Opinion
Avoiding discussion of vaccine side effects isn’t pro-vaccine. It’s anti-science.
Three and a half years ago I contracted Guillain Barre Syndrome after getting the Jansen-J&J viral vector vaccine for COVID-19. The neurological disorder has left me hobbled by numb hands and feet, staggering around imbalanced, and battling debilitating fatigue. It has also left me, and thousands of others, feeling ignored and unheard by the government and the public health establishment.
I wrote about the experience in 2021 in The Boston Globe, after the FDA attached a warning to the J&J shot, citing an unacceptable occurrence of this adverse effect. At the time, I bemoaned that it was so difficult to talk about vaccine side effects and argued that government and public health officials should just face up to them honestly. People could handle the truth, I said, and everyone would benefit because acknowledging those rare occasions when things go wrong would allow vaccine makers to design a better product.
Three years later, that still hasn’t happened. Public health officials, cowed by the anti-vax crowd, stuck to the line that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. And an existing system to address people injured by vaccines, established under President Ronald Reagan, has been all but abandoned.
Sign up for Harvard Public Health
Delivered to your inbox weekly.
Of course, vaccines save lives. But the “nothing to see here” posture regarding legitimate vaccine side effects is preventing government from having our backs and following up on flaws in the products—in the same the way it does when romaine lettuce or lunch meat gets contaminated, or air bags don’t function properly.
And, as is well known in the medical profession, there really is a flaw. Several vaccines have a problem with Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS). In 1976, the swine flu vaccine triggered so many cases, it had to be discontinued. Flu shots are associated with a “slightly elevated risk.” During the pandemic, the J&J shot was effectively shut down in the US for triggering at least 100 GBS cases, and Astra Zeneca’s vaccine was linked to many hundreds more. More recently, makers of shingles and RSV vaccines have had to issues warnings about GBS.
Intuitively, it makes sense. GBS is fundamentally an auto-immune response. Vaccines work by tricking the immune system into attacking a target, like a representation of the coronavirus. In some people, rogue antibodies take that fight too far and start attacking the body’s peripheral nervous system—a horrifying and thoroughly damaging case of friendly fire.
One would think officials wouldn’t want to sweep anything under the rug, which could stoke more suspicion about vaccines. But unlike some other countries (Canada comes to mind), the United States is not managing this problem in the straightforward and sober manner it warrants. And thousands of people—albeit a tiny fraction of the 230 million people who got a COVID-19 jab—are suffering because of it.
It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s a process in place to handle this problem. After vaccine makers were given immunity from lawsuits to encourage product development, the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). The program allows individuals harmed by vaccines to share what happened to them and receive compensation funded by a modest excise tax on vaccines. Eligible shots include tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis B, and influenza. The cases are decided by special masters in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Unfortunately, that perfectly sensible system has been eclipsed by a flawed and hastily arranged program put in place after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, or CICP. If during a public health emergency someone suffers an adverse side effect from, say, a mass smallpox vaccination, they could file claims to cover lost wages and medical costs (at the very least).
The CICP looks like common-sense liability protection, but after the greatest public health emergency of our lifetime, it has become clear that it is not up to the task. Many claims have been summarily rejected, and aside from one recent large award, administrative masters had compensated a grand total of 15 individuals for less than $60,000—none of them for Guillain Barre.
So why not make the COVID-19 vaccines eligible under the NVICP, the program that has worked so much better? To do so requires an act of Congress, and pandemic politics has put everything at a standstill.
Democrats, joined by the public health establishment, seemingly want to avoid anything that would cast aspersions on vaccines. Republicans, meanwhile, talk a big game about the downsides of vaccination but won’t approve the necessary excise tax on the pharmaceutical companies to fund victim compensation. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Modernization Act, which would add COVID-19 shots to the NVICP, is currently languishing alongside other legislation that would improve reporting protocols and add to the corps of special masters to adjudicate claims.
“We’re entitled to a reasonable alternative remedy to litigation,” says Christopher A. Dreisbach, legal affairs director at React19, an advocacy group for some 20,000 people suffering from adverse impacts from Covid vaccines. Dreisbach, who after his Pfizer shot was diagnosed with Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy—essentially a recurring form of Guillain Barre—says he doesn’t expect much to happen in Washington between now and Election Day. But at least two current lawsuits assert that the existing government process for the vaccine-injured violates constitutional right; the suits might be worrisome enough for pharmaceutical companies to work more proactively with Congress and advocates on reform.
Three years after my essay calling for an honest discussion of vaccine side effects, what’s most disappointing to me is that some medical and public health professionals still refuse to acknowledge empirical truths—and thereby give lawmakers and public health officials the cover they need to do nothing. Some doctors, including one of mine at a prestigious local hospital, deny to this day that Guillain Barre is a side effect of the J&J shot. At a conference for GBS survivors, another told the audience they should go ahead and get vaccinated without worry. When I objected— I’ve been told I shouldn’t risk getting any type of shot for the rest of my life—he looked at me with obvious disdain, as if I was an anti-vaxxer, and rattled off what seemed like prepared talking points to deal with crazy people. My fellow journalists, meanwhile, have mostly cleaved to pro-vaccine orthodoxy, the New York Times being a courageous exception.
I wear no tin-foil hat, I assure you. I believe simply that as a society, we have an obligation to be fair and transparent. I’m asking for the ability to officially document what happened to me, in hopes of contributing data that the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies can use to make a better vaccine.
Source images: Molibdenis-Studio / iStock
Republish this article
<p>“I wear no tin-foil hat. I’m asking for the ability to officially document what happened to me.”</p>
<p>Written by Anthony Flint</p>
<p>This <a rel="canonical" href="https://harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/vaccine-side-effects-are-real-we-should-talk-about-them/">article</a> originally appeared in<a href="https://harvardpublichealth.org/">Harvard Public Health magazine</a>. Subscribe to their <a href="https://harvardpublichealth.org/subscribe/">newsletter</a>.</p>
<p class="has-drop-cap is-style-default">Three and a half years ago I contracted Guillain Barre Syndrome after getting the Jansen-J&J viral vector vaccine for COVID-19. The neurological disorder has left me hobbled by numb hands and feet, staggering around imbalanced, and battling debilitating fatigue. It has also left me, and thousands of others, feeling ignored and unheard by the government and the public health establishment.</p>
<p>I wrote about the experience in 2021 in <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/20/magazine/i-got-rare-condition-after-johnson-johnson-shot-i-still-think-everyone-needs-be-vaccinated/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>The Boston Globe</em></a><em>,</em> after the FDA attached a warning to the <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pmc_articles_PMC10183219_&d=DwMF-g&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=wrvLJi_U4QoA6CX9nEcDW_sCw1VpTOF3aUi-2mj-tHSlSdGn9-NOeHOXsPwTjtIk&m=LTbvStD8mhCJ-RadYP-NFCkrqqVDCF3CmB7KgmVdafgNATIe8gFAtqGOyvXCBJ7f&s=0F8vYgexauK39AvXk3o6Od1EiapWh9yAnm9rHWqd5y0&e=" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">J&J shot</a>, citing an unacceptable occurrence of this adverse effect. At the time, I bemoaned that it was so difficult to talk about vaccine side effects and argued that government and public health officials should just face up to them honestly. People could handle the truth, I said, and everyone would benefit because acknowledging those rare occasions when things go wrong would allow vaccine makers to design a better product.</p>
<p>Three years later, that still hasn’t happened. Public health officials, cowed by the anti-vax crowd, stuck to the line that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. And an existing system to address people injured by vaccines, established under President Ronald Reagan, has been all but abandoned.</p>
<p>Of course, vaccines save lives. But the “nothing to see here” posture regarding legitimate vaccine side effects is preventing government from having our backs and following up on flaws in the products—in the same the way it does when romaine lettuce or lunch meat gets contaminated, or air bags don’t function properly.</p>
<p>And, as is well known in the medical profession, there really is a flaw. Several vaccines have a problem with Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS). In 1976, the <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/influenza-virus-vaccine-live-nasal-route/side-effects/drg-20066943#:~:text=In%201976%2C%20a%20number%20of,over%2025%20years%20of%20age." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">swine flu vaccine</a> triggered so many cases, it had to be discontinued. Flu shots are associated with a “slightly elevated risk.” During the pandemic, the J&J shot was effectively shut down in the US for triggering at least 100 GBS cases, and Astra Zeneca’s vaccine was linked to many hundreds more. More recently, makers of shingles and <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2024/02/29/rsv-vaccines-may-be-linked-to-small-increased-risk-of-developing-guillain-barre-syndrome/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">RSV</a> vaccines have had to issues warnings about GBS.</p>
<p>Intuitively, it makes sense. GBS is fundamentally an auto-immune response. Vaccines work by tricking the immune system into attacking a target, like a representation of the coronavirus. In some people, rogue antibodies take that fight too far and start attacking the body’s peripheral nervous system—a horrifying and thoroughly damaging case of friendly fire.</p>
<p>One would think officials wouldn’t want to sweep anything under the rug, which could stoke more suspicion about vaccines. But unlike some other countries (Canada comes to mind), the United States is not managing this problem in the straightforward and sober manner it warrants. And thousands of people—albeit a tiny fraction of the 230 million people who got a COVID-19 jab—are suffering because of it.</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s a process in place to handle this problem. After vaccine makers were given immunity from lawsuits to encourage product development, the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act established the <a href="https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program</a> (NVICP). The program allows individuals harmed by vaccines to share what happened to them and receive compensation funded by a modest excise tax on vaccines. Eligible shots include tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis B, and influenza. The cases are decided by special masters in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that perfectly sensible system has been eclipsed by a flawed and hastily arranged program put in place after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: the <a href="https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program</a>, or CICP. If during a public health emergency someone suffers an adverse side effect from, say, a mass smallpox vaccination, they could file claims to cover lost wages and medical costs (at the very least).</p>
<p>The CICP looks like common-sense liability protection, but after the greatest public health emergency of our lifetime, it has become clear that it is not up to the task. Many claims have been summarily rejected, and aside from one recent large award, administrative masters had <a href="https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data/table-4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">compensated</a> a grand total of 15 individuals for less than $60,000—none of them for Guillain Barre.</p>
<p>So why not make the COVID-19 vaccines eligible under the NVICP, the program that has worked so much better? To do so requires an act of Congress, and pandemic politics has put everything at a standstill.</p>
<p>Democrats, joined by the public health establishment, seemingly want to avoid anything that would cast aspersions on vaccines. Republicans, meanwhile, talk a big game about the downsides of vaccination but won’t approve the necessary excise tax on the pharmaceutical companies to fund victim compensation. The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5142/text">Vaccine Injury Compensation Modernization Act</a>, which would add COVID-19 shots to the NVICP, is currently languishing alongside other legislation that would improve reporting protocols and add to the corps of special masters to adjudicate claims.</p>
<p>“We’re entitled to a reasonable alternative remedy to litigation,” says Christopher A. Dreisbach, legal affairs director at <a href="https://www.react19.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">React19</a>, an advocacy group for some 20,000 people suffering from adverse impacts from Covid vaccines. Dreisbach, who after his Pfizer shot was diagnosed with Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy—essentially a recurring form of Guillain Barre—says he doesn’t expect much to happen in Washington between now and Election Day. But at least two current <a href="https://www.react19.org/news/legal-updates" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">lawsuits</a> assert that the existing government process for the vaccine-injured violates constitutional right; the suits might be worrisome enough for pharmaceutical companies to work more proactively with Congress and advocates on reform.</p>
<p>Three years after my essay calling for an honest discussion of vaccine side effects, what’s most disappointing to me is that some medical and public health professionals still refuse to acknowledge empirical truths—and thereby give lawmakers and public health officials the cover they need to do nothing. Some doctors, including one of mine at a prestigious local hospital, deny to this day that Guillain Barre is a side effect of the J&J shot. At a conference for GBS survivors, another told the audience they should go ahead and get vaccinated without worry. When I objected— I’ve been told I shouldn’t risk getting any type of shot for the rest of my life—he looked at me with obvious disdain, as if I was an anti-vaxxer, and rattled off what seemed like prepared talking points to deal with crazy people. My fellow journalists, meanwhile, have mostly cleaved to pro-vaccine orthodoxy, the <em>New York Times</em> being a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/health/covid-vaccines-side-effects.html">courageous</a><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/health/covid-vaccines-side-effects.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> </a><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/health/covid-vaccines-side-effects.html">exception</a>.</p>
<p class=" t-has-endmark t-has-endmark">I wear no tin-foil hat, I assure you. I believe simply that as a society, we have an obligation to be fair and transparent. I’m asking for the ability to officially document what happened to me, in hopes of contributing data that the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies can use to make a better vaccine.</p>
<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-S1L5BS4DJN"></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
if (typeof gtag !== "function") {function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}}
gtag('js', new Date());
gtag('config', 'G-S1L5BS4DJN');
</script>
Republishing guidelines
We’re happy to know you’re interested in republishing one of our stories. Please follow the guidelines below, adapted from other sites, primarily ProPublica’s Steal Our Stories guidelines (we didn’t steal all of its republishing guidelines, but we stole a lot of them). We also borrowed from Undark and KFF Health News.
Timeframe: Most stories and opinion pieces on our site can be republished within 90 days of posting. An article is available for republishing if our “Republish” button appears next to the story. We follow the Creative Commons noncommercial no-derivatives license.
When republishing a Harvard Public Health story, please follow these rules and use the required acknowledgments:
- Do not edit our stories, except to reflect changes in time (for instance, “last week” may replace “yesterday”), make style updates (we use serial commas; you may choose not to), and location (we spell out state names; you may choose not to).
- Include the author’s byline.
- Include text at the top of the story that says, “This article was originally published by Harvard Public Health. You must link the words “Harvard Public Health” to the story’s original/canonical URL.
- You must preserve the links in our stories, including our newsletter sign-up language and link.
- You must use our analytics tag: a single pixel and a snippet of HTML code that allows us to monitor our story’s traffic on your site. If you utilize our “Republish” link, the code will be automatically appended at the end of the article. It occupies minimal space and will be enclosed within a standard <script> tag.
- You must set the canonical link to the original Harvard Public Health URL or otherwise ensure that canonical tags are properly implemented to indicate that HPH is the original source of the content. For more information about canonical metadata, click here.
Packaging: Feel free to use our headline and deck or to craft your own headlines, subheads, and other material.
Art: You may republish editorial cartoons and photographs on stories with the “Republish” button. For illustrations or articles without the “Republish” button, please reach out to republishing@hsph.harvard.edu.
Exceptions: Stories that do not include a Republish button are either exclusive to us or governed by another collaborative agreement. Please reach out directly to the author, photographer, illustrator, or other named contributor for permission to reprint work that does not include our Republish button. Please do the same for stories published more than 90 days previously. If you have any questions, contact us at republishing@hsph.harvard.edu.
Translations: If you would like to translate our story into another language, please contact us first at republishing@hsph.harvard.edu.
Ads: It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories. You can’t state or imply that donations to your organization support Harvard Public Health.
Responsibilities and restrictions: You have no rights to sell, license, syndicate, or otherwise represent yourself as the authorized owner of our material to any third parties. This means that you cannot actively publish or submit our work for syndication to third-party platforms or apps like Apple News or Google News. Harvard Public Health recognizes that publishers cannot fully control when certain third parties aggregate or crawl content from publishers’ own sites.
You may not republish our material wholesale or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually.
You may not use our work to populate a website designed to improve rankings on search engines or solely to gain revenue from network-based advertisements.
Any website on which our stories appear must include a prominent and effective way to contact the editorial team at the publication.
Social media: If your publication shares republished stories on social media, we welcome a tag. We are @PublicHealthMag on X, Threads, and Instagram, and Harvard Public Health magazine on Facebook and LinkedIn.
Questions: If you have other questions, email us at republishing@hsph.harvard.edu.
More in Policy & Practice
To break cycles of trauma, we need family-friendly addiction treatment
Could the media stop avoiding public health, please?
