shhh. . . psst. . . hey kid . . .you wanna be a scientist. . .>>
This Entry is Not About Vaccination
This entry is not about vaccination. This is an entry about science literacy, critical analysis and open methods. The subject is irrelevant. If these items are not squared away, anything that follows is not science.
Vaccines are nothing to write home about. I am not saying they do not “work”, perse (definition dependent). And I am not saying do not get them – I do not much care what you do. However, I am saying the evidence most compelling is that, at best, “vaccines” largely do nothing at all of incredible merit. And at worst, they do ‘something‘; but not very well, and never in the way you would prefer.
At least, of all the insane things people believe, this is actually difficult science. Especially when you get into the complex mechanisms of immunity, and very long term side effects.
The epidemiology is all you need though. And I believe most people will understand most of that. And maybe some methods. And multi step reasoning. For example: Can you have “herd immunity“, when there will never be full coverage; some people do not respond to vaccination; immunity doesn’t last; you are only ever vaccinating against a few strains; strains also mutate. Among other more complicated points, that we will get to.
Or think about the fact that 98% of people got measles before age 18, prior to the invention of the vaccine. That is a lot. Usually it was a rash, and a 10 day cough: so, how deadly was it again? You can still be all for the miracle vaccine that delivered us from the public terror and horror of measles, but clearly it did not kill, blind or deafen 98% of all people before the first vaccine came along in the mid 1960s, right? So, just add some context. Similarly, polio was usually cleared without people knowing they ever had it.
There are extreme reactions to the infections in both cases, of course. Comparatively rare, if you got infected at all, rare but real though – you’ve seen the photos. Vaccines too have similar rates of rare, but real, serious reactions. Except, you do not have high odds of getting most of these diseases today. You have 100% chance of getting the vaccine, if you get the vaccine. Does that make sense? So, you better be sure. The illness has to be more likely to cause harm, to justify a vaccine, because they all also cause harm. And there is no “maybe” on if you will “catch” the vaccine or not.
And why are those diseases rare today? Well, you say, the miracle of vaccines of course! Surely. Right? No. Clearly that is where I was going with that. No, in fact never have vaccines had a grand success story to match the times before they existed. That is not to say they do not “work”. But both things are true. Those illnesses are rare today mostly due to hygiene/quarantine, health and natural cycles. As you saw with Ebola – no vaccine. And the Spanish flu – no vaccine. And the “Black Death” Bubonic plagues – no vaccine. All the deadliest infections in history that mankind has faced, all had no vaccines. Which is a good place for a lay person to start, I think.
The rest really only physicians (or maybe only physician researchers/health PhDs) or field specialist virologists/immunologists would be easily able to follow. And they do understand it, is my experience. Not physicians, mostly because they would need to take the time to walk through it, and they simply wont. It is not their field. But they could. But honestly – it would not be worth it for them to say too much out loud anyway, times being what they are. I’d prefer that they had reviewed the data and were choosing to “tow the line“, from their personal cost/benefit analysis, rather than what we get. Which is the same talking points from medical doctors, as from Fox news weather men. Almost word for word. That should sound alarms to anyone.
I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise. The truth is, whenever you say “vaccines”, I think “which one?“. And if you don’t do that, then what have you been thinking about exactly? Alright, let’s get this started. No matter your education level, it is going to be difficult. It always is, at first. If for different reasons.
As is always the case, with any science topic, the reality is no where close to the common understanding of what is going on. So, we’ll start with my first point:
Anyone who claims to be able to talk about ‘vaccines’ as a single entity, is some kind of imbecile. Talking about the immune system, and legal obligations of corporations, is something different. However, it does not leave the concept of general vaccines being arbitrarily in high use – or mandated – in a particularly good light. Indeed, it makes little medical sense.
Moreover, the data against is simply more compelling. Many of the arguments apply to all scientism. Some are quite specific to vaccinations. As an example, vaccinations always seems to come into play only at the natural decline of a given epidemic (IF they come into play AT ALL). If this was no accident, it would make more sense. Because this kind of “speculation” makes up part of a very real, and highly paid, job description. That is just a fact.
As a cognitive scientist and health law advocate; these things rarely come up. My primary interests are research methods and malfeasance in science dissemination; new media performance for psycho-social health; and issues surrounding the legal right to a painless death. Most of my life I can live via signatures, or by voice, and by report writing – keeping my face and (especially down under) my twitter quite separated. Though the culture of this is changing rapidly.
Research malfeasance and medical error is more of a practical intersection in my life. I have bills to pay, like everyone else. My training falls between science and law. And so life is as it is. I find myself in a period where I spend more time at the courts, than on a campus. More personally, I tend towards a slightly Right wing, heavy rational, approach to most of life. Only with a penchant for performance, because death is impending. Despite all of this, for any issues I have not personally investigated, I do not have opinions on. Seems obvious to say, I know. However, this does not appear to be the norm. Though the drive to investigate, to lift underneath, motivates me first.
This is why I like training research methods.
Our choice, and implementation, of “these” certain particular methodologies (whatever they happen to be), foreshadow the anticipated outcomes. This is done by way of mere intrinsic assertion; that “this” is the way to capture such results. This is unavoidable.
No matter the field, if you can take apart their design, their statistic use, their misunderstanding of technology; no amount of color graphics, or brain images, or photos of blistered babies can save their under-powered, over claimed, grandiose pseudo work.
Vaccines are an interesting intervention set. Even the most anti-establishment loons will not touch the topic as a rule. Which is fascinating to me.
But, like any drug, each vaccine is different. And, like all science, the research is generally very poor. With conflicts of interest, no follow up of merit in the majority of cases, poor controls, little replication, withheld data, and fervent frothing zealots on either extreme (sometimes saying the same thing, but with slightly different concluding sentences).
And the real trouble is that the rest (the ones in the middle with no information, no interest/ability in exploring the topic), are kind of just along for the ride. But engaged enough to picket a clinic. Or force a patient against their will. Both as ill-informed as the other for the most part.
So, despite friends making these things; my own personal investments; sub-field specialists at conferences, and virology Nobel winners in extended circles, that are going to be pulling me aside (*extra hard this time): I am none the less going to put some entries here as conclusions.
And click here for one of Gweneth Paltro’s anal eggs. Something for everyone on all sides here. That is just good marketing.
If the number needed to harm matches ‘vaccination’ and ‘infection’: there is no reason to choose vaccination.
If there are cases where vaccine derived infection is a problem, and the corporate solution (to follow compulsory vaccination) is further additional vaccinations, against their vaccines – that requires further attention.
If there are cases, like the 50 million dead from Spanish flu (or the cases of Ebola/Marbug), which were overcome by basic hygiene and not by vaccination; this has to be reconciled.
There are a wealth of data, historical and contemporary, which make the mere suggestion that most vaccines hold a place as being any kind of “miracle” as a proposal that is yet to be shown as particularly probable. In some cases it is not even credible. Where this is so, any wishing to claim otherwise hold the burden of proof to support their claims.
If there was a downward trend in infection cases approaching zero, before even the “great success” vaccines were even in use, in every case; this best not be ignored.
If the mixture of large corporate pharmaceutical money, in research and diagnostics, is an accepted topic of concern, without conversation being shutdown – anywhere in medicine – except here; this needs to be addressed. No topic is to be off limits in science.
If the infections themselves are largely treatable (again, if infected by them at all), with complications as rare as vaccination complications – vaccination is closer to guaranteeing an infection, than protecting against one. In such a case.
If these data suggest that this is in fact the case with certain interventions; then it has to be discussed. And answers to be investigated. Not reinstating a common orthodoxy, simply posited at full volume, over the top of reasoned debate. Every medical practitioner lives the constant pendulum of “we know we taught you at least 50% incorrectly, but we do not know which 50% – and are going to further change our mind, in all directions, on each topic, and back again, at least quarterly“. Another reason why this taboo is so strange. No doctor denies this history/present either.
If the body completely clears an infection, on its own, relatively symptom free in nearly all cases – I am sorry; but that has to be considered. And likely does not require any vaccination, based on predictive models for “possible”, “maybe” future related cancers.
Especially when vaccines work via (*or are) the same mechanisms as infection. And the mechanisms for cancer are not actually known. The link between several specific strains, of the hundreds of known strains, of a given virus (HPV) and a list of cancers in both boys and girls is, to use a political expression, “not a slam dunk”. Though they talk a good game. Also, “cancerous and pre-cancerous” cells are not the same category. So do not talk as though they are. And If, say, HPV negative cancers, of the targeted type, made up an unknown number; this too has to be considered.
And when almost literally everyone has these strains, by some numbers – yet not everyone has these cancers (of course) – the oncogenesis causality has to be questioned. Therefore, this is a vaccine seemingly more “because we can”, with associated risks, rather than a requirement. If most of the 200+ strains of infections clear up on their own. And are not covered anyway. And most precancerous lesions resolve spontaneously; then it is easy enough to match NNH against likely adverse presentation of the infection directly leading to harm. The wide spread vaccine use is the only certain harm. It is a bitter irony, that the more any vaccine is used and more effective it is, the more true this becomes. And that also has to be recognized. And that does not mean assuming that HPV infection of the right strain=cancer. Because it does not.
Along with the long (potential) onco-incubation period, and the “30% that occur anyway“: how would this be tested already? Again, assuming causality – which is perhaps a large assumption if so much of the population has always carried/cleared these infections. The DNA may end up in the lesions. But that does not mean the DNA causes the lesions. And I have so far only seen attenuated and recombinant DNA vaccines. That conversation can still be had, but the long-term safety data is not available. And may never be, and that may have to be OK. However, this is the first vaccine, with this outcome target, that I have encountered. Never assume in life.
It may be reasonable to assume that the presence of DNA is a causal proof (again, that is a conversation which can be had). But there is no magic genetic evidence I have encountered, that you (reader) do not know about, overtly supporting this. It MIGHT have SOME contribution to ~70% of only a 200-250k specific cancer death TOTAL, from ALL COUNTRIES in the world COMBINED. Maybe. And do we see the same sub-type of cancers with no viral DNA present…? Yes. About a third of them.
I am always happy to be corrected; but in either case, that is not a public health emergency. Apart from “maybes”, what does this offer? Or what are the specifics of the “maybes”, if there are only “maybes”? Again, that may not be a bad thing. But say if it is the case.
It is also worthy of note (since SO many people I speak to seem to not understand this); in a way, almost analogous to antibiotics and “superbugs”, vaccines are not ‘risk free’ for the population ecosystem long term either. In the case of HPV, there are other oncogenic (potentially more so) strains that will now become more prevalent. In addition to the ever present risk of an out break of vaccine derived strains of the infection being treated. Often mutated to be more virulent, becoming manifest as a direct result of mass vaccination. Without careful thought. It bears mention, because it happens LITERALLY every single time! At least that I have looked into. Every single one. So if this is the first time you are hearing the words “vaccine derived virus strain outbreak“, you have been under equipped to have an opinion on vaccination up to this point. At a minimum.
Which is why, if it is regarding a largely benign, reasonably complication rare, infection presentation: vaccines are not automatically magically fantastic just because we made one. I struggle to see why that is shocking to people. It lines up perfectly with everything else we do. Especially in medical science, but also just generally.
And do not get me wrong, the HPV vaccine is some impressive work. Especially for potential future implications. As is some of the Ebola vaccine work. Close to perfect. And people should certainly have the option to purchase them. We should be so lucky as to have our government fund them! But there is no clear necessity here.
And if close to the same thing is being said on both sides (*on the scientific side), regarding the annual (guess a strain/s, any strain/s) flu vaccination – one side saying “it fails 90% of the time, best case” and the other “it works at least 10% of the time, and that 10% is worth it“: that is a conversation that needs to be had.
There are no perfect studies. And no one is asking for that. Every lab test, every machine, every diagnosis does not have to be scrutinized every time.
However, if there are cases where antibodies against a specific illness, shown by an accepted means, do not predict protection from that illness – this requires a moment of thought.
Most importantly, none of these data fall on the side of blanket “all vaccinating is blindly good“. Any more than any topic of medical science “blanket recommends” just about anything.
We know about post infection syndromes that are quite real. And that in certain cases these symptoms never resolve. Immunologically mediated, with the inflammatory response to the infection associated cascade likely to blame – but we can not even consider vaccines also activating this system and producing similar side effects? How do vaccines work then, if it is without the immune system, one wonders. And wild infections do not bring with them immune aggravating adjuvants. Adding immune aggravating adjuvants is not the same as simply “equalizing” a vaccine to a safe version of wild infection exposure. No matter how targeted they are. And if it were, so too would many of the infection risks come with that.
If we lived in a world where there were no immune aggravation mediated serious medical conditions, I could see why, at first glance, this would still seem clearly better than actually getting, say, the real poliomyelitis infection (*although, most people who had polio thought it was a mild flu, and cleared it, only to be told later by IG titers. But you get the general idea). Unfortunately, forget fibromyalgias and rheumatoid arthritis (though, if you have them that may seem unkind): how about from multiple sclerosis, to Parkinson’s, to ALL of the cancers! These are immune system failure disorders. And, yes, some from a pathologically aggravated immune system. And none of which we particularly understand.
We do not understand why MS strikes, or why the “attacks” come and go. We know it appears to be from an early childhood exposure to an infection, or at least the presence of the antibodies from an infection indicate this possibility. Unfortunately, not a single infection, but rather multiple antibody types are found to be directly isolated in MS patients – a vast list including antibodies for rabies; herpes simplex virus (types 1 and 2); para-influenza virus (type 1); measles: the list goes on. So many antibodies. Such an aggravated immune system, who could say the true single cause? If there even is one. Luckily, for our purposes, one does not need to make claims that a vaccine plays a definitive causal role to be concerned that, for example, annual injections of aggravating immune adjutants, so labeled for their titular effects, are a good idea at baseline. Especially to avoid the gosh darn common FLU. . .
(MAYBE). If they guessed the only strains you happen to run into the whole season, and the immunity lasted longer than 3 months. Which, have they ever? Is it even sufficiently plausible. Back to cost benefit analysis.
If the flu is such a risk to you that it seems reasonable to play with your personal immune system, and trust that GSK (etal) to have your best interests at heart (oh, this time for sure): then so that is the case. Up to you. But it is not fringe science to say we do not adequately understand these immune conditions, but do know it is an aggravated immune system demylenating neurons. That is what is happening. It is part of the general cascades and cells we are playing with. But, on the other hand, you may be protected from a handful of the possible flu strains this one year, for a matter of months so *shrugs*. In 30 years time, who can say what made your immune system “suddenly” go haywire.
Still, it may be entirely unrelated. Everyone gets these vaccines, but how many people do you know who actually do have arthritis? OK, not that one. But they certainly do not all have MS. About 100 in 100k do. So, sure, it is not as super rare as you might have thought. And everything is risk. So the question becomes, all things being equal – just how bad is this “maybe” flu?
Further, it is not edge shock jocks who say these companies routinely hide, or out right refuse to release, trial data to regulators – they have a history of it. Go to the most mainstream researcher or clinician that you can find, and ask them if there is a problem with pharmaceutical data. Or raw data release. Or conflict disclosure. Or research funding turning up positive results, curiously matching whichever product that patron happens to make. No one denies these things are the norm. That is why conflict disclosures exist…(kind of). And why you have to release your data, and make it available online with the big journals…(technically). And why the punishment for research violations are so severe. OK, I was joking on that last one. But some times there will be a belated retraction, often years later, while the original goes on being cited. Topic for another day. But not unrelated.
It is the conspicuous lack of intelligent discussion that draws attention. You can wash your hands AND use antibiotics. None of this is all or nothing. In fact, no science is like that. Which is why this topic is so peculiar.
There will never be 100% vaccination rates for anything. I have never seen anyone serious claim otherwise. I have also never seen anyone claim hygiene, general health and quarantine are not effective – as they have been since the dawn of time. This is not an “anti-vaccine” argument, but a “pro alternative interventions as well”, argument. And a suggestion that they are perhaps more appropriate interventions, in nearly all cases.
And so too do you see we use them. Especially in the west. You do not see anyone who believes in vaccines so vehemently as to abandon these interventions, when it is life or death. In real life scenarios of infection. You never see any body not wearing the infection control hazmat space-suit in the quarantine labs, because they have had a vaccine and show a strong IG response.
What you do see, however, are companies claiming “100% efficacy” of their brand new (since it is topical again) Ebola vaccines, with suggested lifelong immunity from 10days or 6 month unblinded randomized trials. In one example, a trial where no one in any group became infected with Ebola (so, also 100% efficacy in the no vaccine control group then?).
But the vaccinated alone had a wide range of systemic ill effects. And post clearance re-infection. No further follow up regarding antibodies generally, in many cases. No pre screen for antibodies prior to the trial noted. But a long list of exclusions – just like in the real world.
And immediate claims like these about vaccines are not the exception. At least as far as I have seen. And the clear methodological problems are always this obvious (*though not all of that example requires change – still, the design best match the grandiose claims. Like 100% efficacy, with no concerning drawbacks at 10 days: you best have something special in mind).
Only slightly worse are the innumerable vague correlation claims of same system, or sometimes systemic, unrelated “general positives” being attributed to vaccines. Just never the negatives. They are all time-relative correlation clusters. But if grandma had a flu shot sometime before her surgery it saved her life. All I can say is, if that were true, it also gave her autism. You can not have it both ways when it comes to vague correlations. It is the same issues in all of medicine. The problems are known (*see all of open science, OxfordOT, Stanford Metric – many places now). But it is not enough to acknowledge and ignore them.
So we all have to stop doing it.
Finally, these papers are not all only hidden in the sub-specialty journals. Some are on the primary WHO/CDC/NIH pages as well. Which is why I wonder if most physicians have even revisited the research on (*you would hope at least) the ones that they prescribe.
Because no scientist who had would easily come away with: “all vaccines are the same, all vaccines are great, so as a scientist I am “pro vaccines”, all vaccines – whether they have been invented yet or not!“. Which is how they talk. And pass policy, in some cases. I mean, wait to stay scientific, doctor.
Therefore, there is only really one critical question to be asked; and it is to be asked for every vaccine you are going to advocate or prescribe. And it is a comparative one – what is the efficacy of this intervention (in the real world), compared to not getting this intervention (in the real world). Which is disease base rate risk, with harm of severe presentation rate risk, against the evidence for protection, and numbers of certain harm, in giving the intervention.
There is some truly fantastic work in this field. The focus best be on communicating that work, along with any assumptions, and a solid argument for why it is needed. Without coercion.
Everything is risk. And all newly approved interventions not thoroughly tested yet (that’s right, the phase trial system is not a completely thorough testing system. We see that in every error, recall and side effect that has ever been unforeseen). Nor is it open enough. Nor is it beyond scrutiny (by quite some margin). The wide release is always the real test. And that is OK. Just as it is OK that it always pits absolute certain harms, against possible harms. And, ironically again, as an infection likelihood decreases, the safety profile of the related vaccine becomes comparatively worse.
I call it the “maledicite remedium” (the curse of the cure) effect. But it is the case. And that is OK too. If it is the best we can do in our lifetimes – just say that.
This is a preliminary investigation to get my own mind clear. However, a version will eventually be going to print. So, please do link papers in the comments that question anything I say here, or that posit the other side for other people to read. They will also be read by ASQ editors.
Limitations of field and lab titer, or any associated, tests are also welcome. This may be slightly off topic, in my mind, moving towards the “there are no perfect studies” realm. But I do think we have to be honest about it, if we are going to move forward. It is my job to pull these things apart, and investigate the people making claims. But I want to be clear – this is for science. My default deference is on the side of medical practitioners and researchers.
There are certainly times where theory driven is the best one can do. With great difficulty in clarifying aspects, or publishing/getting funding for projects tasked with a methodical searching for counterpoint to strengthen theory verification.
Some topics are just honestly difficult to study. It is why there are assumptions and limitation sections (usually behind a paywall) in papers. We do the best with what we have. It is not about taking sides, or tearing anyone down. But grandiose claims require grandiose evidence – not missing data, models without assumptions made clear, and double speak, which you would have to be in the field in order to interpret correctly.
And, because people ask, I also want to address why I have not mentioned other constituents in vaccines here. It is honestly only because I have not looked into it yet. The only item that I have seen come up is, yes, it is true that there are active placebos being used (with aluminum, and other chemicals toxic by dose).
Now, I will say that this is not entirely uncommon. To have a control with side effects can be useful, so people do not know what arm of the trial they are in. And in this way we can see what the body can do alone. The reader is likely familiar with the classic placebo trial arguments that up to ~90% of opioid effects can be replicated with sugar pills; even more effective if the pills are red. More effective again if it is an injection of saline (in the EU). It is still an important control. But dependent on the severity of active placebo side effects, it will indeed make the comparison vaccine seem artificially safer. So, absolutely, this is a conversation that can be had. But these methods are not present in all studies.
Ultimately, a fairly clear answer still presents itself: If it is regarding a largely benign, reasonably complication rare, infection presentation: vaccines, which have similarly rare serious complications (but also represent a guaranteed exposure) are not automatically the ‘better’ risk, just because we made one.
If these interventions win on the ‘cost benefit analysis‘ anyway; then, for as long as they do, sell them on that. And if they do not – do not sell them.
Why this topic is taboo is a mystery. But science could never be “pro” nor “anti” vaccine.
Because “vaccine” is an imaginary category. And anyone who suggests otherwise is not a scientist; they are a salesperson.
JC (2018). This Entry is Not About Vaccination, JchronLettSc. B4-0180808. Ed16 – https://bit.ly/2vJURTt
*JC is currently undertaking the Harvard Extension Program in Opioid Addiction Medicine. JC is the medical law & research science investigator for the Chronicle LS.
WHO (2018) Circulating Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus Type 2 – http://www.who.int/csr/don/10-july-2018-polio-drc/en/
Pfaff etal (2018) Vaccine-Derived Rabies: Cases and corresponding live-attenuated oral rabies vaccines – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29439868
Aoki etal (2013) Vaccine-Derived Measles Viruses: from children with acute respiratory infection – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23782719
Coster etal (2016) Mumps Vaccine-Derived Parotitis: Diagnosed in the Setting of a Recent Mumps Outbreak – https://journals.lww.com/infectdis/Abstract/2016/11000/Jeryl_Lynn_Mumps_Vaccine_Derived_Parotitis.21.aspx
de Cellès etal (2016) Pertussis Enigma: reconciling epidemiology, immunology and evolution – https://bit.ly/2Okr0bb
Kaneko etal (2017) Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus Strains in Children with Acute Gastroenteritis in Japan, 2012-2015 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597190/
Jin etal (2017) Differentiation between wild-type and vaccines strains of varicella zoster virus (VZV) based on four single nucleotide polymorphisms – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28748773
Payne etal (2010) Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20100758
Hammerschlag etal (1989) Herpes Zoster in an Adult Recipient of Live Attenuated Varicella Vaccine, Oxford JInfDis – https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-abstract/160/3/535/809796
BMJ (2007) Questions over human papillomavirus vaccine in the US and Australia – https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/01/adverse-reaction-vaccine-no-surprise
McCook [Retraction Watch](2018) Most editors of top medical journals receive industry payments: report – https://bit.ly/2KQ2A7l
Bonam etal (2017) Overview of Novel Adjuvants Designed for Improving Vaccine Efficacy, TrendsInPharmSci – https://bit.ly/2P2NYE3
Monique M. van Oers etal (2015) Thirty years of baculovirus–insect cell protein expression: from dark horse to mainstream technology – https://bit.ly/2vI5RzN
AuGov (2018) Physician Vaccination handbook – https://bit.ly/1Sw6SOq
AuGov (2018) Immunization HB – https://bit.ly/2OLZjZX
AuGov (2018) Vaccine Components – https://bit.ly/1Sw6SOq
HFI [Idaho] (a2018) Vaccine Court has paid 3.7 billion in damages to families – https://bit.ly/2uIek5s
Mueller (a2018) Notable Vaccine Injury Case: Legal settlements (In Millions) – https://bit.ly/2M6zfdu
CDC Emerging Infectious Disease (2006) 1918 Influenza – https://bit.ly/2OOjJRS
[+1] Mackay (2018) Influenza vaccines do have an effect and we need to do more to understand it – https://bit.ly/2MoGkCO
Humphries (a2018) Raw Data Source Locator – Public Health Graphing [JCR] – https://bit.ly/2MmHeTF
HPV Vaccine Concerns [Japan TBI] (2018) – https://bit.ly/2P7Qr0O
Metzger & Vivas-Martínez (2018) Questionable efficacy of the rVSV-ZEBOV [Ebola Vaccine], Lancet – https://bit.ly/2B4KqyZ
Browne etal (2018) Question Ebola Vaccine: Not only to the longevity of the immune response, but also to the immediate vaccine efficacy of 100% rather than 0%. Lancet, [RESPONSE] – https://bit.ly/2nBCz2g
Samai etal (JULY 2018) Randomized, unblinded Phase 2/3 trial w/phased vaccine intro, no placebo, and concurrent evaluation of safety and efficacy – *~8k vaccinated. None in any group got Ebola. Symptoms only in vaccinated*. JInfectDis – https://bit.ly/2IzxNPU
Marzi etal (2013) Humoral versus cellular immunity [Eboa Vaccin] [rVSV/ZEBOV-GP IG response], PNAS – https://bit.ly/2nEu2vE
Regules etal (2017) Recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)–based vaccine: dbl Blind w/Placebo Multiple Escalating Ebola Vaccine Dose, w/IG Response post 2nd Dose at 1month, diminished By 6months, NEJM – https://bit.ly/2KQYdbO
Archer (1987) The post-viral syndrome: a review, ‘hysteria and altered medical perception as causes but much evidence for organic disease is also presented..Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association in promoting a combined psychiatric and organic view of the disease’, RoyCllgGPs – https://bit.ly/2nI8DBy
Bannister (1988) Post-infectious disease syndrome. ‘serological evidence that some cases may follow enterovirus infections or occasionally delayed convalescence from infectious mononucleosis. Much interesting work is currently in progress relating fatigue to persisting immunological abnormalities‘, PGMedicalJ – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2428896/
deCelles etal (2016) Reconciling epidemiology, immunology, ‘Pertussis, a highly contagious respiratory infection, remains a public health priority despite the availability of vaccines for 70 years’, Proced BiolSci – https://bit.ly/2Okr0bb
Eastwod etal (2018) Q fever: A rural disease with potential urban consequences, ‘Treatment of post-Q fever fatigue syndrome is very challenging’, AuFamClinPhysn – https://www.racgp.org.au/AJGP/2018/March/Q-Fever
[+1] Karl Münger etal (2004) Mechanisms of Human Papillomavirus-Induced Oncogenesis, J Virology – http://jvi.asm.org/content/78/21/11451.full
Bosch (2002) Causal relation between human papillomavirus (HPV) & cancer, ”, JClinPath – ‘cervical cancer has been shown to have a central causal agent, human papillomavirus (HPV) _whose contribution_is much greater than that of any other recognized determinant_more than 1000 cervical cancer specimens that used a highly sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocol_found t_HPV DNA in cervical tumors [@] 93% [four hypothetical cohorts computer modelling]‘ , JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 91, Issue 6, 17 March 1999, Pages 506–511, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.6.506
Zhao etal (2014) Evidence for HPV-negative cervical cancer, ‘recent studies have documented the existence of true HPV-negative cervical cancers‘, Cytopathology – https://bit.ly/2vPc6D3
Arbyn etal (2018) HPV Vaccine to prevent cervical cancer (and its precursors). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD009069. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3.
Pierre etal (2017) HPV-negative CIN3 and cervical cancer, SwissMedJ – doi:10.4410/smw.2017.14559
Rodríguez-Carunchio etal (2015) HPV-negative carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a distinct type of cervical cancer with poor prognosis, BJOG. 2015 Jan;122(1):119-27. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13071. Epub 2014 Sep 17.
Aydin etal (2017) Lack of evidence of HPV etiology of prostate cancer, Inat j urol – https://bit.ly/2MPji8E
Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA (2012) Death after Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination, Pharmaceut Reg Affairs, ‘ HPV vaccines containing HPV-16L1 antigens [may] pose an inherent risk for triggering potentially fatal autoimmune vasculopathies‘ S12:001. doi: 10.4172/2167-7689.S12-001
Kumar etal (2015) HPV Vaccine: Current status ‘though all _cells of cancer cervix express HPV antigens of high risk oncogenic viruses and a cause-effect relationship has been established, the capability of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer cervix is still presumptive because [of] the end points of all the clinical trials[&]_possibility of an increase in proportion of infections with other non-vaccine oncogenic types, development of escape mutations of vaccine strains and evolution of new oncogenic strains thus making vaccines less effective‘ Med J Armed Forces India. 2015 Apr; 71(2): 171–177. Published online 2015 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2015.02.006
Castelnuovo etal (2018) Applications of the Placebo Effect & confounds, Front.NeuroBiol – https://bit.ly/2Msnnmj
Siegrist (a2018) Vaccine Immunology, WHO – https://bit.ly/2mEnprI
VxHx (a2018) Different Types of Vaccines, History of Vaccines – https://bit.ly/2n6Tk2t
Downey-Slinker etal (2016) Antibody titers to vaccination are not predictive of level of protection- BVDV type 1b, Vaccine, – https://bit.ly/2OGTyvB
Price etal (2008) Comprehensive Review of the Placebo Effect, Annual Review of Psychology – https://bit.ly/2nMGs4o
Evers etal (2018) Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice, PsychoThpyPsychosom – https://bit.ly/2MkPZi7
Bonissone (2016) Immunoglobulin Classification Using the Colored Antibody Graph, JCompBiol – https://bit.ly/2PhbjCO
Twigg (2005) Humoral Immune Defense Theory (Antibodies), ProcAmThoracSoc – https://bit.ly/2L5Xsw1
Gutpa etal (2015) Tamiflu fiasco and lessons learnt? Indian J Pharmacol. 2015 Jan-Feb; 47(1): 11–16. doi: 10.4103/0253-7613.150308
BMJ (2014) WHO, CDC, FDA & TamiFlu Stockpiling Recommendations – Who saw the data and when?, BMJ – https://www.bmj.com/tamiflu
Sasich (2017) WHO downgrades oseltamivir on drugs list after reviewing evidence – https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2841/rr
Demicheli etal (2018) Vaccines for preventing influenza, Cochrane – https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults
Mabbott (2015) Prospects for vaccines against prion diseases, Expert Review of Vaccines – https://bit.ly/2PkCEUv
Weissman (2005) Approaches to Therapy of Prion Diseases, Annual Review of Medicine – https://bit.ly/2Mkw6HH
Pekoc (2018) Microglia Pitch Against Prion Diseases, NIH InfectD – https://bit.ly/2waySEF
Crotty M. (1998a2018) Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California.
Jamshed (2014) Research Method-Interviewing and Observation In Medicine, J Basic Clin Pharm. – doi: 10.4103/0976-0105.141942
Mannie & Curtis (2013) Tolerogenic vaccines for Multiple Sclerosis – Central challenges to clinical application, Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013 May 1; 9(5): 1032–1038. Published online 2013 Jan 28. doi: 10.4161/hv.23685
Libbey & Fujinami (2010) Potential Triggers of MS, Results Probl Cell Differ. 2010; 51: 21–42. doi: 10.1007/400_2008_12
van der Laan etal (2015) Safety of vaccine adjuvants: Focus on autoimmunity, Vaccine – https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.01.073
CDC (a2018) Complications of Measles “of severe cases: Up to 1 in 1k die from encephalitic seizure..post infection syndrome similar to MS (SSPE)..10yr post w/risk higher in child exposure” [q what is immune mediated & what is infection specific] – https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html
Althaus and Salathé (2015) Measles Vaccination Not Protective: Cases Among Vaccinated Persons [Disneyland Outbreak Story], “All we need is 100% coverage of all strains of every virus, w/boosters, idiot. So shut up and buy it. & reclassify vaccine derived cases as not cases” [Summary], Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Aug; 21(8): 1480–1481. doi: 10.3201/eid2108.150284
Okuno etal (1989a2018) Incidence of measles MS mimic (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis) following measles vaccination/measles or booster (Japan) “184 cases over 10 yrs follow measles cases induced, 11 of which clear Vaccine Related” – Int J Epidemiol. – PMID: 2807674
[+1] Orenstein etal (2004) Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review ,“Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [AND THEY ALL DIED o-0. Nah.]..rash 3–7 days and then fades ..as it appeared..Fever 2-3 days after the onset of the rash..cough may persist for as many as 10 days! =O! HOWEVER Atypical measles occurred in children who received formalin-inactivated (killed) measles vaccine (1963-68)..high fever, a rash..w/petechiae, and a high rate of pneumonitis..caused by antigen-antibody immune complexes resulting from incomplete maturation of the antibody response to the vaccine – Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 189, Issue Supplement_1, 1 May 2004, Pages S4–S16, https://doi.org/10.1086/377712
Haber et al (2009) Vaccines and Guillain-Barré syndrome. “[MS mimic] Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is the leading cause of acute flaccid paralysis in developed countries.. since vaccines have an effect on the immune system it is biologically plausible that immunizations may be associated..causal association is strongest for the influenza vaccine (Swine)..[& older] rabies vaccine..[moderate for] oral polio vaccine [&] Tetanus toxoid-containing vaccines [COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS SEASONAL FLU VAC]”– J.DrugSafety-doi: 10.2165/00002018-200932040-00005.
Ojha (2013) Guillain–Barre syndrome following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination among (HPV) vaccine, “Equal risk as other vaccines [For what that is worth. Tho how you even tell when we bundle them into babies like this is scientifically questionable. But is it worse than…well, do babies have HPV? Was this a big problem? CA from +200 strains of HPV concentrated in the under 12yr old population? Doesnt sound right. (Maybe certain state schools). Nor does lasting immunity – I guess we’ll see. No one will talk about it, but I’ll see is what I mean, obviously. Can you wait until the brain is developed maybe? Why are we so sure the vaccines arent doing similar long term things via similar mechanisms? The answer is no one will ever know. So only if – oh read above. I wouldnt even medicate children unless there was no other option, ideally. Some really good, complicated science wasted solving some really vague, to non existent problems. And making a fortune]” J.Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics – https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.26292
Janjua (2010) Seasonal Influenza Vaccine and Increased Risk of Pandemic A/H1N1–Related Illness Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 51, Issue 9, 1 November 2010, Pages 1017–1027, https://doi.org/10.1086/65658
Murray (2015) Repeated flu shots may blunt effectiveness – CMAJ. 2015 Apr 7; 187(6): E180. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5000
[+1] Harini etal (2013) An Overview of Immunologic Adjuvants – Review, J Vaccines Vaccin, “adjuvant molecule is specific to its antigen molecule and hence has to be tailored suitably to maximise efficacy and safety“, 4:1 DOI: 10.4172/2157-7560.100016
McKee (2007) How Do Adjuvants Work? Important Considerations for New Generation Adjuvants. JImunity – https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2007.11.003
[+1] Coffman etal (2010) Vaccine Adjuvants: Putting Innate Immunity to Work – “addition to inflammasome activation by alum itself, the adjuvant can also trigger necrotic cell death and the release of the endogenous danger signal uric acid. Indeed, injection of uricase has been shown to block the immunopotentiating effect” – DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2010.10.002
Cunningham (2018) Reporting flu vaccine science: OFFICIAL DOUBLE TALK HIDES SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH FLU SHOT SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS, “2008..flu shot doubled the risk of illness from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic flu” BMJ – doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k15
Rollins (2013) Criminal investigators have been called in after the University of Queensland was forced to retract a major study, AuMedAssc, https://bit.ly/2woQhcG
Calligeros (2015) Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) Charge University of Queensland (UQ) professor over fake research – 16 fraud-related offences, https://ab.co/1wm1NPQ
Robertson (2018) ‘Cult’ Universal medicine practices promoted by Queensland researchers, UQ launches investigation into undeclared conflicts, https://ab.co/2w9rYjD
Oransky (2012) Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Embroiled In Research Scandal Over Stem Cells and Development Paper, RetrcnW, https://bit.ly/2PyZckP
Marcus (2018) Misconduct probe of now fmr research fellow at the Queensland Brain Institute (QBI), part of the University of Queensland (UQ) – https://bit.ly/2LgLpvP
Stern (2018) University of Queensland (UQ) announced some of its authors were retracting a paper after discovering data were missing, RW – https://bit.ly/2PxYWCs
Han (2017) UNSW Project to “fact check” genetic studies leads to three more retractions. And it’s just getting started, RW – https://bit.ly/2LgLpvP
McCook (2018) Retraction notice for “A mathematical model explains saturating axon guidance responses to molecular gradients”, RW -https://bit.ly/2PxYWCs
Wilcken (2018) University of Queensland (UQ) has confirmed that it is investigating “undeclared conflicts of interest” by members of its medical faculty, MJA – https://bit.ly/2MxpvtC
Tomljenovic & Shaw (2011) Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe? “Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. ..Experimental research..clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans” – Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7. – https://bit.ly/2PASURs
UCSF – Core Clinical Immunology Review (2011) – https://bit.ly/2o8fEff