“Cannot see the forest for the trees” plagues modern medicine.
Here, a key point is that some vaccines have more benefit than just for the pathogen to which they are addressed. But also that some vaccines cause increased mortality.
Which camp will the COVID vaccines fall into? Especially with children?
Paraphrasing a few points:
- Surrogate outcomes for clinical trials... numerous examples of surrogate outcomes turn out not to be associated with lower mortality.
- Just looking at a vaccine’s effect on a specific pathogen is not associated with the predictive effectd on overall mortality.
- Live vs non-live vaccines: body senses disease organisms that can replicate, different response mechanisms vs non-live.
- Quite stupid to inject into muscle because that is not where the immune system expects most pathogens, could misdirect immune system.
- Timing/ordering of childhood vaccines could greatly benefit child health (a million lives?)
- Current system for testing vaccines is not sufficient.
- Serious adverse events can be dismissed out of hand because of presumptions that they should not happen. The default is to assume that unless obviously biologically plausible, it’s not related. And just about everything is presumed implausible. Current paradigm for vaccines is that isuses months later cannot even be considered.
2022-02-12. Emphasis added.
Christine Stabell Benn is a physician, a professor at the University of Southern Denmark, and a vaccine researcher with almost thirty years of experience in the field. The focus of her research is non-specific vaccine effects, i.e. all those other effects, both positive and negative, that vaccines have on our immune systems and overall health, beyond their very specific ability to protect against one infectious disease
What she's found over the course of her research is that the overall effect on mortality varies greatly depending on whether a vaccine is "live" (i.e. contains a weakened but still complete version of the pathogen) or "non-live" (i.e. only contains a small part of the pathogen it's supposed to protect against). Live vaccines tend to be associated with a reduction in overall mortality that goes far beyond the protection they offer against the specific pathogen. Non-live vaccines, on the other hand, actually seem to increase overall mortality, so that whatever benefit they provide against a specific pathogen is outweighed by their negative overall health effects. This matters, because there has been a trend over the last few decades to replace live vaccines with non-live vaccines.
Unfortunately, when randomized trials of vaccines are run, they usually only look at the ability to protect against a specific pathogen, and thus fail to answer whether the vaccine provides an overall health benefit or not. Vaccine trials are also usually too short, because non-specific vaccine effects can last for years or in some cases even decades.
In this conversation with Christine Stabell Benn, we discuss the current state of vaccine research, how an optimal childhood vaccination program could be created with relatively small tweaks to the existing system, how parents should think about vaccines for their children, and I also get Christine's opinion on the covid vaccines and the annual flu vaccines.
WIND: the take-away as I see it from a public health perspective is that whether a vaccine is a benefit or a harm cannot be known until and unless a full-gamut analysis is done.
And that artificial vaccines (ones not using the pathogen but some proxy for it) should be subject to great suspicion.
Big Pharma eliminated the control groups so that all apaprent negative effects can be dismissed as happenstance.
As pure speculation on my part only, a 40% increase in mortality among younger people would be consistent with the ideas presented here.