By Christine Stabell Benn, Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer, Sebastian Nielsen, and Peter Aaby, Bandim Health Project, University of Southern Denmark and Guinea-Bissau
As a layperson, what stood out to me is that you will be "heavily criticized for saying anything other than vaccines are safe and effective", is disconcerting to say the least. And "pharma bitches"--that's a new one. So Strom has a company that works for the industry? This is such a conflict of interest. This is why it is so important we have new people at the helm--RFKJ in particular. Does a baby really need a Hep B vaccine at birth? 25 shots or so in the first 1.5 years. Seems excessive and should be reviewed. Thank you for being transparent about the DTP vaccine. I hope you don't get fired!
In the third world where it is difficult to get kids past 12 yrs old the loss of such folks due to “shot complication” is truly something we in the West should never be insensitive to as a vac study….you would think those who do these studies do all tgey can to ensure their vac has the lowest possible complications. Unfortunately after we now know from the recent released vac data…something big pharma wanted to bury for 75 yrs…it appears complication risks are but insensitive roadblocks. Deaths are just a number which the leftees will find every reason to keep out of the media…with little attention to the mother’s tears.
Thank you for your insightful reflections in "Vaccine analyses in nonsensible times."
I respectfully suggest that the current political polarization between pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups stems from individual judgments—or prejudices—regarding the perceived benefits and risks of specific vaccines and vaccination in general. For instance, telling someone that vaccines are "safe" may not resonate with individuals who have personally experienced adverse effects, such as vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) (1), neurodegenerative conditions following HPV vaccination (2), or myocarditis and thromboembolic events—especially in young people and children—after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (3).
Socio-anthropological studies indicate that the greater the distance between health policymakers and the possibility that they or their loved ones could be harmed by a policy decision—not only regarding immunization schedules—the more likely they are to emphasize the benefits, both specific and nonspecific, while minimizing to an extreme degree the potential harms, which, although rare, can be devastating (4).
Decision-making becomes even more complicated when interventions are flawed from their inception. In the case of vaccination, there is a widespread yet misguided belief that this human invention could eradicate so-called vaccine-preventable diseases. People often forget that devastating pandemics such as the Plague of Athens (430 BC), the Antonine Plague (165–180 AD), the Plague of Cyprian (249–262 AD), the Plague of Justinian (541–750 AD), the English Sweating Sickness (1485–1551), and the pandemic form of bubonic plague (Black Death), to name a few, occurred throughout the Neolithic and post-Neolithic eras. These were clearly linked to the rise of agriculture and animal domestication under the banner of food security—and were eventually eradicated by "natural effects."
Natural immunization is wise and superior to artificial means. It is clear that where there is real, complete, balanced, sufficient, and adequate food, access to clean water, proper waste disposal, and adequate sun exposure, the immune system is strengthened and capable of resolving virtually any infectious event—even one caused by a novel coronavirus. However, this issue goes beyond biology and touches on the progressive development of intelligence (5).
In essence, we have attempted to enshrine the solution to our most pressing health problems in an artificial vaccine—an attempt to compensate for the obsolescence of our immune system, which has become a victim of civilization. Vaccines can never repair the devastating immunosuppressive effects we have imposed on our biology—especially over the past century—disrupting nearly 30,000 years of evolutionary human adaptation (6).
It is therefore implausible to assume that a moderately specific vaccine (as all vaccines are) could stimulate an immune system depleted of the very elements that make it efficient, or that it could correct the true determinants of health to the extent that we now believe vaccines do.
The vaccination model arguably began with a stroke of luck in 1796 through a poorly designed study—one not recognized even by its aulic proponents —and barely acknowledged by its contemporaries (7): Jenner’s pseudo-experiment with a sample size of one. What if the eight-year-old son of his gardener, whom Jenner riskily inoculated with cowpox matter taken from a cow's udder, had had a negative result or had died from anaphylactic shock following the "trial"? Vaccines might not exist today.
Similarly, the remarkable work of British physician Thomas McKeown in the latter half of the 20th century—curiously ignored or deliberately overlooked by staunch vaccine advocates—demonstrated that nearly all so-called vaccine-preventable diseases, such as tuberculosis, whooping cough, smallpox, and polio, had already begun to decline dramatically decades before their causative agents were identified, effective treatments were available, or safe and effective vaccines had been developed (8).
In the case of polio, for example, incidence in the United States was already declining steadily prior to the large-scale experimental trials of the Salk and Sabin vaccines in the mid-20th century. After these trials, the incidence plateaued, suggesting that eradication was not achieved.
Thus, we must acknowledge that vaccination is an imperfect invention. Not all vaccines are effective—or at least not effective enough to outweigh the occasionally devastating adverse effects, including death. And especially in recent years, the standards for evaluating vaccine trials have been systematically lowered, along with a misleadingly reassuring presentation (2) of their potential harms—harms that, though rare, are not ones I would wish upon a loved one.
Therefore, we must set aside our biases, assess evidence within its proper context, distance ourselves from opinion, and adhere to the scientific evidence. Though not perfect, such evidence must be approached with sensibility—especially in these nonsensible times.
(2) Echeverry-Raad J, Gómez-Fajardo CA, Gamboa-Bernal GA. Scientific vicissitudes of the human papillomavirus vaccine: epidemiological and bioethical conceptual elements for the translation of evidence. Bioeth Updat [Internet]. 2021;7(1):13-24. Available : [https://bit.ly/Echeverry_et_al_2021_Vicisitudes_de_la_vacuna_VPH]
(3) Schmidt-Melchiors, T., Kreiss, J.-P., & Braumann, A. (2022). Adverse effects of vaccinations against the Corona-virus SARS-CoV-2: Insights and hindsights from a statistical perspective. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.08419
(4) Kapiriri, L., & Martin, D. K. (2007). A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries. Health Care Analysis, 15(3), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-007-0042-6
(6) Echeverry-Raad, J. (2025). Man, victim of his own civilization: Towards a Healthy Zone in nutrition, movement, and lifestyles. MEDICOR. Fondo Editorial de la Fundación Universitaria Juan N. Corpas. Bogotá, Colombia. (in press).
I'd be more than happy to collaborate to demonstrate how these vaccines can cause disease. The experiments for proof-of-concept are already planned. Unfortunately, in my current position, I lack the resources to produce the data. Look me up: LinkedIn- Steven Heron, TidbiTs of Transplant Rejection. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2025.102197. email itsabird3@gmail.com
I find this interesting and thank the author for her perspective. Readers like me would really desire a plausible hypothesis by which DPT (or Tdap as the current preparation in the USA is called) might lead to an increase in mortality and more in females than males. Can this be stratified by age, geographic location, socioeconomic class, and presence of underlying disease?
wait, wait. "ethically problematic" to avoid the DTP injection, even though it was one of the specific drivers for the "unavoidably unsafe" excuse used to pass the 1986 Vaccine Manufacturer Lawsuit Immunity (badly misnamed "childhood vaccine") Act?!?
pushing known unsafe injections as "ethically justifiable" made me not want to read any further.
From a non clinical viewpoint I have to wonder if studies from the 1980’s vaccine are equivalent to the current production model of vaccines. In addition why are these vaccines in a three in one manufacturing model? Is the risk from all three illnesses worth the potential destruction of our natural immune systems? Shouldn’t these looked at independently instead of a cocktail of vaccines just in case…
Vaccines are becoming like a religion. Criticizing them is like denying the resurrection. The fanatics who think they have an obligation to suppress all vaccine criticism are the ones creating vaccine hesitancy, not the RFKs. People know that RFK is just one guy with an opinion. But in a world where no one is allowed to look for problems with a medical treatment, they will never be found – even when they exist. This attitude is breaking trust in vaccines.
- One thing worth studying is the detrimenal NSEs of flu vaccines. Most studies - if not all - that report such harms are surely of inactivated vaccines, which would fit the larger pattern.
- Would like to know the authors' take on my hypothesis:
1) Observable harms from DTP predict death, and also drive avoidance of later measles vaccination, creating spurious beneficial NSEs of measles vaccines. (selection bias / confounding by contraindication)
2) And/or, measles vaccine abolishes the immune harm from earlier DTP, hence some or all of the "real" NSEs of measles vaccines only exist in the context of a schedule where children are getting a vaccine they shouldn't be. In other words, stop DTP and the measles NSEs go away.
3) Or conversely, the abolishing of DTP derangement from measles vaccination also just documents the trajectory of the aforementioned selection bias.
The gender differential matches up with these suggestions (i.e. one kills girls and the others saves girls).
- Strom cited two studies claiming failure to replicate. The following from 2022 does not seem to have been mentioned in this present rebuttal:
"It is unfortunately not possible to conduct randomized trials of the primary DTP-series as it is not possible to give the first DTP earlier than 6 weeks and it is ethically problematic to delay it. "
Ethically problematic is the same circular reasoning behind using other vaccines as the "placebo" in the RCTs for licensing. You assume that the risks of the disease are higher than the vaccine, which is the very thing the RCT needs to prove. The only reason i can see to do this is to cover up the safety concerns with the vaccine being tested.
As a layperson, what stood out to me is that you will be "heavily criticized for saying anything other than vaccines are safe and effective", is disconcerting to say the least. And "pharma bitches"--that's a new one. So Strom has a company that works for the industry? This is such a conflict of interest. This is why it is so important we have new people at the helm--RFKJ in particular. Does a baby really need a Hep B vaccine at birth? 25 shots or so in the first 1.5 years. Seems excessive and should be reviewed. Thank you for being transparent about the DTP vaccine. I hope you don't get fired!
In the third world where it is difficult to get kids past 12 yrs old the loss of such folks due to “shot complication” is truly something we in the West should never be insensitive to as a vac study….you would think those who do these studies do all tgey can to ensure their vac has the lowest possible complications. Unfortunately after we now know from the recent released vac data…something big pharma wanted to bury for 75 yrs…it appears complication risks are but insensitive roadblocks. Deaths are just a number which the leftees will find every reason to keep out of the media…with little attention to the mother’s tears.
A voice of reason in a wilderness of idiocy
Dr. Christine Stabell Benn,
Thank you for your insightful reflections in "Vaccine analyses in nonsensible times."
I respectfully suggest that the current political polarization between pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups stems from individual judgments—or prejudices—regarding the perceived benefits and risks of specific vaccines and vaccination in general. For instance, telling someone that vaccines are "safe" may not resonate with individuals who have personally experienced adverse effects, such as vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) (1), neurodegenerative conditions following HPV vaccination (2), or myocarditis and thromboembolic events—especially in young people and children—after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (3).
Socio-anthropological studies indicate that the greater the distance between health policymakers and the possibility that they or their loved ones could be harmed by a policy decision—not only regarding immunization schedules—the more likely they are to emphasize the benefits, both specific and nonspecific, while minimizing to an extreme degree the potential harms, which, although rare, can be devastating (4).
Decision-making becomes even more complicated when interventions are flawed from their inception. In the case of vaccination, there is a widespread yet misguided belief that this human invention could eradicate so-called vaccine-preventable diseases. People often forget that devastating pandemics such as the Plague of Athens (430 BC), the Antonine Plague (165–180 AD), the Plague of Cyprian (249–262 AD), the Plague of Justinian (541–750 AD), the English Sweating Sickness (1485–1551), and the pandemic form of bubonic plague (Black Death), to name a few, occurred throughout the Neolithic and post-Neolithic eras. These were clearly linked to the rise of agriculture and animal domestication under the banner of food security—and were eventually eradicated by "natural effects."
Natural immunization is wise and superior to artificial means. It is clear that where there is real, complete, balanced, sufficient, and adequate food, access to clean water, proper waste disposal, and adequate sun exposure, the immune system is strengthened and capable of resolving virtually any infectious event—even one caused by a novel coronavirus. However, this issue goes beyond biology and touches on the progressive development of intelligence (5).
In essence, we have attempted to enshrine the solution to our most pressing health problems in an artificial vaccine—an attempt to compensate for the obsolescence of our immune system, which has become a victim of civilization. Vaccines can never repair the devastating immunosuppressive effects we have imposed on our biology—especially over the past century—disrupting nearly 30,000 years of evolutionary human adaptation (6).
It is therefore implausible to assume that a moderately specific vaccine (as all vaccines are) could stimulate an immune system depleted of the very elements that make it efficient, or that it could correct the true determinants of health to the extent that we now believe vaccines do.
The vaccination model arguably began with a stroke of luck in 1796 through a poorly designed study—one not recognized even by its aulic proponents —and barely acknowledged by its contemporaries (7): Jenner’s pseudo-experiment with a sample size of one. What if the eight-year-old son of his gardener, whom Jenner riskily inoculated with cowpox matter taken from a cow's udder, had had a negative result or had died from anaphylactic shock following the "trial"? Vaccines might not exist today.
Similarly, the remarkable work of British physician Thomas McKeown in the latter half of the 20th century—curiously ignored or deliberately overlooked by staunch vaccine advocates—demonstrated that nearly all so-called vaccine-preventable diseases, such as tuberculosis, whooping cough, smallpox, and polio, had already begun to decline dramatically decades before their causative agents were identified, effective treatments were available, or safe and effective vaccines had been developed (8).
In the case of polio, for example, incidence in the United States was already declining steadily prior to the large-scale experimental trials of the Salk and Sabin vaccines in the mid-20th century. After these trials, the incidence plateaued, suggesting that eradication was not achieved.
Thus, we must acknowledge that vaccination is an imperfect invention. Not all vaccines are effective—or at least not effective enough to outweigh the occasionally devastating adverse effects, including death. And especially in recent years, the standards for evaluating vaccine trials have been systematically lowered, along with a misleadingly reassuring presentation (2) of their potential harms—harms that, though rare, are not ones I would wish upon a loved one.
Therefore, we must set aside our biases, assess evidence within its proper context, distance ourselves from opinion, and adhere to the scientific evidence. Though not perfect, such evidence must be approached with sensibility—especially in these nonsensible times.
Sincerely,
(1) Andrus, J. K., Strebel, P. M., de Quadros, C. A., & Olivé, J. M. (1995). Risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis in Latin America, 1989–91. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 73(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.1995.0111​:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
(2) Echeverry-Raad J, Gómez-Fajardo CA, Gamboa-Bernal GA. Scientific vicissitudes of the human papillomavirus vaccine: epidemiological and bioethical conceptual elements for the translation of evidence. Bioeth Updat [Internet]. 2021;7(1):13-24. Available : [https://bit.ly/Echeverry_et_al_2021_Vicisitudes_de_la_vacuna_VPH]
(3) Schmidt-Melchiors, T., Kreiss, J.-P., & Braumann, A. (2022). Adverse effects of vaccinations against the Corona-virus SARS-CoV-2: Insights and hindsights from a statistical perspective. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.08419
(4) Kapiriri, L., & Martin, D. K. (2007). A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries. Health Care Analysis, 15(3), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-007-0042-6
(5) McKeown, T., & Record, R. G. (1971). Early environmental influences on the development of intelligence. British medical bulletin, 27(1), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a070814
(6) Echeverry-Raad, J. (2025). Man, victim of his own civilization: Towards a Healthy Zone in nutrition, movement, and lifestyles. MEDICOR. Fondo Editorial de la Fundación Universitaria Juan N. Corpas. Bogotá, Colombia. (in press).
(7) Behbehani A. M. (1983). The smallpox story: life and death of an old disease. Microbiological reviews, 47(4), 455–509. https://doi.org/10.1128/mr.47.4.455-509.1983
(8) McKeown, T. (1979). The role of medicine: Dream, mirage, or nemesis? Princeton University Press.
This is about the most coherent thing I have ever read from a pediatrician.
Thank you, David. A great compliment coming from you, which I truly appreciate.
P.S. By the way, I’m currently a former pediatrician.
I'd be more than happy to collaborate to demonstrate how these vaccines can cause disease. The experiments for proof-of-concept are already planned. Unfortunately, in my current position, I lack the resources to produce the data. Look me up: LinkedIn- Steven Heron, TidbiTs of Transplant Rejection. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2025.102197. email itsabird3@gmail.com
I find this interesting and thank the author for her perspective. Readers like me would really desire a plausible hypothesis by which DPT (or Tdap as the current preparation in the USA is called) might lead to an increase in mortality and more in females than males. Can this be stratified by age, geographic location, socioeconomic class, and presence of underlying disease?
wait, wait. "ethically problematic" to avoid the DTP injection, even though it was one of the specific drivers for the "unavoidably unsafe" excuse used to pass the 1986 Vaccine Manufacturer Lawsuit Immunity (badly misnamed "childhood vaccine") Act?!?
pushing known unsafe injections as "ethically justifiable" made me not want to read any further.
100%
From a non clinical viewpoint I have to wonder if studies from the 1980’s vaccine are equivalent to the current production model of vaccines. In addition why are these vaccines in a three in one manufacturing model? Is the risk from all three illnesses worth the potential destruction of our natural immune systems? Shouldn’t these looked at independently instead of a cocktail of vaccines just in case…
Vaccines are becoming like a religion. Criticizing them is like denying the resurrection. The fanatics who think they have an obligation to suppress all vaccine criticism are the ones creating vaccine hesitancy, not the RFKs. People know that RFK is just one guy with an opinion. But in a world where no one is allowed to look for problems with a medical treatment, they will never be found – even when they exist. This attitude is breaking trust in vaccines.
- One thing worth studying is the detrimenal NSEs of flu vaccines. Most studies - if not all - that report such harms are surely of inactivated vaccines, which would fit the larger pattern.
- Would like to know the authors' take on my hypothesis:
1) Observable harms from DTP predict death, and also drive avoidance of later measles vaccination, creating spurious beneficial NSEs of measles vaccines. (selection bias / confounding by contraindication)
2) And/or, measles vaccine abolishes the immune harm from earlier DTP, hence some or all of the "real" NSEs of measles vaccines only exist in the context of a schedule where children are getting a vaccine they shouldn't be. In other words, stop DTP and the measles NSEs go away.
3) Or conversely, the abolishing of DTP derangement from measles vaccination also just documents the trajectory of the aforementioned selection bias.
The gender differential matches up with these suggestions (i.e. one kills girls and the others saves girls).
- Strom cited two studies claiming failure to replicate. The following from 2022 does not seem to have been mentioned in this present rebuttal:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X21007209?via%3Dihub
A very nice slice and dice!
Was hoping to get a rebuttal. Thanks CSB
Excellent article. Thank you.
"It is unfortunately not possible to conduct randomized trials of the primary DTP-series as it is not possible to give the first DTP earlier than 6 weeks and it is ethically problematic to delay it. "
Ethically problematic is the same circular reasoning behind using other vaccines as the "placebo" in the RCTs for licensing. You assume that the risks of the disease are higher than the vaccine, which is the very thing the RCT needs to prove. The only reason i can see to do this is to cover up the safety concerns with the vaccine being tested.
Check out the TB crisis in Daru, Papua New Guinea, now drug resistant and all vaccinated to the eyeballs.