Today I am reviewing in video format two articles from their respective pro-vaccine organizations: American Academy of Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society
Hi, Mark -- thank you for your question. I am agreed with you that in that sentence/section he is making a direct comparison. In the sentence in the abstract, he might be making the same comparison, but he is not overly clear with this and his stand-alone sentence reads, "Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility." The "more" could be 1) total, or 2) specific to DTwP. If specific to DTwP which was so dangerous that it was removed from the market in several countries due to excess risk and relatively little benefit, then that is a pretty poor comparator for him to rely on, ie, a vaccine that has proven to be not worth the risk. If that is the best he's got, and he is saying that it performed better than the safer DTaP then we are still left with a conundrum. However, he equivocates on the first page with regard to comparative efficacy between TDwP and TDaP: "Despite the fact that in all but 2 of the efficacy trials the DTwP vaccines had greater efficacy than did the DTaP vaccines being studied, DTaP vaccines were licensed and used in many countries throughout the world." You'll notice that in his highly cited paper, he strategically failed to provide citation to this very important claim; the citations that he provides 2 sentences later are to his own work, but he --again-- fails to cite the exact studies that compared TDwP against TDaP but he clearly notes that the data was not clear in showing one better than the other. If they were roughly equal but "all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes" then we are -- as is common with the vaccine studies -- looking for a microscopic benefit to justify huge risk and expense of this fascination with this class of injectables. He also notes on page3 that "IgA antibody occurs only after infection and not after DTwP vaccination" thus again even the supposed "better" of the 2 vaccines is incapable of stopping transmission and reception of the microbe. ... He seems desperate to find any justification for these vaccines... Adding more confusion to his message on page 6 he writes "However, after 3 years, almost no evidence of effectiveness was found, and then "Also, we should consider routinely administering Tdap vaccine every 3 years to all adolescents and adults who were primed with a DTaP vaccine. This suggestion is contrary to that in the current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations." So after he admits that TDaP causes " more susceptibility to pertussis throughout their lifetimes" he then recommends that people get this same vaccine every 3 years--this does not make any sense. He's just desperately trying to justify continued use of vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and which have very little clinical efficacy, especially for an infection that is 4-22x more likely to be completely asymptomatic and without any complications whatsoever while this same natural infection also provides protective IgA mucosal immune response.
Additional thoughts/reply on: https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/high-level-pro-vaccine-medical-organizations Also, notice the title of his article -- noting in particular that he's probably among the very top experts on this subject. His overview is describing the entire field as "112-Year Odyssey" emphasizing the "Mistakes Made." Note that the gist of his article is NOT how great things are and how safe and effective the vaccine is. Clear evidence of harm from TDwP and marginal efficacy at best from TDaP even though it thankfully kills less people. ---THIS IS NOT A SUCCESS STORY. --- And he's full of contradictions as if he's trying to make the best of and put on a happy face for a bad situation: in the very ending conclusion he states " Countries that currently use DTwP vaccines should continue to do so" but he already listed several major countries that "vaccines cause severe neurological disease (vaccine encephalopathy)" ... and " Population-based studies in Sweden, England, and Wales found very high rates for vaccine encephalopathy [63, 64]. The concern regarding vaccine encephalopathy led to discontinuation of DTwP vaccine use in Sweden and Japan." You'll notice he mentions zero alternatives. He is painted into the corner -- and he paints his readers into the same corner -- of either TDaP or TDwP with zero options, .... and this for a rather weak microbe which presents up to 22x more commonly WITH ZERO SYMPTOMS AND ZERO COMPLICATIONS.
Agreed. You also made a few comments in your talk regarding vaccines and their potential role in autism. I recently went through the Childhood developmental disorders course through the Kharrazian Institute and he said that the research is mostly saying that autism is a lack of neuron migration in the first 12-24 weeks of gestation. After that, neuron migration is fixed and the best we can hope for is making better connectivity through a variety of therapies while supporting other systems. Vaccines are further inflaming an already inflamed brain. Is this something you would agree with? Also, I have a digital version of your inflammation mastery book and wondered if you had any support staff that could answer some functional questions I have about it and if you could direct me to them. I can't seem to find any kind of support contact on your different platforms. Thank.
Well, here’s my quick reply to part of what you had said above. The statement that “autism is a lack of neuron migration in the first 12-24 weeks of gestation“ completely fails to account for the cases of autism that have been clearly documented that occurred after birth and even several years after birth. How does he count for this or does he just gloss over it without any details? He’s completely failing to present a model that actually accounts for the observed abnormalities. So his model is inaccurate if he thinks autism begins and ends at weeks 12 to 24 of gestation. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.13516
No, since autism is generally Dx at around 4 years of age he's just stating that the research is saying that this is the foundational cause of autism and by age 3-4 the child has developed enough that the tell tale symptoms of autism now present themselves.
I don’t have paid employees to answer questions about the book but I do have the blogs where I respond to questions for paid subscribers. One of the blogs is more general and the other specific to the book but people can use either one. Follow updates to my INFLAMMATION MASTERY clinical textbook/protocols at https://InflammationMastery.substack.com ... and if you want my commentary on art, architecture, logic, music and more, then follow me at https://HealthyThinking.substack.com
In this section of the paper "Since 1997, the DTaP vaccination policy has created a cohort
of people (the number of which is expanding yearly) who are
more susceptible to repeated clinical illness with B pertussis
infection than are DTwP-vaccinated children. There is no fea
sible way to make this cohort less susceptible." isn't it really referring to the difference between the DTaP and DTwP? Love your stuff, keep it up
Hi, Mark -- thank you for your question. I am agreed with you that in that sentence/section he is making a direct comparison. In the sentence in the abstract, he might be making the same comparison, but he is not overly clear with this and his stand-alone sentence reads, "Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility." The "more" could be 1) total, or 2) specific to DTwP. If specific to DTwP which was so dangerous that it was removed from the market in several countries due to excess risk and relatively little benefit, then that is a pretty poor comparator for him to rely on, ie, a vaccine that has proven to be not worth the risk. If that is the best he's got, and he is saying that it performed better than the safer DTaP then we are still left with a conundrum. However, he equivocates on the first page with regard to comparative efficacy between TDwP and TDaP: "Despite the fact that in all but 2 of the efficacy trials the DTwP vaccines had greater efficacy than did the DTaP vaccines being studied, DTaP vaccines were licensed and used in many countries throughout the world." You'll notice that in his highly cited paper, he strategically failed to provide citation to this very important claim; the citations that he provides 2 sentences later are to his own work, but he --again-- fails to cite the exact studies that compared TDwP against TDaP but he clearly notes that the data was not clear in showing one better than the other. If they were roughly equal but "all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes" then we are -- as is common with the vaccine studies -- looking for a microscopic benefit to justify huge risk and expense of this fascination with this class of injectables. He also notes on page3 that "IgA antibody occurs only after infection and not after DTwP vaccination" thus again even the supposed "better" of the 2 vaccines is incapable of stopping transmission and reception of the microbe. ... He seems desperate to find any justification for these vaccines... Adding more confusion to his message on page 6 he writes "However, after 3 years, almost no evidence of effectiveness was found, and then "Also, we should consider routinely administering Tdap vaccine every 3 years to all adolescents and adults who were primed with a DTaP vaccine. This suggestion is contrary to that in the current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations." So after he admits that TDaP causes " more susceptibility to pertussis throughout their lifetimes" he then recommends that people get this same vaccine every 3 years--this does not make any sense. He's just desperately trying to justify continued use of vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and which have very little clinical efficacy, especially for an infection that is 4-22x more likely to be completely asymptomatic and without any complications whatsoever while this same natural infection also provides protective IgA mucosal immune response.
Additional thoughts/reply on: https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/high-level-pro-vaccine-medical-organizations Also, notice the title of his article -- noting in particular that he's probably among the very top experts on this subject. His overview is describing the entire field as "112-Year Odyssey" emphasizing the "Mistakes Made." Note that the gist of his article is NOT how great things are and how safe and effective the vaccine is. Clear evidence of harm from TDwP and marginal efficacy at best from TDaP even though it thankfully kills less people. ---THIS IS NOT A SUCCESS STORY. --- And he's full of contradictions as if he's trying to make the best of and put on a happy face for a bad situation: in the very ending conclusion he states " Countries that currently use DTwP vaccines should continue to do so" but he already listed several major countries that "vaccines cause severe neurological disease (vaccine encephalopathy)" ... and " Population-based studies in Sweden, England, and Wales found very high rates for vaccine encephalopathy [63, 64]. The concern regarding vaccine encephalopathy led to discontinuation of DTwP vaccine use in Sweden and Japan." You'll notice he mentions zero alternatives. He is painted into the corner -- and he paints his readers into the same corner -- of either TDaP or TDwP with zero options, .... and this for a rather weak microbe which presents up to 22x more commonly WITH ZERO SYMPTOMS AND ZERO COMPLICATIONS.
Agreed. You also made a few comments in your talk regarding vaccines and their potential role in autism. I recently went through the Childhood developmental disorders course through the Kharrazian Institute and he said that the research is mostly saying that autism is a lack of neuron migration in the first 12-24 weeks of gestation. After that, neuron migration is fixed and the best we can hope for is making better connectivity through a variety of therapies while supporting other systems. Vaccines are further inflaming an already inflamed brain. Is this something you would agree with? Also, I have a digital version of your inflammation mastery book and wondered if you had any support staff that could answer some functional questions I have about it and if you could direct me to them. I can't seem to find any kind of support contact on your different platforms. Thank.
Well, here’s my quick reply to part of what you had said above. The statement that “autism is a lack of neuron migration in the first 12-24 weeks of gestation“ completely fails to account for the cases of autism that have been clearly documented that occurred after birth and even several years after birth. How does he count for this or does he just gloss over it without any details? He’s completely failing to present a model that actually accounts for the observed abnormalities. So his model is inaccurate if he thinks autism begins and ends at weeks 12 to 24 of gestation. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.13516
No, since autism is generally Dx at around 4 years of age he's just stating that the research is saying that this is the foundational cause of autism and by age 3-4 the child has developed enough that the tell tale symptoms of autism now present themselves.
I don’t have paid employees to answer questions about the book but I do have the blogs where I respond to questions for paid subscribers. One of the blogs is more general and the other specific to the book but people can use either one. Follow updates to my INFLAMMATION MASTERY clinical textbook/protocols at https://InflammationMastery.substack.com ... and if you want my commentary on art, architecture, logic, music and more, then follow me at https://HealthyThinking.substack.com