# Vaccine umbrella evidence map — 14 October 2026

Exact owner headline: **Vaccines are safe and effective**. Research synthesis for public draft, not independent clinical/editorial approval. Parent supplied the source-mapped publication brief; executor checked source URL access and authority passages. Later PMC passage retrieval met a browser check; detailed primary findings rely on the parent brief, not an independent full-text re-audit. No new dose schedule or personal advice. Existing child routes verified: /topics/covid/, /topics/mmr/, /topics/vaccines-autism/.

## Claim-to-source map

### 1. Contribution of vaccination to improved survival and health: modelling 50 years of the Expanded Programme on Immunization
The Lancet, 2024 — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11140691/
Design and limits: Modelling study. Estimates deaths prevented by vaccination against 14 diseases, 1974–2024. This is a modelled comparison with no vaccination, not a direct count; it excludes COVID-19.

### 2. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children
Cochrane, 2021 — https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD004407_does-measles-mumps-rubella-and-varicella-mmrv-vaccine-protect-children-and-does-it-cause-harmful
Design and limits: Systematic review. Reviews protection and harms in children up to 15. Findings concern specific vaccines and outcomes; the full review population does not support every estimate.

### 3. Interim Estimated Effectiveness of 2025–2026 COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults Using a Test-Negative Design
JAMA Network Open, 2026 — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13291846/
Design and limits: Observational test-negative study. US adults without immunocompromise, September–December 2025. Measures added protection from that season’s dose against hospitalisation, not lifetime protection or vaccine safety.

### 4. Vaccines and immunization: Vaccine safety
WHO, 2025 — https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/vaccines-and-immunization-vaccine-safety
Design and limits: Authority safety overview. Explains clinical testing, ongoing monitoring and side effects. It does not give one numerical risk that applies to every vaccine or person.

### 5. WHO expert group’s new analysis reaffirms there is no link between vaccines and autism
WHO, 2025 — https://www.who.int/news/item/11-12-2025-who-expert-group-s-new-analysis-reaffirms-there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism
Design and limits: Expert evidence assessment. Reviews research through August 2025 on autism and assessed vaccine exposures. This finding does not mean vaccines have no side effects.

### 6. WHO position paper on COVID-19 vaccines — July 2026
WHO, 2026 — https://www.who.int/publications/journals/weekly-epidemiological-record/wer101-30
Design and limits: Expert programme guidance. Reviews benefits, waning protection and risks including myocarditis. Recommendations depend on population risk and local conditions; this is not a personal schedule.

## Scope, independence and contrary evidence

Shattock et al.: 194 WHO member states, June 1974–May 2024, 14 pathogens; counterfactual model rather than observed count; no COVID inclusion. Cochrane: 138 studies/over23million children across the full review, search through2May2019; moderate-certainty measles effectiveness; small risks including fever-related seizures and immune thrombocytopenia. No percentages needed in the umbrella. Wiegand et al.: US adults without immunocompromise,3September–31December2025;26,073 eligible hospital encounters;55% relative effectiveness (95%CI41–66), median46days after vaccination; observational residual confounding/misclassification; not a safety study or lifetime/child estimate.

WHO2025 safety overview is authority guidance, not independent trial evidence. WHO autism assessment considers31primary studies2010–August2025 plus an aluminium review/cohort; it can overlap research on child pages and is not another independent replication. WHO July2026 COVID position paper is a synthesis/guidance, not independent primary participant data. It recognises myocarditis/pericarditis risks with mRNA products, varying by age/sex/product/dose; do not infer that infection always has higher risk than every vaccine dose in every subgroup. Serious reactions remain possible. Protection can wane and absolute benefit differs by risk. No universal numerical adverse-event rate or eligibility is asserted.

Confidence: strong for the bounded general explanation supported by model, systematic review, contemporary effectiveness study and safety assessments; product-specific application needs separate current review. Search depth: targeted integration of parent brief, not a systematic search or independent clinical review. No individual-study full audit or human clinician sign-off is claimed. Original child dossiers are preserved. Freshness triggers: new safety signals, revised WHO guidance, changed formulations/recommendations, corrected studies or revised benefit/risk findings.

Public copy preserves estimated/modelled154million scope, separates MMR from adult COVID hospitalisation, and keeps zero-risk/guarantee limits visible. New umbrella artwork not generated; explicit unavailable-media state avoids borrowing another claim.