by Jay Bhattacharya
Tuesday, 3
May 2022
Video
16:28

Study into mRNA vaccine death rates sends ‘danger signals’

A new study reveals disparities in all-cause mortality between mRNA and adenovirus vaccines
by Jay Bhattacharya

Do the covid vaccines save lives? That is the question on many people’s minds, that has led to heated discussions across the world.

A bombshell new study by a distinguished team of Danish researchers led by Prof. Christine Stabell-Benn suggests a surprisingly nuanced answer. In the randomized trials of the covid vaccines, the adenovector-based vaccines, including the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, reduced all-cause mortality of study participants relative to people randomly assigned a placebo. Indeed, the reduction in mortality is larger than expected from the Covid effect and may suggest additional beneficial “non-specific effects” from those vaccines against other health threats.

On the other hand, Stabell-Benn and her colleagues found no statistically meaningful evidence in the trial data that the mRNA vaccines reduced all-cause mortality. The numbers of deaths from other causes including cardiovascular deaths appear to be increased in this group, compensating for the beneficial effect of the vaccines on Covid. Stabell-Benn is keen to stress that the sample is relatively small and is calling for further investigation, and also that the study took place during very low levels of Covid, so the relative advantage of protection against Covid would have been smaller at that time compared to at other points in the pandemic.

However, these preliminary results stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous message from public health agencies and governments worldwide, which granted emergency authorization to the vaccines based on evidence from the trials that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting symptomatic covid. From a purely scientific perspective, preventing symptomatic covid is an interesting outcome to study. From a public health perspective, prevention of covid symptoms is not as important as prevention of death or disease transmission, which the randomized trials did not study. Dr. Stabell Benn and her colleagues have now looked at overall mortality for the first time.

At the very least, the plain implication (since both sets of vaccines are available) is that public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients.

In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake, and that AZ was actually a better option than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

It offers a potential contributory explanation for the better overall mortality outcomes in the UK (which overwhelmingly used the AZ vaccine) than much of continental Europe (which phased out the AZ vaccine) after the vaccine programme in the second half of 2021. 

Since its publication in pre-print, the Stabell-Benn study has received very little coverage in the media. As Dr Stabell-Benn told Freddie Sayers in her UnHerd interview, she has become used to this reticence: 

I have been in this game for now almost thirty years, studying vaccines and finding these non-specific effects which have been very controversial. There are strong powers out there that don’t really want to hear about them. But to me this is good news: it means that we can optimize the use of vaccines to not only be strong protective effects against vaccine disease, but we can also optimize their use in terms of overall health.
- Professor Christine Stabell-Benn, UnHerd

The reaction 

For a study with such a consequential conclusion, review from independent experts is crucial. In the past, such peer-review took place in anonymity, behind the closed doors of a scientific journal, with a single editor or associate editor serving as an umpire. Because of the small number of people involved in the review, the peer-review process is subject to well-known biases and long delays (months or longer). Worse, the public never had access to these deliberations and was asked to take it as an article of faith that a published peer-reviewed paper presented accurate conclusions.

A better process for the scientific review of some important papers has emerged during the pandemic – open peer review whereby the public can see the conversation among scientific experts. Though the Danish team released their paper in early April, it was an online review by vaccine safety expert and world-renowned epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff that catalyzed a discussion by scientists about it.

In his review, Kulldorff pointed to the clear implication of the results of the Danish paper. When both mRNA and adenovector vaccines are available, it’s better to take the vaccine with good randomized evidence of reductions in all-cause mortality rather than taking a vaccine where we cannot tell from the best evidence whether it reduces mortality. Kulldorff called for a new randomized controlled trial of the mRNA vaccine to find out if they can compete with the adenovirus-vector vaccines – as should occur in medicine whenever an effective intervention exists and another intervention seeks to show that it is as good or better. He also suggested that it is inappropriate to mandate vaccines for which the randomized clinical trials show a null result for mortality. 

Kulldorff’s open peer-review stoked some discussion among scientists about the feasibility of running a randomized trial comparing the vaccines. Mortality rates from covid infection – due partly to high levels of population immunity from covid recovery – are low, so a large sample size would be necessary to detect a difference. Whether such a study is even feasible is an open question, as is the importance of such a study. This kind of constructive discussion happens all the time in science.

However, some scientists – including zero-covid advocate Deepti Guradsani – reacted to Kulldorff’s article with public smears, false accusations of spreading vaccine misinformation, and the usual claims about right-wing connections. Even Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust and a prominent architect of the pandemic policy in the UK, joined the fray by promoting such smears on his Twitter feed. 

Kulldorff is a prominent vaccine scientist who has presented his honest views on the covid vaccines, even when they go against the established narrative. In March 2021, he lost his position as an advisor to the US CDC for recommending against pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for older Americans – an action that effectively killed the demand for the adenovirus vector vaccines in the US. He is the only person I know who the CDC has fired for being too pro-vaccine.  

When scientists slander prominent vaccine scientists, that damages vaccine confidence. Scientists should be encouraged to evaluate, compare and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different vaccines, and to be free to advocate for one vaccine over another. Farrar’s promotion of the lies is particularly insidious because it sends a signal to scientists who might be interested in funding from the Wellcome Trust to shy away from voicing their honest thoughts about the Danish study or vaccines in general.

The stakes in the discussion about this paper are tremendously high. Of course, for the public at large, what covid vaccine is best for them is literally a life-and-death question. For scientists, at stake is the ability to participate honestly in open scientific reviews of hot button topics without having to face smears and reputational damage based on lies by other prominent scientists. If scientists lose their ability to reason publicly about studies like the ground-breaking Danish study, physicians will have no solid basis for their advice to patients on this topic or much else, and the public will have no reason to trust physicians and scientists.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
34 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
3 months ago

I’m hearing more stories from friends and relatives about side effects from the mRNA vaccine booster shot. Some people, including me, are reacting very strongly to it and sometimes new or existing health conditions flare up. This phenomenon is little reported in the media. My last remaining aunt, who is in her eighties, is now reluctant to receive a second booster because of her reaction to the first one, even though she is at high risk from covid. The adenovirus-based vaccines are an important alternative to the mRNA shots.
I’m not antivax and I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but collective experience now suggests there are aspects to the mRNA vaccines not being fully and fairly reported. Many thanks to experts such as Drs. Stabell-Benn and Bhattacharya for continuing to push for open discussion around covid disease and vaccination.

Bob Sleigh
Bob Sleigh
3 months ago

In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake

Of course, this will surely have nothing to do with the fact that Ursula von der Leyen is married to the Medical Director of the US biotech company Orgenesis, which has close links to Pfizer.

Bruno Lucy
Bruno Lucy
3 months ago
Reply to  Bob Sleigh

May have been ??? wit was a b….y blunder and I bet you that Valneva who is taking a beating on the stock market will be on the rebound the minute brokers hear of this story.
since I first wrote this post, the New York Times covid thread sent me to this ……which pretty much matches what this danish Professor says. Plus….I googled her….not one nasty word about who she is what she does. Interesting figure about Japan and that works for the rest of the world…..20 % infect about 85 %. Stay away from crowd, especially inside, enjoy the outdoor/ side……simply what the swedes have said all along without any lockdown.

  • 5. 
  • BCG vaccine used in Japan confers protection against COVID-19.

Japan, like many other countries including China, Korea, India, and the Russian Federation, have mandatory childhood BCG vaccines against tuberculosis. These countries have so far a relatively low per capita death rate from COVID-19 compared to countries that have no mandatory BCG vaccines (USA, Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands). What further distinguishes Japan is that the BCG vaccine strain used in Japan, Brazil, and Russia is one of the original strains, while further modified BCG strains are used for vaccination in European countries. This association between BCG vaccination and apparent low COVID-19 incidence in Japan has spurred the idea that these two things may be linked (for more discussions on this topic, visit https://www.jsatonotes.com/2020/03/if-i-were-north-americaneuropeanaustral.html and https://news.yahoo.co.jp/byline/kimuramasato/20200405-00171556/).
How would BCG, an attenuated bacterial vaccine completely unrelated to COVID-19, provide protection? Michai Netea and colleagues hypothesized that the vaccine may boost “trained immunity” (Netea et al2016)—in other words, certain immune stimuli may induce a prolonged state of resistance against pathogens in general, by elevating the expression levels of resistance factors. Studies have shown that receipt of BCG vaccine was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality within the first 1–60 months: The average relative risks were 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.49–1.01) from five clinical trials (Higgins et al2016). Furthermore, Netea and colleagues showed that BCG vaccination reduced the levels of viremia caused by the yellow fever virus live attenuated vaccine (Arts et al2018), and post-BCG increase of IL-1β production strongly correlated with lower viremia after yellow fever virus administration. A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of 1,000 healthcare workers in The Netherlands has started, and a similar trial is planned to begin at the Max Planck Institute (de Vrieze, 2020). The outcomes of these trials will help us to understand whether and how BCG confers resistance to other pathogens including SARS-CoV-2.

Last edited 3 months ago by Bruno Lucy
Peter Dawson
Peter Dawson
3 months ago
Reply to  Bruno Lucy

I had been wondering if anyone had done a study on those who had a BCG inoculation versus those who had not.
Another useful – and well known – weapon in the armoury against panicdemics perhaps?

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
3 months ago
Reply to  Bob Sleigh

This highlights the problems of mixing political decision making with the supposedly disinterested process of scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of different vaccines and why commercial interests can lead to attempts to smear rival views. Did Ursula VDL support Pfizer over Astra for political or commercial reasons or from a genuine belief that she was making the right disinterested call? Who knows. Highlighting the family connection while being suspicious could, of course, be regarded as the sort of smear that is used by the advocated of Astra. The difficulty of analysing scientific trials and the pressures of politics and commerce combine to result in understandable paranoia among the public.

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
3 months ago
Reply to  Bob Sleigh

ah Pfizer… that company who just reported $7BN(!) in PROFITS(!) recently… well well…

Warren T
Warren T
3 months ago
Reply to  Bob Sleigh

I sometimes wonder how much our “leaders” grin and twist their lips slyly when alone with themselves after they contemplate what they do in order to increase their enormous wealth at the expense of the common person. It takes a unique individual to gain satisfaction from that and yet sleep at night, completely debased and soulless.

Last edited 3 months ago by Warren T
Carol Frame
Carol Frame
3 months ago

My son died two days after receiving his first Pfizer vaccine. He was 46 years old and Type 1 diabetic since he was 22 months old. He had chest pains that evening and went to the ER and went home and died in his sleep on the third night. Autopsy concluded that he died from arteriosclerosis. He was in good health otherwise. I believe the vaccine caused it. I had received both vaccines (Pfizer) before he received his and am having my first episode of shingles a year later. I believe more studies need to be done. The hype to vaccinate the world so quickly may have done more damage than good.

Retan King
Retan King
3 months ago
Reply to  Carol Frame

Very sorry to hear that Carol. I developed a clot in my knee. Please see my other post here.

bob thrasher
bob thrasher
3 months ago

Now that the vax’s are obsolete what’s the point of getting either one? I wasn’t ANTI-VAX…. before NOW!

Retan King
Retan King
3 months ago

When I received my first Pfizer shot, I developed a swelling in my right knee within 24 hours. I checked into emergency a couple of days later and a young doctor after checking out the condition insisted that this is not a blood clot but an infection or an injury inside the knee, even though he could not produce evidence for either. The timing he said was purely coincidental. I insisted on a blood test, which he authorized. A D-Dimer test was performed on the blood sample and a week later the result came back. Indeed it was a blood clot. After two weeks, the clot subsided. I feel pretty lucky that this did not develop in a critical place. I had no symptoms in my next Pfizer and Moderna shots.
I find it unnerving that physicians have become politicized and so readily wish to push a certain narrative, because they believe it to be socially beneficial. That is not the job of the emergency room doctor to decide on social benefits. It is unethical for a physician to put the unproven or even proven good of the “community” over the imminent safety of the individual. If I had known about this Danish study at that time, I would have taken the AZ or J&J vaccine.

Last edited 3 months ago by Retan King
Bruno Lucy
Bruno Lucy
3 months ago

Merkel is the one who shot Astrazenecca like a clay pigeon, joined. 45 minutes later out of Montauban by Macron himself who had not a single clue.
The Germans did it……so we have to join. Look at the mess we’re in after this profound uttering !!!
Merkel hiding in her cave now…..not so smug
q’d here what comes out à study regarding Japan and why they didn’t suffer the same ordeal Europe did. Talk about population density which what I get when mentioning Sweden. Incidentally, it is Norbotten, the most north province not exactly known for its population density, that there was the most cases at the peak of the pandemic.

  • 5. 
  • BCG vaccine used in Japan confers protection against COVID-19.

Japan, like many other countries including China, Korea, India, and the Russian Federation, have mandatory childhood BCG vaccines against tuberculosis. These countries have so far a relatively low per capita death rate from COVID-19 compared to countries that have no mandatory BCG vaccines (USA, Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands). What further distinguishes Japan is that the BCG vaccine strain used in Japan, Brazil, and Russia is one of the original strains, while further modified BCG strains are used for vaccination in European countries. This association between BCG vaccination and apparent low COVID-19 incidence in Japan has spurred the idea that these two things may be linked (for more discussions on this topic, visit https://www.jsatonotes.com/2020/03/if-i-were-north-americaneuropeanaustral.html and https://news.yahoo.co.jp/byline/kimuramasato/20200405-00171556/).
How would BCG, an attenuated bacterial vaccine completely unrelated to COVID-19, provide protection? Michai Netea and colleagues hypothesized that the vaccine may boost “trained immunity” (Netea et al2016)—in other words, certain immune stimuli may induce a prolonged state of resistance against pathogens in general, by elevating the expression levels of resistance factors. Studies have shown that receipt of BCG vaccine was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality within the first 1–60 months: The average relative risks were 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.49–1.01) from five clinical trials (Higgins et al2016). Furthermore, Netea and colleagues showed that BCG vaccination reduced the levels of viremia caused by the yellow fever virus live attenuated vaccine (Arts et al2018), and post-BCG increase of IL-1β production strongly correlated with lower viremia after yellow fever virus administration. A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of 1,000 healthcare workers in The Netherlands has started, and a similar trial is planned to begin at the Max Planck Institute (de Vrieze, 2020). The outcomes of these trials will help us to understand whether and how BCG confers resistance to other pathogens including SARS-CoV-2.

Last edited 3 months ago by Bruno Lucy
Jack Neill
Jack Neill
3 months ago

I had the J&J with booster since at least tried technology. I believe its a simple case of pay-for-play with the FDA. It is a thoroughly corrupt agency. Pfizer has always been given the inside track even though Moderna has been shown to perform better than Pfizer. I am not surprised and am delighted to see the adenovector vaccines perform best.

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
3 months ago
Last edited 3 months ago by Jürg Gassmann
John Byk
John Byk
3 months ago

Well it looks like the so called scientific revolution ends with covid because nobody knows what the f is really happening for sure.

Gayle Rosenthal
Gayle Rosenthal
3 months ago

Less than one year after receiving the Pfizer doses of Covid vaccine I became ill with giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica, an autoimmune disease of the vascular system. It’s a rare disease. I wonder if the incidence will rise in the future ?
My cousins suffered flare ups of existing illnesses. I am not anti-vax but I think more research is needed on the immune compromised and vaccines.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
3 months ago

Sorry to be dense. Can someone explain what all-cause mortality means and how it is measured?
I have an idea of what it means but I’m not sure. So you take a group of people who have been given the same vaccine and then you count how many of them die for whatever reason. But there must be a time limit on that since we will all die sometime. And also does it make any difference if those people were healthy or not before the vaccine was administered.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
3 months ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

You take the people who have received one vaccine, and then count how many have died, from all causes. You then compare them to the people who got a different vaccine, or no vaccine at all. If when you are done counting, you conclude that the people who got mRNA vaccines, while not dying of covid, are dying of other things at a much higher rate than those who did not, you begin to worry if the mRNA vaccines depress your immune system so much that diseases you already had cannot be dealt with on an ongoing basis. Vaccinated people are reporting a surge in herpes type viral diseases, epstein-barr (mononucleois) and CMV infections. These are the sort of things that sit around dormant in most people who have recovered from them and never, or rarely cause them trouble again. They also do not usually kill you, even if they do reoccur. So we need to drill down more on ‘is there a pattern as to how these people died?’ But things like Epstein-Barr, which up until very recently was filed under ‘virus of no particular concern, though mononucleosis is very annoying’ and which is present in 95% of people world-wide is now known to be implicated for something like 40% of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and is now implicated for Multiple Sclerosis, too. Since we don’t know the exact mechanism about how this happens, we don’t know how dangerous to your health having your EBV come out of where it has been lying dormant is. But the answer could be, _very_.
And, of course, EBV is just one virus ….

Last edited 3 months ago by Laura Creighton
Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
3 months ago

Thanks Laura, when you say “count how many have died” shouldn’t there be some kind of time limit on that? Wouldn’t you have to say something like “count how many have died within 6 months of the vaccination”. Because we all die sometime. I’m not trying to be funny but “Any cause” covers a wide range of effects some long term and some short term. I was thinking of the practicalities of actually collecting the data. You’ve got a list of people who were vaccinated, when they were vaccinated and when they died. I assume you don’t need to know what caused their death (which might be ‘run over by a bus’) only that they died. In this study I guess it covers a period of say 12 to 18 months after vaccination so any affects longer than that would not be noticed. Is that right?

J Bryant
J Bryant
3 months ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

The answer to your question can be found in the ‘Methods’ section of the study publication which can be reached using the link in the article. The answer is a bit complicated.
In brief, in January 2022 they searched PubMed for all random controlled trials of mRNA and adenovirus covid vaccines. They grouped deaths of all trial participants into various categories (covid, accident, etc).
They examined mortality risk (overall risk of dying as result of vaccination as measured during the follow up periods of the underlying vaccination studies) rather than mortality rate (risk of dying in a specific time period) because the follow up times after vaccination were not the same for all vaccine studies analyzed in this meta-analysis. I think that’s the key study design feature for your question. You’re doubtless correct that if you follow a group of people long enough they all die. In this meta-analysis, the longest period of time in which risk of dying was measured was the longest analysis period in any of the vaccine studies combined in this meta-analysis, which was a few months. Hope that helps.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
3 months ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

Hi Steve,
“All-cause mortality” does literally mean ‘death from any/all causes’, yes.
Clinical trials often (though not always) include ‘all-cause mortality as a ‘clinical endpoint’, which means that they monitor this metric in addition to other metrics they’re running the trials to establish. An example…

Let’s rewind back to the early days of developing cancer drugs, and a trial is being done to see if this exciting new drug can successfully shrink a tumour, and if so by how much. So tumour shrinkage is the key clinical endpoint of this trial. So far so good.

But, what if it turns out that the drug is great at shrinking tumours, but it’s also highly toxic and is killing the participants (not just their tumours). This is crucial to know, because the goal of medicine is overall health. We don’t want to shrink a tumour but kill the patient, so it’s common to add all-cause mortality as a further clinical endpoint, so we can monitor whether people in the intervention group are dying at a lower or higher rate than the control group.

So why monitor ‘all causes’ of mortality, and not just ‘did people die of drug-related reactions’ in this trial? …the answer is that the drug could be causing harm/death in patients, via opaque mechanisms that are hard to attribute. All-cause mortality is crude metric (and often other clinical endpoints are used as well to check for further specific health markers) but ACM let’s us see the headline safety signal very clearly. If more people are dying in the intervention group than in the placebo group, then we have an alarm going off and we can respond to that safety signal quickly and investigate.

To your question about timeframes for monitoring adverse effects and death, it varies by study. Naturally, if you wanted to game the system and have your drug look better, you’d have a shorter monitoring window (or perhaps not even include ACM as a clinical endpoint… cough, cough, Pfizer). That would be bad practice, but it happens a lot.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
3 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Thanks JJ, There is another time effect I thought of. Suppose vaccine A works brilliantly. It gives 100% protection. But only for a month after which it gives no protection. Vaccine B only gives say 50% protection but it gives that protection for 3 months. I’m not sure of the maths here but I think if you looked at the figures over a 1 month period vaccine A would look best. Over a 3 month period vaccine B would look best.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
3 months ago
Reply to  Steve Elliott

It’s actually worse than that. Let us say that you are an evil person, and have produced a substance which, when injected, for 10 days makes it very much more likely that you will catch covid. It doesn’t protect against the disease at all. (Note, I am not saying that this is what the existing vaccines are. This is a thought experiment.)
Then you design a trial where people aren’t counted as vaccinated until 14 days after having received their dose. You then go out and vaccinate people. The only result of this is that lots of newly vaccinated people get sick, by your design. And many die. But all of them will be counted in the unvaccinated side of the ledger. This would be a case of ‘how to lie with statistics’ in its simple and pure form. The more you harmed people, the better your results would look.
This is the sort of lying that people who are in positions of public trust are supposed to protect the public against. And it’s easy to check for. It’s not as if the people who run the trials don’t know when the people caught the disease, and couldn’t answer questions about the incidence in the newly vaccinated. ‘Would it be a good idea for people to isolate for 14 days after receiving a dose of the vaccine?’ is something that we ought to be able to answer. “Yes. No. Not when cases are low, but yes when they are over such-and-such threshold”. It’s not that hard a question, given that you have the data.
But when you look at the results of drug trials, what you often see is a game of cat-and-mouse where the drug manufacturers are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the regulators. Or worse, where the regulators are already captured, and just need some study to cloak their decisions with the appearance of good judgement.
This is why we need to take the drug trials out of the hands of the industry that produces them, and approval out of an administrative class that is shielded from all responsibility when things turn out badly, and hand it over to something that more subject to popular control and oversight.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
3 months ago

Thanks for that explanation. Few treatments are entirely without side effects and it takes time to establish what they are and whether the burden of the side effects outweighs the benefits. Unfortunately, commercial and/or political pressures can delay or disrupt acceptance of the scientific work done to establish where the balance lies.

Leonard Friedman
Leonard Friedman
3 months ago

This may be wide of the mark but more major league players are being hit by pitches thrown this year. Is part of the side effect of MRNA a weakening of the heart muscles and a change in the energy patterns of muscles in general. Just musing.
L Friedman

Warren T
Warren T
3 months ago

Rising prices for petrol might be another side effect.

R W
R W
2 months ago

I am 58 years old, and I have 4 adult children, 2 of them and myself have been vaccinated with the MRNA Vaccines. I have received 3 doses of the Pfizer Vaccine, my Son (age 25) has received 2 doses of the Pfizer Vaccine and my Daughter (age 38) has received 2 doses of the Moderna Vaccine. ALL 3 of us have become very ill since being vaccinated, with similar symptoms, including muscle aches and stiffness in the joints, heart palpitations, unable to stand, walk or carry out any form of simple activity for long without being overcome with the distressing feeling that we can’t catch our breath, a racing heart beat and the sensation that we’re going to pass out! My Son HAS actually passed out on about three occasions! It has caused both my Type II Diabetes and my MS symptoms to flare up and become worse, so I am now also suffering from permanent, and sometimes debilitating dizziness, and I have recently also been diagnosed with Hypothyroidism as well! In contrast, my other two Daughters, aged 37 and 35, who decided NOT to be vaccinated with ANY of the Covid-19 vaccines available here in the UK, are both feeling fine health wise, so go figure! I have absolutely NO DOUBTS at all that it is the MRNA Vaccines that have impacted our health, but with a NHS that REFUSES to even ‘discuss’ the possibility that the MRNA Vaccines could physically ‘DAMAGE’ recipients health, we have no possible way to actually ‘prove’ that our health has been damaged by the MRNA Vaccine! I have now lost ALL TRUST in both the NHS and big Pharma, as my 2 vaccinated adult children have now very likely had their health PERMANENTLY DAMAGED, ruining the rest of their lives, and the way I myself am now feeling, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if I actually DIE before I turn 60 years old! I am also NOT an anti-vaxxer, or a conspiracy theorist, before this happened to me and my adult children, I had ALWAYS had ALL the recommended vaccinations, for Mumps, Measles etc, and I had always done the same with my children as well when they were growing up! R.W

Last edited 2 months ago by R W
Saigon Sally
Saigon Sally
3 months ago

I presume these adenovirus vaccines (AZ and JJ) were non-live vaccines. But Prof Christine in her 2018 TED talk flagged below suggests non-live vaccines are less beneficial than live vaccines (sometimes even harmful). But even so these non-live vaccines appear to be more beneficial than mRNA ones.

a d
a d
3 months ago

Did Dr. Christine Stabell-Benn misspoke at 30:00 ? Didn’t she really mean she does not recommend mRNA to BELOW 50 not “above”. Asking since she thinks mrna reward outweighs risk for over 75.

Mike Smith
Mike Smith
3 months ago

AZ is not good either. I got full body neuropathy from AZ vax.

M. M.
M. M.
3 months ago

Medical research in the United States has, on average, lower quality than medical research in the European Union because American organizations use affirmative action (which gives preferential treatment to Hispanics and Africans) to hire scientists, engineers, physicians, etc.

M. M.
M. M.
3 months ago
Reply to  M. M.

Get more info about affirmative action.

Sigmund Silber
Sigmund Silber
3 months ago

The issue of which type of vaccine is best is interesting but the question of whether vaccines are useful seems to not be well addressed in this study. The value of a vaccine is not just to the person being vaccinated but to others who might not be infected by a person if the vaccine reduces that person’s chances of being infected. Also, it reduces the chances of a virus mutating and non of that was considered by this study.

Jim R
Jim R
2 months ago
Reply to  Sigmund Silber

Except that I have it on good authority from a virologist researcher that in at least the case of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine the trial data showed that post vaccination a person was over 300% more likely to contract Covid than prior to vaccination. Also there is study data that shows from both Israel and other countries that vaccinated asymptomatic cases post vaccination shed virus and are just as likely to infect another person as a fully symptomatic un-vaccinated person. Myself and My fiancee are perfect examples of that. After waiting hoping for more conclusive data we VERY reluctantly decided to get vaccinated in late May 2021. Mostly because it was becoming clear that her career in health care working at a cancer infusion clinic would be terminated if she did not follow through with her employers forced vaccination mandate. Secondarily, we had a long planned trip to Mexico scheduled for October 2021 and were concerned we would not be allowed to travel by the Gestapo’s in the US government without vaccination proof. She got Pfizer and I got JnJ. We both worked all through Covid in 2020 and 2021 as our jobs were “essential”. During that time we know with absolute certainty that in combination we were directly exposed no less than 38 times. Yet never got Covid. Post vaccination and the drop off of protection in the 3-4 month range seem to be when you are most susceptible to catching Covid. Well GUESS WHAT? After being exposed literally dozens of times we both got Covid in Sept 2021 precisely 3-4 months post vaccination and just before our October trip. We are both in good health and historically are rarely sick. Since we got vaccinated both of us have had repeated head colds and suspect we had Covid again earlier this spring. No we did not test this spring but the symptoms matched. The year since we got vaccinated has been the most generally UN-healthy year we have both ever had. I regret completely getting vaccinated and there is absolutely NO WAY IN HELL I will ever get any booster shots of these Garbage vaccines. My fiancee has had the more serious and consistent nagging colds and sinus infections that I and she got the mRNA. I have constant joint aches and pain that I never had before. These started almost immediately after getting the JnJ shot.