How vaccines train the immune system in ways no one expected | Christine Stabell Benn | TEDx, 2019

MY NOTESShow more

We should study the effect that vaccines have on overall health, not just on a specific disease, but we don't do this. The effects on overall health are comprised of two parts:

1. Specific effects: Protective effect against vaccine disease (e.g. polio)
2. Non-specific effects: This comprises all side-effects, which may be both negative and positive.

Vaccines can be divided into the subgroups 'live vaccines' (live polio, measles, tuberculosis, smallpox) and 'non-live vaccines' (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), hepatitis B, influenza, HPV).

Live vaccines contain a little bit of the disease causing pathogen, but so little that it won't lead to severe effects in the vast majority of people. These vaccines are very good at stimulating the immune system, which means you only need one shot to be protected.

Non-live vaccines contain inactivated parts of the pathogen. The advantage of these vaccines is that they can't cause the real disease, even in people with a weak immune system. This is why doctors tend to prefer these kinds of vaccines. A disadvantage is that they are weaker at generating an immune response, which means you need more doses to get an adequate protective effect.

Currently, most administered vaccines are of the non-live type.

Training the immune system with vaccines can be compared to learning to play tennis. Live vaccines are like playing against a real opponent, who may beat you, but you learn better and quicker. Non-live vaccines are like a tennis ball machine: you learn only on stroke with a very specific speed and spot, which does not prepare you well for actual matches.

All live vaccines are associated with very beneficial non-specific effects. They improve overall health much more than can be expected based on their protective effects against a certain disease. For instance, receiving the polio vaccine may lead to health benefits even if you have no risk of being exposed to polio.

All non-live vaccines have negative non-specific effects. Not only do they have negative side-effects, but they may even make you MORE vulnerable to the disease against which you vaccinate (negative efficacy).

A randomized controlled trial in Guinea-Bissau with the live oral polio vaccine at birth, led to a one-third reduction in mortality of vaccinated infants compared to unvaccinated infants. This is not because the infants are protected against polio, because there is very little polio infectious pressure in Guinea-Bissau. Instead, it must be due to beneficial non-specific effects which stimulate the immune system and protect the infant against a wide range of diseases.

The diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine (a non-live vaccine), shows that children who get the vaccine have a 5x HIGHER chance of mortality than unvaccinated children. It appears the DTP has (very) negative non-specific effects. The DTP vaccine may kill more children than it saves, i.e. the prevention is worse than the disease.

The negative non-specific effects of the DTP vaccine are largest in girls. This is the case for all non-live vaccines, and it's unclear why this is the case.

Some relevant questions regarding vaccines:
- Should boys receive different vaccines than girls (e.g. different types, different doses)?
- Should we vaccinate with live vaccines even after diseases have been completely eradicated?

If the existing vaccine schedule in low-income countries is changed by exchanging live vaccines in place of non-live vaccines, this may save 1.1 million children's lives each year. Although the risk of dying in higher income countries is decreased, the same pattern holds in higher income countries. Children who received live vaccines were hospitalized at half the rate of children who received non-live vaccines.

Positive non-specific effects of vaccines may help against asthma, allergies, auto-immune disease, cancer, et cetera.

Why is nothing being done with the crucial findings of Stabell Bell and others? Likely because the people who have the power to change the policies, are all vaccine supporters. They are reluctant to even acknowledge that vaccines might have negative non-specific effects. Instead, they dismiss everything.

Vaccine skeptics tend to focus only on the negative non-specific effects of vaccines, without giving proper credit to positive efficacy and positive non-specific effects.

All live vaccines are gradually being exchanged for non-live vaccines. For example, the plan is to use only non-live polio vaccines starting in 2022. Based on all the available data, this switch will be a public health disaster.

Christina Stabell Benn presents a plea for more research into non-specific effects of vaccines.

SOME VERY BRIEF COMMENTS

The novel genetic COVID jabs seem to be the very worst of the non-live 'vaccines': they have the worst side effects (clotting, inflammation), they increase infection and transmission, and are so incredibly specific that they lead to immune escape / resistance and original antigenic sin, among many other things.

IMO the real health problem in low income countries is not vaccines, but lack of adequate healthy food, basic sanitation (such as sewers) and clean water. If you solve the real problem, you've solved most of the mortality difference between low and high income countries. The big barrier to implementing the real solutions is that adequate healthy food, basic sanitation and clean water are not very profitable. Companies don't want a healthy population. They want a sick population, so they can extract money by 'curing' them.

SOURCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d8PNlXHJ48