Proposed Solution

The live recombinant tetravalent vaccine, Dengvaxia, had a high-profile debut in the
Philippines in the spring of 2016. The nation had participated in every stage of clinical
development and was the first in the world to get access to it. With a goal of immunizing a
million kids by the end of the year, the Department of Health launched a mass vaccination
program and spent $67 million on Dengvaxia.

With Dengvaxia, whose development had taken 20 years and cost roughly $1.8 billion,
Sanofi likewise had great expectations. Infection rates were expected to drop by 24% within the
next five years thanks to the vaccine, which helps protect against all four dengue serotypes.
Sanofi appeared to be well-positioned to profit from the introduction of the first-ever dengue
vaccine to international markets. By October 2016, 10 other nations, including Mexico, Brazil,
and Indonesia, had given their regulatory clearance for Dengvaxia.

Dengvaxia is given as three injections spaced six months apart, but after more than six
months had passed and more than 830,000 kids had received at least one dose, Sanofi declared
that it was changing its label to limit its use to only those who had already been exposed to
dengue virus. Sanofi said the findings revealed that recipients of the vaccine who were dengue-
naive might be more susceptible to more serious infections after reexamining the trial's
outcomes. The Dengvaxia controversy was sparked by this news.

Therefore, to prevent the occurrence of the same issue, the following solutions have been
proposed:

Vaccine Safety Communication. Any person with a disagreeable viewpoint on

vaccination safety issues is free to express it online without seeking professional advice thanks to
today's communication environment. In that situation, the National Immunization Programme in
an area faces difficulty in applying pro-actively cutting-edge and participatory communication
tactics with evidence-based messages. This is due to the fact that while vaccines are generally
safe, no immunization program is completely free from risks associated with vaccine safety.
Proactive communication is necessary to address these issues, which include adverse reactions to
immunization, temporary suspension and suspension of a vaccine, vaccine recall, new research
discoveries connected to vaccines or immunization, a story in the media, or a rumor about a
vaccine (World Health Organization, 2016).
Vaccine Safety. To assist with guaranteeing the vaccines we get are safe, certain
measures are mandated by law in the United States. Vaccines are subjected to very high safety
standards since they are administered to millions of healthy individuals—including children—to
avoid serious diseases. Every vaccination must undergo quality and safety testing before being
suggested for use, and it must also be under constant observation once it has been given the go-
ahead. To put it another way, every vaccine that is authorized or approved must undergo safety
testing, including testing and evaluation before it is licensed by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and recommended for use by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and monitoring the vaccine's safety after it is recommended for infants,
children, or adults (Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP), 2021).
Information transparency. Governments are compelled, in the midst of a pandemic, to
withhold facts that would compromise the public's acceptance of vaccines. The findings of the
Petersen et al. (2021) study, however, demonstrate that transparency is essential for preserving
long-term trust and preventing the propagation of conspiracy theories, even while transparency
alone cannot eliminate acute vaccine skepticism. Moreover, while transparent negative
communication has obvious short-term costs, the alternative of assuring the public of the safety
and efficacy of vaccines through vague communication has no benefits and instead breeds both
short- and long-term mistrust of authorities. Furthermore, their findings suggest that once people
are truly suspicious, the primary tool for health communication has minimal persuasive value.
Such difficulties are likely to worsen and could thwart future vaccination efforts, both if repeated
vaccinations are necessary during the current pandemic and in future health emergencies. If
health communicators do not insist on transparent communication, even if this means disclosing
negative information.
References:
Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP). (2021, April 26). Vaccine Safety.

HHS.gov. https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/safety/index.html

Petersen, M. B., Bor, A., Jørgensen, F., & Lindholt, M. F. (2021). Transparent communication

about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(29), e2024597118.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024597118

World Health Organization. (2016). Vaccine Safety communication Guide for immunization

programme Managers and national regulatory authorities.

https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1247065/retrieve