I couldn’t read your review article in Danish. It looks to me that the 2018 paper you cited as not replicating actually used a different age of infants (6-35 months) vs (3-5 months). And the 2018 study had added the BCG vaccine. This is not evidence of a failure to replicate the original study. It was different in several ways. Especially age and BCG vaccine. Nonetheless, they did find a significant effect in girls.
Second point: you criticize that the authors failed to publish the RCT (due to death of and maternity leave of the researchers) They stated this was caused by a lack of funding.
This is not surprising given that funding for safety studies showing harms from vaccines are difficult to obtain.
As you probably know, it is much easier to get funding if you’re planning to find that vaccines are “safe and effective”.
I spent 34 years performing organ transplant compatibility testing in 2 major academic hospitals: 1 adult & 1 pediatric. In 2015 I came across an unusual pattern in a patient's antibodies, those which cause organ rejection and are allegedly and historically attributed to exposure to mismatched blood transfusions, transplanted organs or pregnancy. I just published this work. I was fired for pursuing it (that's not the narrative that was spun to justify it). The combination of EBV and a 2nd virus (superinfection) provides the immune system with a "confusing" state in which it tries to attack components from both viruses simultaneously. The response is called polyspecific. I still have to finish proving it experimentally, but I provide compelling in silico data. These antibodies developed either from superinfection or EBV infection plus vaccination. There was no doubt, from data I could not publish but observed, that the influenza vaccine was responsible for at least 30% transplant rejections. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2025.102197. It's time to start following the science and put money toward that research. HLA are associated with more diseases than any other region of the human genome. And I just opened the door to Pandora's box.
Thank you for your time. Was able to find more folks to block. Why is the right so stuck on autism only? And I do feel bad for all the autistic people out there. Your life is precious and your contribution precious. I’ll do some more studying on measles since we will probably be seeing a lot more of it and all the others since many will be for going vaccinations . Not too worried overall however, because in increase the ratio of blue voters.
You will have to block me too for this explanation. I am not on the right. Rather a liberal scientist.
However, I am absolutely stuck on autism though. The rate of autism in the USA is skyrocketing. And there’s enough evidence (below) that our exploding childhood vaccine schedule is a potential cause. It must be investigated: This is an emergency.
Correlation analysis of number of doses vs prevalence of autism has a correlation of 0.94 w p<0.001
CDC scientists (whistleblowers and FOIA transcripts) have discovered this vaccine:autism data and covered it up.
vax vs unvax studies showing increased autism w OR 4 in vaxed)
From the retracted Lancet Wakefield 1998 paper. I don't really understand why it was retracted. And he only made the claim, much like all investigators do, that correlation does not mean causation and that more study is required.
"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.
If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence (22) or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.(23)
We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."
Back when the retraction demands started in the 2000s, others noted what you did. The Wakefield paper was a nearly uninformative case series report with weak post hoc "controls", so it is unclear why Lancet published it in the first place. The story I have pieced together from the very biased reporting on both sides is something like this (to the best of my current information):
When the paper became widely promoted as if it showed an MMR vax-autism link (when it did no such thing and should have been forgotten), it came under intense scrutiny as if some were looking for a way to get it retracted because of the harm it was doing to vaccine uptake. When irregularities with informed consent, lab reports and COIs were uncovered (which could probably be found in many unretracted studies if investigated as thoroughly), Wakefield doubled down on the hypothesis and paper; so his license was revoked based on the irregularities, his lack of contrition about them, and his refusal to disown the hypothesis and paper. Lancet was hesitant to retract the paper, but came under intense pressure from the BMJ; and it is said that the other authors were also threatened with license revocation or other sanctions, hence they agreed to sign on to the retraction request.
In my view, the whole episode should underscore why, in such overcharged topics, no one should trust what any side says without reading the original reports for themselves. We should be equally critical of the reports and the editorials, commentaries, and letters about the reports, wary of the agenda of the authors of all these pieces, and remember that there will be backstory elements hidden from our view.
They won't mention NSE but they will mention RFK. This is how ideas spread. Most people do not see where the idea begins, but the feel the effects of how that idea moves through society.
That being said, the reason most vaccine hesitant individuals are that way is because they do not believe in any institution anymore. This of course means they will believe anything.
"Charlotte Strøm, MD, PhD, Journalist. Founder and owner of SharPen, Medicine in Media"
So when I see "media" I have to wonder does she have any conflicts of interest? So when I looked up SharPen ....under "references" on SharPen website I sure do see a lot of pharma companies. Check it out for yourself,
Also , here is a link to a substack article by Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD and Christine Stabell Benn about the difference between the USA and Denmark vaccine schedule, also has the podcast if you are interested in hearing Chritine's viewpoints on things.
Translated from Danish by Google translate: "Charlotte Strøm is a doctor, PhD and journalist. The combination of these skills provides the shortest and most effective path to sharp communication of medical messages. I understand the basic messages of the pharmaceutical company, biotech or medical technology company and I can interpret and convey the core messages of the company and its products.
With several years of experience from the pharmaceutical industry in working with clinical development of drugs, medical affairs and PR, as well as as a clinician and researcher, the best conditions are in place to understand and speak the language in pharmaceutical companies, with the authorities, among patients and not least among doctors.
Charlotte Strøm has solid experience in writing, submitting and publishing scientific articles as an author and medical writer. She has also published a large number of journalistic articles in healthcare media."
"In an overview article published in the Danish Medical Journal, I reviewed the largest and the most recent studies. Table 1 from this article gives an overview, albeit in a foreign language. The non-significant findings on hazard ratios (HR) and mortality rate ratios (MRR) are self-explanatory."
- What is self-explanatory there? Every ratio estimate is above 1, showing a positive association in every observational study.
In an overview it is a statistical fallacy to look at the significance of the individual studies, e.g., as explained in items 15 and 16 in
Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, Altman DG. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology 2016;31:337–50,
which should be a free download. The estimates must be combined using a valid method to get summary estimates and P-values. When I apply the Wald summary method to the observational studies in the table, I get a P-value for heterogeneity of 0.48 indicating high consistency among the estimates, and a fixed-effect summary ratio of 1.74, 95% limits of 1.33, 2.27, p<0.001. Other methods vary slightly but still produce p<0.001 for the observational association.
It thus appears that there is indeed a positive observational association somewhere in a broad range. Whether this association is due to NSE depends largely on whether, in all the observational studies, there were confounding factors that increased risk and were more prevalent in the vaccinated groups, both to a degree that completely explains away the positive association. Only two trials are in the table and the number of events in those are too small to conclude anything about that or have much influence on a valid summary of the whole table.
That said, I certainly agree that completed trials should be published and that their data should be made public.
Furthermore, the claim that Stabbel Benns very specified focus of NSE is somehow related to vaccine hesitancy is laughable.
Ask anyone who refuses vaccines what the biggest reason would be, and I doubt you would get one in a thousand who could even articulate the phrase "non-specific effects."
Non Specific effects are an obvious and established reality with any drug. NSE is simply a term to articulate that specific targeted antigens can have other unintended effects.
"My review of the literature " is not a criticism. Be specific- what methodology of the existing literature was incorrect? Where were the errors?
Stopped taking this author seriously after within the first two paragraphs she threw out "misinformation" then proceeded to reveal that she's not even specialized in the field.
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong is a surgeon who made billions inventing cancer drugs. He says that Covid, and the vaccines that didn’t stop it, are likely causing a global epidemic of terrifyingly aggressive cancers. (0:00) Why Are Cancer Rates Rising in Young People?
(6:16) What Is Causing This Cancer Epidemic?
(14:52) Is There a Connection Between Covid and Cancer?
(25:33) Why Dr. Soon-Shiong Never Got Covid
(39:36) How Big Pharma Tried to Undermine Dr. Soon-Shiong
(47:35) Dr. Soon-Shiong’s Analysis of RFK Jr.
(1:02:47) The Healthcare Industry’s Conflict of Interest
(1:05:51) How to Strengthen Your Immune System
(1:10:32) What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About How to Fight Cancer
(1:20:58) Why Hasn’t Anyone Faced Consequences for These Crimes?
(1:33:59) Why Dr. Soon-Shiong Bought the LA Times Includes paid partnerships.
There need to be professional and reputational consequences for investigators who conduct a study then do not publicize results (at the very least with an oral presentation at a meeting….and with subsequent timely publication unless there are the most grievous and extenuating circumstances). It is unethical to have conducted an RCT (and exposed volunteer subjects to potential risk) without subsequently providing that new-found knowledge to the public domain.
If these Danish researchers did an RCT, the public (and the study subjects) deserve those results. They should be banned from funding, and future publication and presentation opportunities, until they do so.
Peter Aaby is listed as the principle investigator, and as far as I can tell via Google, he’s still alive today, not to mention for all the years after study completion.
There seems to be general agreement that no virus has ever been physically or biochemically isolated or successfully grown in tissue culture. If that is the case, then how can any lab concoct a "live" or "attenuated" virus for a vaccine? Can a lab create a virus---said to be a single strand of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat? Is virology a pseudoscientific discipline built on a foundation of sand? I have asked before and never seen these fundamental questions answered. I had always accepted the standard narrative on viruses that I was taught in medical school 50 years ago. They were basically the default diagnosis for upper respiratory symptoms that were not caused by bacteria and there was nothing one could do beyond symptomatic treatment. But the covid episode showed that these elusive particles could be used create a panic that enabled those with tyrannical tendencies to upend much of normal society and therefore should be reconsidered.
I couldn’t read your review article in Danish. It looks to me that the 2018 paper you cited as not replicating actually used a different age of infants (6-35 months) vs (3-5 months). And the 2018 study had added the BCG vaccine. This is not evidence of a failure to replicate the original study. It was different in several ways. Especially age and BCG vaccine. Nonetheless, they did find a significant effect in girls.
Second point: you criticize that the authors failed to publish the RCT (due to death of and maternity leave of the researchers) They stated this was caused by a lack of funding.
This is not surprising given that funding for safety studies showing harms from vaccines are difficult to obtain.
As you probably know, it is much easier to get funding if you’re planning to find that vaccines are “safe and effective”.
I spent 34 years performing organ transplant compatibility testing in 2 major academic hospitals: 1 adult & 1 pediatric. In 2015 I came across an unusual pattern in a patient's antibodies, those which cause organ rejection and are allegedly and historically attributed to exposure to mismatched blood transfusions, transplanted organs or pregnancy. I just published this work. I was fired for pursuing it (that's not the narrative that was spun to justify it). The combination of EBV and a 2nd virus (superinfection) provides the immune system with a "confusing" state in which it tries to attack components from both viruses simultaneously. The response is called polyspecific. I still have to finish proving it experimentally, but I provide compelling in silico data. These antibodies developed either from superinfection or EBV infection plus vaccination. There was no doubt, from data I could not publish but observed, that the influenza vaccine was responsible for at least 30% transplant rejections. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2025.102197. It's time to start following the science and put money toward that research. HLA are associated with more diseases than any other region of the human genome. And I just opened the door to Pandora's box.
Thank you for your time. Was able to find more folks to block. Why is the right so stuck on autism only? And I do feel bad for all the autistic people out there. Your life is precious and your contribution precious. I’ll do some more studying on measles since we will probably be seeing a lot more of it and all the others since many will be for going vaccinations . Not too worried overall however, because in increase the ratio of blue voters.
You will have to block me too for this explanation. I am not on the right. Rather a liberal scientist.
However, I am absolutely stuck on autism though. The rate of autism in the USA is skyrocketing. And there’s enough evidence (below) that our exploding childhood vaccine schedule is a potential cause. It must be investigated: This is an emergency.
Correlation analysis of number of doses vs prevalence of autism has a correlation of 0.94 w p<0.001
CDC scientists (whistleblowers and FOIA transcripts) have discovered this vaccine:autism data and covered it up.
vax vs unvax studies showing increased autism w OR 4 in vaxed)
Biological studies showing aluminum adjuvants causing brain inflammation.
From the retracted Lancet Wakefield 1998 paper. I don't really understand why it was retracted. And he only made the claim, much like all investigators do, that correlation does not mean causation and that more study is required.
"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.
If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence (22) or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.(23)
We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."
Back when the retraction demands started in the 2000s, others noted what you did. The Wakefield paper was a nearly uninformative case series report with weak post hoc "controls", so it is unclear why Lancet published it in the first place. The story I have pieced together from the very biased reporting on both sides is something like this (to the best of my current information):
When the paper became widely promoted as if it showed an MMR vax-autism link (when it did no such thing and should have been forgotten), it came under intense scrutiny as if some were looking for a way to get it retracted because of the harm it was doing to vaccine uptake. When irregularities with informed consent, lab reports and COIs were uncovered (which could probably be found in many unretracted studies if investigated as thoroughly), Wakefield doubled down on the hypothesis and paper; so his license was revoked based on the irregularities, his lack of contrition about them, and his refusal to disown the hypothesis and paper. Lancet was hesitant to retract the paper, but came under intense pressure from the BMJ; and it is said that the other authors were also threatened with license revocation or other sanctions, hence they agreed to sign on to the retraction request.
In my view, the whole episode should underscore why, in such overcharged topics, no one should trust what any side says without reading the original reports for themselves. We should be equally critical of the reports and the editorials, commentaries, and letters about the reports, wary of the agenda of the authors of all these pieces, and remember that there will be backstory elements hidden from our view.
They won't mention NSE but they will mention RFK. This is how ideas spread. Most people do not see where the idea begins, but the feel the effects of how that idea moves through society.
That being said, the reason most vaccine hesitant individuals are that way is because they do not believe in any institution anymore. This of course means they will believe anything.
"Charlotte Strøm, MD, PhD, Journalist. Founder and owner of SharPen, Medicine in Media"
So when I see "media" I have to wonder does she have any conflicts of interest? So when I looked up SharPen ....under "references" on SharPen website I sure do see a lot of pharma companies. Check it out for yourself,
https://www.sharpen.dk/EnglishReferences.html
Also , here is a link to a substack article by Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD and Christine Stabell Benn about the difference between the USA and Denmark vaccine schedule, also has the podcast if you are interested in hearing Chritine's viewpoints on things.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tracybethhoegmdphd/p/the-child-immunization-schedule-in?r=79kf0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Translated from Danish by Google translate: "Charlotte Strøm is a doctor, PhD and journalist. The combination of these skills provides the shortest and most effective path to sharp communication of medical messages. I understand the basic messages of the pharmaceutical company, biotech or medical technology company and I can interpret and convey the core messages of the company and its products.
With several years of experience from the pharmaceutical industry in working with clinical development of drugs, medical affairs and PR, as well as as a clinician and researcher, the best conditions are in place to understand and speak the language in pharmaceutical companies, with the authorities, among patients and not least among doctors.
Charlotte Strøm has solid experience in writing, submitting and publishing scientific articles as an author and medical writer. She has also published a large number of journalistic articles in healthcare media."
“I can interpret and convey the core messages of the company and its products.”
Thanks for confirming what I suspected from reading her article.
Well there you go, this makes it pretty clear who she is working for. Thank you Hanne Koplev for this Danish to Google translate clarification.
IMO Sensible Medicine needs to show a bit more sense in inviting guest editorials
I feel like a very similar article could be written about the nutritional work that is published in this country.
"In an overview article published in the Danish Medical Journal, I reviewed the largest and the most recent studies. Table 1 from this article gives an overview, albeit in a foreign language. The non-significant findings on hazard ratios (HR) and mortality rate ratios (MRR) are self-explanatory."
- What is self-explanatory there? Every ratio estimate is above 1, showing a positive association in every observational study.
In an overview it is a statistical fallacy to look at the significance of the individual studies, e.g., as explained in items 15 and 16 in
Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, Altman DG. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology 2016;31:337–50,
which should be a free download. The estimates must be combined using a valid method to get summary estimates and P-values. When I apply the Wald summary method to the observational studies in the table, I get a P-value for heterogeneity of 0.48 indicating high consistency among the estimates, and a fixed-effect summary ratio of 1.74, 95% limits of 1.33, 2.27, p<0.001. Other methods vary slightly but still produce p<0.001 for the observational association.
It thus appears that there is indeed a positive observational association somewhere in a broad range. Whether this association is due to NSE depends largely on whether, in all the observational studies, there were confounding factors that increased risk and were more prevalent in the vaccinated groups, both to a degree that completely explains away the positive association. Only two trials are in the table and the number of events in those are too small to conclude anything about that or have much influence on a valid summary of the whole table.
That said, I certainly agree that completed trials should be published and that their data should be made public.
Furthermore, the claim that Stabbel Benns very specified focus of NSE is somehow related to vaccine hesitancy is laughable.
Ask anyone who refuses vaccines what the biggest reason would be, and I doubt you would get one in a thousand who could even articulate the phrase "non-specific effects."
Non Specific effects are an obvious and established reality with any drug. NSE is simply a term to articulate that specific targeted antigens can have other unintended effects.
"My review of the literature " is not a criticism. Be specific- what methodology of the existing literature was incorrect? Where were the errors?
Yes. Good points
Stopped taking this author seriously after within the first two paragraphs she threw out "misinformation" then proceeded to reveal that she's not even specialized in the field.
Weak piece.
Yes, that's when I jumped to the comments.
An aside: You MUST see this! Astonishing! And watch it all. It gets better and better.
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-patrick-soon
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong is a surgeon who made billions inventing cancer drugs. He says that Covid, and the vaccines that didn’t stop it, are likely causing a global epidemic of terrifyingly aggressive cancers. (0:00) Why Are Cancer Rates Rising in Young People?
(6:16) What Is Causing This Cancer Epidemic?
(14:52) Is There a Connection Between Covid and Cancer?
(25:33) Why Dr. Soon-Shiong Never Got Covid
(39:36) How Big Pharma Tried to Undermine Dr. Soon-Shiong
(47:35) Dr. Soon-Shiong’s Analysis of RFK Jr.
(1:02:47) The Healthcare Industry’s Conflict of Interest
(1:05:51) How to Strengthen Your Immune System
(1:10:32) What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About How to Fight Cancer
(1:20:58) Why Hasn’t Anyone Faced Consequences for These Crimes?
(1:33:59) Why Dr. Soon-Shiong Bought the LA Times Includes paid partnerships.
There need to be professional and reputational consequences for investigators who conduct a study then do not publicize results (at the very least with an oral presentation at a meeting….and with subsequent timely publication unless there are the most grievous and extenuating circumstances). It is unethical to have conducted an RCT (and exposed volunteer subjects to potential risk) without subsequently providing that new-found knowledge to the public domain.
If these Danish researchers did an RCT, the public (and the study subjects) deserve those results. They should be banned from funding, and future publication and presentation opportunities, until they do so.
Is the death of the main investigator not grievous, extenuating circumstances?
Peter Aaby is listed as the principle investigator, and as far as I can tell via Google, he’s still alive today, not to mention for all the years after study completion.
How about consequences for the FDA wanting to hide the results of the RCT for 75 years?
The 2018 study has a LCI of 1.0 so there is a signal from several underpowered observational studies. I have machine translated the danish article for us https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_kzHpa2jwLpna-oN-hfvEY9Had7GuACS/edit enjoy.
This article reads like someone who is selling something. Not good science
There seems to be general agreement that no virus has ever been physically or biochemically isolated or successfully grown in tissue culture. If that is the case, then how can any lab concoct a "live" or "attenuated" virus for a vaccine? Can a lab create a virus---said to be a single strand of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat? Is virology a pseudoscientific discipline built on a foundation of sand? I have asked before and never seen these fundamental questions answered. I had always accepted the standard narrative on viruses that I was taught in medical school 50 years ago. They were basically the default diagnosis for upper respiratory symptoms that were not caused by bacteria and there was nothing one could do beyond symptomatic treatment. But the covid episode showed that these elusive particles could be used create a panic that enabled those with tyrannical tendencies to upend much of normal society and therefore should be reconsidered.