Associations between vaccination and childhood cancers in Texas counties

Background. In Dr. Mel Greaves "delayed-infection hypothesis," postponed exposure to common infections increases the likelihood of childhood cancer. Hygienic advancements in developed countries have reduced children's exposure to pathogens and children encounter common infectious agents at an older age with an immune system unable to deal with the foreign antigens. Vaccinations may be considered to be simulated infections as they prompt an antigenic response by the immune system. Vaccinations may regulate the risk of childhood cancer by modulating the immune system. The aim of the study was to determine if children born in Texas counties with higher levels of vaccination coverage were at a reduced risk for childhood cancer.^ Methods. We conducted a case-control study to examine the risk of childhood cancers, specifically leukemia, brain tumors, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, in relation to vaccination rates in Texas counties. We utilized a multilevel mixed-effects regression model of the individual data from the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR) with group-level exposure data (i.e., the county- and public health region-level vaccination rates).^ Results. Utilizing county-level vaccination rates and controlling for child's sex, birth year, ethnicity, birth weight, and mother's age at child's birth the hepatitis B vaccine revealed negative associations with developing all cancer types (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67–0.98) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46–0.88). The decreased risk for ALL was also evident for the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49–0.92) and 4-3-1-3-3 vaccination series (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.87). Using public health region vaccine coverage levels, an inverse association between the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine and ALL (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.42–0.82) was present. Conversely, the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine resulted in a positive association with developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (OR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.27–6.22). ^

Campaign contributions to congressional candidates by the healthcare sector from 1990 to 2008

Stakeholder groups with special interests as donors to finance congressional campaigns have been a controversial issue in the United Sates. While previous studies concentrated on whether a connection existed between the campaign contributions provided by stakeholder groups and the voting behavior of congressional members, there is little evidence to show the trend of allocation of their campaign contributions to their favorite candidates during the elections. This issue has become increasingly important in the health sector since the health care reform bill was passed in early 2010.^ This study examined the long-term trend of campaign contributions offered by various top healthcare stakeholder groups to particular political parties (i.e. Democrat and Republican). The main focus of this paper was to observe and describe the financial donations provided by these healthcare stakeholder groups in the congressional election cycles from 1990 to 2008 in order to obtain an overview of their patterns of campaign contributions. Their contributing behaviors were characterized based on the campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Specifically, I answered the questions: (1) to which political party did specific healthcare stakeholder groups give money and (2) what was the pattern of their campaign contributions from 1990 to 2008?^ The findings of my study revealed that the healthcare stakeholder groups had different political party preferences and partisanship orientations regarding the Democratic or Republican Party. These differences were obvious throughout the election cycles from 1990 to 2008 and their distinct patterns of financial contribution were evident across industries in the health sector as well. Among all the healthcare stakeholder groups in this study, physicians were the top contributors in the congressional election. The pharmaceutical industry was the only group where the majority of contribution funds were allocated to Republicans in every election period studied. This study found that no interest group has succeeded in electing the preferred congressional candidate by giving the majority of its financial support to the winning party in every election. Chiropractors, hospitals/nursing homes, and health services/HMOs performed better than other healthcare stakeholder groups by supporting the electoral winner 8 out of 9 election cycles.^