Vaccines are not ideology
Few public health strategies have as clear an impact as vaccines. They have been key to dramatically reducing diseases like measles, polio, and smallpox, and remain essential today against infections like COVID-19 and human papillomavirus. However, their potential extends beyond infection prevention.
An example of this potential is found in a study recently published in The Lancet, which concludes that three out of five cases of liver cancer could be prevented if factors such as hepatitis B, alcohol consumption, and metabolic diseases were more effectively addressed. Vaccination against hepatitis B, along with improvements in early diagnosis and lifestyle interventions, are clear actions to reduce this burden.
In parallel, mRNA vaccine research, which accelerated during the pandemic, has opened new avenues. In addition to exploring vaccines against complex viruses such as HIV, some teams are working on therapeutic vaccines targeting tumors. Although these are still in the early stages, these lines point toward a new form of immunotherapy in which the vaccine ceases to be merely preventive and becomes an active part of clinical intervention.
These perspectives contrast with a political reality that does not always act in accordance with scientific evidence. In the United States, Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has recently canceled nearly $500 million earmarked for mRNA vaccine researchThe argument: mRNA vaccines are "inefficient" and "dangerous." RFK Jr. has already announced significant changes to key scientific committees. such as preventive services and vaccinations.The American Medical Association has harshly criticized these actions. that imply the loss of rigor and independence in public health policies.
Vaccines, like other preventive services, depend not only on their biological efficacy, but also on social trust and guaranteed access through the public or private insurance system. When this is threatened, the risk of disease outbreaks and health inequity increases. Don't we already remember the COVID-19 pandemic?
The dilemma here is: how can all these denialist and anti-vaccine factions be convinced? A recent report in Nature reviews the most effective strategies for talking with skeptical or undecided people, using empathic dialogue and motivational interviewing techniques. It has been shown, for example, that sharing personal experiences, listening without judgment, and tailoring information to specific concerns can increase confidence in vaccines. Furthermore, initiatives such as the 'prebunking' –anticipating and dismantling disinformation techniques before they circulate– have also shown promising results.
Science not only offers biomedical solutions, but also works to better understand the social mechanisms that determine whether these solutions reach where they should. The vaccine debate is not only medical; it's also cultural, political, and communicative. And the more we understand it, the greater our capacity to protect collective health through rigor and dialogue. Science is the way.
