Author is skeptical of vaccines because…the US gives more vaccines than Denmark. We are led to believe he wants RFK to change to the danish vaccine schedule, or mandate vaccine trials? I am skeptical myself that he will generate useful evidence.
I found the discussion of nonspecific effects fascinating. In diving into his primary sources though, I am surprised that he uses the evidence of nonspecific effects as reason to support RFK to devalue vaccines. There is broad agreement in the cited literature on the beneficial NSE of live vaccines - live vaccines are even better than I thought!
The idea that killed vaccines increase female mortality is somewhat controversial from what I read based on low study quality and many studies from the same site. Indeed, a recent paper by the group including the author did not find the negative effect they were looking for in DTP (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34217570/). So if the beneficial effects of live vaccines are clear and the negative effects of killed vaccines are unclear, isn’t that a net positive for vaccines? I hope RFK doesn’t get rid of live vaccines.
We seriously need to respect and investigate the perspectives, studies, and recommendations of other nations when it comes to health care. As a retired pediatrician, I cherish this scientist's perspective and recommendations and hope that the new Trump administration appointees will give serious consideration to this and other perspectives.
Good things to think about. Thank you so much for your time in writing this piece. I like to challenge my mind with ideas that are opposite of the ones that I hold true.
Though I am not optimistic that the Sec of Health nominee who misrepresents scientific data is a wise choice, I wish to share my practice experience with systemic necrotizing vasculitis due to unneeded vaccinations.
In the mid 1990s a 31 y.o. female traveling through our community presented with pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). Lesions had begun weeks after her first dose of hepatitis B vaccine and progressed after the 1 month booster. By month 6 when due for her third booster, she was improving. Florid PG involving both legs developed rapidly after this final booster. We did not yet have adalimumab or any anti TNF drugs. She was responding to leflunomide when I transfered care to a rheumatologist in her state of residence. Why did she receive Hep B vaccine? She was the dispatcher for a rescue squad and that employer had a policy that all employees must be vaccinated for Hep B, even though she had no patient contact.
In 2009 a 67 y.o. male was referred to me with new onset PG, deep necrotic leg ulcers with pus and fever, requiring immediate admission. The onset of lesions was 3 weeks after his annual flu shot. No other possible cause was found. I advised that his chart be labeled "allergic to flu vaccine" and advised him never to again receive influenza vaccination. With adalimumab and high dose corticosteroids, followed by a series of surgeries and skin grafts, by 12 months he was in remission and only on alternate day prednisone, tapering. He was disease free at 24 months when he received another flu shot. Within 10 days he was back in my office with necrotic leg ulcers. Again I treated him with adalimumab + high dose corticosteroids. Months later I lost f/u when I reached my planned retirement. Less than a year later I read his obit in the newspaper.
I was in practice for 36 years, primary care internal medicine + rheumatology, outpatient, inpatient, and critical care. Not once in my practice did I have an admission for influenza, nor did I ever have a death from any viral pneumonia. Maybe this was due to our nearly universal administration of seasonal flu vaccine, but maybe not given the poor correlation of chosen vaccine antigens with the immediately following seasons' strains . Vaccination is not always benign. The very serious life altering and potentially fatal complication of systemic necrotizing vasculitis is a recognized entity. With a huge volume of experience, twice I encountered it.
The author agrees that RFK is wrong to assert that the MMR vaccine causes autism and that the HPV vaccine increases risk for cervical cancer. Following RFK's advice here increases risk for measles, mumps, rubella and cervical cancer. To my knowledge, RFK has yet to correct these false claims. He also has a history of making assertions without robust evidence, rather than saying, "I don't know." Under the RCT fundamentalism framework supported by Dr. Prasad and many Sensible readers, this makes him a total failure by the same standard as US COVID policy makers.
The author notes that the US has excess mortality despite outspending every major country, then proposes "probably several causes and some possible explanations":
- Higher use of pesticides such as glyphosate
- Additives in processed foods
- Ultra processed foods
- Seed oils
- Unequal access to health care
- Overconsumption of medicines and vaccines
Are there any RCTs or observational cohort studies that support this?
I can't supply direct references but I recall reading a number of articles over the years that showed the excess mortality in the US was entirely due to accidents and violent crime rather than disease. They claimed that when accidents and crimes of violence are removed, the US longevity figures top the list. By contrast the possible causes you list are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to measure with any degree of certainty despite the frequency with which they are blamed.
Besides the approach to vaccines, public health and regulatory institutions in the US need to change their approach to safer nicotine products (vapes, pouches, snus) as substitute products of deadly tobacco cigarettes. In the UK and NZ public health authorities, as part of their official policies, recommend smokers to switch to these products, but in the US medical institutions, from anti-tobacco NGOs to CDC and FDA deny or question (on weak grounds) their safety relative to smoking. So far, the FDA has placed unjustifiable regulatory barriers approving only 27 products that are seldom used (manufactured by tobacco companies) excluding millions of of products that smokers prefer. The regulatory process of FDA on nicotine products must be completely reformed from its dysfunctional, expensive, lengthy and incompetent state. Finally, massive disinformation must be addressed: vapes are much safer than cigarettes, nicotine is not carcinogenic, youth vaping was concern, but its prevalence has decreased to levels before 2014 (there is no longer a "vaping youth epidemic"), the EVALI crisis in 2019 was not caused by nicotine vapes, but by vaping THR contaminated with vitamin E (the CDC still claims "they don't know", which is irresponsible). Finally, the subject must be judged on the basis of scientific evidence, not by moral concerns or special interests.
Thank you for this guest post about an extremely important topic--the nominee to lead the HHS. Perhaps it is somewhat "political," but I believe it helps readers to learn more and care more about the health leaders in this country. Perhaps it might encourage folks to contact their Senators and become more involved in the appointment of our health leadership... And since the majority of Americans have at least one serious health concern, how can a post discussing the nominee for the highest health leadership role in this country be a bad thing?
Discussion is never bad. SM promotes itself as an alternative venue to mainstream academia and media that specializes in critical analysis. While SM teaches these skills by often challenging mainstream ideas, it does not proportionately teach its readers (or guest authors) when they misapply these skills, whether in comments section responses or a follow-up round-up post.
Also problematic, the editors will “like” certain comments without clarification. Do they like some of it or all of it? Do they like the thought process even when it’s applied wrong? Do they just like the participation? This is all valid, and it’s not reasonable to expect a detailed response to every comment but know that it leaves readers believing their comment is 100% correct.
I may be wrong since I’ve been a subscriber for only a few months, so I welcome links correcting my opinion.
Hi, I have been a subscriber of SM for a pretty long time, and I don't think you should take the Comments as anything more than a discussion section. I enjoy reading the comments and learn a lot from them. However, the SM authors are not spending their time "correcting" comments and informing us as to which are correct or incorrect. It is not their place to be the arbiters of what is correct or incorrect science. Just like Fauci was never "the science," SM is not "the science" either. The whole point of the comments is for people to agree, disagree, a combination of both, add information, add opinions, provide additional evidence, refute evidence, and the list goes on. As it should be! The comments are a marketplace of free speech, thoughts, ideas, brilliance, etc. And we can all use our knowledge, experience, brain power, and critical thinking skills to make decisions about how we will move forward with the information. While SM author/editor comments and likes are always welcomed, if they ever start telling us which comments are right and which are wrong, I will immediately stop my subscription. :)
Let me rephrase. I’m not asking them to judge comments as right or wrong. But when the tools they’ve taught are applied incorrectly, it should be addressed. Otherwise how does one learn they’re going in the wrong direction?
Well stated article, with which I agree. The FDA and CDC are completely in the pockets of Big Pharma, paying for over 75% of their budget. The FDA has "approved over 3,000 chemicals that are allowed in our food supply. These chemicals are all self reported by the Big Chemical companies as GRAS (Generally regarded as Safe). Yet, no long term studies have been conducted and neither have these chemicals been tested in combination with other GRAS chemicals. The US government pays Coka Cola $10 Billion per year to supply their sugar drinks to kids through the Food Stamp Program. Yes! Our medical system and public health agencies are badly broken. We need a massive overhaul and fresh start in the best interest of the patients.
A skeptic should be one who practices in accordance with the scientific method: they will “accept” the null hypothesis, unless compelled to reject the null based on adequate and sufficient causal evidence. The burden is always on the party who makes a positive assertion, to provide proof positive that sustains that assertion. If you say drug x provides a benefit, prove it. If you say vaccine y causes autism, prove it.
“Vaccine safety” is a somewhat different animal. As is the concept of “safety” overall. There is no scientific way to “prove” 100% safety (it would require a trial with an N=inifinity). But we can and should have an NNT (number needed to treat) and an NNH (number needed to harm) for any intervention, in order to be able to meaningfully weigh the risks vs benefits.
RFK jr is a mixed bag. He’s a skeptic, which is good. He’s a quack who alleges weird and unsubstantiated stuff about vaccines, which is bad. He will be a compromise of the good and the bad. I agree with the OP that there are 2 guys who will be strong guardrails in place.
I definitely agree that the FDA is broken….and probably a little corrupt. Burning that down and building it up again won’t be the worst thing.
Interesting to note that the Canadian vaccine schedule is quite similar to the Danish one. The US schedule seems insane, and it’s no wonder that people question whether it serves them, or Pharma interests.
The content is highly variable. Articles like this are political opinions disguised as critical analysis. Many Sensible readers love it not realizing they are deepening their confirmation bias.
Interesting article. All I know is SOMETHING/ONE has to shake things up because trust in public health is gone and the governmental control of it is clear. America is no fan of moderation. Go big or go home. My hope is that the fear mongering stops. I’d love to read Dr. Sloan’s book - my understanding of diet (and exercise) is different so being able to inform myself of alternatives with an open mind is always a good thing.
I'm a family physician and an avid reader of Sensible Medicine's articles, and I agree with most of the opinions including a fairly firm randomized controlled trial near-fundamentalism. I've written a book on diet which I had to self-publish because no publisher would touch it stating that diet has very limited if any effect on health outcomes. Yet here the Sensible Medicine crowd seemed to support RFK Jr in believing in the evil of processed food. Surprising. Where is the evidence?
Do as I say, not as I do. Many Sensible readers espouse RCT fundamentalism when criticizing things they don't agree with, but don't hold their positions to the same standard. For example, this article.
Author is skeptical of vaccines because…the US gives more vaccines than Denmark. We are led to believe he wants RFK to change to the danish vaccine schedule, or mandate vaccine trials? I am skeptical myself that he will generate useful evidence.
I found the discussion of nonspecific effects fascinating. In diving into his primary sources though, I am surprised that he uses the evidence of nonspecific effects as reason to support RFK to devalue vaccines. There is broad agreement in the cited literature on the beneficial NSE of live vaccines - live vaccines are even better than I thought!
The idea that killed vaccines increase female mortality is somewhat controversial from what I read based on low study quality and many studies from the same site. Indeed, a recent paper by the group including the author did not find the negative effect they were looking for in DTP (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34217570/). So if the beneficial effects of live vaccines are clear and the negative effects of killed vaccines are unclear, isn’t that a net positive for vaccines? I hope RFK doesn’t get rid of live vaccines.
We seriously need to respect and investigate the perspectives, studies, and recommendations of other nations when it comes to health care. As a retired pediatrician, I cherish this scientist's perspective and recommendations and hope that the new Trump administration appointees will give serious consideration to this and other perspectives.
Good things to think about. Thank you so much for your time in writing this piece. I like to challenge my mind with ideas that are opposite of the ones that I hold true.
Though I am not optimistic that the Sec of Health nominee who misrepresents scientific data is a wise choice, I wish to share my practice experience with systemic necrotizing vasculitis due to unneeded vaccinations.
In the mid 1990s a 31 y.o. female traveling through our community presented with pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). Lesions had begun weeks after her first dose of hepatitis B vaccine and progressed after the 1 month booster. By month 6 when due for her third booster, she was improving. Florid PG involving both legs developed rapidly after this final booster. We did not yet have adalimumab or any anti TNF drugs. She was responding to leflunomide when I transfered care to a rheumatologist in her state of residence. Why did she receive Hep B vaccine? She was the dispatcher for a rescue squad and that employer had a policy that all employees must be vaccinated for Hep B, even though she had no patient contact.
In 2009 a 67 y.o. male was referred to me with new onset PG, deep necrotic leg ulcers with pus and fever, requiring immediate admission. The onset of lesions was 3 weeks after his annual flu shot. No other possible cause was found. I advised that his chart be labeled "allergic to flu vaccine" and advised him never to again receive influenza vaccination. With adalimumab and high dose corticosteroids, followed by a series of surgeries and skin grafts, by 12 months he was in remission and only on alternate day prednisone, tapering. He was disease free at 24 months when he received another flu shot. Within 10 days he was back in my office with necrotic leg ulcers. Again I treated him with adalimumab + high dose corticosteroids. Months later I lost f/u when I reached my planned retirement. Less than a year later I read his obit in the newspaper.
I was in practice for 36 years, primary care internal medicine + rheumatology, outpatient, inpatient, and critical care. Not once in my practice did I have an admission for influenza, nor did I ever have a death from any viral pneumonia. Maybe this was due to our nearly universal administration of seasonal flu vaccine, but maybe not given the poor correlation of chosen vaccine antigens with the immediately following seasons' strains . Vaccination is not always benign. The very serious life altering and potentially fatal complication of systemic necrotizing vasculitis is a recognized entity. With a huge volume of experience, twice I encountered it.
The author agrees that RFK is wrong to assert that the MMR vaccine causes autism and that the HPV vaccine increases risk for cervical cancer. Following RFK's advice here increases risk for measles, mumps, rubella and cervical cancer. To my knowledge, RFK has yet to correct these false claims. He also has a history of making assertions without robust evidence, rather than saying, "I don't know." Under the RCT fundamentalism framework supported by Dr. Prasad and many Sensible readers, this makes him a total failure by the same standard as US COVID policy makers.
The author notes that the US has excess mortality despite outspending every major country, then proposes "probably several causes and some possible explanations":
- Higher use of pesticides such as glyphosate
- Additives in processed foods
- Ultra processed foods
- Seed oils
- Unequal access to health care
- Overconsumption of medicines and vaccines
Are there any RCTs or observational cohort studies that support this?
I can't supply direct references but I recall reading a number of articles over the years that showed the excess mortality in the US was entirely due to accidents and violent crime rather than disease. They claimed that when accidents and crimes of violence are removed, the US longevity figures top the list. By contrast the possible causes you list are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to measure with any degree of certainty despite the frequency with which they are blamed.
Besides the approach to vaccines, public health and regulatory institutions in the US need to change their approach to safer nicotine products (vapes, pouches, snus) as substitute products of deadly tobacco cigarettes. In the UK and NZ public health authorities, as part of their official policies, recommend smokers to switch to these products, but in the US medical institutions, from anti-tobacco NGOs to CDC and FDA deny or question (on weak grounds) their safety relative to smoking. So far, the FDA has placed unjustifiable regulatory barriers approving only 27 products that are seldom used (manufactured by tobacco companies) excluding millions of of products that smokers prefer. The regulatory process of FDA on nicotine products must be completely reformed from its dysfunctional, expensive, lengthy and incompetent state. Finally, massive disinformation must be addressed: vapes are much safer than cigarettes, nicotine is not carcinogenic, youth vaping was concern, but its prevalence has decreased to levels before 2014 (there is no longer a "vaping youth epidemic"), the EVALI crisis in 2019 was not caused by nicotine vapes, but by vaping THR contaminated with vitamin E (the CDC still claims "they don't know", which is irresponsible). Finally, the subject must be judged on the basis of scientific evidence, not by moral concerns or special interests.
Thank you for this guest post about an extremely important topic--the nominee to lead the HHS. Perhaps it is somewhat "political," but I believe it helps readers to learn more and care more about the health leaders in this country. Perhaps it might encourage folks to contact their Senators and become more involved in the appointment of our health leadership... And since the majority of Americans have at least one serious health concern, how can a post discussing the nominee for the highest health leadership role in this country be a bad thing?
Discussion is never bad. SM promotes itself as an alternative venue to mainstream academia and media that specializes in critical analysis. While SM teaches these skills by often challenging mainstream ideas, it does not proportionately teach its readers (or guest authors) when they misapply these skills, whether in comments section responses or a follow-up round-up post.
Also problematic, the editors will “like” certain comments without clarification. Do they like some of it or all of it? Do they like the thought process even when it’s applied wrong? Do they just like the participation? This is all valid, and it’s not reasonable to expect a detailed response to every comment but know that it leaves readers believing their comment is 100% correct.
I may be wrong since I’ve been a subscriber for only a few months, so I welcome links correcting my opinion.
Hi, I have been a subscriber of SM for a pretty long time, and I don't think you should take the Comments as anything more than a discussion section. I enjoy reading the comments and learn a lot from them. However, the SM authors are not spending their time "correcting" comments and informing us as to which are correct or incorrect. It is not their place to be the arbiters of what is correct or incorrect science. Just like Fauci was never "the science," SM is not "the science" either. The whole point of the comments is for people to agree, disagree, a combination of both, add information, add opinions, provide additional evidence, refute evidence, and the list goes on. As it should be! The comments are a marketplace of free speech, thoughts, ideas, brilliance, etc. And we can all use our knowledge, experience, brain power, and critical thinking skills to make decisions about how we will move forward with the information. While SM author/editor comments and likes are always welcomed, if they ever start telling us which comments are right and which are wrong, I will immediately stop my subscription. :)
Let me rephrase. I’m not asking them to judge comments as right or wrong. But when the tools they’ve taught are applied incorrectly, it should be addressed. Otherwise how does one learn they’re going in the wrong direction?
Well stated article, with which I agree. The FDA and CDC are completely in the pockets of Big Pharma, paying for over 75% of their budget. The FDA has "approved over 3,000 chemicals that are allowed in our food supply. These chemicals are all self reported by the Big Chemical companies as GRAS (Generally regarded as Safe). Yet, no long term studies have been conducted and neither have these chemicals been tested in combination with other GRAS chemicals. The US government pays Coka Cola $10 Billion per year to supply their sugar drinks to kids through the Food Stamp Program. Yes! Our medical system and public health agencies are badly broken. We need a massive overhaul and fresh start in the best interest of the patients.
Enjoyed the article.
A skeptic should be one who practices in accordance with the scientific method: they will “accept” the null hypothesis, unless compelled to reject the null based on adequate and sufficient causal evidence. The burden is always on the party who makes a positive assertion, to provide proof positive that sustains that assertion. If you say drug x provides a benefit, prove it. If you say vaccine y causes autism, prove it.
“Vaccine safety” is a somewhat different animal. As is the concept of “safety” overall. There is no scientific way to “prove” 100% safety (it would require a trial with an N=inifinity). But we can and should have an NNT (number needed to treat) and an NNH (number needed to harm) for any intervention, in order to be able to meaningfully weigh the risks vs benefits.
RFK jr is a mixed bag. He’s a skeptic, which is good. He’s a quack who alleges weird and unsubstantiated stuff about vaccines, which is bad. He will be a compromise of the good and the bad. I agree with the OP that there are 2 guys who will be strong guardrails in place.
I definitely agree that the FDA is broken….and probably a little corrupt. Burning that down and building it up again won’t be the worst thing.
Interesting to note that the Canadian vaccine schedule is quite similar to the Danish one. The US schedule seems insane, and it’s no wonder that people question whether it serves them, or Pharma interests.
I wish Sensible Medicine would stick with the reason I subscribed: critical analysis of the research...rather than political opinions.
SM provides both. Today's opinion piece was not disguised at all to nuanced readers
The content is highly variable. Articles like this are political opinions disguised as critical analysis. Many Sensible readers love it not realizing they are deepening their confirmation bias.
Agreed. It’s frustrating.
Interesting article. All I know is SOMETHING/ONE has to shake things up because trust in public health is gone and the governmental control of it is clear. America is no fan of moderation. Go big or go home. My hope is that the fear mongering stops. I’d love to read Dr. Sloan’s book - my understanding of diet (and exercise) is different so being able to inform myself of alternatives with an open mind is always a good thing.
I'm a family physician and an avid reader of Sensible Medicine's articles, and I agree with most of the opinions including a fairly firm randomized controlled trial near-fundamentalism. I've written a book on diet which I had to self-publish because no publisher would touch it stating that diet has very limited if any effect on health outcomes. Yet here the Sensible Medicine crowd seemed to support RFK Jr in believing in the evil of processed food. Surprising. Where is the evidence?
Thanks
John P Sloan MD
Do as I say, not as I do. Many Sensible readers espouse RCT fundamentalism when criticizing things they don't agree with, but don't hold their positions to the same standard. For example, this article.