposures in a medical marijuana state. JAMA pediatrics, 167(7), 630-633. White House, Marijuana https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuana Wodak, A. (2002). For and against—cannabis control: costs outweigh the benefits. For. Br. Med. J. 324, 105–106.

Sent from my iPhone

Vitamins: Go For It!

It is in fact true that a well-balanced diet should provide most of the nutrients you need. However, a majority of people don’t have healthy eating habits. That is simply why adding a multivitamin into your daily regimen can help supplement one’s diet, and in fact, may contain added health benefits.  Not all scientists agree on multivitamins and some do not recommend them because of claims that there is not enough evidence that multivitamins boost health. Some say that there’s not enough proof that multivitamins boost health. There are also others who reference studies that seem to show an association between use of a multivitamins and an increased risk of death. However, Harvard School of Public Health claims these studies to be flawed. Scientific data demonstrates that dietary supplements are favorable for overall health and for managing some health conditions. (The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: National Institute of Health, 2011). Looking at all the evidence, the potential health benefits of taking a standard daily multivitamin seem to outweigh the potential risks for most people (Harvard School of Public Health).

According to a study performed in 2011 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, multivitamins are the most commonly used dietary supplement. The study found that 110 million Americans use vitamins and supplements every year, which amounted to close to 50 percent of the population (Gahche et. al, 2011).The dietary habits of many Americans do not satisfy recommended nutrient intake levels. Many people in developed countries are not consuming recommended amounts of nutrients (Troesch et al., 2012). Multivitamin supplements allow for people to acquire the vitamins and minerals their bodies need (Fulgoni et al., 2011). Dietary surveys report insufficient intake of vitamins and minerals among the population that are outlined in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture) Additionally, these supplemental vitamin recommendations for some population groups are also highlighted in reports from the Institute of Medicine relating to Dietary Reference Intakes (Insititute of Medicine, 1998).

            A study surveyed several nurses and physicians to investigate if they personally used multi-vitamins (dietary supplements) on a daily basis.  The Healthcare Professionals Impact Study (HCP Impact Study) showed that 72% of physicians and 89% of nurses in this sample used dietary supplements regularly, occasionally, or seasonally (Dickinson, A., Boyon, N., & Shao, A., 2009). The study also reported that most common reason provided for using dietary supplements was for overall health and wellness (40% of physicians and 48% of nurses). Interestingly enough, the survey also found that close to 80% of doctors and nurses recommend dietary supplements to their patients. Moreover, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee supports that if parents wish to give their children supplements, a standard pediatric multivitamin generally poses no risk.

            Due to the fact that multivitamins pose as a greater benefit than harm, is recommended by an overwhelming majority of doctors, and its affordability, a daily multi-vitamin seems logical for most adults. Taking daily multi-vitamins typically costs between $20-$40 per year. The cost of a multivitamin supplement is affordable and comparable to about a quarter serving of vegetables. Therefore, it is not likely to compromise nutritious foods in a persons’ grocery budget. According to the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source, A daily multivitamin is an “inexpensive nutrition insurance policy” and recommends that you try to take one every day.

 American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition, Feeding the Child (2009). Pediatric Nutrition Handbook: 145-174.

Dickinson, A., Boyon, N., & Shao, A. (2009). Physicians and nurses use and recommend dietary supplements: report of a survey. Nutr J, 8, 29.

Fulgoni, V. L., Keast, D. R., Bailey, R. L., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Foods, fortificants, and supplements: where do Americans get their nutrients?. The Journal of nutrition, 141(10), 1847-1854.

Gahche, J., Bailey, R., Burt, V., Hughes, J., Yetley, E., Dwyer, J., ... & Sempos, C. (2011). Dietary supplement use among US adults has increased since NHANES III (1988-1994). NCHS data brief, (61), 1-8.

Harvard School of Public Health, the Nutrition Source: What Should I Eat?

Institute of Medicine: Dietary Reference Intakes for thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B-6, folate, vitamin B-12, pantothenic acid, biotin, and choline. Washington, D.C., National Academies Press; 1998.

Troesch, B., Hoeft, B., McBurney, M., Eggersdorfer, M., & Weber, P. (2012). Dietary surveys indicate vitamin intakes below recommendations are common in representative Western countries. British Journal of Nutrition, 108(04), 692-698.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S.Department of Agriculture. In Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office; 2005.

Willett, W. C., & Stampfer, M. J. (2001). What vitamins should I be taking, doctor? New England Journal of Medicine, 345(25), 1819-1824.

The Vaccine Controversy

            Skepticism surrounding vaccinations have been on the rise throughout the past three years. There have been a growing number of parents that have elected not to get their children vaccinated due to a false belief that vaccines are associated with autism spectrum disorder.  For this reason, many children have been unvaccinated throughout the nation. As a result, there was an outbreak of measles within the last year tracing back to California. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 84 people in 14 different states had measles during January of 2015.  News breaks began to circulate following the outbreak detailing that most of those who were infected were exposed either from Disneyland or from a host person who went there. Due to the growing controversy and adverse effects of those electing not to vaccinate their children, schools demanded that those who were not vaccinated to stay at home due to the outbreak of measles. Individuals were disregarding the Center for Disease Control’s recommendation to receive a measles vaccination between the ages of 1 to 4, as well as between the ages of 4 to 6.

            I feel as though taking the position of anti-vaccination is a stance that can be disproven through evidence-based practice. Within the past decade, many reputable organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and Center for Disease Control (CDC) have disproven the claim that there is an association between vaccines such as the measles vaccines and autism spectrum disorder. Those choosing not to vaccinate their children are causing harm to their children and children throughout the United States due to making uninformed decisions. Not only is there research to prove there is no association between the two, the original report made by Andrew Wakefield that made claims of vaccines being a causation in 1998 has been retracted.

            The World Health Organization was advised by The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) in 2003 to further investigate the measles vaccine and autism spectrum disorder. The WHO performed a literature review to present to the GACVS to receive it’s considerations. Several relevant studies were reviewed extensively which concluded that there was no association between autism and the measles vaccines. Therefore, the GACVS released that there is no evidence leading to an association between the measles vaccine and autism. Furthermore, in 2011, an Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report involving eight different vaccines given to children and adults that were found to be extremely safe. The Center for Disease Control also contributed to the findings in 2013 with research performed that investigated antigens levels from vaccines in children with autism and without autism. Therefore, it was concluded that vaccines do not cause autism (DeStefano, F., Price, C. S., & Weintraub, E. S., 2013). In March of 2014, the Global Advisory Committee released a Vaccine Safety Statement in which two studies were declaring a relation between aluminum in vaccines and autism spectrum disorder. It found serious faults and shortcomings in the two studies that discredited their value

            There is much evidence to show that vaccines such as the measles vaccine does not cause autism. In fact, the GACVS recommended when disproving the false claim of an association between autism and vaccines, that the committee suggested that rather, autism and it’s etiology be further investigated.  Not only are vaccines safe, but they save lives! We have a responsibility as informed citizen to be advocates for what is true, right, and what is best to protect future generations.

Clayton, E. W., Rusch, E., Ford, A., & Stratton, K. (Eds.). (2012). Adverse Effects of Vaccines:: Evidence and Causality. National Academies Press.

DeStefano, F. (2007). Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 82(6), 756-759.

DeStefano, F., Price, C. S., & Weintraub, E. S. (2013). Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. The Journal of pediatrics, 163(2), 561-567.

Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety Statement on the continued safety of HPV vaccination (2014, March 12)

Hoyer, M., Reilly, S.  (2015, February 5). Some parents focus only on own kids, experts say, USA Today, pp. 05A,

Plotkin, S., Gerber, J. S., & Offit, P. A. (2009). Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 48(4), 456-461.

Sabra, A., Bellanti, J. A., & Colón, A. R. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 352(9123), 234-235.

Szabo, L (2015, January 30). 14 states see infection; 'This is a wake-up call.’ USA Today, pp. 01A

Taylor, L. E., Swerdfeger, A. L., & Eslick, G. D. (2014). Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine, 32(29), 3623-3629.