An epidemic that never happened? Boris Yudin. Is it necessary to be immunized?

Another campaign is gathering pace. But maybe before we give in to the power of the familiar herd feeling, it makes sense to listen to the voice of dissent. My interlocutor is Galina Chervonskaya, a virologist, candidate of biological sciences, and member of the Russian National Bioethics Committee.

- Galina Petrovna, are you really an opponent of vaccinations?

- I am against the fact that vaccinations are made blindly, without an individual approach, without examination. After all, vaccinations are not necessary for everyone, but only those susceptible to a particular infection. I am in favor of competent vaccination. Even in the fight against such a formidable disease as, say, smallpox. In the former USSR, total vaccination against smallpox continued until 1980. Despite the serious post-vaccination complications that caused, in particular, damage to the central nervous system. But at that time this topic was closed to the public.
In other countries, smallpox vaccinations were given only to those who had contact with infected persons. Moreover, the "contacts" were quarantined and other preventive measures were taken.
We had total coverage: "The Soviet Union has always taken the leading place in the world in the mass planned use of vaccines, which is the originality of our position ..." - wrote Peter Burgasov, the country's former chief sanitary doctor. Alas, we retain yesterday's "originality" even today; we are trying to fight diphtheria like smallpox.

- But isn't it too late to talk about competent vaccination when the epidemic has already broken out and people are dying of diphtheria?
- I'll answer the question with a question: why do adults die from diphtheria? They must have been immunized as children. So, it's not about vaccinations. They can not stop the epidemic. A complex of measures is necessary. In particular, vigorous activity of diagnostic services of the Committee of Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance. It seems to me that it is losing control over the situation.

- Is it right to talk about a diphtheria epidemic? Maybe it is just an outbreak of the disease?

- Indeed, the declared "epidemic" makes a strange impression. In world practice, there are five degrees of prevalence of infectious diseases per hundred thousand people - from the highest to the rarely occurring. So, if we take even the highest figures from the data published in our country, the situation fits into the fourth category - a relatively low prevalence disease: up to 10 cases per 100 thousand population.

In one year 824 people died of tuberculosis in Moscow, and 68 people died of diphtheria in five years. Why then is the danger of a "diphtheria epidemic" being hyped?
Maybe it is just a form of pressure on the "recalcitrant" who, before agreeing to be vaccinated, want to know whether their individual contraindications will be taken into account. Wouldn't it happen that you're getting foreign proteins mixed with chemical additives like mercury salt and formaldehyde?
I would offer a few more versions explaining why Gossanepidnadzor declares diphtheria the most terrible enemy. First, it is easier to fight the evil that is less.
Secondly, it may be related to the French company "Pasteur Merier", which brought to us a diphtheria vaccine with merciolate - mercury-containing salt found in it. In Europe, the production of merciolate is prohibited, and it is not sold there. It is welcome here.
By the way, Pasteur Merrier is now famous for selling serum preparations that caused AIDS, which, of course, caused a worldwide scandal.

It turns out that in our conditions the fight against diphtheria is more dangerous than its outbreak. Vaccinations without preliminary diagnostics can give other negative results. For example, a significant part of the population will have reduced natural immunity, acquired, say, as a result of diphtheria, transferred in the form of sore throats, tonsillitis, acute respiratory infections, etc. For a certain category of patients, vaccination with the introduction of foreign proteins mixed with chemical additives will cause harm, but will not provide immunity against diphtheria.

-How should patients proceed then?

- People should know that vaccination is not just a mild injection, but a very serious intervention in the human body. It is necessary to demand a preliminary examination, which will show how justified this intervention is.
During our conversation, two main problems emerged: how to ensure an individualized approach to vaccination and the quality of the vaccines used. The federal program "Vaccine-Prophylaxis" for 1993-1997, by the way, notes the low level of control over the quality of vaccines produced, the extremely unsatisfactory state of the material base and technical equipment of enterprises producing immunobiological preparations. Surprisingly, recognizing all this, the creators of the program still defend the principle of mass vaccination.
True, the program provides for the introduction of compulsory medical insurance against possible complications after vaccination, introduction of vaccination certificate, etc. But when will it be?
It is more likely that they will take up such measures as "economic incentives for medical workers for timely implementation and achievement of a high level of coverage of preventive vaccinations".

Every citizen finds himself in a situation of risk: either to undergo vaccination with the possibility of getting complications, or to refuse it and be exposed to the danger of getting diphtheria. So, maybe, until the proper quality of vaccines is ensured, the authorities should leave the right to choose to the citizens?