Home » Posts tagged 'society'

Tag Archives: society

Want to Get Involved In Research?

[su_heading size="15" margin="0"]The BioInnovation Group is an undergraduate-run research organization aimed at increasing undergraduate access to research opportunities. We have many programs ranging from research project teams to skills training (BIG-RT) and Journal Club.

If you are an undergraduate interested in gaining research experience and skills training, check out our website (https://bigucd.com/) to see what programs and opportunities we have to offer. In order to stay up to date on our events and offerings, you can sign up for our newsletter. We look forward to having you join us![/su_heading]

Newest Posts

Stem Cells: Miracle Cure or Hoax? A Review of Present Application and Potential Uses of Stem Cells

By Vita Quintanilla, Genetics 23’

Author’s Note: My purpose in writing this piece is to educate the current safe applications of stem cell as misuse and damage due to the same is so prevalent in the US and abroad. While not detracting from the great advances being made in the field currently this piece is to take stock of the reality of this treatment.

 

Large segments of the American and world population living with medical conditions that cause significant loss of mobility and quality of life are searching for hope in Stem Cell therapy.  The unfortunate reality is that many of these “therapies” are not only ineffective but potentially harmful and the clinics that distribute them are not always properly certified. While stem cell therapies are promising, run away hope for a miracle cure coupled with unethical advertising and untested procedures have caused patients in the United States and beyond to be harmed by a potentially life saving tool. Here we will examine the current state of stem cell investigation, treatment, US Regulation, prospects in the future of medicine, and information for consumers to consider in deciding to receive a stem cell treatment.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that are at the start of all cell lines. Embryonic stem cells come from the blastocyst, a small clump of cells that forms several days after conception, and are pluripotent, meaning that they can give rise to any cell type (except specific embryonic tissues not present out of utero). [1] While these are the most often referred to type of stem cells there are also multipotent stem cells that can only give rise to a specific kind of tissue and are present into adulthood. Somatic cells, or differentiated cells, can be reverted to a pluripotent state. Induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS) are a growing area of interest in the field as they carry with them the possibility of culturing tissues for transplant using the existing cells of a patient thus eliminating the possibility of rejection.[2]

IPS exemplify an unfortunate reality in the whole of stem cell research, that at present widespread stem cell therapies are not ready for the general public. While these cells have great potential, a major hurdle is the cost in both time and labor required to culture them in a safe and sterile environment. A single vial of research grade cells that will produce fewer than thirty colonies in five days under ideal circumstances can cost over 1,000 dollars. This does not include the cost of facilities, culture equipment, and labor making these therapies cost prohibitive as the resulting therapy can run as far as 10,000 dollars per treatment. [3&4] Furthermore, colonies of cells are far from fully developed tissues that could potentially be implanted. A patient in critical condition in need of a transplant likely cannot wait for the cells to grow into tissue in culture, even if they can afford it.

Difficulties in access however are not the greatest barrier to stem cell therapy, but rather the lack of widespread testing and approval for the treatment of the diverse conditions for which they are sometimes advertised.  While these cells are promising for usage in widespread areas of medicine, at present they do not live up to the claims that many unscrupulous clinics make for them. US Stem Cell Clinic, with a sleek website, and moving testimonials, advertises the use of stem cells as a magical cure that make the old feel young again using stem cells to treat a host of orthopedic maladies. These claims are highly suspicious as the FDA website says, as of January 2019, that only stem cell therapies for blood disorders are approved. [5]

These cells have been proclaimed cure-alls and medical miracles by the mass media but the reality is that the research into the application of stem cells for diverse ailments in humans is not conclusive at the present moment. [5]  The FDA only approves stem cell treatments for blood disorders using stem cells from umbilical cord blood or bone marrow, but many clinics are offering stem cell treatments for everything from vision problems to COPD. The FDA recently filed two complaints against US Stem Cell Clinic LLC in Florida and California Stem Cell Treatment Inc. for marketing stem cell products that do not have the proper approval and for having unsafe manufacturing conditions that compromised sterility and patient safety. Patients filed lawsuits against California based stem cell supplier Liveyon who sold umbilical cord stem cells contaminated with E. Coli that resulted in sepsis and several patient hospitalizations after the stem cells were used for unapproved treatments. [6]  In a recent lawsuit Florida based US Stem Cell was ordered to cease and desist, destroy all stem cells in their possession and pay for twice annual facilities inspections after taking cells from fat and injecting them into the eyes of patients causing five women to be blinded. In a 2018 statement FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. said “We support sound, scientific research and regulation of cell-based regenerative medicine, and the FDA has advanced a comprehensive policy framework to promote the approval of regenerative medicine products. But at the same time, the FDA will continue to take enforcement actions against clinics that abuse the trust of patients and endanger their health” [7] The FDA, has in the past been accused of slowing down progress with novel treatments, but in the case of stem cells it is apparent that their actions hold patient safety as first priority, protecting the public from doctors and companies that value monetization over public health.

Patients in the United States have been harmed by these clinics including adverse injection site reactions, migration of cells to the improper location, the failure of cells to work in the desired way, and even the growth of tumors. Clinics that operate these studies may even be operating criminally as the FDA has pressed charges against these clinics in the past in the form of permanent injunction, an order to cease and desist permanently. [7]

Patients are often motivated to take these risky treatments because there is no other hope for a cure, however, unapproved treatments can make the condition worse or even lead to death. The dangers of receiving unapproved therapies is illustrated in the case of a 38-year-old man, who developed a spinal tumor after a stem cell treatment in preformed in Portugal where doctors injected cells taken from his nose into his spine. The treatment was attempting to cure paralysis in his legs and arms. It had no effect on his paralysis, but twelve years later the tumor that formed further limited his mobility and quality of life as his bladder control and motor function in arms steadily declined. Complications have been even more dire as a thirteen-year-old male in Israel who was treated at a clinic in Moscow for Ataxia telangiectasia, which affects the nervous system, died of a tumor that arose from donor cells. These are not isolated instances of unsuccessful treatment in patients that were already ill, the stem cells themselves were directly the cause of degeneration in the patients, and more than 19 deaths confirmed by the National Institute of Health as of 2018. [8&9]

Predatory clinics that perform these unapproved procedures can be especially hard to identify. Many have sleek well-designed websites with official looking personnel and lofty claims of unrealistic success rates and propositions for stem cells as cures for many diverse and at times totally unrelated disorders. Many clinics are located in Florida and Southern California however there are hundreds of clinics across the United States.  [10]*** Patients should be advised to do some research into these claims and check to see if the clinic in question as well as the treatment has FDA approval. A good strategy for determining the legitimacy of a clinic is to do research on the main doctors performing the procedure. If a clinic is claiming to be able to cure numerous unrelated and debilitating disorders, the doctors performing these procedures should be of high esteem in the community and have visible external measures to the importance of their work or the prestige of their practice. If this is not the case the patient should proceed with great caution.

The issue of deceptive stem cell clinics is not a mere issue of public health but an example of a greater problem, a break between scientific community and the public perpetuated by a few unscrupulous characters for the sake of profit. Stem cells have the potential to be life saving tools and usher in a whole new chapter of regenerative medicine, but if the reputation of this technology continues to be tarnished by clinics that do not abide by the laws and conventions put in place to keep consumers safe, this technology may never get an opportunity to reach its full potential.While stem cells have great potential for diverse treatments at some point in the future, at present their efficacy and safety for regenerative medicine has not been firmly established in the context of current technology. Not all stem cell treatments are to be feared, stem cell treatments for some blood disorders have been shown to be effective and safe. At some point in the future when culture and delivery techniques improve stem cells could revolutionize transplant and regenerative medicine.  At present the best course of action for consumers in regard to these therapies is to partake only in treatments or clinical trials operating with the approval of the FDA, and keep up with developments in the field by reading peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals. Exercise great caution but do not lose hope for the future. Stay current with research and, considering the risks and benefits, consumers may choose to enroll in FDA supervised clinical trials that adhere to the three phase clinical trial process, but always be sure to exclusively receive treatment from FDA regulated and approved clinicians.

 

Sources

  1. Yu, Junying, and James Thomson. “Embryonic Stem Cells.”National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016, stemcells.nih.gov/info/Regenerative_Medicine/2006Chapter1.htm. 
  2. “Home.” A Closer Look at Stem Cells, www.closerlookatstemcells.org/learn-about-stem-cells/types-of-stem-cells/.
  3. McCormack, Kevin. “Patients Beware: Warnings about Shady Clinics and Suspect Treatments.” The Stem Cellar, CRIM, 19 Jan. 2016, blog.cirm.ca.gov/2016/01/19/patients-beware-warnings-about-shady-clinics-and-suspect- treatments/.
  4. https://www.atcc.org/search?title=Human%20IPS%20(Pluripotent)#q=%40productline%3DL035&sort=relevancy&f:contentTypeFacetATCC=[Products]
  5. Office of the Commissioner. “Consumer Updates – FDA Warns About Stem Cell Therapies.” U S Food and DrugAdministration Home Page, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 16 Nov. 2016, www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm286155.htm.
  6. William Wan, Laurie McGinley. “’Miraculous’ Stem Cell Therapy Has Sickened People in Five States.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 27 Feb. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/miraculous-stem-cell-therapy-has-sickened-people-in-five-states/2019/02/26/c04b23a4-3539-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html.
  7. Commissioner, Office of the. “FDA Seeks Permanent Injunctions against Two Stem Cell Clinics.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 9 May 2018, www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-seeks-permanent-injunctions-against-two-stem-cell-clinics.
  8. Bauer, Gerhard, et al. “Concise Review: A Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Unproven Stem Cell-Based Interventions.” Stem Cells Translational Medicine, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Sept. 2018, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6127222/#!po=19.4444.
  9. Flaherty, Brittany, et al. “Case Highlights the Risks of Experimental Stem Cell Therapy.” STAT, Staten News, 11 July 2019, www.statnews.com/2019/07/11/canada-case-long-term-risks-experimental-stem-cell-therapy/.
  10. https://usstemcellclinic.com/ [10]
  11. Commissioner, Office of the. “Step 3: Clinical Research.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA , 4 Jan. 2018, www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3-clinical-research.
  12. Hiltznik, Micheal. “Column: Judge Throws the Book at a Clinic Offering Unproven Stem Cell ‘Treatments’.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 26 June 2019, www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-stem-cell-injunction-20190626-story.html.

Potential Need for a New Mobile Medical Clinic to Provide ACE-Related Care to the Sacramento County for At-Risk Pediatric Populations

By Tara Allison, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Spanish ‘20

Author’s Note: I wrote this document as a UWP 102B assignment to evaluate the societal health care needs of Sacramento County, focusing on an upsetting mental health phenomenon, Adverse Childhood Events (ACEs). This review encompasses an in-depth analysis that illuminates the biological basis of ACEs and their connection to chronic health conditions in adulthood. This review further analyzes several Community Needs Assessments to ascertain that existing health care institutions do not, in fact, provide the proper focus or volume of mental health and ACE-related treatment needed for Sacramento County. The multidisciplinary nature of this paper connects scientific data that suggest a widespread health problem to an effective solution that UC Davis can adopt as a university. My on-campus organization R.I.V.E.R. (Recognizing Illnesses Very Early and Responding) is making progress towards development of this solution, a mobile pediatric ACE clinic.

 

1. Introduction

This review explores the potential benefits of developing a new mobile pediatric medical clinic that serves the northwest region of Sacramento County through Adverse Childhood Events (ACEs) related care. First, this review provides evidence of the community health needs in Sacramento County, discussed in three sections: what patients need, what currently exists for them, and what they need that is not currently offered. Second, this review examines the correlation between ACEs and future chronic health issues. And finally, this review proposes a solution based on successful existing mobile clinic models and associated limitations. For the studies included in this review, various criteria and characteristics were considered or excluded to achieve an accurate assessment of the ACE-related risk experienced by individuals in Sacramento and Palo Alto. Individuals not primarily living in these specified regions were excluded from these studies.

 

2. Community Health Needs In Sacramento County

2.a. What Patients Need

The northwest region of Sacramento specifically needs health care services for ACEs and primary care needs despite location and public transportation barriers and access to medical care regardless of insurance status. According to Table 5 of the 2019Community Health Needs Assessment of Sacramento County, the northwest region of Sacramento lacks many types of health care services. Specifically, this area needs additional mental and behavioral health care services, access to quality primary care, and resources for active living and healthy eating. Additional factors contributing to an underwhelming health care sufficiency are lack of safe and violence-free environments, deficiency of functional mechanisms such as public transportation, reduced services for injury and disease prevention management, and shortage of overall cultural competency [1]. This table also explicitly highlights that youth populations need more mental health and ACE services. For the remainder of this piece, ACE-care can be considered a “mental, behavioral, and substance-abuse” service as indicated by the table. 

According to Table 20 of the 2019Community Health Needs Assessment of Sacramento County, Sacramento County has higher rates of children in poverty and children with single parents than the California averages. The median household income is comparatively lower than the California average, and there is a higher rate of violent crimes and homicides in Sacramento than in California as well [1]. 

The 2016Sacramento County Community Needs Assessment establishes that medically underserved areas are localized around several different zip codes in the Sacramento area. Within these regions, pediatric emergency department admission rates are 50 percent higher than county rates due to substance abuse, mental health issues, and asthma [2]. Among the zip codes listed, 95815 and 95841 appear again in the 2019UCD Community Needs Health Assessment,indicating that from 2016 to 2019 the same regions were consistently in need of improved health care services. This suggests that existing health care organizations are not sufficiently serving these communities.

Table 19 of the 2019UCD Community Needs Health Assessment indicates varying amounts of clinical care providers in Sacramento County compared to the California average. It reports that portions of Sacramento are in a health professional shortage area (HPSA) for primary care and are generally considered medically underserved. However, the number of mental health providers, psychiatry providers, and primary care physicians is above the ratio for California overall. This may suggest that the location of these providers is potentially inequitable, creating a disparity across various regions of Sacramento by unevenly distributing providers. This disparity is demonstrated by the northwest Sacramento region, which lacks adequate ​mental health and primary care provisions. 

2.b. What Exists Currently

Interestingly, although Sacramento does not lack health care professionals for mental health services compared to the average California benchmark, quality of life indicates that Sacramento residents experience poorer mental and physical health than the average California resident. This suggests that distribution of such health care professionals is inadequate and that care is not being provided to enough regions. The 2019UCD Community Needs Health Assessment demonstrates this very clearly with data describing existing health organizations. Sacramento County contains 281 existing health care organizations that provide a variety of services. Out of those 281 organizations, only 96 institutions, or 34 percent of them, provide access to mental, behavioral, or substance abuse services. Only 73 of 281 institutions, or 26 percent, provide access to quality primary care services. And only 81 of 281 institutions, or 29 percent, provide access to active living and healthy eating resources [1]. These institutions are distributed across all of Sacramento County, so the actual health care accessibility of specific communities varies. Thus, even though existing organizations are present in Sacramento to provide these services, they are not equitably distributed across the county or provided in a high enough volume to meet expansive geographical demands.

As indicated by Table 5 of the 2019Community Health Needs Assessment of Sacramento County, additional factors such as quality of public transportation and safety of neighborhoods may also influence patient accessibility to health care [1]. Poorly developed public transportation and frequent crimes may create an environment that encourages potential patients to stay at home, even if they reside nearby a clinic or hospital. Thus, violent environments and reduced transportation combined with inequitably-distributed health care services equate to unmet health care demands. This data indicates that Sacramento may not be well-equipped to address its various medical needs across the county.

It might make sense to conclude that any region containing a higher concentration of health care institutions for mental health should have adequate health care coverage in this category. However, this is not a completely valid assumption. The 2019UCD Community Needs Health Assessment reports surprising contrasts within particular zip codes. It demonstrates that some areas contain plenty of clinics that provide mental health, behavioral, and substance abuse services, yet these areas are still​​ indicated as regions that are in significant need of those services. For example, within the zip code 95823, 8 of 21 health care institutions provide mental health services in that area. However, according to the 2019UCD Community Needs Health Assessment, the zip code 95823 resides in a region that still lacks adequate mental health services [1]. Despite that almost half of the health care organizations within 95823 provide mental health services, there is still a demonstrated need for higher volume of service or improved focus on mental health care within community clinics. This data further demonstrates that existing health care organizations are not meeting patients’ needs and could suggest that existing clinics do not provide the correct types of services or adequate volume of care required for the community.

2.c. What is Lacking

There are three primary issues that the northwest region of Sacramento is experiencing. These include health care insurance denial from current providers, location and public transportation barriers to attain proper health care, and lack of primary care access and ACE-related care.

Despite the various health organizations available, the northwest portion of Sacramento still has three unaddressed significant health care needs. In order to address all three issues, a proposal to develop a new pediatric mobile clinic should be considered. To address insurance barriers, the new clinic will provide free services to all patients regardless of insurance status. To address location challenges, the clinic will function in a large mobile vehicle equipped for medical care providers. Not only can new patient locations be reached, but multiple regions can be served by this clinic. And finally, the mobile clinic will provide services to address primary care and ACE-related care needs. 

 

3. Correlation Between Adverse Childhood Events and Chronic Mental, Behavioral, and Physical Health Issues

The Center​ for Disease Control and Prevention​ defines ACEs as mentally and emotionally traumatic experiences that affect adolescents before the age of 18. These traumatic experiences can exist in many forms. Some examples include growing up in a household with family members who abuse substances, have mental health problems, are incarcerated, or divorced. Such experiences can undermine children’s sense of stability and safety while simultaneously interfering with their ability to bond with family or friends [3]. Many years of seminal research in this topic demonstrate a myriad of connections​ between ACEs and chronic health conditions, unsafe​ health behaviors, and premature death. This discussion will utilize research older than two years ago that is foundational to these health correlations. 

3.a. Chronic Health Issues

Chronic health conditions such as autoimmune disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), frequent headaches, ischemic heart disease (IHD), prescription drug usage, and liver disease have been proven to result from individuals plagued by ACE-related trauma [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Dube and colleagues demonstrate that traumatic events during adolescence correlate with an increased probability of autoimmune disease hospitalization during adulthood [4]. In addition, Ports et al. establish a strong correlation between ACEs and exposure to modifiable cancer risks such as alcohol, chronic inflammation, obesity, UV radiation, and environmental carcinogens. Additionally, this study suggests that addressing ACEs may induce early cancer prevention [5]. Cunningham and colleagues study the correlation between COPD and ACEs such as verbal and sexual abuse, parental separation or divorce, observation of substance-abusing family members, and domestic violence. Their results indicated a higher chance of developing COPD if one or more of these ACEs were experienced in women specifically [6]. Another study by Anda and colleagues studied the relationship between the prevalence of headaches and migraines and the presence of ACEs. The results indicated that, in adulthood, there was a higher frequency of headaches or migraines if the subject had a higher ACE risk score. Subjects with lower or nonexistent ACE risk scores experienced far fewer headaches [7]. Additionally, a study completed by Dong and colleagues illuminates the connection between several types of ACEs and development of IHD. Their results demonstrate a 1.3 to 1.7 fold increase in the chance of developing IHD for patients experiencing more ACEs in comparison to those with a low ACE risk score [8]. In a different study, Dong and colleagues examine correlation of ACEs to risky behaviors that manifest later in life as liver disease. ACEs increased the likelihood of liver disease development by 1.2 to 1.6 times [9]. Beyond chronic health issues, ACEs have been shown to be related to other problems in adulthood such as unsafe health behaviors.

3.b. Unsafe Health Behaviors

Unsafe health behaviors such as alcohol abuse, drug use, obesity, sexual risk behavior, and smoking are health outcomes of ACEs as well [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Strine et al. establishes direct correlations between alcohol abuse and ACE-related experiences such as sexual abuse, childhood neglect and emotional abuse, family drug abuse or mental illnesses, and parental divorce. They claim that psychological distress associated with ACEs results in alcohol abuse later in life [10]. Furthermore, Anda and colleagues discovered a 40 percent increase in prescription drug usage in patients with non-zero ACE scores and a positive correlation between a higher ACE risk score and prescriptions across all age groups (18-44, 45-64, and 65-89 years of age) [11]. In another study, Williamson and colleagues identified a correlation between physical and verbal abuse and increased body weight and obesity measurements. Participants that experienced “being hit” were 4.0 kg heavier on average than participants that did not report physical abuse [12]. Additionally, Hillis et al. evaluated the connection between sexual risk behavior and ACE events and discovered a positive correlation between the two as well [13]. Strine and colleagues, in a different study, observed increased risk of smoking habits in women when ACE risk scores are present as well [14]. ACEs have been shown to relate to reduced lifespans as well.

3.c. Premature Death

ACEs correlate with suicide and depression in adulthood, leading to premature death in adulthood [15, 16]. According to Dube and colleagues, suicide rates increased two to five fold in adulthood due to connections regarding ACEs. Factors such as alcoholism and illicit drug use had close ties to the presence of ACEs and path to suicide attempt [15]. Additionally, Chapman et al. established a connection between a higher number of ACE-related events and a greater chance of developing a depressive disorder. The study also suggests that early recognition of childhood trauma may prevent future depression diagnosis [16]. This extensive, yet not exhaustive, collection of studies indicates that ACEs have a very real impact on pediatric mental health and adult health status later in life. In order to address the lack of mental health provision in Sacramento, the proposal to develop a new pediatric mobile clinic specializing in ACE-care and primary care services should be considered. 

 

4. Proposed Solution and Limitations

The northwest region of Sacramento has three primary concerns: health care insurance denial from current providers, location and public transportation barriers to attain proper health care, and lack of primary care access and ACE-related care. In order to address these issues, this paper proposes the implementation of a new mobile medical pediatric clinic. The clinic will provide ACE-related care and primary care services for chronic and acute illnesses. It will mitigate health care insurance barriers by serving uninsured and partially insured residents of Sacramento County as well. Furthermore, the clinic will serve patients in a 26-foot vehicle equipped with two medical examination rooms and ample supplies. In this way, residents can access medical care despite any location or public transportation challenges. As a vehicular clinic, mobility ensures access to multiple communities in Sacramento.

The primary barriers to implementing this mobile clinic include shortage of staffing availability along with annual financial demands. These are not issues unique to a mobile or pediatric ACE-care clinic, so our proposal can model existing clinics to realistically overcome these barriers. First, UC Davis student-run clinics are excellent models to consider. Financially, a volunteer-based operations system will ensure low-cost annual expenditures. Furthermore, grant writing, fundraising, and donor support are effective funding methods these successful clinics utilize as well. Staffing availability can be mitigated by way of a reduced, yet consistent, weekend operations schedule. As physicians may not be available during weekdays due to employment commitments, weekends are an ideal time to volunteer. 

We can observe many similarities between this mobile, ACE-care, pediatric clinic proposal and other vehicular clinic models. Existing mobile medical clinics provide similar services in other cities and provide excellent examples to base this proposal on. One especially successful case is the Stanford Teen Van, a mobile medical clinic that primarily serves youth in the Bay Area. The table below from the 2019Stanford Community Health Needs Assessment indicates that this clinic provides ACE-related care in the form of mental health services in addition to primary care. Furthermore, this establishment has successfully provided improved access for 2,892 individuals that otherwise would experience location-based barriers [17].

The Stanford Teen Van also provides its services and medications for free, thus eliminating any insurance-based discrimination. This model is an excellent comparison to study because this clinic provides identical services to a similarly underserved population in the Bay Area. The Stanford Teen Van, alongside the UC Davis student-run clinics, are phenomenal infrastructures to learn from by way of mobility, service provision, and volunteerism. By analyzing successful practices, this proposal overcomes limitations and provides effective solutions based on existing infrastructures, resulting in a refined and well-rounded project concept. 

 

5. Conclusion

This review discussed the potential benefits of developing a new mobile pediatric medical clinic that would serve the northwest region of Sacramento County. First, this review demonstrated extensive evidence of the community health needs in Sacramento. Second, this review examined the correlation between ACEs and future chronic health issues. Finally, this review discussed a proposed solution following successful existing mobile clinic models and associated limitations. When considering the data holistically, it is clear that a new pediatric mobile clinic would significantly benefit deserving patients in Sacramento. Furthermore, despite the fact that this mobile clinic proposal is built on well-established practices and successful existing infrastructure, this specific combination of ideas has not yet been implemented in Sacramento. While maintaining its merit and validity, this innovative project challenges the existing medical culture of Sacramento by introducing ACE awareness and the expansive versatility of a mobile clinic vehicle.  

 

References

  1. Ainsworth D, Diaz H, Schmidtlein M, Van T, 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment. 2019 CHNA of Sacramento County 2019. 2019; 1-116.
  2. Wagner J, Rosenbaum A, Schmidtlein M, Underwood S. Sacramento County Community Health Needs Assessment. Sacramento County CHNA. 2016; 1-40.
  3. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998; Vol 14, Issue 4, 245-258.
  4. Dube SR, Fairweather D, Pearson WS, Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Croft JB. Cumulative​ childhood stress and autoimmune disease.​ Psychol​ Med. 2009; 71:243–250.
  5. Ports KA, Holman DM, Guinn A, Pampati S, Dyer K, Merrick MT, Buchanan N, & Metzler M. Association​ between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Leading Risk Factors for Cancer in Adulthood.​ Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2019; 44,​ 81-96.​
  6. Cunningham TJ, Ford ES, Croft JB, Merrick MT, Rolle IV, Giles WH. Sex​-specific relationships between adverse childhood experiences and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in five states.​ 2014; 9:1033​-42.
  7. Anda R, Tietjen G, Schulman E, Felitti V, Croft J. Adverse​ childhood experiences and frequent headaches in adults.​ Headache​. ​2010; 50(9):1473-81.
  8. Dong M, Giles WH, Felitti VJ, Dube, SR, Williams JE, Chapman DP, Anda RF. Insights into causal pathways for ischemic heart disease: adverse childhood experiences study. ​Circulation.​ 2004; 110:1761–1766.
  9. Dong M, Anda RF, Dube SR, Felitti VJ, Giles WH. Adverse​ childhood experiences and self-reported liver disease: new insights into a causal pathway. Arch Intern Med.​ 2003; 163:1949–1956.
  10. Strine TW, Dube SR, Edwards VJ, Prehn AW, Rasmussen S, Wagenfeld M, Dhingra S, Croft JB. Associations​ between adverse childhood experiences, psychological distress, and adult alcohol problems.​ Am​ J Health Behav.​ 2012; 36(3):408-23.
  11. Anda RF, Brown DW, Felitti VJ, Dube SR, Giles WH. Adverse​ childhood experiences and prescription drug use in a cohort study of adult HMO patients.​ BMC​ Public Health.​ 2008; 4; 8:198.
  12. Williamson DF, Thompson, TJ, Anda, RF, Dietz WH, Felitti VJ. Body​ weight, obesity, and self-reported abuse in childhood.​​ International Journal of Obesity.​ 2002; 26:1075–1082.
  13. Hillis SD, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Marchbanks PA. Adverse​ childhood experiences and sexual risk behaviors in women: a retrospective cohort study.​ Fam Plann Perspect.​ 2001; 33:206–211.
  14. Strine TW, Edwards VK, Dube SR, Wagenfeld M, Dhingra S, Prehn AW, Rasmussen S, Mcknight-Eily L, Croft JB. The​ mediating sex-specific effect of psychological distress on the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and current smoking among adults.​ Subst​ Abuse Treat Prev Policy.​ 2012; 7:30.
  15. Dube SR, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Chapman D, Williamson DF, Giles WH. Childhood​ abuse, household dysfunction and the risk of attempted suicide throughout thelife span: Findings from Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. ​JAMA. 2001; 286:3089​–3096.
  16. Chapman DP, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Dube SR, Edwards VJ, Whitfield CL. Adverse​ childhood experiences and the risk of depressive disorders in adulthood.​ J Affect​ Disord.​ 2004; 82:217–225.
  17. Espino M, Stelle J. 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment. 2019 Stanford Community Health Needs Assessment.​ 2019; 1-52.

A History of Vaccines and How they Combat Disease

By Vishwanath Prathikanti, Political Science ‘23

Author’s note: The anti-vaccination movement has recently gained traction with many families across the nation and I wanted to tackle the idea of anti-vaccination and where it came from. I also wanted to see if there was any credit due to the anti-vaccinators and see if there was any truth to the idea that more vaccinations might be bad.

 

In April 2019, public health officials declared a measles outbreak in Los Angeles. To many, this sounded almost absurd; measles was eradicated in the United States in 2000 [4]. The outbreak highlighted the severity of a movement that many had declared irrelevant: the anti-vaccination movement. In light of this event, many had to question: what is the anti-vaccination movement? When did it begin? Is there any truth to the movement?

To understand the anti-vaccination movement, one must first understand vaccines and their history. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines a vaccination as, “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” [1]. The human immune system uses white blood cells to fight infections in the body; specifically, there are three types of white blood cells that work together to fight infections: macrophages, B-lymphocytes and T-lymphocytes [2]. When a cell becomes infected or dies, it releases a chemical that attracts macrophages, which will engulf and degrade the cell. If the cell was damaged or died due to a virus or bacteria, the macrophage will leave behind antigens, which are recognized by the immune system as harmful [10]. When the immune system recognizes the antigens, B-lymphocytes will produce antibodies to attack the antigens and T-lymphocytes will attack cells in the body that have been infected by the identified antigen. After the infection is dealt with, the immune system will create memory cells that act immediately if the body encounters the same germ again. Vaccines work by imitating an infection; they do not cause illness but they will stimulate the production of T-lymphocytes, B-lymphocytes and memory cells to fight the disease in the future. Most vaccines require multiple doses to ensure full immunity, and how frequent these dosages are required depends on the vaccine [2]. 

Our knowledge of vaccines has not always been as vast as it is today. Evidence suggests that the earliest form of inoculation was in China during the late 1600s when emperor K’ang Hsi had his children inoculated after surviving smallpox (the process involved grinding smallpox scabs and inhaling them) [5]. The practice of vaccination has grown considerably since then, becoming vastly popular in the West by the 17th century. In 1853, Britain passed a law that made it mandatory for citizens to receive a smallpox vaccination and in 1855, Massachusetts passed the first U.S. law mandating vaccination for smallpox, allowing vaccinations to grow and develop. 

In the late 20th century, research on the negative effects of vaccines started to emerge. A 1995 study published in The Lancet linked the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine with bowel disease. Wakefield, a gastroenterologist and researcher in the study, went on to further speculate that persistent infection with the vaccine caused disruption of the intestinal tissue that could lead to autism. This led to the study that would capture the attention of parents for decades to come. In 1998, Wakefield and his colleagues published a case series study in which, out of 12 children who had recently been administered their MMR vaccine, eight had the measles virus in their digestive system and were demonstrating symptoms for autism. Wakefield then went on to claim that the combined vaccination led to this, and advocated instead to adopt single-antigen vaccinations as opposed to combined MMR vaccines [3]. He did not, however, list how he came to this conclusion, saying “the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (rather than monovalent measles vaccine) has been implicated” [3].

The link between autism and the MMR vaccination was studied intensively over the next few years, and no reputable study ever found a similar link. Additionally, a study published in The Journal of Pediatrics, while acknowledging a slightly lower than average antibody count when the combined vaccination was employed, stated that there was no significant reason why single antigen vaccinations should be favored over combined vaccinations. The lower antibody count was deemed irrelevant in light of the fact that failure of the vaccine was extremely rare in fully immunized children [7]. In 2010, The Lancet formally retracted the paper, and three months later, Britain’s General Medical Council banned Wakefield from practicing medicine in Britain. Finally, in 2011, it was revealed that Wakefield had falsified most of his data; in his study, he reported eight children developed symptoms of autism when in reality, there were at most two cases. In addition, two of the children had developmental delays that were not mentioned in the final published work [3].

Despite the study being completely discredited by the scientific community, the damage to society had been done; after the Wakefield paper was published, vaccination rates dropped below 50 percent in some parts of London. Luckily, immunization rates drastically rose since then, with over 90 percent in the UK vaccinated in 2013, with BBC declaring a “universal recovery” [8]. Although vaccination rates are high, the US still faces about 60 cases of the measles every year, caused by international travelers who carry the disease [9]. While the spread of misinformation due to the Wakefield paper has mostly subsided, its legacy continues keeping a minority of children in the US unvaccinated and susceptible to antiquated and preventable diseases.

 

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “Immunization: the basics” https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “Understanding how vaccines work” https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdf
  3. History of Vaccines “Do vaccines cause autism?” https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/do-vaccines-cause-autism
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “History of measles”  https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html
  5. History of Vaccines “All timelines overview” https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_1 
  6. Wakefield A, et al. RETRACTED:—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998; 351(9103): 637-641. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2897%2911096-0
  7. Heinz J. Schmitt, et al. “Primary vaccination of infants with diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis–hepatitis B virus– inactivated polio virus and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines given as either separate or mixed injections.” The Journal of Pediatrics. 1999. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347600260885
  8. BBC “Measles outbreak in maps and graphics” 2013. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-22277186
  9. NPR “Fifteen Years After A Vaccine Scare, A Measles Epidemic” 2013. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/05/21/185801259/fifteen-years-after-a-vaccine-scare-a-measles-epidemic
  10. Arizona State University “Macrophages” https://askabiologist.asu.edu/macrophage