Diskusi

Vaksinasi Flu Burung Kurang Efektif

Vaksinasi Flu Burung Kurang Efektif
Selasa, 6 Januari 2009 | 22:00 WIB

JAKARTA, SELASA – Vaksinasi flu burung pada unggas ternyata tidak efektif untuk mematikan virus itu di dalam tubuh unggas sehingga tidak bisa mengendalikan penyebaran virus itu kepada manusia. Bahkan, vaksinasi secara sembarangan justru bisa meningkatkan tingkat keganasan virus tersebut dan berpotensi besar menular kepada manusia.

Menurut peneliti dari Tropical Disease Diagnostic Center (TDDC) Universitas Airlangga, drh CA Nidom, Selasa (6/1), di Jakarta, hasil riset yang dilakukan menunjukkan vaksinasi pada semua jenis ayam, baik ayam buras atau kampung maupun ayam ras pedaging, tidak ada manfaatnya untuk mencegah penularan pada manusia.

Dalam riset itu, tim peneliti membandingkan antara kelompok ayam yang diberi vaksin flu burung dan ayam yang tidak diberi vaksin. Setelah dipaparkan dengan virus flu burung, ayam yang tidak mendapat vaksin langsung mati. Adapun ayam yang telah divaksin dan terbentuk antibodinya terlihat sehat meski telah dipaparkan dengan virus itu.

Namun ternyata feses atau kotoran ayam yang sudah divaksin itu positif mengandung virus flu burung sampai hari keenam atau hari terakhir pemeriksaan laboratorium. “Jadi, dari aspek penyebaran virus itu pada manusia, vaksinasi tidak punya manfaat apa pun, tetapi bisa mencegah kematian pada unggas,” ujarnya.

Maka dari itu, pemerintah sebaiknya mengalihkan dananya yang semula untuk vaksinasi massal flu burung menjadi dana untuk kompensasi bagi para peternak yang unggasnya mati akibat terserang flu burung. Yang perlu dilakukan adalah, pengawasan flu burung secara nasional untuk memetakan daerah di mana ada unggas yang terinfeksi flu burung, ujarnya.

Selain itu, restrukturisasi industri perunggasan mendesak dilakukan. Salah satunya adalah, melarang perdagangan ayam hidup di pasar unggas, mengontrol lalu-lintas unggas antar daerah, dan melarang peternakan unggas di kawasan pemukiman.”Pengendalian flu burung tidak bisa hanya dilakukan peternak, tetapi harus berskala nasional,” kata Nidom.

Advertisements

Susu Sapi Bikin Bayi Alergi

Susu Sapi Bikin Bayi Alergi
Selasa, 12 Mei 2009 | 22:02 WIB

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com – Dokter spesialis anak ahli imunologi Dr Zakiudin Munasir mengatakan, susu sapi dan produk turunan susu sapi lainnya merupakan penyebab alergi terbesar, terutama pada bayi.

Dr Zakiudin Munasir, dalam seminar “Apakah Alergi diturunkan Secara Genetik” di Jakarta, Selasa, mengatakan, susu sapi yang merupakan protein asing utama bagi bayi pada bulan-bulan awal kehidupannya berpotensi menimbulkan reaksi alergi yang pertama kali, dengan gejala-gejala pada saluran cerna seperti diare dan muntah.

Menurut dia, adanya protein asing dalam tubuh bayi dan ditambah kondisi saluran pencernaannya yang belum sempurna, sehingga bayi rentan mengalami alergi yang diakibatkan oleh susu sapi ini.

“Makanan yang cocok untuk bayi adalah ASI (air susu ibu). Itulah sebabnya, bayi disarankan diberi ASI (air susu ibu) eksklusif, setidaknya hingga usia 6 bulan,” kata Zakiudin.

Fungsi ASI dalam mencegah alergi karena mengandung zat gizi lengkap yang dibutuhkan bayi, termasuk protein “Hypo allergenik”, DHA, probiotik dan kolostrum yang dapat melindungi bayi dari alergi.

Alergi merupakan reaksi kekebalan tubuh yang menyimpang atau berubah dari normal yang dapat menimbulkan gejala merugikan tubuh mulai dari gangguan pernafasan, kulit hingga mata.

Selain susu sapi, Zaikudin juga menyebut makanan lain, seperti telur, makanan laut, kacang-kacangan dan masih banyak lagi macamnya pemicu alergi.

Zakiudin menjelaskan bahwa angka kejadian alergi terus meningkat sejalan dengan perubahan pola hidup masyarakat yang semakin modern.

Dia menyebut, banyaknya zat yang terkandung di dalam makanan dan minuman, selain itu tingginya polusi saat ini merupakan penyebab terjadinya alergi.

“Memang alergi di Indonesia tidak sebesar di negara maju lainnya, namun ityu perlu diwaspadai,” tegasnya.

Zakiudin menyebut tiga tindakan pencegahan terjadinya alergi, yakni menghindari pencetus alergi, menjalani hidup sehat dan memakai obat-obatan.

“Jika terjadi alergi, hindari makanan atau hal lain yang menjadi pemicunya. Jika sudah terjadi yang lakukan dengan obat-obatan atau terapi,” katanya.

Terkait pengobatan alergi, dokter biasanya memberikan obat-obatan seperti antihistamin dan kortikosteroid (baik yang diberikan lewat mulut, suntikan, maupun inhalasi) untuk memperkuat dinding sel mast dalam tubuh pasien.

MUI Sumsel Yakini Vaksin Meningistis untuk Calhaj Haram

http://republika.co.id/berita/46652/MUI_Sumsel_Yakini_Vaksin_Meningistis_untuk_Calhaj_Haram

MUI Sumsel Yakini Vaksin Meningistis untuk Calhaj Haram

By Republika Newsroom

Senin, 27 April 2009 pukul 11:42:00

PALEMBANG — Majelis Ulama Indonesia Sumatera Selatan (MUI Sumsel) tetap pada sikapnya, meyakini bahwa vaksin meningitis yang digunakan untuk calon jemaah haji atau umrah tersebut haram karena mengandung enzim yang berasal dari binatang babi. Ketua MUI Sumsel KH Sodikun, Senin (27/4) menegaskan, apa yang disampaikan LPPOM MUI Sumsel bersama para pakar sudah melalui diskusi dan pengkajian. “Hasil kajian MUI Sumsel ini sudah kami sampaikan ke MUI pusat melalui forum Rakernas MUI pada November 2008 di Jakarta. Namun apa yang kami sampaikan sampai kini belum ada respon baik dari Menteri Agama dan Menteri Kesehatan,” ujarnya. Menurut Sekretaris MUI Sumsel KH Ayik Farid, “Dalam Rakernas MUI sudah kami sampaikan bahwa proses pembuatan vaksin meningitis tersebut menggunakan enzim porchin dari binatang babi. LPPOM MUI Pusat juga sudah mengakui itu, namun karena sudah ada kontrak pengadaan vaksin tersebut selama lima tahun maka penggunaannya tidak bisa diganti.” Ayik Farid juga mengakui, bahwa temuan MUI Sumsel tersebut sudah melewati forum diskusi dengan para pakar, diantaranya pakar farmakologi Prof Dr T Kamaluddin Ketua Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Sriwijaya (Unsri), pakar penyakit dalam dan pakar dokter anak. “Jadi apa yang kami sampaikan tentang vaksin meningitis yang mengandung enzim babi bukan tanpa melalui kajian. Kajian ini sudah kami sampaikan ke MUI Pusat melalui forum Rekernas MUI pada Novermber 2008. MUI Sumsel bukan ingin membuat keresahan di tengah masyarakat. MUI Sumsel berharap masalah ini segera menjadi perhatian serius Departemen Agama dan Departemen Kesehatan,” tambah Sodikun. Sementara itu Prof Nasruddin Iljas Ketua LPPOM MUI Sumsel menjelaskan, negara lain seperti Malaysia telah menggunakan vaksin meningitis yang halal dari sapi. “Jadi sudah seharusnya pemerintah pusat, khususnya Departemen Agama segera mencari alternatif pengganti vaksin meningitis yang tidak mengandung binatang babi.” Nasruddin mengatakan, jika produk makanan, obat-obatan serta kosmetik mengandung bahan yang tidak halal maka akan menghambat bahkan menyebabkan ibadah umat Islam sia-sia. “Ini harus menjadi perhatian. Apalagi sekarang marak beredar makanan yang berasal dari daging babi,” tambahnya. Terhadap para jemaah haji yang telah menggunakan vaksin meningitis yang mengandung enzim babi tersebut, Ketua MUI Sumsel menjelaskan, masuknya zat haram ke dalam tubuh para calon jemaah haji itu berakibat menghalangi kemabruran hajinya. Sebab syarat mabrurnya haji, selain bersih secara jiwa, para jamaah haji juga harus bersih secara raga. “Kalau tubuh kita kemasukan zat yang diharamkan maka dapat menghalangi terkabulnya doa. Tapi bagi mereka yang tidak tahu bisa dimaafkan, yang berdosa adalah orang yang mengambil kebijakan dan mengetahui hal itu tapi tetap dilaksanakan,” tegasnya. oed/fif

Vaccine controversy – wikipedia

Vaccine controversy – wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

A vaccine controversy is a dispute over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, or safety of vaccination. Medical opinion is that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases greatly outweigh the risks of adverse effects following immunization.[1][2] Some vaccination critics say that vaccines are ineffective against disease[3], that vaccine safety studies are inadequate, or raise other objections.[2][3] Some religious groups oppose vaccination as a matter of doctrine,[4] and some political groups oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of individual liberty.[5]

Contents

[hide]

<!–
//
// –>

[edit] Arguments for

Rubella fell sharply when immunization was introduced. CDC

Rubella fell sharply when immunization was introduced. CDC

A number of arguments regarding the benefits of mass vaccination have been advanced:

[edit] Life-saving

Mass vaccination campaigns were essential components of strategies that led to the eradication of smallpox, which once killed as many as every seventh child in Europe,[6] and the near-eradication of polio.[7] As a more modest example, incidence of invasive disease with Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of bacterial meningitis and other serious disease in children, has decreased by over 99% in the U.S. since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988.[8]

[edit] Cost

Vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall health care and social costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5.[9]

[edit] Population health

Incomplete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated. One study found that doubling the number of unvaccinated individuals would increase the risk of measles in vaccinated children anywhere from 5–30%.[10] A second study provided evidence that the risk of measles and pertussis increased in vaccinated children proportionally to the number of unvaccinated individuals among them, again highlighting the evident efficacy of widespread vaccine coverage for public health.[11]

[edit] Events following reductions in vaccination

In several countries since 1960, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases’ morbidity and mortality.

Stockholm, smallpox (1873–74)

An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, by concerns about effectiveness, and by concerns about individual rights, led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic then started in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic.[12]

UK, DPT (1970s–80s)

A 1974 report ascribed 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and pertussis epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically.[13]

Sweden, pertussis (1979–96)

In the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, 60% of the country’s children contracted the potentially fatal disease before the age of ten years; close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year.[14] Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, where mass vaccination is not practiced; the World Health Organization estimates it caused 294,000 deaths in 2002.[15]

Netherlands, measles (1999–2000)

An outbreak at a religious community and school in The Netherlands illustrates the effect of measles in an unvaccinated population.[16] The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunization with the exception of one of the religious denominations who traditionally do not accept vaccination. The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands demonstrate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries.

Ireland, measles (2000)

From late 1999 until the summer of 2000, there was a measles outbreak in North Dublin, Ireland. At the time, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin the level was around 60%. There were more than 100 hospital admissions from over 300 cases. Three children died and several more were gravely ill, some requiring mechanical ventilation to recover.[17][18]

Nigeria, polio, measles, diphtheria (2001 onward)

In the early 2000s, conservative religious leaders in northern Nigeria, suspicious of Western medicine, advised their followers to not have their children vaccinated with oral polio vaccine. The boycott was endorsed by the governor of Kano State, and immunization was suspended for several months. Subsequently, polio reappeared in a dozen formerly polio-free neighbors of Nigeria, and genetic tests showed the virus was the same one that originated in northern Nigeria: Nigeria had become a net exporter of polio virus to its African neighbors. People in the northern states were also reported to be wary of other vaccinations, and Nigeria reported over 20,000 measles cases and nearly 600 deaths from measles from January through March 2005.[19] In 2006 Nigeria accounted for over half of all new polio cases worldwide.[20] Outbreaks continued thereafter; for example, at least 200 children died in a late-2007 measles outbreak in Borno State.[21]

Indiana, measles (2005)

A 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana was due to children whose parents had refused to have them vaccinated.[22] Most cases of pediatric tetanus in the U.S. occur in children whose parents objected to their vaccination.[23]

[edit] Arguments against

Since the inception of vaccination in the late 18th century, opponents have argued that vaccines do not work, that they are dangerous, that individuals should rely on personal hygiene instead, or that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.[5]

[edit] Effectiveness

Some vaccine critics claim that there have never been any benefits to public health from vaccination.[24][25] They argue that all the reduction of communicable diseases which were rampant in conditions where overcrowding, poor sanitation, almost non-existent hygiene and a yearly period of very restricted diet existed, are reduced because of changes in conditions excepting vaccination.[25] As discussed below, the philosophies of some alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective.[26]

Children who survive diseases like diphtheria develop a natural immunity that lasts longer than immunity developed via vaccination. Even though the overall mortality rate is much lower with vaccination, the percentage of adults protected against the disease may also be lower.[27] Vaccination critics argue that for diseases like diphtheria the extra risk to older or weaker adults may outweigh the benefit of lowering the mortality rate among the general population.[3]

[edit] Safety

Few deny the vast improvements vaccination has made to public health; a more common concern is their safety.[28] All vaccines may cause side effects, and immunization safety is a real concern. Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of saving children from tragic outcomes of common diseases.[1] Critics point out that lack of evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of safety.[3]

[edit] Auto-immune disorders

If individual or multiple vaccinations were to “weaken the immune system”, as some vaccine critics contend, then one would expect an increase in hospitalizations for other infections following immunization. A large epidemiological study, involving all 805,206 children born in Denmark between 1990 and 2001, found no evidence that multiple-antigen vaccines, nor the increasing number of vaccinations given to children, led to a higher rate of infections.[29]

A 2006 study of health data from the Canadian province of Ontario (where influenza vaccines have been free since 2000), found a correlation between receiving a vaccination and developing Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in individuals, but no increase of GBS in the general population corresponding to vaccination popularity. The authors concluded, “individuals who receive the influenza vaccine should be advised of the potential risk for GBS”.[30]

[edit] Aluminum

Aluminum compounds are used in many vaccines as immunologic adjuvants, to stimulate the immune system and increase the response of the vaccine. Although these vaccines can elicit redness, itching, and low-grade fever,[31] and aluminum as such is considered neurotoxic for humans, its use in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.[32] In some cases aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminum salts that persist up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminum-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.[32]

[edit] Thiomersal

The organic mercury content of thiomersal in child vaccines has been alleged to contribute to autism, and thousands of parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund.[33]

In July 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible, and thiomersal has been phased out of most U.S. and European vaccines.[34] However, the 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel favoured rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.[35] The CDC and the AAP followed the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unwarranted, but their 1999 action sparked confusion and controversy that has diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the causes of autism.[34] The current scientific consensus is that there is no convincing scientific evidence that thiomersal causes or helps cause autism.[36]

[edit] MMR vaccine

In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, et al., reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[37] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[38] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates,[39] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[40]

In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield’s 12 co-authors.[41] The CDC,[42] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[43] and the UK National Health Service[44] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[2]

[edit] Prenatal infection

There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a seven-fold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygiene.[45] When weighing the benefits of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia, influenza vaccination for women of reproductive age still makes sense, but it is not known whether vaccination during pregnancy helps or harms.[46] The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons:[47]

  • their risk for serious influenza-related medical complications during the last two trimesters;
  • their greater rates for flu-related hospitalizations compared to nonpregnant women;
  • the possible transfer of maternal anti-influenza antibodies to children, protecting the children from the flu; and
  • several studies that found no harm to pregnant women or their children from the vaccinations.

Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant U.S. women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu.[47]

[edit] Individual liberty

Further information: Vaccination policy

Compulsory vaccination policies have provoked opposition at various times from people who say that governments should not infringe on the freedom of an individual to choose medications, even if the choice increases the risk of disease to others.[5][48] If a vaccination program successfully reduces the disease threat, it may reduce the perceived risk of disease enough so that an individual’s optimal strategy is to refuse vaccination at coverage levels below those optimal for the community.[49] If many exemptions are granted to mandatory vaccination rules, the resulting free rider problem may cause loss of herd immunity, substantially increasing risks even to vaccinated individuals.[50]

[edit] Religion

Vaccination has been opposed on religious grounds ever since it was introduced, even when vaccination is not compulsory. Early Christian opponents argued that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God’s will via vaccination.[4] Opposition continues to the present day, on various grounds. For example, the Family Research Council, a conservative U.S. Christian group, opposes mandatory vaccination for diseases typically spread via sexual contact, arguing that the possibility of disease deters sexual promiscuity.[51] Many governments allow parents to opt out of their children’s otherwise-mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons; some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions.[52]

[edit] Alternative medicine

Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition. These include anthroposophy, some elements of the chiropractic community, non-medically trained homoeopaths, and naturopaths.[26]

Historically, chiropractic strongly opposed vaccination based on its belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, “It is the very height of absurdity to strive to ‘protect’ any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison.”[53] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic. The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[54] The Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination; however, surveys in Canada in 2000 and 2002 found that only 40% of chiropractors supported vaccination, and that over a quarter opposed it and advised patients against vaccinating themselves or their children.[53] Although most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[53] antivaccination sentiment is espoused by what appears to be a minority of chiropractors.[54]

Several surveys have shown that some practitioners of homeopathy, particularly lay homeopaths, advise patients against vaccination.[55] For example, a survey of registered homeopaths in Austria found that only 28% considered immunization to be an important preventive measure, and 83% of homeopaths surveyed in Sydney, Australia did not recommend vaccination.[26] Many practitioners of naturopathy also oppose vaccination.[26]

[edit] Dispute resolution

Main article: Vaccine court

The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death. It was established after a scare in the 1980s over the DPT vaccine: even though claims of side effects were later generally discredited, large jury awards had been given to some claimants of DPT vaccine injuries, and most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production. Claims against vaccine manufacturers must be heard first in the vaccine court.[33] By 2008 the fund had paid out 2,114 awards totaling $1.7 billion.[56] Thousand of autism-related claims are pending before the court, and have not yet been resolved.[33]

[edit] History of anti-vaccinationism

Portrait of Jenner

Portrait of Jenner

After the work of Edward Jenner, vaccination became widespread in the United Kingdom in the early 1800s.[57] Variolation, which had preceded vaccination, was banned in 1840 because of its greater risks. Public policy and successive Vaccination Acts first encouraged vaccination and then made it mandatory, with the highest penalty for refusal being a prison sentence. This was a significant change in the relationship between the British state and its citizens, and there was a public backlash. Initially this was focused against compulsory vaccination, and later included arguments that vaccination was dangerous and ineffective.

In the 19th century, the city of Leicester in the UK achieved a high level of isolation of smallpox cases and great reduction in spread compared to other areas. The mainstay of Leicester’s approach to conquering smallpox was to decline vaccination and put their public funds into sanitary improvements.[58][59] Bigg’s account of the public health procedures in Leicester, presented as evidence to the Royal Commission, refers to erysipelas, an infection of the superficial tissues which was a complication of any surgical procedure.

In the U.S., President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Dr. Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[60] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox).

Anti-vaccination activity increased again in the U.S. in the late 19th century. After a visit to New York in 1879 by William Tebb, a prominent British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885.

The first arguments against vaccination were theological.[4] Some anti-vaccinationists still base their stance against vaccination with reference to the Bible.[61] In the early 19th century, the anti-vaccination movement drew members from across a wide range of society; more recently, it has been reduced to a predominantly middle-class phenomenon.[62] Arguments made against the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in the 21st century are similar to those of the early anti-vaccinationists.[5]

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Bonhoeffer J, Heininger U (2007). “Adverse events following immunization: perception and evidence”. Curr Opin Infect Dis 20 (3): 237–46. doi:10.1097/QCO.0b013e32811ebfb0. PMID 17471032.
  2. ^ a b c Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D (2005). “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children”. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19 (4). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub2. PMID 16235361. Lay summaryCochrane press release (PDF) (200510-19).
  3. ^ a b c d Halvorsen R (2007). The Truth about Vaccines. Gibson Square. ISBN 9781903933923.
  4. ^ a b c White AD (1896). “Theological opposition to inoculation, vaccination, and the use of anæsthetics“, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New York: Appleton. Retrieved on 200708-17.
  5. ^ a b c d Wolfe R, Sharp L (2002). “Anti-vaccinationists past and present“. BMJ 325 (7361): 430–2. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7361.430. PMID 12193361.
  6. ^ Fenner F, Henderson DA, Arita I, Ježek Z, Ladnyi, ID (1988). Smallpox and its Eradication (PDF), Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 92-4-156110-6. Retrieved on 200709-04.
  7. ^ Sutter RW, Maher C (2006). “Mass vaccination campaigns for polio eradication: an essential strategy for success”. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 304: 195–220. PMID 16989271.
  8. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2002). “Progress toward elimination of Haemophilus influenzae type b invasive disease among infants and children—United States, 1998–2000“. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 51 (11): 234–7. PMID 11925021.
  9. ^ Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML et al. (2005). “Economic evaluation of the 7-vaccine routine childhood immunization schedule in the United States, 2001“. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159 (12): 1136–44. PMID 16330737.
  10. ^ Salmon DA, Haber M, Gangarosa EJ, Phillips L, Smith NJ, Chen RT (1999). “Health consequences of religious and philosophical exemptions from immunization laws: individual and societal risk of measles”. JAMA 282 (1): 47–53. PMID 10404911.
  11. ^ Feikin DR, Lezotte DC, Hamman RF, Salmon DA, Chen RT, Hoffman RE (2000). “Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization”. JAMA 284 (24): 3145–50. PMID 11135778.
  12. ^ Nelson MC, Rogers J (1992). “The right to die? Anti-vaccination activity and the 1874 smallpox epidemic in Stockholm”. Soc Hist Med 5 (3): 369–88. PMID 11645870.
  13. ^ Gangarosa EJ, Galazka AM, Wolfe CR et al. (1998). “Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story”. Lancet 351 (9099): 356–61. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04334-1. PMID 9652634.
  14. ^ Allen A (2002). “Bucking the herd“. The Atlantic 290 (2): 40–2. Retrieved on 200711-07.
  15. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007). “Pertussis“, in Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIntyre L, Wolfe S: Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Washington, DC: Public Health Foundation.
  16. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2000). “Measles outbreak—Netherlands, April 1999–January 2000“. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 49 (14): 299–303. PMID 10825086.
  17. ^Measles outbreak feared“, BBC News, 30 May 2000. Retrieved on 200711-23.
  18. ^ McBrien J, Murphy J, Gill D, Cronin M, O’Donovan C, Cafferkey M (2003). “Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000”. Pediatr Infect Dis J 22 (7): 580–4. PMID 12867830.
  19. ^ Clements CJ, Greenough P, Schull D (2006). “How vaccine safety can become political – the example of polio in Nigeria” (PDF). Curr Drug Saf 1 (1): 117–9.
  20. ^ Wild poliovirus 2000–2008 (PDF). Global Polio Eradication Initiative (200802-05). Retrieved on 200802-11.
  21. ^‘Hundreds’ dead in measles outbreak“, IRIN, 200712-14. Retrieved on 200802-10.
  22. ^ Parker A, Staggs W, Dayan G et al. (2006). “Implications of a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana for sustained elimination of measles in the United States”. N Engl J Med 355 (5): 447–55. PMID 16885548.
  23. ^ Fair E, Murphy TV, Golaz A, Wharton M (2002). “Philosophic objection to vaccination as a risk for tetanus among children younger than 15 years“. Pediatrics 109 (1): e2. PMID 11773570.
  24. ^ Dr. med. Gerhard Buchwald (Ref: The Vaccination Nonsense. ISBN 3-8334-2508-3 page 108. Asserts that vaccination has never provided any benefit.
  25. ^ a b Morrell, Peter (October 13, 2000). eLetters: Vaccination: the wider picture?. Canadian Medical Association Journal. Retrieved on 200711-23.
  26. ^ a b c d Ernst E (2001). “Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination”. Vaccine 20 (Suppl 1): S89–93. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00290-0. PMID 11587822.
  27. ^ Galazka AM, Robertson SE (1995). “Diphtheria: changing patterns in the developing world and the industrialized world”. Eur J Epidemiol 11 (1): 107–17. PMID 7489768.
  28. ^ The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2007). “Tackling negative perceptions towards vaccination”. Lancet Infect Dis 7 (4): 235. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70057-9. PMID 17376373.
  29. ^ Hviid A, Wohlfahrt J, Stellfeld M, Melbye M (2005). “Childhood vaccination and nontargeted infectious disease hospitalization”. JAMA 294 (6): 699–705. PMID 16091572.
  30. ^ Juurlink DN, Stukel TA, Kwong J, et al (2006). “Guillain-Barré syndrome after influenza vaccination in adults: a population-based study”. Arch. Intern. Med. 166 (20): 2217–21. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.20.2217. PMID 17101939.
  31. ^ Baylor NW, Egan W, Richman P (2002). “Aluminum salts in vaccines—US perspective”. Vaccine 20 (Suppl 3): S18–23. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00166-4. Corrigendum (2002). Vaccine 20 (27–8): 3428. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00307-9 PMID 12184360.
  32. ^ a b François G, Duclos P, Margolis H et al. (2005). “Vaccine safety controversies and the future of vaccination programs”. Pediatr Infect Dis J 24 (11): 953–61. PMID 16282928.
  33. ^ a b c Sugarman SD (2007). “Cases in vaccine court—legal battles over vaccines and autism“. N Engl J Med 357 (13): 1275–7. PMID 17898095.
  34. ^ a b Offit PA (2007). “Thimerosal and vaccines—a cautionary tale“. N Engl J Med 357 (13): 1278–9.
  35. ^ Immunization Safety Review Committee (2004). Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-09237-X.
  36. ^ Doja A, Roberts W (2006). “Immunizations and autism: a review of the literature”. Can J Neurol Sci 33 (4): 341–6. PMID 17168158.
  37. ^ Wakefield A, Murch S, Anthony A et al. (1998). “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children“. Lancet 351 (9103): 637–41. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID 9500320. Retrieved on 200709-05.
  38. ^ National Health Service (2004). MMR: myths and truths. Retrieved on 200709-03.
  39. ^Doctors issue plea over MMR jab“, BBC News, 200606-26. Retrieved on 200711-23.
  40. ^MMR scare doctor ‘paid children’“, BBC News, 200707-16. Retrieved on 200711-23.
  41. ^ Murch SH, Anthony A, Casson DH et al. (2004). “Retraction of an interpretation”. Lancet 363 (9411): 750. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15715-2. PMID 15016483.
  42. ^ Autism and Vaccines Theory, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Accessed June 13, 2007.
  43. ^ Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. From the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. Report dated May 17, 2004; accessed June 13, 2007.
  44. ^ MMR Fact Sheet, from the United Kingdom National Health Service. Accessed June 13, 2007.
  45. ^ Brown AS (2006). “Prenatal infection as a risk factor for schizophrenia“. Schizophr Bull 32 (2): 200–2. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbj052. PMID 16469941.
  46. ^ Arehart-Treichel J (2007). “Schizophrenia risk factor found in maternal blood“. Psychiatr News 42 (3): 22.
  47. ^ a b Fiore AE, Shay DK, Haber P et al. (2007). “Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007“. MMWR Recomm Rep 56 (RR-6): 1-54.
  48. ^ Colgrove J, Bayer R (2005). “Manifold restraints: liberty, public health, and the legacy of Jacobson v Massachusetts“. Am J Public Health 95 (4): 571–6. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.055145. PMID 15798111.
  49. ^ Fine PE, Clarkson JA (1986). “Individual versus public priorities in the determination of optimal vaccination policies”. Am J Epidemiol 124 (6): 1012–20. PMID 3096132.
  50. ^ May T, Silverman RD (2005). “Free-riding, fairness and the rights of minority groups in exemption from mandatory childhood vaccination” (PDF). Hum Vaccin (1): 12–5. PMID 17038833.
  51. ^ Fortson D. “Moral majority take on GSK and Merck over cancer drugs“, The Independent, 200606-11. Retrieved on 200611-02.
  52. ^ LeBlanc S. “Parents use religion to avoid vaccines“, USA Today, 200710-17. Retrieved on 200711-24.
  53. ^ a b c Busse JW, Morgan L, Campbell JB (2005). “Chiropractic antivaccination arguments”. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 28 (5): 367–73. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.04.011. PMID 15965414.
  54. ^ a b Campbell JB, Busse JW, Injeyan HS (2000). “Chiropractors and vaccination: a historical perspective“. Pediatrics 105 (4): e43. PMID 10742364.
  55. ^ Schmidt K, Ernst E (2003). “MMR vaccination advice over the Internet”. Vaccine 21 (11-12): 1044-7. PMID 12559777.
  56. ^ National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program statistics reports. Health Resources and Services Administration (200801-08). Retrieved on 200801-22.
  57. ^ Ellner P (1998). “Smallpox: gone but not forgotten.”. Infection 26 (5): 263–9. PMID 9795781.
  58. ^ Eddy TP (1992). “The Leicester anti-vaccination movement”. Lancet 340 (8830): 1298. PMID 1359363.
  59. ^ Fourth and other reports of the Royal Commission into smallpox and Leicester 1871 et seq
  60. ^ (U.S.) Center for Disease Control
  61. ^ Vaccination – A Crime Against Humanity. The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood. Retrieved on 200611-02.
  62. ^ Fitzpatrick M (2005). “The anti-vaccination movement in England, 1853–1907”. J R Soc Med 98 (8): 384–5.

[edit] Further reading

Anti-vaccinationist publications
  • 1884 Compulsory Vaccination in England by William Tebb
  • 1885 The Story of a Great Delusion by William White
  • 1898 Vaccination A Delusion by Alfred Russel Wallace
  • 1936 The Case Against Vaccination by M. Beddow Bayly M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.
  • 1951 The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization by Lily Loat
  • 1957 The Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean
  • 1990 Universal Immunization: Miracle or Masterful Mirage by Dr. Raymond Obomsawin
  • 1993 Vaccination: 100 years of orthodox research shows that vaccines represent an assault on the immune system by Viera Scheibner. ISBN 0-646-15124-X
  • 2000 Behavioural Problems in Childhood by Viera Scheibner. ISBN 0-9578007-0-3

[edit] External links

Obat untuk sistem kekebalan tubuh anak

http://www.informasi-obat.com/content/view/87/31/

Obat untuk sistem kekebalan tubuh anak

Written by Administrator

Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Pengasuh yang terhormat
anak saya 1 tahun lebih sering sakit plu, hidungnya meler terus, yang saya tanyakan apakah obat yang tepat untuk menambah sistem kekebalan
tubuh untuk anak kecil?
terima kasih
Pera

Jawab :

Ada, ibu bisa memberikan sirup Stimuno,Divens, Imboost, atau Vit C/Ceelin. Untuk lebih lanjut saran saya ibu berkonsultasi dengan
dokter ibu.

Semoga informasi dari kami bermanfaat,

Indri Mulyani Bunyamin,S.Farm,Apt

Imunisasi Tambahan

http://g1s.org/hidupsehat/search/imunisasi+bcg

Imunisasi Tambahan

September 27, 2007

Masalah :

Ass.Wr.Wb.

Dokter Azhali yang terhormat.

SEJAK dulu, di SD sering diadakan imunisasi. Masalahnya sebelum masuk sekolah dasar anak telah diimunisasi, seperti halnya imunisasi campak yang menjadi salah satu program pemerintah.

Apakah pemberian imunisasi seperti itu tidak akan berakibat negatif terhadap anak yang memang sebelumnya sudah diberi imunisasi lengkap sejak bayi hingga waktu yang ditentukan? Apakah imunisasi tambahan itu akan efektif? Terima kasih atas penjelasan dokter.

Ny. Dina – Bandung

Jawaban :

Ibu Dina yang terhormat.

Campak merupakan penyakit sangat menular yang disebabkan oleh virus dengan karakteristik adanya demam, pilek, mata merah, batuk, dan timbul ruam kulit. Komplikasi yang timbul akibat campak seperti infeksi telinga, infeksi paru, diare yang bisa menjadi kronik sehingga anak menjadi kurang gizi, serta radang otak. Suatu hal yang harus dihindari pada anak kita.

Dalam pelayanan kesehatan anak, diprioritaskan agar anak tetap sehat melalui pencegahan terhadap tiap penyakit. Imunisasi merupakan salah satu upaya preventif yang mampu menekan angka kesakitan anak. Berbagai penyakit menular kejadiannya sangat menurun dengan imunisasi yang teratur dan cakupan pemberiannya luas. Jadi, imunisasi terhadap seorang anak tidak hanya melindungi anak tersebut, tetapi juga berdampak terhadap anak yang lain dengan menurunkan penyebaran penyakit infeksi. Untuk itu, saya sangat menghargai kesadaran dan kesediaan Ibu untuk terus memberikan imunisasi ulangan terhadap anaknya sebagai upaya mencegah penyakit infeksi yang berat.

Setiap anak yang dilakukan imunisasi, tidak memberikan jaminan ia akan kebal 100% terhadap penyakit tersebut. Ada beberapa anak kekebalannya belum timbul pada saat pertama kali dilakukan imunisasi campak, sehingga memiliki potensi untuk menjadi sakit dan menularkannya kepada anak lain yang daya tahan tubuhnya terhadap campak tidak optimal. Mudah-mudahan penjelasan saya cukup jelas dan saya harap Ibu dapat menularkan keyakinan Ibu kepada orang tua murid lain agar memberikan kesempatan pada anak untuk dilakukan imunisasi campak ulangan.

Prof. Dr. dr. H. Azhali, M.S., Sp. A.K.

Sumber : Pikiran Rakyat Online

Vaksin antara Ya dan Tidak

http://www.halalmui.or.id/?module=article⊂=article&act=view&id=130

Vaksin antara Ya dan Tidak

Alasan pertama; yang sering diungkapkan diungkapkan adalah tujuan dan filosofi imunisasi itu sendiri. Kaum naturalis menilai bahwa secara alamiah tubuh manusia sudah memiliki mekanisme pembentukan kekebalan sendiri yang mampu mencegah berbagai penyakit. Penggunaan vaksin justru bisa menimbulkan efek samping yang membahayakan si anak, antara lain mereka akan rentan dan lebih mudah terkena penyakit lain.

Masalah lain yang sering menjadi alasan penolakan adalah penggunaan bahan-bahan dalam proses pembuatan vaksin yang memang tidak sepenuhnya halal. Dalam proses pembuatan vaksin tersebut banyak melibatkan bahan penolong atau media yang bersumber dari zat-zat yang haram atau subhat. Masalah inilah yang lebih rasional dan semestinya dilakukan kajian mendalam. Kalau memang harus dilakukan imunisasi menggunakan vaksin, maka sebaiknya ia diproduksi secara halal dengan bahan baku, bahan penolong dan media yang benar-benar halal.

Tidak Sepenuhnya Halal

Sampai saat ini diakui oleh pakar kedokteran dan produsen obat bahwa proses pembuatan dan produksi vaksin ini tidak sepenuhnya halal. Misalnya penggunaan media tumbuh dalam proses produksi virus yang dilemahkan yang menggunakan media dari ginjal gera, ginjal babi, bahkan juga janin manusia yang digugurkan. Selain itu pada tahapan tertentu dalam proses produksi vaksin juga digunakan enzim tripsin yang bisa bersumber dari babi.

Sebagai contoh dalam proses pembuatan Vaksin Polio Inaktif (IVP), Virus Polio dikembangbiakkan menggunakan sel vero (berasal dari ginjal kera) sebagai media. Proses produksi vaksin ini melalui tahapan sebagai berikut:
1. Penyiapan medium (sel vero) untuk pengembangbiakan virus
2. Penanaman/inokulasi virus
3. Pemanenan virus
4. Pemurnian virus
5. Inaktivasi/atenuasi virus

Penyiapan media (sel vero) untuk pengembangbiakan virus dilakukan dengan menggunakan mikrokarier, yaitu bahan pembawa yang akan mengikat sel tersebut. Bahan tersebut adalah N,N diethyl amino ethyl (DEAE). Pada proses selanjutnya sel vero ini harus dilepaskan dari mikrokarier menggunakan enzim tripsin yang berasal dari babi.

Tahap selanjutnya adalah pembuangan larutan nutrisi. Hal ini dilakukan dengan proses pencucian menggunakan larutan PBS buffer. Larutan ini kemudian dinetralkan dengan menggunakan larutan serum anak sapi (calf serum). Larutan yang tidak digunakan tersebut dibuang atau menjadi produk samping yang digunakan untuk keperluan lain.

Sel-sel vero yang sudah dimurnikan dan dinetralisasi itu kemudian ditambahkan mikrokarier yang baru dan ditempatkan di bioreactor yang lebih besar. Di dalamnya ditambahkan zat nutrisi yang sedikit berbeda untuk menumbuhkan sel vero dalam jumlah yang lebih besar. Sel vero yang sudah bertambah jumlahnya ini kemudian dilepaskan lagi dari mikrokariernya dengan tripsin babi lagi. Proses ini berlangsung secara berulang-ulang sampai dihasilkan sel vero dalam jumlah yang diinginkan.

Titik kritis ditinjau dari sudut kehalalan dalam pembuatan sel vero ini adalah penggunaan enzim tripsin. Tripsin digunakan dalam proses pembuatan vaksin sebagai enzim proteolitik (enzim yang digunakan sebagai katalisator pemisahan sel / protein). Tripsin dipakai dalam proses produksi OPV (Oral Polio Vaccine) dan IPV (Inactivated Polio Vaccine). Masalahnya, enzim tripsin ini merupakan unsur derivat (turunan) dari pankreas babi.

Sebenarnya dalam setiap tahapan amplifikasi sel, tripsin harus dicuci bersih oleh karena Tripsin akan menyebabkan gangguan pada saat sel vero menempel pada mikrokarier. Hal ini menyebabkan produk akhir vaksin yang dihasilkan tidak akan terdeteksi lagi unsur babinya. Namun karena digunakan sebagai bahan penolong dalam proses pembuatannya, inilah yang memerlukan kejelasan status kehalalannya.

Tahap selanjutnya dalam proses pembuatan vaksin ini adalah perbiakan sel vero menjadi produk bulk yang siap digunakan. Dalam tahap ini dilakukan proses amplifikasi (pembiakan sel dengan mikrokarier), pencucian sel vero dari tripsin, inokulasi virus, panen virus, filtrasi, pemurnian dan inaktivasi. Pada proses pencucian hingga inaktivasi tersebut sebenarnya sudah tidak melibatkan unsur babi lagi.

Dari keterangan tersebut dapat diketahui bahwa proses pembuatan vaksin folio masih melibatkan unsur haram dalam proses pembuatannya sebagai bahan penolong, yaitu penggunaan enzim tripsin. Sebenarnya pada tahap selanjutnya enzim ini akan mengalami proses pencucian, pemurnian dan penyaringan, hingga pada produk akhirnya tidak terdeteksi lagi. Namun karena sudah tersentuh unsur haram dan najis, maka hal ini masih menimbulkan keraguan pada status kehalalannya.

Sementara ini memang ada keringanan jika ditinjau dari aspek darurat dan demi kepentingan yang lebih besar. Namun dari keterangan pihak Biofarma sebagai salah satu produsennya, sedang diupayakan agar bahan-bahan yang berasal dari babi itu bisa dihilangkan. Dengan demikian kejelasan status halalnya bisa lebih bisa dipertanggungjawabkan. Pihak Biofarma meminta waktu sekitar 3 tahun untuk melakukan riset guna
mengganti bahan babi tersebut. Nah, kita tunggu saja hasilnya, agar masyarakat bisa lebih tenang dalam menggunakan faksin tersebut.