An operational model developed in Algeria may show a way that countries can make childhood vaccines more effective, more acceptable and more economical. It is a model that may provide a framework for middle-income countries across the globe, including many across the rest of Africa.

Six-in-one (or hexavalent) vaccines are cutting the number of clinic visits needed to prevent multiple life‑threatening infections and easing pressure on already stretched health systems. Growing economic evidence from Algeria and several Latin American countries suggests that while these vaccines may cost more upfront, the investment may be largely or entirely recovered through fewer appointments, streamlined logistics, and a reduction in cases of vaccine-preventable diseases and potential adverse events from vaccination. Yet the children who could benefit most – those living in low‑ and middle‑income countries are still the least likely to receive them, widening an avoidable gap between what modern vaccines can do and the protection children actually receive.

Most hexavalent vaccines save money in another way: they reduce the number of adverse events – side effects – that require treatment in a hospital or clinic. Acellular hexavalent vaccines include a type of protection against pertussis, or whooping cough, which is the gold standard for immunization in higher-income countries but has not yet been widely adopted beyond them.

With more than a decade of historical data supporting safety and efficacy, these acellular pertussis vaccines have a notable track record of improving vaccination coverage rates (VCR) and parents’ willingness to have their children protected, as they cause fewer painful adverse events [1].

Acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines are formulated using isolated antigens, which are purified and detoxified, thereby removing most of the components of the bacterium that cause undesirable reactions [2].

Most low- to middle-income countries still use whole-cell pertussis vaccines, which include a suspension of the entire inactivated Bordetella pertussis organism – some 3,000 antigens. Although the inclusion of far more antigens can result in a marginally higher immune response, the complexity of the vaccine leads to varying amounts of reaction-causing components between batches of vaccine and varying levels of protection [2].

The combination of more adverse events and variable efficacy means that developing countries bear a disproportionate share of the burden incurred through side effects. The side effects in children lead to an increased reluctance among parents to agree to future vaccines for their children and higher costs for the healthcare system. These problems often arise in healthcare systems that are inadequately equipped to deal with them.

Expert opinion from Algeria indicates that acellular hexavalent vaccination has improved vaccination coverage levels and simplified the vaccination schedule by reducing the number of appointments. It reduces the required number of immunization visits from ten to six. This eases pressure on overstretched health services, simplifies logistics and cold-chain management, and reduces indirect societal costs, including the time parents spend away from work.

Algeria is the third WHO African region country to adopt the acellular hexavalent vaccine into its national immunization schedule. Economic data from those countries and several in Latin America demonstrate that a rollout of the vaccine across African countries is not only possible but also economically advantageous [3,4,5,6].

Algeria’s vaccination metrics: an operational model for success

Vaccines have transformed child health in Algeria, as they have across the world. Since the initial introduction of vaccination in Algeria, followed by sustained efforts to expand the vaccination schedule, infant mortality rates have dropped dramatically from 163 per 1,000 live births in 1966 to 20 per 1,000 in 2023, a reduction of around 87% [7].

The percentage of children protected in Algeria has exceeded the targets set by the World Health Organization (WHO) for decades, with diphtheria, tetanus toxoid and pertussis (DTP) coverage consistently above 90% [8]. As in many countries, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems, leading to a decline in vaccination rates, with DTP-3 coverage, a key measure of childhood vaccination, reduced to 77% in 2022 [9]. This situation was quickly improved, with coverage increasing to 92% by 2024 [9].

In 2022, three cases of polio caused by circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 were reported [10]. Rarely, the circulating vaccine-derived virus causes polio, highlighting the necessity of timely vaccination with IPV, with which these vaccine-derived cases do not occur [11].

The shift to hexavalent vaccination

Algeria’s shift from its former schedule to hexavalent vaccination was not a straightforward process. Initially, the five-in-one (or pentavalent) vaccine was replaced by a combination of the tetravalent vaccine (DTP-Hib) and the monovalent Hepatitis B vaccine (HBV), administered across 10 separate healthcare visits, necessitating additional appointments [12].

The change in the vaccination schedule resulted in delays in dose administration and a decrease in vaccination coverage. This issue was resolved with the introduction of the new schedule, which integrated an acellular hexavalent vaccine in 2023, reducing the number of required healthcare visits to six [13].

While polio vaccination was present in the previous schedule (with one IPV dose at 3 months and 3 OPV doses at 2, 4, and 12 months), inclusion as part of a hexavalent vaccine simplified the schedule (giving three doses of IPV at 2, 4, and 12 months associated with three OPV doses), helping to maintain the global strategy for polio eradication. The WHO recommends that all countries using OPV adopt a vaccination schedule with at least two doses of inactivated vaccine, which gives individual protection without the risk of vaccine-related polio [14].

The financial metrics of the switch

A recent whitepaper conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis of the budgetary impact of transitioning from a whole-cell tetravalent vaccination schedule to an acellular hexavalent schedule. While the switch was associated with an increase in annual program expenditure of approximately 26 million Euros (around a 58% rise in upfront costs), this was substantially offset by nearly 19 million Euros in annual savings generated through the management of adverse events, improved logistics and transportation, and increased parental productivity [13]. Overall, roughly 73% of the upfront cost was offset by these savings.

Algeria is the latest in a series of examples where this is the case. The nominal, upfront cost of acellular hexavalent vaccines is typically higher than that of whole-cell vaccines; this has, in many cases, deterred countries from adopting them. However, there are many benefits at both the economic and systemic levels that recoup much of the costs of acellular hexavalent vaccines. In many instances, these costs are hidden and not factored into initial value calculations.

Similar experiences have been seen in other countries. In Argentina, Peru, and South Africa, the switch to hexavalent vaccines led to higher initial costs, but these were substantially offset by savings from fewer adverse events, lower programmatic expenses, and improved logistics. For example, in data from Argentina, roughly 90% of the initial investment into acellular hexavalent vaccines was recovered through fewer adverse event-associated costs and lower programmatic costs [15]. Peru reported a reduction in logistical costs by nearly 60%, with roughly 44% of the initial increase in costs recovered [16]. South Africa achieved overall savings of about 10 USD per child [3].

These calculations overlook benefits that are more difficult to quantify. For example, what costs are generated because of vaccines missed and infections caused by increased vaccine hesitancy on the part of parents. Across these settings, the higher upfront investment in hexavalent vaccines has proven to be economically viable, with much of the cost recouped through broader system efficiencies.

Programmatic benefits of hexavalent vaccination

Hexavalent vaccination offers the potential for simpler systems and higher levels of acceptance among patients. For the child, integrating six antigens into a single injection drastically reduces the number of needle sticks, alleviating injection-related anxiety and the prevalence of local reactions. This increases parental acceptance and helps to improve vaccination coverage.

Parents are relieved of the burden of coordinating multiple medical appointments, covering travel costs, and dealing with lost workdays. By reducing parental anxiety and the strain of repeated visits, combined vaccines help mitigate vaccine hesitancy within communities. This has been demonstrated in multiple studies across Africa, with investigations in Gambia and South Africa documenting concerns among parents about a child receiving more than two injections in a single visit [17,18]. Limiting the number of healthcare visits is also a crucial factor in increasing vaccine coverage in areas with limited healthcare infrastructure, such as those in rural southern Algeria.

For healthcare professionals, particularly in resource-limited settings such as rural areas in Africa, the adoption of combined vaccines helps to ease the administrative burden of multiple appointments. These formulations optimize consultation efficiency by drastically reducing the required administration time and simplifying inventory management [19].

The use of ready-to-use liquid vaccines, such as the hexavalents, has been shown to simplify and enhance the safety of the vaccination procedure when compared to vaccines that come as a powder that has to be reconstituted [20]. The preference for this approach among frontline workers is overwhelming: one study indicated that 97.6% of healthcare providers favored these liquid, combined formulations in their daily work [21]. Evidence supports this preference, demonstrating that the switch led to a dramatic reduction in administration errors (from 42.8% to 4%) and needlestick injuries (from 42.3% to 9.5%), while also yielding an average time savings of 1.1 minutes per dose [22].

The case for Hexavalent vaccination across Africa

Across the WHO Africa region, VCR has improved significantly over the last few decades; however, unfortunately, this improvement has stalled. The level of coverage for the third dose of DTP-containing vaccines, a standard benchmark for immunization system performance, has sat in the mid-70s for over a decade, with a current coverage of 76% [23].

This stagnation of the VCR is reflective of the ongoing issue of inequality. The gap in vaccine access runs not only between Africa and higher‑income regions, but also within the continent itself, where some countries consistently outperform others. Diseases, however, do not recognize borders; any outbreak that affects one country is likely to increase the risk to surrounding countries. Air travel enables a disease case to be spread to virtually any country in the world within just two days [24].

The COVID-19 pandemic was a clear example of the rapid spread in today’s world. Within a period of weeks, the virus spread from its origin in China to the entire globe, despite public health measures and lockdowns. With this in mind, any country that is falling behind on vaccination coverage becomes a weak link in a global chain where diseases can flourish and form reservoirs of cases that can allow diseases such as polio to spread unchecked.

Bringing vaccine equity to lower- and middle-income countries is therefore vital to addressing global health concerns. Hexavalent vaccination has demonstrated its ability to increase vaccine coverage in these countries. Among the WHO Africa region, Mauritius, which adopted hexavalent vaccination in 2017 [4] currently stands notably above the average for the region, with 96% coverage for the first dose of inactivated polio vaccine, and 93% for the benchmark based on DTP-containing vaccines [25].

Vaccine coverage translates into increased prosperity. Vaccination cannot be viewed as an inconvenient expense but as an investment. The WHO estimates that for every dollar spent, vaccination can yield a return on investment of around 54 USD – provided, of course, that the vaccines actually find their way into the arms of children [26].

As the Algerian case study demonstrates, higher upfront costs for acellular hexavalent      vaccines are often paid back by improvements in logistical efficiency, reduced healthcare burdens, and improved parental compliance. By bridging the gap between high- and low-income immunization standards through this investment, the life-saving benefits of gold standard vaccinations can become more than a privilege of geography, but a universal foundation for human health.

[This consensus paper is based on the findings of a white paper discussing the findings of a group of vaccination experts focusing on paediatric immunisation, supported by Sanofi. Intended for professional use.]

Reference list

1. Boisnard, F., Manson, C., Serradell, L., & Macina, D. (2023). DTaP-IPV-HB-Hib vaccine (Hexaxim): an update 10 years after first licensure. Expert Review of Vaccines, 22(1), 1196–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2023.2280236
2. World Health Organization (2017) The immunological basis for immunization series: module 4: pertussis, update 2017. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/the-immunological-basis-for-immunization-series-module-4-pertussis-update-2017
3. Batson A, Glassman A, Federgruen A, et al. The world needs to prepare now to prevent polio resurgence post eradication. BMJ Global Health. 2022;7(12):e011485. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011485
4. ReliefWeb. Hexavalent vaccine: less injections and more protection babies. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/mauritius/hexavalent-vaccine-less-injections-and-more-protection-babies
5. Olivera, I., Grau, C., Dibarboure, H. et al. Valuing the cost of improving Chilean primary vaccination: a cost minimization analysis of a hexavalent vaccine. BMC Health Serv Res 20, 295 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05115-7
6. Romero M, Góngora D, Caicedo M. Cost-Minimization and Budget Impact Analysis of a Hexavalent Vaccine (Hexaxim®) in the Colombian Expanded Program on Immunization

Value in Health Regional Issues, 2021; 26, 150-159

7. World Bank Data. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?locations=DZ
8. World Health Organization. Immunization data: African region. Available at: https://immunizationdata.who.int/dashboard/regions/african-region/DZA
9. World Health Organization.  DTP vaccination coverage. Available at: https://immunizationdata.who.int/global/wiise-detail-page/diphtheria-tetanus-toxoid-and-pertussis-(dtp)-vaccination-coverage?CODE=DZA&ANTIGEN=DTPCV3&YEAR=
10. GPEI – Algeria. Available at https://www.archive.polioeradication.org/where-we-work/algeria/
11. Global Polio Eradication Initiative. GPEI-OPV. polio global eradication initiative . Published 2016. Available at: https://polioeradication.org/polio-today/polio-prevention/the-vaccines/opv/           
12. Practical Implementation Guide for the 2016 National Immunization Schedule in Algeria. Available at: https://cnpm.org.dz/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Guide_Pratique_de_Mise_en_Oeuvre_du_Nouveau_Calendrier_Natio-1.pdf
13. Laichour A, Kihel M, Aissaoui A, Olivera G. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of national immunization program realisation in Algeria: cost-minimization analysis of switch from DTwP-Hib + HBV + IPV to an acellular hexavalent (DTaP-HBV-Hib-IPV) vaccine. Poster presented at: ISPOR Europe 2023; November 2023; Copenhagen, Denmark. Value in Health. 2023;26(Suppl 2):S2-EE134.
14. WHO Polio Position Paper 2022. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-WER9725-277-300  
15. Olivera, I., Pérez, C.G., Lazarov, L. et al. Cost minimization analysis of a hexavalent vaccine in Argentina. BMC Health Serv Res 23, 1067 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10038-0
16. Seinfeld J, Rosales ML, Sobrevilla A, López Yescas JG. Economic assessment of incorporating the hexavalent vaccine as part of the National Immunization Program of Peru. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 May 16;22(1):651. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08006-1. PMID: 35570278; PMCID: PMC9109284.
17. Idoko OT, Hampton LM, Mboizi RB, et al. Acceptance of multiple injectable vaccines in a single immunization visit in The Gambia pre and post introduction of inactivated polio vaccine. Vaccine. 2016;34(41):5034-5039. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.07.021
18. Hanani Tabana, Dudley L, Knight S, et al. The acceptability of three vaccine injections given to infants during a single clinic visit in South Africa. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3324-2
19. Pelissier JM, Coplan PM, Jackson LA, May JE. The effect of additional shots on the vaccine administration process: results of a time-motion study in 2 settings. Am J Manag Care. 2000 Sep;6(9):1038-44.
20. Al-Bashir L, Ismail A, Aljunid SM. Parents‘ and healthcare professionals’ perception toward the introduction of a new fully liquid hexavalent vaccine in the Malaysian national immunization program: a cross-sectional study instrument development and its application. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1052450.
21. De Coster I, Fournie X, Faure C, Ziani E, Nicolas L, Soubeyrand B, Van Damme P. Assessment of preparation time with fully-liquid versus non-fully liquid paediatric hexavalent vaccines. A time and motion study. Vaccine. 2015;33(32):3976–82.
22. Esteve IC, Fernández PF, Palacios SL, Rodrı́guez MJ, Vino HP, Ortega BR, Nieto Nevot ML, Manch´on GD, L´opez-Belmonte J-L. Health care professionals’ preference for a fully liquid, ready-to-use hexavalent vaccine in Spain. Prev Med Rep. 2021;22:101376.
23. World Health Organization. Immunization data: African region. Available at: https://immunizationdata.who.int/dashboard/regions/african-region
24. Findlater A, Bogoch II. Human Mobility and the Global Spread of Infectious Diseases: A Focus on Air Travel. Trends Parasitol. 2018 Sep;34(9):772-783. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2018.07.004. Epub 2018 Jul 23. PMID: 30049602; PMCID: PMC7106444.
25. World Health Organization. Immunization data: Mauritius. Available at: https://immunizationdata.who.int/dashboard/regions/african-region/MUS
26. World Health Organization (2025) Fully funded Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a lifeline for child survival, says WHO. Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/28-03-2025-fully-funded-gavi–the-vaccine-alliance–is-a-lifeline-for-child-survival–says-who

The post An Expert Perspective from Algeria on Hexavalent Vaccine Adoption appeared first on Medika Life.

Behind every budget shift lies a ripple effect, and today, global healthcare is at the receiving end. The result is shrinking access, rising costs, and widening inequities. The impact of geopolitical decisions is rarely confined to borders, it now extends into clinics, hospitals, and communities. What we are witnessing is not just a funding gap, but a structural shift in how the world values health.

The silent reallocation

Over the past years, global defense spending has surged to record levels. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military expenditure rose by 9.4% in real terms to $2718 billion in 2024, the highest global total ever recorded by SIPRI and the 10th year of consecutive increases. The total military expenditure accounted for 2.5% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024. These figures are expected to climb further following the June 2025 commitment by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members to increase defence and security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, more than twice the earlier 2% benchmark.

Meanwhile, public health budgets are being trimmed or stagnating. The World Health Organization (WHO) has raised serious concerns about the strain on global health systems, pointing to shrinking international aid and ongoing funding shortfalls. In February, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus highlighted that abrupt and significant reductions in bilateral assistance have severely disrupted healthcare services across multiple countries, describing 2025 as “one of the most challenging years” in the organization’s history.

As per the WHO, an estimated 4.6 billion people worldwide still do not have access to essential health services, while around 2.1 billion experience financial strain due to healthcare expenses. Compounding this challenge, the global health workforce is projected to face a shortfall of 11 million professionals by 2030, with nurses accounting for more than half of this gap. When 4.6 billion people lack access to essential services, this is not only a development failure, but also a global stability risk – translating into fewer vaccinations, delayed disease surveillance, and weakened emergency response systems.

The global policy conversation increasingly treats defence spending as essential security investment. Health spending, however, is still framed as social expenditure rather than strategic infrastructure. This shift is particularly devastating for LMICs, where international aid often fills critical gaps.

Conflict and the collapse of care

Conflict has long been a stress test for health systems, but the consequences today are deeper and more far-reaching. As the Russia–Ukraine war entered its fifth year in 2026, Ukraine’s health system faced unprecedented strain, with attacks on healthcare rising nearly 20% in 2025 alone. Since the full-scale invasion began, the WHO has documented at least 2,881 attacks targeting hospitals, health workers, ambulances, and medical infrastructure, severely disrupting care delivery. Health outcomes have deteriorated sharply, with 59% of people in frontline areas reporting poor health, alongside surging mental health issues, cardiovascular conditions, and widespread lack of access to essential medicines. Intensified attacks in 2025, including a spike in strikes on medical warehouses, have further crippled supply chains.

In the aftermath of the war in Gaza, the region’s health system remains on the brink of collapse despite months of humanitarian efforts and intermittent pauses in fighting. Widespread damage to hospitals, severe shortages of medicines, and a surge in patients continue to overwhelm already fragile services. Many facilities operate at drastically reduced capacity, with critical treatments, including cancer care, meeting only a fraction of demand, while rising cases of skin and respiratory illnesses place further strain on the system. Healthcare workers, operating under extraordinary pressure and with limited resources, are struggling to manage overwhelming caseloads each day amid ongoing supply constraints and infrastructure damage. The crisis extends well beyond acute injuries, as patients with chronic illnesses face dangerous interruptions in care and deteriorating living conditions, turning access to healthcare into a daily struggle for survival.

Meanwhile, after three years of conflict, the Sudan war has evolved into the world’s largest humanitarian and health crisis, with 34 million people in need of aid and 21 million lacking access to basic healthcare. The system is collapsing under the combined weight of widespread disease outbreaks, acute malnutrition affecting over 4 million people, and relentless attacks on healthcare infrastructure—37% of facilities are now non-functional. As infectious diseases surge and funding falls short, Sudan’s health crisis continues to deepen, turning basic healthcare access into a matter of survival for millions.

What distinguishes the current moment is the scale of global interdependence. Earlier crises were largely contained within regions. Today, disruptions are transmitted across borders through tightly integrated supply chains, financing systems, and health workforces. The Ukraine conflict, for instance, has affected global pharmaceutical logistics and energy prices, indirectly increasing healthcare costs across Europe, Asia, and beyond. The result is not just localized breakdowns, but a systemic fragility in global health security.

Conflict as a cost multiplier in health delivery

Healthcare systems are tightly linked to global supply chains, making them highly vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions. When conflicts interrupt trade routes, restrict exports, or trigger sanctions, costs rise almost immediately, across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and even basic supplies.

Energy shocks add further pressure. Hospitals, being energy-intensive, face higher operating costs as fuel and electricity prices climb. In conflict zones, even critical functions like vaccine cold chains and intensive care become difficult to sustain. The result is a steady increase in healthcare costs, one that is unevenly felt. While high-income countries may cushion the impact through insurance and subsidies, LMICs face a harsher reality, where rising out-of-pocket expenses can push millions into poverty.

At the same time, conflicts are driving up demand for care. Displacement, malnutrition, and infectious disease outbreaks are becoming more frequent, often compounded by climate-related crises. This creates a vicious cycle. Underfunded systems struggle to respond, outcomes worsen, and long-term costs escalate as preventable issues turn into full-blown crises.

Health communicators bridging gaps in a fragmented world

In times of systemic stress, communication becomes a strategic imperative. Health communicators are no longer just interpreters of science. They are interpreters of risk, resilience, and national preparedness. Their role is to translate complex realities into actionable understanding, to advocate for evidence-based decision-making, and to maintain trust in institutions. In today’s environment, narrative gaps are becoming policy gaps. When health is absent from security conversations, it is often absent from security budgets.

In the current context, communicators must:

• Elevate the narrative around health as a security priority, not a secondary concern.
• Highlight the human impact of budget cuts, moving beyond statistics to real stories.
• Counter misinformation proactively, especially in conflict-affected and resource-constrained settings.
• Support policy advocacy, ensuring that health remains central in national and global agendas.

Equally important is the need for communicators to adopt a more systems-oriented approach. This means connecting the dots between geopolitical decisions and health outcomes, helping stakeholders understand that these are deeply interconnected challenges. Investing in health is not just a moral imperative; it is an economic and strategic one. Strong health systems contribute to productivity, stability, and resilience. They are foundational to national security in the broadest sense.

Governments, multilateral organizations, private sector players, and civil society must come together to reassert the importance of health in the global agenda. Innovative financing mechanisms, public-private partnerships, and more efficient use of resources can help bridge funding gaps. But without political will, these solutions will remain insufficient.

If current trajectories persist, the consequences will extend far beyond strained health systems, they will reshape how societies absorb risk, respond to crises, and sustain economic stability. Healthcare cannot remain the residual line item in a world that is becoming more volatile, more interconnected, and more vulnerable. Narratives shape priorities, and priorities shape funding. If health continues to be framed as a cost rather than a cornerstone of resilience, it will keep losing ground to more immediate, visible threats. That framing must change urgently and decisively. Over the next decade, the countries that succeed in protecting population health will not necessarily be those spending the most on healthcare, but those most effectively integrating health into national security thinking. The real question before policymakers and global leaders is whether nations can remain economically stable, politically resilient, or socially secure while treating health as a

The post The Hidden Cost of Global Conflict: Why Health Security Is the First Casualty appeared first on Medika Life.

The Strait also ships vaccines.

Save the Children has a consignment of urgently needed medicines stuck at a supplier’s warehouse in India. The road route is closed due to conflict. The usual fallback — air freight — has just doubled in price due to jet fuel prices. The charity’s chief executive, Janti Soeripto, put the situation to NPR earlier this month: “The transport for the drugs is more expensive than the drugs themselves.” That sentence is the story this piece is about. Not the Strait, not the oil, not even the war. The slow, awkward arithmetic by which a maritime closure thousands of miles away ends up determining whether a child in Kandahar gets a vial of antibiotics.

What the Strait actually carries

Commercial activity through Hormuz remains around 90 per cent below pre-war levels, according to analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations. Pre-conflict, around 3,000 vessels transited the strait each month; the latest House of Commons Library figures put current traffic at roughly five per cent of that. The strait is partially open, partially closed, and oscillating depending on the state of the Lebanon ceasefire and which side has most recently accused the other of violating it.

The pharmaceutical reading of those numbers takes a different shape. The Gulf Cooperation Council region serves as a transit hub linking Africa, Asia, Europe, India and the United States, and its pharmaceutical industry, valued at $23.7 billion, relies on imports through Gulf airspace and the strait for around 80 per cent of its product. Most of what matters most moves by air, not by container ship. Wouter Dewulf, professor at the University of Antwerp and a specialist in pharmaceutical logistics, told Al Jazeera last week that 35 per cent of pharmaceuticals move by air, and around 90 per cent of life-saving pharmaceuticals and vaccines do. He estimates that 22 per cent of global air cargo flows are exposed to disruptions in the Middle East.

Why a closed sea lane raises the cost of a mosquito net

The mechanism is rarely intuitive. India, which produces almost half of US generic prescriptions, depends on the strait for around 40 per cent of its crude oil imports — and that crude is the upstream feedstock for the petrochemicals used in active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturing. With oil trading above $100 a barrel, the cost of producing the ingredient rises before a single tablet has been pressed. Indian air cargo rates have climbed 200 to 350 per cent on some routes, according to industry analysis, and war-risk insurance premiums for vessels transiting Hormuz have, by some measures, surged more than 1,000 per cent since late February.

The exposure is not abstract. The US Pharmacopeia has flagged that 48 per cent of US amoxicillin oral suspension is produced in Jordan, alongside a quarter of doxycycline hyclate capsules — common antibiotics, sourced from inside the conflict’s regional footprint.

It travels further than that. Jean Kaseya, director-general of Africa CDC, told reporters earlier this month that fuel shortages are pushing up the cost of producing mosquito nets, which are made from polyester, which is made from petrochemicals, which depend on a sea lane currently being charged at over a million dollars a transit when it is open at all. Malaria control is now, by an unobvious chain of reasoning, also a Hormuz story.

And the medicines that can’t wait

Of all the downstream consequences, the cold chain is the most exposed. Vaccines, insulin, biologics, and cancer therapies must be maintained within a narrow temperature range, typically between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius. Most of those products move by air, not sea, and most of the world’s high-volume air corridors run through Gulf hubs that have been variously closed, struck or rerouted around. Prashant Yadav, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations and one of the leading specialists in the field, has pointed to the timing problem with characteristic clarity: cargo carriers need roughly a week and a half to recover for every week of suspended shipments.

The arithmetic compounds.

It is partly a structural constraint. Yadav has also noted that European airlines and the two African carriers that have stepped in are unlikely to add new cargo capacity, as the disruption might continue for a few more months. Capacity is not bought overnight, and the current ceiling is, more or less, the medium-term one.

The countries most exposed are those already short of a buffer. The European Union has a stockpiling mechanism. The UK has flagged the risk of medicine shortages within weeks, but holds some reserve. The United States ordered a six-month stockpile of essential medicines last year. Sub-Saharan Africa, by contrast, imports around 70 per cent of its pharmaceuticals and runs far closer to the wire — arriving at this moment as aid budgets across major European donors are repackaged as investment rather than grants. Routine immunisation in much of the region relies on Gavi-procured stock that travels through the same air corridors, and the cold chain in those settings was already fragile before any of this began. How long current buffers hold is a function of variables nobody is in a position to forecast confidently. Bob Kitchen, vice-president of emergencies and humanitarian action at the International Rescue Committee, who is based in Nairobi, told NPR that he had not seen a comparable convergence in his career — pandemic, Ukraine and the current crisis included. A UN-managed depot in East Africa is currently holding stocks bound for Sudan, Ethiopia and other acute crises that cannot be released.

Save the Children’s drugs are still in India. As of late April, the strait remains effectively closed despite a conditional ceasefire, with Iran and the United States locked in a dual blockade as Pakistan-mediated talks continue. France and the UK have signalled that they will lead an international defensive mission once a sustainable ceasefire holds. None of that gets a vial to Kandahar this week.

What is the longer-term lesson? Supply chain analysts have been writing it for years, and now have a vivid case in front of them. A global medicine system optimised for cost works only as long as nothing goes wrong in three or four key chokepoints. Hormuz is one. The Suez and the Bab al-Mandeb are others. The Panama Canal is a fourth. The system functions until it doesn’t, and the people who feel the failure first are rarely the people the system was designed for.

Soeripto’s sentence is worth reading again. The transport for the drugs is more expensive than the drugs themselves. It is not, on its face, a sentence about war or oil or even shipping. It is a sentence about who, in a system held together by chokepoints, ultimately pays the bill. The strait will reopen. The arithmetic — and the question of who absorbs it — will not.

The post The Strait That Ships the World’s Vaccines appeared first on Medika Life.

From court decisions, recent analysis challenging vaccine skepticism polling results, and congressional testimony, the past month reflects a vindication of the value of immunization, scientific advancement and plain old common sense over ideology-based medical beliefs untethered from clinical evidence.

It would be nice to think that cooler heads have prevailed and we are seeing a return to science-backed decisions guiding American vaccine policy. But the reality is that a resurgent defense of immunization practices may be driven by two bigger forces: measles and midterms.

As I wrote five years ago, disease can be a powerful change agent. Thanks to the ultra-high effectiveness of the measles vaccine to prevent measles outbreaks, an entire generation of kids, parents and healthcare providers had never seen the disease or knew what kind of devastation it could bring. With measles out of sight and out of mind, it was easy for a small band of vocal critics to cast doubt on the value of the measles vaccine. Instead of building on a culture of collective action against disease, we allowed that small band of critics to grow into a chorus of public health freeloaders.

Measles had other ideas. With our weakening herd immunity – a result of declining vaccination rates – it didn’t take much for the virus to quickly reintroduce itself. Since the start of the year, there have been more than 1,700 cases of infection across 19 outbreaks throughout the country. We haven’t seen case numbers this high in 35 years. And if the deaths of American children from measles aren’t tragic enough, we are now on the verge of losing our status of officially eliminating measles. As a preeminent leader in immunology science, it is a startling embarrassment for the U.S. to accept this public health defeat.

Americans of all political stripes now seem to be paying attention. Following a decade of significant decline in vaccination, particularly among Republicans, there now is a push to back away from hardline anti-vaccine rhetoric ahead of the midterm elections. It’s easy to see why: at a time when measles outbreaks are a highly visible example of failed policy by the incumbent ruling party, politicians are not willing to risk being associated with practices that are out of step with the direction in which most U.S. voters want to go.

It’s telling that 66% of MAGA voters support vaccination as a requirement for kids to attend school. The measles outbreak has done a lot to educate people on the value of vaccines, which may be one reason why last week’s congressional testimony by RFK Jr., in which he was forced to admit that the measles vaccine is both safe and effective, and the timely appointment of Dr. Erica Schwartz, a physician and vaccine supporter, to lead the CDC may reflect the political liability posed by alternative vaccine doctrine in the months leading up to the midterm elections.

With growing distrust in federal vaccine messaging, there is a vacuum of credible sources for Americans to turn to for vaccine guidance. That void may actually be an opportunity in disguise for vaccine communicators.

Health care providers, including pharmacists, are still the most trusted source for reliable vaccine information: 4 out of 5 Americans look to these professionals to provide the right mix of personalized, empathetic communication with credible safety and efficacy information. Their stories can carry the power of connection, compassion and candor that we need right now.

Vaccination may seem like a black and white decision for a lot of us, but health care providers know that many parents need help navigating the gray areas. How we tell those stories – and who tells them – is essential to strengthening the national conversation around immunization.

Working more closely together, vaccine makers, innovators in antibody science, medical institutions and non-profit advocacy groups can create more compelling, unified communications that reach people when they are closest to making immunization decisions. This can be done by leveraging the voices of medical professionals to convey the emotional value of protecting our children against preventable disease instead of defaulting to statistics-heavy, complex messaging; pulling those stories through in coordinated media and policymaker engagement; and linking back to credible research sources that feature more prominently in online searches.

If the current measles epidemic in the U.S. is a crisis of our own making, it’s our responsibility to leverage the harsh health and economic lessons from this experience. We must act, not for the political convenience of the midterm elections, but to create better, more durable immunization policies and communications that again can unite Americans against our common disease enemies.

The post Of Measles and Midterms appeared first on Medika Life.

I believe in making it very difficult for people to refuse vaccines. There’s enough of the libertarian about me that I wouldn’t actually strap them down and inject them, but I’m fine with school districts making parents write out their conscientious objections to children being immunised or with sports clubs requiring adult proof of immunisation before people can join. What I or you think is, though, beside the point. Much of the US is walking away from cajoling and compulsion and there’s great pressure in Europe for similar change. We can either go on moaning about how we wish the world hadn’t changed or we can respond effectively.

Before the current US Administration began rewriting vaccine recommendations, one in six US parents wasn’t following them. We used to joke that vaccine-preventable diseases in the West had become diseases of children of the over-educated middle classes who shopped at Whole Foods and did naked yoga classes; vaccine refusers now are still more likely to be white, but they skew to being conservative, very religious, and young. Recommendations actually reduced uptake in this group because most have a deep distrust of the Federal Government and its agencies.

Formal vaccine refusals in Poland more than doubled from 2017 to 2022 and reached over 87,000 in 2023, a 1685% increase since 2003; measles cases surged 10x in early 2024 due to falling rates. Ireland, where I live, has the third-lowest childhood vaccine coverage rate in the OECD.

There are bright spots too, Italy for example, and the battle is far from lost. But the mistrust now endemic to the United States is coming to Europe.

High-handed US and European experts

You can understand confusion, if not mistrust. About half of parents in the USA did not vaccinate their children for flu in the past year, compared with 41 percent who said they had done so, a Washington Post / Kaiser Family Fund poll found. Coverage started declining after 2019. In 2016, the US CDC said that the nasal flu vaccine used in children provided “no measurable benefit” (injectable vaccines for adults were, as usual, highly effective). In the same year, Public Health England said that the same vaccine (produced by a British company in a British factory) was 58 percent effective. Canada followed the UK, saying that its population was very different to the USA! It’s very unlikely that both the Americans and the Canadians were right — despite those obvious population differences…. Few journalists covered the story — I suspect because no-one wanted to be accused of promoting vaccine scepticism. The vaccine is now recommended again in the USA.

Few American paediatricians and even fewer nurses would have been able to explain this to parents because no-one ever bothered to give the professionals an explanation. What do we think doctors told parents who asked why a vaccination was recommended then was not and then was again? British parents who did a web search (this was pre-Chat GPT, remember) might have asked why their children were getting an apparently ineffective vaccine and would have met equally bemused stares from their health providers. Did anyone brief social media influencers or health journalists? Of course not, who do they think they are? What impudence…

I know some of those involved and I’m sure that there was no subterfuge and nothing sinister going on; the answer is likely to be dull and involve methodology and surveillance systems.

This is the way we all used to approach treatment discussions 40 years ago — the doctor told you what to do, you thanked him (it was nearly always a him) and you did it. Questions were a sign of disrespect, of even psychological illness. I was recently treated by a Russian dentist, now practising in Ireland, who was shocked and outraged when I questioned his recommendation to use antibiotics prophylactically; if he had been Irish, he would have been completely used to it.

Nonsensical recommendations in developing countries

Vaccine hesitancy looks a bit different in France. Those least likely to have their children vaccinated tend to be more educated, high users of the internet for information and to have lower trust in health authorities. Those who refuse vaccines for themselves tend to be at the lower end of the social hierarchy with less education and fewer financial resources. Many are ​immigrants and descendants of immigrants, and residents of French overseas departments. Both are probably likely to know about the vaccines which Western experts recommend for children in the developing world, including in Francophone countries.

I remember doing a policy interview with the health minister of a large Indian state. I was trying to find out what he might pay for an effective TB vaccine. “But”, he said, “we already have a TB vaccine. Why do I need a new one?” His top civil servant was sitting behind him and frantically gesticulating to me to try to stop me explaining that the BCG vaccine, given to almost every Indian newborn, may do nothing to prevent TB infections and, at best, may make the disease less severe in some of the children who contract it. It is, though, very good at causing severe side effects. No developed economy uses it; almost every poor one does.

I’m ashamed to say that I did not explain BCG as clearly as I should have to the minister. He was the norm, not the exception, in that series of policymaker interviews: few of those making decisions about TB vaccine policy had ever been given a thorough, honest briefing about the limitations of the vaccines their expert advisers recommended. None of the parents, of course, were ever told about any of these reservations.

There might also be a case for the current practice of giving many children in Africa and Asia a vaccine that sometimes causes polio, instead of preventing it, although I doubt it. The risks of a child contracting polio from the live-attenuated oral vaccine are probably underestimated when they’re presented to politicians and policy influencers. Hardly any parents who bring their children forward for these vaccines are told about the risk or the rationale for continuing to use them, rather than the perfectly safe inactivated vaccine used throughout the rich world.

Is it any wonder that those with insight into the developing world are sceptical? The real wonder is that vaccine confidence is still so high in Africa and Asia. That probably comes from everyday encounters with the tragic consequences of infection by vaccine-preventable illnesses, an experience blessedly denied to most Americans and Europeans.

What we need to do now

The road ahead has been cleared for us. Thirty years ago, I went out with a trainee doctor at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. He was upset one evening because he had been berated by his tutor for telling an older patient that she had cancer — it had been agreed with the family that she would be told that she had a “growth” to avoid upsetting her. At least she found out: King George VI of the United Kingdom sent his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, on a world tour in 1952 because neither he nor she had been told that he had lung cancer and that it was terminal. He never saw her again. These stories shock us now because honesty, realism and communication are taken for granted in what we tell patients who are ill. These principles need to be the new basis for what we tell people who are healthy and want to stay that way.

First we need a change in attitude. Whether to be immunised or not is a decision that people will take — actually, a series of decisions. We don’t need to think about whether we like the concept or not, it is the way things increasingly are. We have to get ordinary people used to making good decisions, just as they do about other life issues such as house buying or insurance or continuing education. Ordinary people are not property experts or risk analysts or trained evaluators of course offerings, but they mostly make reasonable choices. They can do the same thing with vaccines.

Then, we need to communicate much more. Vaccine producers are free to talk to the public about recommended vaccines in many countries; where they are not, they need to be allowed to. Then they need to accept their responsibility to speak often, clearly and loudly. They are the experts on the vaccines they produce and they must tell potential recipients or the parents of recipients about the benefits and disadvantages. Of course, they need to do it in an honest and balanced way. They will be more successful if they communicate in partnership with professional organisations, charities and respected consumer groups. They can be transparent: they have a commercial interest in getting people to accept vaccines but a legal responsibility to set out all the factors in deciding whether to or not. It’s like banks selling mortgages and car dealerships selling warranties.

Researchers and healthcare providers need training in communication and answering questions. They need to be much better at helping policy makers to make decisions about vaccines. Today, too few vaccines are reimbursed and many are offered only to some of those who would benefit from them. In many countries, it is still too hard to get vaccinated and even where rules have changed, practices have not — look at Poland, for example. Politicians and public officials can unleash vaccines so that they can do even more to boost productivity, growth and wealth in society.

Those same scientific and medical experts need to be much better at talking to people who are making decisions about immunisation. Research tells us clearly what helps the right decision, but too few professionals follow the evidence. The most powerful prompt to action is a trusted health professional saying, “I would like you to do this”. Setting a good example works wonders too, but too few health professionals have had all of the vaccines recommended for them.Communication can change all of this.

The vast majority of social media influencers want to give good advice and powerful motivation but no-one talks to them — after all, we want people to follow the guidelines, not think, don’t we? For example, have you seen Dr Mike Varshavski take on 20 vaccine sceptics at once? Thirty million people probably have over various platforms and he’s brilliant. Industry and professionals need to work with influencers who specialise in women’s issues, childhood, workplace effectiveness and, of course, health. Look at this from Dr Ahmed Ezzat — his videos on RSV reduced calls to the emergency services by 25% — and just think what he can do for vaccines.

Journalists are discouraged from writing pieces about vaccine decisions — “just tell people to follow expert recommendations”. Many, consequently, avoid writing about vaccines. We need to treat these journalists as powerful allies in helping lay people to make important decisions with lifelong implications for their risk of developing chronic illnesses. It’s the way that property developers treat journalists who write about houses,

Honestly, I still think it would be simpler and still ethically correct to just nudge almost everyone into getting immunised but that is not an option in many places now and, given the global market in ideas, won’t be one anywhere soon.

Parents get things right

Asia should encourage us. Many parents save and spend to get their children the best vaccines. The state often provides old tech or nothing, so middle-class parents take their children to private clinics for the best protection and pay full price for it. Of course, it’s not fair to poorer children and it is crazy public policy given that population sizes will plunge across Asia over the next 30 years so every child, whether middle class or not, is a precious national resource. Still, it shows that individual families can and do make better decisions than health policy makers when the routes of communication are open and used well.

The post We Have to Earn Better Vaccine Coverage Rates appeared first on Medika Life.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has floated a seismic idea: adding autism to the list of conditions covered by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program, known as VICP, provides a system for families to file claims against vaccine providers in cases in which they experience severe side effects. Kennedy has also suggested broadening the definitions of two serious brain conditions — encephalopathy and encephalitis — so that autism cases could qualify.

Either move, experts warn, would unleash a flood of claims, threatening the program’s financial stability and handing vaccine opponents a powerful new talking point.

Legally, HHS “is required to undergo notice and comment rulemaking to revise the table,” said Richard Hughes, a law firm partner who teaches at George Washington University. The “table” is a list of specific injuries that the U.S. government accepts as presumed to be caused by a vaccine if those injuries occur within a certain time window. If someone can show they meet the criteria, they have a simpler path to securing compensation without having to prove fault. Autism is not in the table because a link between vaccines and autism has been thoroughly debunked.

If autism is added, Hughes explained, the VICP could face “an exorbitant number of claims that would threaten the viability of the program.”

Asked about its possible plans, an HHS spokesperson told CBS News the agency does not comment on future or potential policy decisions.

Carole Johnson, former administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, which oversees VICP, cautioned that the system is already overburdened: “The backlog is not just a function of management, it’s built into the statute itself. That’s important context for any conversation about adding new categories of claims.”

Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California College of the Law-San Francisco, said that any such change would be exploited: “This can, and likely will, be used to cast doubt on vaccines.”

Compensation Without Causation

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was born of crisis. In 1982, “Vaccine Roulette,” a television documentary, aired nationwide, alleging routine childhood shots were causing seizures, brain damage, and even sudden infant death. The program alarmed parents and triggered a surge of lawsuits against vaccine makers.

“That led to a flood of litigation against vaccine makers,” recalled Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and vaccine inventor at the University of Pennsylvania. “I mean, to the point that it drove them out of the business. … By the mid-1980s, there were $3.2 billion worth of lawsuits against these companies.”

Were it not for the VICP, Offit said, “We wouldn’t have vaccines for American children. The companies — it wasn’t worth it for them.”

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created a no-fault system. Families who believed a vaccine caused harm could file a claim; if the injury appeared on the table within a set time frame, compensation was automatic. If not, claimants could present medical evidence. The system had two purposes: provide compensation and protect the vaccine supply.

From the beginning, the table was understood not as a scientific document but as a legal tool.

“It’s a legal document and things can be included for policy reasons even if the causation evidence is weak,” Reiss said. She explained, “The program is designed to be generous, to compensate in cases of doubt.”

But, she said, “autism is not in that category. The science is clear. Adding it would be pure politics.”

This tension — between law, science, and public perception — has defined the program for nearly four decades.

What Expansion Would Mean in Practice

Since 1988, federal data shows more than 25,000 petitions to the VICP have been adjudicated; of those, 12,019 were granted compensation and 13,007 were dismissed. About 60% of compensated cases involved negotiated settlements in which HHS drew no conclusion about the cause. Over the same period, billions of vaccine doses were safely administered to millions of Americans.

Adding autism to the VICP table would change that picture overnight.

Federal estimates suggest up to 48,000 children could qualify immediately under a “profound autism” standard, with potential payouts averaging $2 million per case, at an initial cost of nearly $100 billion, followed by annual totals of about $30 billion a year — dwarfing the current $4 billion trust, a new analysis finds.

“Any case where the symptoms appeared in the past eight years and the parents blame vaccines,” Reiss said. “I don’t know how many that would be. The fund has a surplus of over $4 billion. One seriously disabled child’s care can cost millions, so a significant number, say 100,000 compensations, might exhaust it.”

Furthermore, with only eight special masters handling cases, the system would also be paralyzed by backlogs.

The stakes are not just fiscal. If the fund collapses under the weight of autism claims, vaccine makers may question whether producing vaccines for the U.S. market is worth the risk. That would mirror the crisis of the 1980s, which led to the establishment of the VICP.

Autism and the Courts

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Andrew Wakefield’s now-retracted paper alleging a link between the MMR vaccine and autism fueled a surge of VICP claims. By 2002, the VICP was swamped with petitions alleging vaccines had caused autism. The court consolidated thousands of cases into the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, selecting a handful of test cases to decide them all.

After years of hearings and expert testimony, the conclusion was unequivocal: vaccines do not cause autism. In 2010, the court ruled against petitioners on every theory of causation. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims affirmed, and the Court of Appeals upheld, the decision.

“That precedent is binding,” said Richard Hughes, a vaccine law expert at George Washington University and former VICP legal counsel. “Autism was litigated thoroughly and rejected. That still carries weight in the court today.”

The Ghost of Hannah Poling

Yet, the vaccine-autism debate has never quite faded. In 2008, the government conceded a case involving Hannah Poling, a girl with a rare mitochondrial disorder who developed autism-like symptoms after vaccination. Officials stressed the concession was specific to her condition, not evidence of a general link. But headlines told another story: “Family to Receive $1.5 Million in First-Ever Vaccine Autism Court Award.”

The Poling case fueled years of confusion.

Autism Science Today

The science is clearer than ever. Autism begins early in pregnancy, not in toddlerhood when most vaccines are given.

“Vaccinations … happened around the time families were recognizing symptoms of autism in their children,” said Catherine Lord, a UCLA clinical psychologist and specialist in autism diagnosis. “However, we now know that autism begins much earlier, likely as the fetus develops during pregnancy, so it cannot be an explanation.”

Peter Hotez, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and vaccine scientist at the Baylor College of Medicine who is also the father of a young adult with autism, underscores that point: “The drivers of autism are genetics and, in rare cases, environmental exposures during pregnancy, not vaccines. We’ve been over this ground for decades, and the evidence is overwhelming.”

Sarah Despres, former legal counsel to the secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration and now a consultant to nonprofit organizations on immunization policy, adds that the compensation program itself is often misunderstood.

“The table was originally written as a political document,” she said. “The purpose of the program was to be swift, generous, and fair. … There would be cases that may not be caused by the vaccine but would be compensated if you went through this table injury scheme, where you don’t have to prove causation.”

What’s at risk: Harm from the Diseases Themselves

The stakes are not abstract. Measles, one of the most contagious pathogens on Earth, spreads so efficiently that one infected child can transmit it to 90% of susceptible contacts. Before vaccinations began in the 1960s, measles sickened hundreds of thousands annually in the U.S., killing hundreds and causing thousands of cases of encephalitis and lifelong disability. Complications included pneumonia, brain swelling, and, in rare cases, a fatal degenerative brain disorder called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE, that can strike years later. This year, a school-age child in Los Angeles County died of SSPE after contracting measles in infancy, before being eligible for vaccination.

Mumps was once a near-universal childhood illness. Though often dismissed as mild, it can cause sterility in men, meningitis, and permanent hearing loss. Outbreaks on college campuses, as recently as the 2000s, showed how quickly it can return when vaccination rates slip.

Rubella, also known as German measles, is mild in most children, but can be devastating during pregnancy. Congenital Rubella Syndrome, or CRS, caused waves of tragedy before the development of the vaccine: Thousands of babies each year were born blind, deaf, with heart defects, or with intellectual disabilities. In medical texts, autism itself is listed as one of CRS’ sequelae, or possible consequences — proof that rubella infection, not vaccination, can contribute to developmental disorders.

Measles, mumps, and rubella “are not trivial,” said Walt Orenstein, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s immunization program. “Fever, high fever, is common … and they have frequent complications.”

And yet, as these diseases fade from living memory, a counternarrative has gained traction. On Sept. 29, the nonprofit Physicians for Informed Consent, a group that disputes the scientific consensus on vaccines, announced it had mailed its “Silver Booklet” on vaccine safety to every member of Congress, as well as to President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. The book claims that “vaccines are not proven to be safer than the diseases they intend to prevent,” and calls on federal leaders to punish states that restrict vaccine exemptions. (The booklet isn’t free. The group sells copies for $25 on Amazon.)

Scientists say this framing misrepresents the basic math of risk. “Measles is one of the most important infectious diseases in human history,” notes “Plotkin’s Vaccines,” the field’s authoritative textbook. “The widespread use of measles vaccines in the late 20th and early 21st centuries led to a further marked reduction in measles deaths. Measles vaccination averted an estimated 31.7 million deaths from 2000 to 2020.”

Kennedy’s possible move to expand the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program hinges on casting doubt — on suggesting that science is unsettled, that vaccines may be riskier than diseases.

“One tactic used to argue that vaccines cause autism is the use of compensation decisions from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to claim such a link,” said Reiss of UC Law-San Francisco. “Even the cases that most closely address the question of vaccines and autism do not show the link that opponents claim exists, and many of the cases used are misrepresented and misused.”

Offit underscores the danger on the perception side. “When people see the Vaccine Injury Compensation program, they assume that any money that is given is because there was a vaccine injury,” he said.

Kathryn Edwards, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases and vaccine safety at Vanderbilt University, said, “Expanding compensation for issues that are not clearly related to vaccines … suggests that these conditions are related to vaccines when they are not.” She compared it to the removal of thimerosal, a preservative dropped from most childhood vaccines to ease public fears, despite no evidence of harm. “Now, we are still suffering from that action.”

Public health experts stress that such narratives invert reality. The very diseases being downplayed once killed or disabled tens of thousands of American children each year. As pediatrician, psychiatrist, and medical historian Howard Markel put it: “Back a hundred years ago, everybody lost a kid or knew a kid who died of one of these diseases. … We never conquer germs, we wrestle them to a draw. That’s the best we do. And so this is a real … handicap to the other side, the microbes who live to infect.”

Families and the Future

The hardest voices to reckon with are those of families. Parents of autistic children often feel abandoned — unsupported by disability programs, exhausted by care needs, searching for answers. Kennedy’s appeal to them is emotional, not scientific.

Reiss noted that families deserve far more support but argues that it shouldn’t come through VICP.

“The program is to award compensation to those injured by vaccines,” she said. “We should have more direct support — disability funding, disability aid. Kennedy has been taking HHS in the opposite direction, cutting services where we need more.”

Despres made the same point: “The goal of the program really was if there’s a close call, we’re going to err on the side of compensation. … And it’s really important that everyone understands that compensation does not mean that the vaccine actually caused the injury. … And I think we have seen statistics around the compensation program misused by those who would want to sow distrust in vaccines, to say vaccines are unsafe, when in fact … that’s not what this is.”

UCLA’s Lord urged a shift in focus. “For the last 50 years, science has focused on the biological causes of autism, which has led to great progress, especially in genetics,” she said. Of Secretary Kennedy, she said, “He could help more by acknowledging the value of science, but also the need to better attend to the actual lives of autistic people and their families.”

What Comes Next?

If Kennedy decides to move forward with such a plan, HHS would need to draft a rule, open it to public comment, and then defend the change in court. The pushback will be fierce: from scientists, from public health leaders, and from families who fear being misled yet again.

The debate over adding autism to the Vaccine Injury Table is not just a policy debate. The program was built on the principle of compensation without causation, a fragile balance designed to sustain both trust and supply. Adding autism could collapse that distinction entirely.

[KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.]

The post Inside the High-Stakes Battle Over Vaccine Injury Compensation, Autism, and Public Trust appeared first on Medika Life.

Conflicts compound these inequities. Fragile and conflict-afflicted countries account for just a quarter of the world’s infants, yet they harbour half of all zero-dose children, whose numbers have increased from 3.6 million in 2019 to 5.4 million in 2024. In Sudan, vaccination coverage collapsed — from 85% pre-war to as low as 8% in conflict zones — while Yemen’s zero-dose figures climbed significantly, driven by instability, health service disruptions, and misinformation.

Conversely, Gavi-supported, low-income countries saw marked improvements, reducing un- and under-vaccinated cohorts by around 650,000 in 2024. Yet even high- and upper-middle-income economies are experiencing slippage, with measles coverage hovering at 84% (first dose) and 76% (second), below the 95% threshold needed for herd immunity. Consequently, measles outbreaks surged, with 60 countries reporting significant incidents in 2024, doubling since 2022.

Country case snapshots powerfully illustrate these trends. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, measles vaccination rates are at just 55%, compared to Croatia’s 90%, contributing to over 7,000 cases and two adolescent deaths, prompting WHO and UNICEF to urge intensified immunisation campaigns. In Pakistan, polio resurgence has occurred amid militant threats and disrupted campaigns, with over one million children missing doses in 2024. The government’s response includes large-scale vaccination drives and policy enforcement, such as arrest warrants, signalling both the challenge and political recognition of routine immunisation’s fragility. Meanwhile, Bangladesh has steadily expanded its vaccine schedule — adding Hib, rubella, PCV, IPV and MR2 — achieving DTP3 coverage around 93% and fully vaccinated rates near 84% by 2019.

These illustrations reveal both progress and vulnerability. Countries with strong political will, robust systems, and community trust — like Bangladesh — are managing gains. Others, like Pakistan and Bosnia, highlight how instability, mistrust, and misinformation can swiftly unravel public health gains.

The 2024 immunisation data reiterates an urgent message. Global coverage has stabilised and broadened, but millions of children remain vulnerable in conflict zones and complacent high-income settings. Measles outbreaks, polio flare-ups, diphtheria spikes, and new threats like RSV underscore that the progress we’ve made is neither permanent nor evenly shared. Unless we decisively fill funding gaps, fortify health delivery in emergencies, ensure vaccine equity, and strengthen trust, these vulnerabilities will deepen — and outbreaks will follow.

The post Global childhood vaccination remains resilient, but equity cracks are widening appeared first on Medika Life.

Conflicts compound these inequities. Fragile and conflict-afflicted countries account for just a quarter of the world’s infants, yet they harbour half of all zero-dose children, whose numbers have increased from 3.6 million in 2019 to 5.4 million in 2024. In Sudan, vaccination coverage collapsed — from 85% pre-war to as low as 8% in conflict zones — while Yemen’s zero-dose figures climbed significantly, driven by instability, health service disruptions, and misinformation.

Conversely, Gavi-supported, low-income countries saw marked improvements, reducing un- and under-vaccinated cohorts by around 650,000 in 2024. Yet even high- and upper-middle-income economies are experiencing slippage, with measles coverage hovering at 84% (first dose) and 76% (second), below the 95% threshold needed for herd immunity. Consequently, measles outbreaks surged, with 60 countries reporting significant incidents in 2024, doubling since 2022.

Country case snapshots powerfully illustrate these trends. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, measles vaccination rates are at just 55%, compared to Croatia’s 90%, contributing to over 7,000 cases and two adolescent deaths, prompting WHO and UNICEF to urge intensified immunisation campaigns. In Pakistan, polio resurgence has occurred amid militant threats and disrupted campaigns, with over one million children missing doses in 2024. The government’s response includes large-scale vaccination drives and policy enforcement, such as arrest warrants, signalling both the challenge and political recognition of routine immunisation’s fragility. Meanwhile, Bangladesh has steadily expanded its vaccine schedule — adding Hib, rubella, PCV, IPV and MR2 — achieving DTP3 coverage around 93% and fully vaccinated rates near 84% by 2019.

These illustrations reveal both progress and vulnerability. Countries with strong political will, robust systems, and community trust — like Bangladesh — are managing gains. Others, like Pakistan and Bosnia, highlight how instability, mistrust, and misinformation can swiftly unravel public health gains.

The 2024 immunisation data reiterates an urgent message. Global coverage has stabilised and broadened, but millions of children remain vulnerable in conflict zones and complacent high-income settings. Measles outbreaks, polio flare-ups, diphtheria spikes, and new threats like RSV underscore that the progress we’ve made is neither permanent nor evenly shared. Unless we decisively fill funding gaps, fortify health delivery in emergencies, ensure vaccine equity, and strengthen trust, these vulnerabilities will deepen — and outbreaks will follow.

The post Global childhood vaccination remains resilient, but equity cracks are widening appeared first on Medika Life.

Yet today, we find ourselves dismantling these hard-won achievements. Extraordinary cuts to disease prevention, research, and surveillance programs signal a large-scale reversal of a successful strategy of containment and elimination. Such an irresponsible pivot risks opening the door for vaccine-preventable diseases, drug-resistant infections and new pandemics to reemerge with devastating force. If we continue down this path, the consequences will be felt not just in developing nations, but across the industrialized world, where health systems already are under strain.

It could take years to regain the high ground we currently hold against infectious diseases; many countries may never get there again. While pursuing modernization and efficiencies in the global health system is vital, randomly eliminating or suppressing funding and institutions we rely on to develop the pipeline of new vaccines, therapeutics, and practices to fight tomorrow’s pathogens only weakens us further. Our most dangerous disease threats constantly evolve, probe our weaknesses, and exploit natural opportunities to strike.

The attack on America’s preeminent medical research institutions and the innovations they fuel severely undermines our ability to counter disease while degrading the very talent we need to protect us: the next generation of scientists and medical researchers.

Many prominent health leaders are sounding the alarm, but until a coalition of the informed begins to take shape, we may as well be screaming into the wind. Unless a concerted effort is made to change course, the infrastructure, jobs, institutional knowledge, and recruitment of future health experts that constitute one of humanity’s greatest achievements may be dismantled. Surely by now we have learned that research and disease prevention is dramatically less costly than deploying the vast resources necessary to respond to a new outbreak.

Here’s one path forward: U.S. health communicators, advocates, and leaders should coordinate framing the issues to state and congressional lawmakers who stand to lose the most from the current health funding policy direction. Many of the places contributing the most to America’s competitive advantage in biomedical research are in conservative districts that receive funding from the NIH and other public sources.

Similarly, emerging diseases often pose the highest threat to people battling chronic diseases or living in areas underserved by health services, which means all of us are affected, regardless of economic status or ideological belief. People at every level of the health system—from practitioners to patients, researchers to drugmakers—should be energized to speak with one voice and let policymakers know that retreat in the face of defeatable disease threats is the wrong direction for the U.S.

Disease is humanity’s greatest enemy, and it constantly hovers at our doorstep. Do we pretend not to hear it knocking, or do we recognize its dangers and act?

That’s exactly the moment we are facing now. Our situation is complicated by the fact that our most important defenses – biomedical research and disease prevention infrastructure – are being demolished before our eyes. It will take real courage to act, but we must marshal our resources, defying the ambivalence and dismissiveness that make us more vulnerable to looming infectious disease threats. This is no time to retreat.

The post A Turning Point for Global Health appeared first on Medika Life.

Perhaps the biggest wild card is Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House and the nomination of several candidates who have suggested that they will reinvent Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—key agencies that set the agenda for public health and innovation.

The second unknown is the thin line separating misinformation from disinformation.  Historically, we looked to public health scientists to guide us.  Now, we are uncertain who to trust regarding health information.  Advice:  Do not rely on “X” as a fact-checking source – it’s merely noise.  But can you trust significant news sources, C-Suite execs, or elected officials?  It’s hard to say.  There is a vast divide between an honest mistake and willful deception. When it comes to health, do your homework – always!

A third factor must be included in the many 2024 health rankings and “Top 10” analyses that will appear in the days ahead. Our planet’s and people’s health are deeply intertwined. Rising temperatures, air pollution, and extreme weather events are not just environmental concerns but public health emergencies. These factors disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, exacerbating chronic conditions like asthma, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders. Addressing these challenges requires health professionals to embrace a broader perspective, recognizing that the fight for cleaner air, sustainable food systems, and resilient communities is inseparable from the mission to improve individual health outcomes.

Here are 10 health-sector developments—not ranked—to watch in the coming year, determined by media coverage, reader interest, and personal interest. These “10” could be Top Hundreds or Thousands. Happily, there were many advancements in 2024 to applaud. Yet, the pain points, too, are many. There are many publication lists to check – reviewing many is worthwhile. What is most important is to reflect on the needs of people and planet and commit to make a difference. The planet doesn’t need people. People need the planet. Equally so, people need each other.

This list’s topics were selected using data from global news outlets, academic publications, press releases, analytics platforms like Google Trends, and social media engagement metrics. While the list reflects the broad measure of public interest, it provides an overview of some of the positive and most worrisome health shifts and signals of what lies ahead.

1. AI-Powered Diagnostics Revolutionize Early Detection

Augmented implementation (AKA artificial intelligence) will redefine diagnostics in the years ahead. AI is poised to redefine diagnostics, with breakthroughs in the early detection of diseases like pancreatic cancer offering unprecedented accuracy and saving lives. Recent breakthroughs set the stage for broader adoption of AI in detecting other cancers and chronic diseases in 2025 and beyond, enticing the biopharma sector to interest in clinical trials to develop treatments for these deadly cancers.  This is a prime example of where AI can become a tipping point for earlier interventions and better patient outcomes globally.

2. India Leadership in Affordable Vaccine Development

India is quietly solidifying a reputation as the “pharmacy of the world” through several initiatives, such as launching a low-cost universal flu vaccine. Developed through a groundbreaking public-private partnership, this vaccine leverages advanced mRNA technology to provide broad-spectrum protection against multiple flu strains. By prioritizing affordability and accessibility, the initiative aims to protect millions of people in low- and middle-income countries, showcasing a scalable model for addressing global health inequities.

India has all the pieces to become a more significant player in the life science innovation puzzle – talent, scientific rigor, and an open-minded government willing to align its drug regulatory system with the world’s gold standard – the Food and Drug Administration.

India’s new rare disease center in New Delhi addresses critical global health gaps, setting a precedent for similar initiatives worldwide. Keep an eye on future developments from India to the world and investments from US-based life science companies in India’s strong talent base.

3. Breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment

A novel gene-editing therapy targeting the APOE4 gene variant in the United States shows promise in addressing Alzheimer’s progression, and three new drugs were approved in the United Kingdom that may slow down memory decline in early Alzheimer’s disease. This continuing commitment by life science companies to invest in Alzheimer’s treatments after waves of disappointments could mark a turning point in one of the most vexing and worrisome neurodegenerative diseases.

Additionally, long-standing preventive disease pioneer Dean Ornish, MD, Founder and President of the Preventative Medicine Research Institute, has shown a possible pathway to reversing Alzheimer’s symptoms without medication. Ornish’s research on lifestyle interventions—emphasizing diet, exercise, and stress management—gained significant attention in 2024 and highlights the role of holistic approaches in improving cognitive health. His pathway does not dismiss using prescription medicine. Leading medical minds and consumers’ minds should take lifestyle medicine seriously.  It’s not the first time that Dr. Ornish has been proven right.

4. United Kingdom Moves Toward Digital Health Leadership

The United Kingdom launched a nationwide digital health initiative integrating wearable technology with its revered National Health Service (NHS). By enabling people to track chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension in real-time, the initiative enhances patient engagement and accelerates preventive care delivery. Early results indicate improved patient outcomes and reduced hospital admissions. Looking ahead, 2025 could see the expansion of this initiative to include predictive analytics, further enhancing preventative care and patient empowerment.

UK Finance Minister/Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in 2024 that the government is increasing the national health budget by US$29.33bn, a significant increase in NHS resourcing. Increased investment in infrastructure, technology and patient care position the United Kingdom as a launching point for new biomedical research and innovation waves.

5. Cancer Vaccines Gain Momentum

Personalized cancer vaccines emerged as a game-changing innovation in oncology. These vaccines train the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells based on the unique genetic mutations in an individual’s tumor, offering a highly tailored approach to treatment. A U.S.-based biotech company reported successful Phase 3 trial results for a melanoma vaccine, demonstrating significant reductions in recurrence rates.  

One promising example is the Moderna and Merck mRNA-based vaccine program for adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma. In Phase IIb results, the therapy showed a 44 percent lower risk of cancer recurrence or death compared to Merck blockbuster cancer drug Keytruda alone. Ongoing trials are exploring its efficacy in combating other cancers, such as lung and breast cancer. These are rigorous clinical programs with all the scientific peer-review requirements of a new medication.

6. America Begins to Take Serious Note of Obesity

The United States has finally begun to address obesity as a serious health concern. New policies and initiatives have been implemented to combat this epidemic, including improved access to nutrition education, increased funding for obesity research, and the development of innovative treatment options. Food and Drug Administration approval of new weight-loss GLP-1 drugs has sparked hope for more effective interventions. Additionally, public health campaigns have raised awareness about the long-term health risks associated with obesity, leading to a shift in societal attitudes and increased support for those struggling with weight management.

While weight-loss drugs offer promise, addressing obesity as a multifaceted health issue—spanning diabetes, heart disease, and more—remains critical. However, medications alone are not the miracle solution to the world’s weight problem. Will 2025 become the year of recognizing obesity as an umbrella disease?

7. Israeli Innovation –  Resilience Under Pressure

Sudden attacks from all directions would consume any nation’s emotional and physical energies. If so, the past 16 months should absolutely distract Israel – a country the size of New Jersey – and its nine million Jewish, Muslim, and Druze citizens – from anything other than self-defense.  Despite incredible challenges, Israel continues to innovate, with its 1,600 life science companies driving advancements in digital health, diagnostics, and bio-convergence. Israeli startups raised $2.43 billion in the third quarter of 2024 across 99 rounds, representing a 32 percent increase compared to the same period in 2023 (pre-October 2023)

The number of groundbreaking Israeli-developed medical devices, biologics, and information technologies incorporated into US-headquartered life science companies’ pipelines and product portfolios secures this nation’s position as a global innovator hub. Its role model hospital, Sheba Medical Center, ranks among the world’s top health systems and seamlessly integrates the country’s cutting-edge technologies in intensive care, telemedicine, early diagnostics, smart surgical equipment, and digital imaging throughout its system.

Israel is taking another leap in health innovation through its investment in bio-convergence. It is poised to play a significant role in the next technological wave of the 21st century. 

8. US Advances in Regenerative Medicine

Regenerative medicine focuses on repairing or replacing damaged tissues and organs, tapping into the body’s natural healing processes. Innovations like stem cell regeneration, cell therapy, diabetes and regenerative knee treatments offer alternatives to invasive surgeries and improve outcomes for chronic conditions.

Regulatory frameworks are crucial to this progress, providing clear guidelines and streamlined approval processes to ensure safety while fostering innovation. As regenerative medicine reshapes health delivery, it stands out as a transformative force in addressing some of the most pressing medical challenges. It is science fiction in many ways—maintain an open mind.

9. Global Antimicrobial Resistance Collaboration

The WHO’s global antimicrobial resistance network is a critical step in combating superbugs. It enables real-time data sharing to identify resistance patterns and drive new antibiotic development. It is a big deal. In a world where pathogens know no borders, collective action through such a network is essential to safeguarding the efficacy of treatments and protecting lives worldwide. The urgency has willing partners ready to engage.

This collaborative surveillance network is a big step forward in the response to a silent pandemic threatening global health. Coordinated action across nations equips health systems with real-time tools to identify and respond to resistance patterns. The rise of drug-resistant infections undermines decades of medical progress, turning treatable conditions into life-threatening challenges. A unified surveillance network enhances early detection and targeted interventions and drives the development of new antibiotics and stewardship programs.  Watch what happens in the coming year – our well-being is at stake.

10. A New White House Administration – Anxiety Versus Reality

As the second Trump administration prepares to take up residence in the White House, health ecosystem stakeholders are abuzz about potential policy shifts. Drawing from past actions and election campaign rhetoric, it’s anticipated that this administration – based on executive nominees such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., might implement changes through executive authority, bypassing congressional approval.  Food regulation policy is almost a given.  What about access to (some) vaccines? How about the review and regulations of medicines?  Verbal controversy leaves many wondering what will happen next.

The incoming administration’s health policy agenda remains uncertain, with potential changes to the ACA, Medicaid, and reproductive health policies sparking debate. Additionally, there may be moves to restrict access to abortion and contraception, reshape Medicaid through waivers and work requirements, and revise policies affecting LGBTQ+ health and immigration-related health needs.  The possibilities that can generate anxiety are numerous.  Wait and watch!

The Year Ahead and Beyond

These 10 health developments reflect the intersection of innovation, policy, and global collaboration. As we navigate 2025, the focus on improving lives and addressing disparities remains our collective responsibility – to rally to ideas and innovations that can improve people’s and our planet’s well-being.

From AI-supported diagnosis to vaccine breakthroughs in India and digital health leadership in the UK, the global health community demonstrates endless ingenuity. The developments of 2024 offer a roadmap for the future, proving that innovation is a team sport and together can overcome even the most formidable health challenges.

But innovation is like a Jenga structure—pull out the wrong piece at the wrong time, and health innovation can crumble or come to a screeching halt. It rests on three pillars: 1. People, 2. Policy, and 3. Investment. If policies do not support continued biomedical advances, equity and big business will likely search for other sectors that offer promise with a clear vision of a return on investment.

Let’s watch and advocate for a world where health in developed and emerging nations remains a top priority.

The post 2024 Health Trends: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities appeared first on Medika Life.