Introduction

For centuries, vaccines have been a driving force in healthcare since their invention in 1796. The advancement of vaccines and vaccine technology has been taking place since their conception, however, in the last few decades, the rate of their development has skyrocketed. On April 24, 2024, the World Health Organization reported, “[G]lobal immunization efforts have saved an estimated 154 million lives […] over the past 50 years.” The same article also reports that an estimated 101 million of those were infant lives. Vaccines such as measles, polio, rubella, and tetanus, along with several others have “contributed to reducing infant deaths by 40% globally” in just the last few decades. The WHO on April 24, 2024, made the statement, “[I]mmunization is the single greatest contribution of any health intervention to ensuring babies not only see their first birthdays but continue leading healthy lives into adulthood.” However, their effectiveness and integrity has been the subject of extreme political debate in the last few years, especially in American politics. In a video titled: “Gardasil and HPV” posted by Daily Wire, a conservative news organization, popular political commentator Candace Owens shares some of her views on childhood vaccination and the vaccination industry with her audience. Candace tells stories and recalls memories from her childhood. She compares them to the present day, where the number of vaccines recommended for people, especially infants, has risen drastically since her childhood. She draws unsupported parallels between modern vaccination rates for children and infants to an array of unrelated health problems that exist in people today. She implies several extreme claims which are all largely false and easily proven wrong. Owens’ problematic claims disregard obvious evidence and several studies from vaccination and medical professionals.

I. The United States’ differences in live-birth registration compared to several European nations do impact the data for infant mortality rate comparisons.

In the video, Owens examines a graph made by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of infant mortality rates (IMRs) across several countries (see fig 1.). The graph is ranked from the lowest IMRs to the highest, and out of 48 nations, the US ranks 36th. Owens points out that the United States has more vaccinations given to infants at birth than several better-ranking countries. She goes on to read the reasons the OECD has for this unexpected rating of infant mortality rates in the US: “The United States and Canada are two countries which register a much higher proportion of babies weighing less than 500 grams, with low odds of survival, resulting in higher reported infant mortality” (19:10). According to Owens, “The United States gives the most money to all this bureaucracy and so they feel the need to qualify this” (18:52). She then goes on to claim that the OECD is wrong and that the differences in registration do not exist for a large majority of countries ranked with lower IMR’s. She even states, “[T]his is absolute BS” (19:16). She intends to tear down the credibility of the OECD by implying that conclusions made by the researchers were in some way inclined to get them more money from the US. However, the OECD is a credible source. According to the US Department of State, the OECD is a “forum where the governments of 37 democracies […] collaborate.” It is a well-known and trusted source of information and statistics about different countries. The graph itself aligns closely with statistics from the CDC about US infant mortality rates. The OECD graph says that the infant mortality rate in the US in 2022 is 5.4 deaths per 1,000 live births, and CDC statistics from 2022 say that the infant mortality rate is around 5.60 deaths per 1,000 live births. Candace does not make the claim that the increased dosage of vaccines is causing the higher infant mortality rates, but, at a minimum, her claim that the extra vaccines the US gives do not help the infants relies on her distrust of the reasoning given by the OECD about the live-birth registration differences.

Fig. 1. OECD graph on infant deaths per 1,000 live births in various countries

The OECD, of course, is right about how several European nations register live births with more limitations than the US. The National Center for Biotechnology Information, on November 16, 2011, reported, “Within Euro-Peristat the fetal mortality rate is defined as the number of deaths before or during birth at or after 22 completed weeks of gestation.” They also wrote that significant differences in registration for stillbirths begin at 28 weeks gestation, and the most likely births to be registered as stillbirths, regardless of what condition the baby was in, were weeks 22 and 23 due to the baby’s low odds of survival. After removing those statistics from countries that still reported them as live births, the rankings of countries’ fetal mortality rates were noticeably changed. In the same article, Mohangoo argues, “For valid European comparisons, all countries should register births and deaths from at least 22 weeks of gestation and should be able to distinguish late terminations of pregnancy from stillbirths,” suggesting that these specificities significantly weigh on the countries ranking. Statistics from Safer Care Victoria, a state-run Australian health care improvement agency, in February 2018, show that “In the best of circumstances, about 3 in 10 babies born at 22 weeks survive.” This means that when these statistics, with an infant mortality rate of 700 deaths per 1000 live births are not included in a country’s total calculation of the infant mortality rate due to the babies being registered as stillborn as soon as they are born, a country’s overall infant mortality rate significantly drops. Because the Euro-Peristat countries only include births at or after 22 weeks of gestation, sometimes with even higher restrictions, their infant mortality rates should definitely be lower than those who do not have similar restrictions. The US is one of those countries. According to the most recent CDC report that explained how the US registered live births, “All States require the reporting of a live birth regardless of length of gestation or weight.” This means that the US does actually include these extreme preterm births of 22 weeks and earlier to be considered as live births. This absolutely has an impact on the overall infant mortality rates, especially when compared to countries that do not include these births because they are so likely to die.

II. Candace Owens

To fully understand her perspective, it’s important to talk about Candace Owens and her affiliations. Candace Owens is a well-known political commentator who is famous for her controversial, far-right opinions and takes (see fig. 2.). She has undergone lots of scrutiny for her often made-up and largely inaccurate claims. One example of this comes from PolitiFact, which is made by The Poynter Institute. They have a scorecard of claims she made on Twitter from the years 2019-2022 where they rate the claims based on how truthful they are. Of the claims examined by PolitiFact, 63% were rated false, the other 37% were rated mostly false. According to PolitiFact, Owens also started a movement known as “BLEXIT” which is intended to push African-American voters out of the democratic party and, apparently, out of the mindset of being a victim of racism. BLEXIT is powered by Turning Point USA, which is a right-wing group that pushes conservative values in high schools and college campuses in the US. Owens is a former spokeswoman for Turning Point USA. The video is the first installment of her show, A Shot in the Dark, made by Daily Wire. 

Fig. 2. Owens in the first episode of A Shot in the Dark (40:29).

Daily Wire is a conservative news outlet with several different shows and content. They were founded in part by Ben Shapiro, another conservative political commentator. They hold episodes made by PragerU on their website. According to AllSides, a media bias and misinformation checker, PragerU creates content with commentators like Ben Shapiro or Candace Owens and is very open about their conservative bias and has created content targeted towards children and educating them on history and other topics with a conservative point of view. 

III. Vaccines are not a cause of rising allergy rates.

Candace Owens claims that the rising amounts of food allergies in the US could be caused by the rising amount of vaccines being administered to children. She asks her audience, “Do you go, ‘thank goodness for medicine because these children are so healthy’?” (13:25) and responds by saying she believes that children today are not more healthy. She states, “I have never thought that children were weaker or more pathetic in terms of allergies,” (13:40). This all comes directly after criticizing the 72 recommended doses of vaccines for children by the CDC. There is an obvious implication that the rising vaccination numbers have some pull on the allergy rates today. The idea that these vaccines cause children to have more extreme allergies today than when she was a kid is very heavily pushed throughout the next few minutes of this episode. She says that so many more kids today are affected by peanut allergies that a daycare near her banned them. She goes on to say that it was extremely rare when she was a kid and gives scarce amounts of evidence to back this claim, but says that she thought the kid in her school who had a peanut allergy was weird because so few kids had one. However, Owens isn’t completely wrong here. According to the National Library of Medicine on September 28, 2021, “The prevalence of peanut allergy in the United States has been reported to have increased 3.5-fold over the past two decades, from 0.4% in 1997 to 0.8% in 2002 and 1.4% in 2008.” This is certainly an interesting statistic, but there’s more to it than Owens would have the audience believe.

It’s true that there is no clear scientific consensus on why this is happening, but it’s not due to vaccination rates. According to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia on May 20, 2020, “[A] population-based cohort study in Australia followed 5,500 patients from ages 7 to 44 years. Investigators looked for associations between receipt of vaccines and asthma, eczema, food allergies or hay fever. No association was found between the receipt of childhood vaccines (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and smallpox) and any of these conditions.” The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia also investigated a study done to investigate different pertussis vaccines and their risk of developing allergies compared to a control group which did not receive any of the vaccines. They found no correlation with receiving any of the vaccines to developing allergies. To add to that, “[C]hildren with natural pertussis infections were more likely to develop allergic diseases than children not infected with pertussis.” Which means that in a roundabout way, this vaccine could actually prevent some amount of allergic disease from developing, although that claim would require further investigation. Overall, this research concludes that “these studies fail to support the hypothesis that vaccines cause asthma or allergic diseases.” 

IV. The Gardasil vaccine does not cause type 1 diabetes.

In this video, Owens recalls a story in which she had negative side effects immediately after receiving the Gardasil vaccine. Gardasil is an HPV vaccination and she describes her experience with it as her “big wakeup call” (20:40). She explains that when she’s told this story before, lots of people share their experiences as well: “[Gardasil] seems to be the one vaccine that so many women have had a reaction to. […] I’ve had people say that they were very shortly thereafter diagnosed with type 1 diabetes” (25:35). After sharing her own symptoms of this vaccine, such as a “mini seizure” (23:41), stating that some people were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes afterward insinuates that development of type 1 diabetes is some reaction to the vaccine. However, Owens’ linking of HPV vaccination and type 1 diabetes does not hold up in scientific research.

A correlation between type 1 diabetes and vaccination is something that should be taken very seriously when considering the safety of a vaccine. Many studies have looked for this connection in several different types of vaccines and it is rare to find any discernible connection. According to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, an experiment was done to see if the “timing of vaccines either causes or prevents diabetes.” In the experiment, they tracked several thousand children who received the HiB vaccine at different times and compared them to a group that did not receive the vaccine. The results showed more than that the timing of the vaccination doesn’t matter though, they actually showed that the “risk of diabetes was indistinguishable from a group of 22,557 children who did not receive the Hib vaccine.” Another critical study to understand the risk of type 1 diabetes from Gardasil was done in reviewing the rates of those diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 10 years after getting HPV vaccination. In 2019, the National Library of Medicine reported, “[C]omparing vaccinated with unvaccinated persons, we did not find an increased risk of [type 1 diabetes] associated with HPV vaccine receipt.” These studies go to show that vaccinations, especially this HPV vaccine, do not lead to type 1 diabetes as Candace Owens would have one believe.

V. The aluminum and formaldehyde in vaccines is not harmful.

In this episode, Owens heavily criticizes the rising rates of vaccination, however, she also makes claims about the actual ingredients used to create the vaccines. The claim begins with her mentioning how professionals advise that “when you introduce your children to food it should be just one at a time,” (10:52). She argues that it is hypocritical to say that trace amounts of some food could be dangerous when the trace amounts of formaldehyde and aluminum in vaccines is perfectly safe: “The messaging is that everything […] we do, including injecting your child with formaldehyde and aluminums and other metals is perfectly safe […] even though these same vaccine inserts are going to tell you the exact opposite,” (11:25). The only supporting evidence she brings to argue that these vaccine ingredients are dangerous is that there isn’t a safe amount of alcohol known to be okay to drink while pregnant. The lack of evidence on her end is certainly suspicious and suggests that she made that up.

There is evidence, however, that these trace amounts of formaldehyde and aluminum are actually just fine though. The first thing to understand is why those things are needed in vaccines in the first place. According to the CDC, formaldehyde is known as a “residual inactivating ingredient” and is in vaccines to “kill viruses or inactivate toxins during the manufacturing process.” Aluminum is similarly necessary but serves a different purpose in vaccines. According to McGill University on June 27, 2019, “Aluminum is used as an adjuvant, which means its presence boosts the immune response when you are vaccinated.” Labos expands on that in the same article and writes that “adjuvants [allow] you to use smaller vaccine doses. As a result, although we have more vaccines in total, the amount of antigens (bacteria and viruses) used in vaccines has been decreasing over time.” The safety of these substances in vaccines is the main part that Owens criticizes though. While putting high volumes of either of these substances is clearly not going to end well, it’s true that the trace amounts are actually harmless. According to the American Chemistry Council, “1.5 ounces of formaldehyde are produced by humans every day as part of our normal metabolic process.” Additionally, the CDC reported, “The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern.” So the body not only knows how to deal with formaldehyde, but requires its production in order to live, and the amount of formaldehyde found in vaccines isn’t even close to as much as that found in blood. As for the safety of the aluminum found in vaccines, on June 27, 2019, McGill University stated, “[A]luminum is one of the most common elements in the Earth’s crust and is present in almost all our food.” Not only are trace amounts of aluminum found in just about every food we eat, but “[i]nfants are exposed to more aluminum in breast milk or formula than they are from vaccines.” The fact that the vaccines contain less aluminum than the food made for infants immediately suggests that it’s not necessarily a problem. Even so, Labos continues on about the minuscule amount of aluminum in both: “[T]hese are tiny doses that don’t have any major health effect.” This research proves that having these ingredients cannot be considered an issue, especially in their remarkably small amounts.

Conclusion

Several sources all concede the claims made by Candace Owens lack the necessary merit. Claims to the degree of the ones made by Owens in the video require extensive evidence and qualifications. Owens lacks the necessary research and data to back the deceptive and inaccurate claims in the video. Especially when large aspects of people’s health like vaccination are being debated, everyone deserves to know the most accurate information. This research concludes that Candace Owens’ claims are a misrepresentation of the matter. While vaccines continue to be a hot-button topic in politics, it’s important to think critically about what, and who, you can trust.