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 (Vx) are nothing to write home about. 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. And at worst, they do ‘something‘; but not very well, and never in the way you would prefer.
And (as is always the case with any science topic) the reality is no where close to the common understanding.
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. If fact, this kind of “speculation” makes up part of a very real, and highly paid, job description. That is just a fact.
As a thanatosensitivitist, humor cognitivist and legal advocate – these things rarely come up. Most of my life I can live via signatures, or by voice, keeping my face and (especially down under) my twitter quite separated.
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. 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. The drive to investigate, to lift underneath, motivates me first.
This is why I like methods.
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 can save their under-powered, over claimed, grandiose pseudo work.
Vaccines (Vx) 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, withheld data, and fervent frothing zealots on either extreme (saying the same thing, but with slightly different conclusions).
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 science.
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 is a wealth of data, historical and contemporary, which make the mere suggestion that most vaccines hold a place as being any kind of “miracle” a proposal that is yet to be shown as 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 being shutdown – anywhere in medicine – except here; this needs to be addressed. No topic is to be off limits in science.
If the viruses 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.
If the body completely clears the infection, on its own, anyway 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 future related cancers, maybe. Especially when vaccines work via (*or are) the same mechanisms as infection. And the mechanisms for cancer are not known. Nice grift. Respect. But come on now.
And if close to the same thing is being said on both sides (on the scientific side), regarding the annual 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 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. It is the conspicuous lack of intelligent discussion that draws attention.
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 man. 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.
What you do see, however, are companies claiming “100% efficacy” of their brand new Ebola vaccines, with suggested lifelong immunity, from a 6 month unblinded randomized trial. 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. No further follow up regarding antibodies. 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. It is the same issues in all of medicine. The problems are known (*see all of open science, Stanford Metric – many places). 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.
If these interventions win on the ‘cost benefit analysis‘ anyway; then 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 or Vaccines, JchronLettSc. B4-0180808. Ed11 – 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
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
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
McCook [Retraction Watch](2018) Most editors of top medical journals receive industry payments: report – https://bit.ly/2KQ2A7l
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
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