Dangerous obfuscation from the anti-vaccine campaign

Though political campaigns are not always known for their truthfulness, when the issue at hand is a brewing public health crisis, such misinformation can be downright dangerous. Such is the case with the “Yes on Question 1” campaign signs that have begun to pop up in communities across the state.

Despite being a close observer of politics in Maine, even I was left scratching my head recently while idling at a stoplight looking at the yard sign encouraging me to “Reject Big Pharma.”

One might think these signs have to do with the major pharmaceutical companies like Purdue Pharma that have made millions (billions?) while knowingly getting Americans hooked on highly addictive opiates. Or the criminal price gouging of insulin manufacturers like Eli Lilly that is forcing diabetes patients to ration their doses and go bankrupt.

But, no. These are signs encouraging voters to repeal a law that eliminated nonmedical exemptions for required school vaccinations, which was passed last legislative session in an effort to stop the spread of preventable diseases like measles, mumps and pertussis.

At five percent, Maine has the seventh highest rate of non-medical opt outs in the nation, more than double the national average of two percent. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2018 Maine had the highest rate of pertussis, or whooping cough, in the country and last year the number of reported cases was even higher.

In addition to whooping cough, in recent years, cases of mumps, measles, and chicken pox have been reported in schools throughout the state.

Equity in medicine

When asked about the signs, “Yes on 1” campaign spokesperson Cara Sacks told the Bangor Daily News that concerns about the pharmaceutical industry were “a major factor in motivating supporters of the referendum,” according to reporter Jessica Piper. And while skepticism appears to be the driving force in vaccination opt-outs, when one examines how much the pharmaceutical industry stands to benefit from a massive resurgence in infectious diseases, the “Reject Big Pharma” framework makes no sense.

Dr. Sam Zager, a family physician who leads a grassroots all-volunteer group of frontline healthcare professionals, Maine Providers Standing Up for Healthcare, called the campaign signs “disingenuous at best,” saying their portrayal of a Big Pharma “bogeyman” is a distraction from the most pertinent facts. Zager explained that while he “can’t speak for the pharmaceutical industry because I have no ties to it…as someone who has been in the health field for many years, vaccines are not known to be big money makers.” He asserted that the real issues are vaccines’ contributions to health, health equity, and cost-savings. He pointed to an estimate out of Washington State, where there was a measles outbreak last year, which determined that for every dollar spent on vaccinations, the state health system saves $16. And while the cost savings from vaccines are notable, Zager added that, more importantly, vaccinating people “is the right thing to do…from an equity standpoint.” “In a world where there are terrible inequities in health outcomes, vaccines are among the most equitable in health interventions that we have,” a fact Zager said was obscured by the misleading “Yes on 1” signs.

Dr. Laura Blaisdell, one of the leaders of the “No on 1” coalition, Maine Families for Vaccines, told Beacon she has “no idea why they brought the Big Pharma argument into the campaign.”

“Vaccines are a pillar of public health that have been around for a very, very long time,” said Blaisdell, who is a pediatrician practicing in Yarmouth. “They are safe and effective and are not the money makers for Big Pharma.”

Blaisdell also disputed insinuations that referendum opponents are connected to the pharmaceutical industry. “We are a grassroots group of parents and concerned citizens. We are a completely volunteer organization, completely initiated by myself and Caitlin Gilmet,” the group’s treasurer, whose infant son contracted chicken pox at a daycare center before he was old enough to be vaccinated.

In the story on the signs, BDN reporter Piper noted that the wording on the signs “may be savvy politics in a state wracked by the opioid crisis.” That’s one way to put it.

Perhaps it’s not a huge surprise, given that back in September people gathering signatures to put Question 1 on the ballot were reportedly lying about the petition’s intent. I suppose the fact that the campaign feels that they have to deliberately confuse voters is a sign that the argument against stopping the spread of preventable disease is just not as convincing.

Photo: Beacon staff