The purpose of this conference was "an opportunity to take stock of GACVS (Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety) accomplishments and look towards priorities for the next decade." The Who presented the Global Vaccine Safety Blueprint 2.0 strategy and collected input. /2
-
-
Show this thread
-
Antivaxers claim that this conference was the first time the WHO looked at safety questions. It wasn't. The conference marked the 20th anniversary of the GACVS. The WHO and many of the experts speaking at that conference have been researching vaccine safety for decades. /3
Show this thread -
So, to address Mary A's claim. The WHO chief is the current Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. He did not say this. She means the Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan. /4pic.twitter.com/iZWOiRbmcL
Show this thread -
Dr Swaminathan spoke at the conference. She did NOT say that there have not been proper vaccine safety surveillance systems or that the stats data is compromised as to safety. Her statement was taken out of context. /5
Show this thread -
She was part of a panel discussion on "New vaccine technologies and their implication for pharmacovigilance". To repeat: They were talking about NEW vaccines and the safety surveillance systems needed for them. The screenshot shows what vaccines they are talking about. /6pic.twitter.com/myESudDNmt
Show this thread -
Now the statement that has been taken out of context was "I think we cannot overemphasize the fact that we don't have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries." Many countries meaning especially developing countries for which many of the new vaccines are intended. /7
Show this thread -
Another panelist, Dr. Kaslow, said that many of the new vaccines are intended for use in emergency settings and fragile states. Effective surveillance systems are obviously difficult to non-existent in those circumstances. /8
Show this thread -
Take the DRC, for example. There are violent conflicts, an Ebola crisis that has so far killed over 2000 people, a measles outbreak which has killed 6000, etc. An efficient surveillance system to evaluate the Ebola vaccine would be extremely difficult to implement. /9
Show this thread -
But pharmacovigilance systems are necessary to improve trust in new vaccines and to conduct post marketing studies. The aim of the WHO is to make sure those systems are in place when the new vaccines are ready. /10
Show this thread -
This does NOT mean that the vaccines that are on the schedule in developed countries with thorough surveillance systems are unsafe. A vaccine like the MMR has been monitored by dozens of institutes in dozens of countries for decades. The safety data is not compromised. /11
Show this thread -
By taking Dr. Swaminathan's statement out of context to create fear of thoroughly tested and monitored vaccines Del Bigtree and everyone who repeats his claims are guilty of spreading a blatant lie. /12
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.