Skip to content

Contact-tracing apps and the future COVID-19 vaccination should be compulsory. Social, technological, and pharmacological immunisation

Written by Alberto Giubilini

Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities – Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics

University of Oxford

 

 

Main point:

Lockdown measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 have so far been compulsory in most countries. In the same way, use of contact tracing apps should be compulsory once lockdown measures are relaxed. And in the same way, vaccination should be compulsory once the COVID-19 vaccine is available.

We can think of the lockdown as a form of ‘social immunization’, of contact tracing apps as a form of ‘technological immunization’, and of course of vaccination as pharmacological immunization. The same reasons that justify compulsory lockdown also justify compulsion in the other two cases.

Justification of compulsory measures

The first thing to notice is that each way of addressing the pandemic and contain infection rates in a way that allows healthcare systems to cope is likely to involve some ethical cost. There is no cost-free way out of this situation. The real question is how large a cost we are and should be prepared to pay. Lockdowns entail limitations of basic freedoms and grave harm to individuals (e.g., job losses, mental health risks, etc). Contact-tracing apps entail the risk of some privacy infringement. Vaccination entails some infringement on bodily integrity. The good news is that the cost grows smaller as we slowly move forward from lockdown to vaccination.

If we accept compulsory measures when the cost is very large (lockdown), we should accept compulsory measures when the cost is vastly smaller (tracing apps and vaccination), other things being equal. The justification for compulsory measures is stronger, the less burdensome the requirements are, other things being equal. “Other things” in such cases are, for instance, the effectiveness of a policy or the way it satisfies some other ethical requirement, e.g. fairness.

Lockdown, contact tracing apps, and vaccination can be seen as the three milestones of the strategy to manage the pandemic by creating immunity at the collective level.

 

  • Lockdown, or ‘social immunization’. Immunity at the collective level is built up by distancing everyone from everyone else (where the relevant ‘one’ is a household) – except for essential workers. Lockdown has been very effective at reducing contagion, as data and different studies show (see e.g. here and here). To be effective, this policy requires high compliance, although from a public health perspective we could in theory tolerate some free riders that go out and about while keeping safe distance from others, despite the rules. But of course, we do not do that for a number of very good reasons, including the high risks involved and fairness considerations. The lockdown is compulsory for everyone in many countries (with the exception of essential workers), and rightly so. It is not simply encouraged.

 Ethical cost: strong limitation of basic freedoms for everyone. In normal times, this kind of restriction would be an unacceptable violation of fundamental rights. But these are not normal times. This is a public health emergency that is claiming a high toll on people. Temporarily suspending certain fundamental freedoms is justified for the sake of preventing vastly greater harm.

Because of all its costs, a lockdown like this is economically, psychologically, and ethically not sustainable for too long. Countries will now need to move to a ‘phase 2’, as some have already started (e.g., Italy and Spain), where some of measures will be eased. This is a risky move, as it might cause infection rates to go up again. But it is a necessary risk, given the large toll the lockdown is claiming. Of course, since we have to take the risk, we need to do all we reasonably and ethically can to minimize it. One way of minimizing the risk is the appropriate use of contact-tracing apps, assuming they will be effective.

 

  • Contact-tracing apps, or ‘technological immunization’. Immunity at the collective level is created by distancing only those people who are more likely to be contagious, based on the information made available by the app. The app is only effective if enough people use it. For the one the UK Government is trialling on the Isle of Wight this week, the estimate is that at the very least 50% of people need to use it in order for it to be significantly effective. As with the lockdown, we can therefore tolerate some free riders. However, the more people use it, the more effective it becomes.

 Ethical cost: depending on how one defines and ethically assesses privacy, there might be some small cost in term of privacy infringement. Even if small, it is a cost which many would probably consider unacceptable in normal times. But, again, these are not normal times. Temporarily suspending some privacy rights would prevent some much greater harm (in terms of economic loss, unemployment, mental health, etc., in case we need to return to the lockdown, and in terms of higher number of infections or deaths if we exit the lockdown without an effective contact tracing mechanism). At the moment, though, the UK as well as many other countries are planning to roll out the app on a merely voluntarily basis. They hope that enough people will use it.

The contact tracing app that the UK wants to roll out uses Bluetooth technology to detect and keep records of the other mobile phones your phone has been in close  proximity with (see e.g. Ferretti et al. 2020). If you develop COVID-19 symptoms, you ‘inform’ the app, which in turn sends the information to these other mobile phones. People would thus be aware of having been exposed to the virus and could self-isolate.

Some people are concerned about privacy issues involved by the use of this app. As explained by the UK Government, however, data collected will only be used for the purpose of tracing potentially infected people during the pandemic in order to prevent them infecting others, and for understanding the way the virus spreads. Data will be deleted once no longer needed for the management of COVID-19. Each person will be assigned an identification number upon installation (ID), but no names or addresses will be recorded (except for the first part of the postcode, not even the full code). The installation ID will not be linked to any individual identified by name or other personal information. Whatever privacy infringement is involved here, if any at all, it would be very small. And simply framing the issue in terms of ‘human rights’ is not making the infringement any bigger.

Data might end up being used for research purposes, some worry. But this is a strange worry, given that more research on COVID-19 is desperately needed. But even in that case, unless someone wants to assign privacy some quasi-sacred value, the infringement is vastly smaller than the kind of right infringements and harms involved in the alternative scenarios.

We should not forget that we are assessing this scenario against the lockdown scenario, where everyone is confined in their homes, and against an alternative post-lockdown phase where vulnerable people are exposed to a higher risk of contagion without adequate contact tracing. The alleged privacy infringement is vastly smaller than other infringements in the alternative scenarios by the very same hierarchy of values democratic societies use to regulate their everyday life in normal times. In this hierarchy, privacy does not rank higher than right to life, to health, to effective healthcare, to safe employment, to mental health – all things that would be jeopardized without high enough collective immunity after the lockdown. We do not even need to rethink our hierarchy of values. We just need to acknowledge that these are not normal times.

 

  • Vaccination, or pharmacological immunization. Immunity at the collective level is built up by vaccinating as many individuals as possible. The most promising vaccine candidate is the one developed and currently tested in Oxford (by the Jenner Institute and the Oxford Vaccine Group), but other candidates are being researched elsewhere. Like all other vaccines, it will be effective at creating immunity if enough people get vaccinated, though the threshold for herd immunity is at the moment uncertain. Even in this case, we can tolerate a small number of free riders. However, as with other vaccines, the more people get vaccinated, the better. Vaccine uptake might fall below herd immunity at any time (as happened for example in the UK with the MMR and other vaccines in recent years in the UK, where vaccination is not mandatory,). The risk will be high especially after travels resume and non-vaccinated people will be able to move across different communities.

Ethical cost: like all vaccinations, it entails some breach of bodily integrity, and some very small risk of side effects. Vaccines are not authorized until trials show they are safe enough. No vaccines have risks of side effects even remotely close to the risks of the diseases against which they protect, including the risks of death. The same will be true for the COVID-19 vaccine. Again, unless one thinks that bodily integrity is a quasi-sacred value, it is unreasonable to think that the breach of bodily integrity represented by injecting a vaccine through a thin needle or the small risks of vaccine side effects outweigh the harms of the virus and those of compulsory lockdown.

The University of Oxford has partnered with the biopharmaceutical company AstraZeneca to mass produce the vaccine, if the candidate being tested turns out to be safe and effective. Both the University and AstraZeneca have agreed not to profit from the commercialization of the vaccine until the pandemic lasts. The University of Oxford will reinvest any royalty it will receive from the vaccine after the pandemic into medical research and research on pandemic prevention.

When explicitly asked whether the vaccine will be compulsory during a press conference on 4 May, the UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that he hopes it will not be necessary, because he is confident enough people will want to use the vaccine. There will also be a question about whom should be prioritized in accessing the vaccine, after healthcare and other essential workers, given the likely initial limited availability of the vaccine (in a forthcoming paper, for instance, Julian Savulescu and I argue, on the basis of previous research, that if the vaccine will turn out to share some of the characteristics of the flu vaccine, there might be a case for prioritizing children in order to build up better collective immunity to protect the elderly). However, a compulsory policy will more likely ensure a higher vaccination uptake, provided it’s properly implemented. The ethical cost of compulsory vaccination is very small. As was the case with privacy, any ethical cost in terms of violation of bodily integrity is vastly smaller than the ethical costs all of us are already paying in terms of limitation of freedom, economic loss, mental health, and so on.

 

Having presented the benefits and costs of the three measures, it seems that there are strong ethical reasons to make the measures compulsory, in the same way as the lockdown has been compulsory. The ethical reasons are at least three.

First, in all the three cases, the higher the compliance, the more effective the policy at containing the spread of the virus and at minimizing the economic, psychological, and societal costs of this pandemic. Compulsion will likely make compliance higher than alternative policies. It is true that some people do not comply with legal requirements, but when that is the case, they would probably not comply with milder measures either. Recent mandatory vaccination policies, e.g in Italy, for instance, have proven very effective at increasing child vaccination uptake.

Second, in all three cases, not complying with the requirement would be an unfair form of freeriding on the efforts of others. Freeriding on important public goods – as collective immunity is – is not only unethical, but often prohibited by the law, and rightly so. Fairness is valuable not only intrinsically, but also instrumentally. As I have argued in a previous post and in some academic publications, free riding generates the so-called ‘problem of assurance’: people are more likely to comply with certain requirements if they can be relatively certain that other people are doing their fair share, too. The state can provide this reassurance through compulsory measures. We could tolerate some people to freeride on others being in lockdown, from a public health perspective. However, we are not doing it, and rightly so. The same should apply to contact tracing apps and to vaccination.

Third, the infringements involved would be much smaller than the ones we are already accepting in the case of compulsory lockdown. The benefits, though, will be much greater. Not only will we be increasing the chances of successfully containing the spread of the virus, as the lockdown is managing to do, but with increased safety and therefore increased liberty, the economy, social life, and mental wellbeing of people will dramatically improve, contrary to what is happening with the lockdown. Hence, the case for compulsory vaccination and compulsory use of an effective contact tracing app is even stronger.

All in all, in all three cases, the benefits of the compulsory measures would outweigh their costs.

 

Tracing apps for COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccine should be compulsory. This would be the most effective and most ethical way to slowly return to normal life. We have all made great sacrifices so far. Whatever we would be required to do from now on, it will likely be a much smaller sacrifice.

Share on

206 Comment on this post

  1. I’m not sure I agree with your level of confidence in the safety of the vaccine. As far as I understand it, there is no current coronavirus (as a type of virus) vaccine- it will be a new type of vaccine. There are tests occurring now, and they hope that by autumn, they will be advanced enough to say that the vaccine works safely. But surely a test of that duration could only rule out high levels of immediate side effects. We would not be able to ascertain whether there are any late-onset effects (such as higher incidence of autoimmune conditions developing amongst those who have been vaccinated) or even immediate low incidence but high harm effects. For example, with the swine flu vaccination, it was not until it was rolled out that rare narcolepsy side effects became apparent, which are now recognised to the extent of being eligible for government compensation in the UK.

    Moreover, it is quite clear now that many groups in society are at very low risk of serious harm from Covid-19 although some groups face a very high risk of serious harm and it is very contagious which mean that overall it is a very bad disease, for many individuals it is only a mild disease, and we can predict which are which reasonably well.

    It seems to me, that for a mandatory vaccination policy you would need extremely strong evidence of safety, and that should surely be reduced only by a disease that poses an extremely high immediate risk to most people, or at least very unpredictably.

    For people in a high risk group, there is very strong reason to be vaccinated of course regardless. There will be a level of testing that means that it is either very low risk of harm or that any harm will be apparent long term only , and it would better to take a very low risk of unknown side effects emerging later than it would be to risk a highly contagious and highly fatal disease.

    But for people in low risk groups it seems to me to be more of an open question. Choosing vaccination is no doubt a very reasonable choice as the likelihood is it will be as safe and effective as other vaccines and there is some risk of. serious harm from the disease. But it does not seem to me that the evidence is yet in place to make a mandatory policy a reasonable option. Surely that would only be a reasonable policy if on the evidence vaccination is the *only* rational choice to make.

    It also differs from lockdown as if vaccination is available people who are concerned for themselves will have a viable option to protect themselves without others having to take action, and only a certain level of vaccination of high risk groups would be needed to protect the health system.

    1. Alberto Giubilini

      Thank you Sarah. The vaccine will need to be safe enough, of course. There is an interesting question as to what counts as “enough” in this case, also because of the novelty of a coronavirus vaccine. I would say that depending on the safety and efficacy profile, whatever vaccine policies we have could target different population groups. For instance, if it is safer and/or more effective on young people, one option could be to mass vaccinate young people in order to build up immunity to protect the more vulnerable (so it would be mandatory only for that group). So I am not sure I agree with the idea that we should vaccinate high risk groups regardless of the risk profile. The great thing about vaccines is that you can protect people indirectly, i.e. by vaccinating someone else. It will all depends on the characteristics of the vaccine, which do not know yet.
      In general, I agree with you that for a mandatory policy we need a strong evidence of safety, but I do not doubt that the vaccine we will have will have that, even if only for certain population groups.

      1. Alberto

        I have never understood with you bio-ethicists what it is you are doing except privileging your own opinions, often as not licensing the powerful to do what they want to the less powerful. And while there maybe some conceivable benefit to licensing – as it were – this or that medical intervention you always seem over-optimistic about how it is monitored. Frankly, a scientist engaged in developing a product is going to be naturally dismissive of harms. As far as I can see you are playing a game in which the scientists are heroes and anyone who protests they have been hurt (or someone close to them) is trash almost by virtue of opening their mouths. But in fact there are myriads of ways that a product can go wrong, often quite frequently and admitted by the manufacturer (if not always disclosed by those administering). For instance, I have recently been referring to the Bexsero PIL which according to the U.K. schedule could give 3 in 1000 children Kawasaki Disease.

        Let’s say with this present project that by the autumn, or even the end of next year, we will have little idea how to balance the danger of COVID-19 against the manifold products and simply professions off good intent will scarcely be enough. These products may well have the potential even to do immutable harm to human stock. Meanwhile, you are demanding that the population surrender rights over their bodies in perpetuity to inherently fallible bureaucracies and powerful industrial interests. I don’t see how you have knowledge to do that (or the reasoned acumen) and I don’t see where traditional checks and balances are engaged which could offer reasonable reassurance – frankly the agencies have been captured.

        1. John, sorry I commented I think in response to your comment and it was meant to be a comment to author of article. I agree with your well articulated comment.

          1. I cant figure out where or how to delete that comment under yours, so I’m copy and pasting where I should of originally..

      2. I appreciate you taking the time to write this article and providing links, that I have yet to look at. I kindly disagree with you first and foremost on the fact that I cannot find one vaccine in existence that has had safety and efficacy testing using a double blind inert placebo group. Every vaccine I have looked into has been tested against a so called placebo group, that was given an already deemed “safe and effective” vaccine that was again, not tested against a true placebo. I am not a doctor, just a lowly nurses aide. I do not claim to be an expert or even highly educated in this topic. But this alone troubles me. And when doing the studies on covid-19 vaccines, if a placebo group is not used and compared against the group receiving the trial vaccine, I 100 percent believe that it would be vile and terrible for any part of this world to make it mandatory. If you can please provide me a link or several to tell me that the Gold(en) Standard (? I believe that is what it is referred to as) is indeed being used with any vaccine safety trials I would greatly appreciate it. And I do not agree with the argument I have heard that it is unethical to use a placebo, or in simple terms pretty much unethical to not vaccinate someone when given opportunity. That is the only attempt at justification have heard that explains this. Thank you, be safe and stay healthy.

      3. Thanks for your reply, Alberto. I’m not an expert but I still don’t see how a trial of a few months’ duration could prove safety in the long-term for any groups. After all, we are still figuring out what the overall mortality rate of the disease itself is, and whether it has any long-term effects. Also, do they even test on children at this stage? I would be surprised.

        I agree it would depend on the risk profile, but you would have to compare the risk to the person of the disease against the risk of the vaccine. If children had a lower risk from the disease than the vaccine it would seem unethical to me to mandate vaccination even if the overall risk is reasonably small. Or at least, the risk to older groups would have to skew very high indeed to make it reasonable to ask this generation to take on the risk for others.

        You may well know more than me about what level of safety a vaccine trial has to show before it is released, but it seems to me that there would be a very high bar for mandatory vaccination. While I don’t doubt that the trials that occur before it would be released prove safety to a reasonable degree that allows people to make a reasonably informed choice, I do doubt that they would reach a level of safety that would warrant mandatory vaccination.

        If a risk does remain in the vaccine then a mandatory vaccination could turn out to be much more harmful than a lockdown. And of course, we don’t yet know how harmful the lockdown itself will turn out to be, and it might be too soon to set this as the acceptable bar.

        1. “I’m not an expert but I still don’t see how a trial of a few months’ duration could prove safety in the long-term for any groups.”

          That is a fair point. At some point a judgment call may need to be made given the existing data and understanding. It is hard to weigh potential risks for which there is no supporting data when doing a risk/benefit analysis.

          W&N

          1. “It is hard to weigh potential risks for which there is no supporting data when doing a risk/benefit analysis.”

            Wow, finally a statement that makes sense! But your crowd including Alberto want to mandate such a vaccine? That makes this an UNETHICAL blog.

            1. Thanks….but once again you are just not up to reading correctly.

              Alberto clearly stated that the vaccine had to be safe and effective.

              You really must try to improve your reading skills….

              W&N

              1. But you just admitted that your stupid vaccine safety evaluation process depends completely on testing. So your clinical trials have to last a life time to know if it causes adverse events. So it is impossible to demonstrate “safe and effective” in any useful time frame. That’s why vaccinologists need to UNDERSTAND how vaccines work, DESIGN FOR SAFETY, instead of stupidly relying on “trial and error” vaccine development, dependent on testing ALONE for safety.

                http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer

                “”We simply don’t know what the rules are to inducing long-lasting immunity,” says Plotkin, who began to research vaccines in 1957. “For years, we were making vaccines without a really deep knowledge of immunology. Everything of course depends on immunologic memory, and we have not systematically measured it.”

                Bali Pulendran, an immunologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, has reached the same frustrating conclusion about vaccine durability. “I keep saying, ‘It’s not well understood, it’s not well understood.’ This is one of the major issues in vaccines.” ”

                Get back when your “experts” UNDERSTAND how vaccines work/fail/hurt humans.

                Here are some clues:

                ERVEBO Ebola vaccine will create a rice allergy epidemic, add to numerous autoimmune diseases, cancer and make Ebola disease even more severe. Design for safety and vaccine safety regulation remain abject failures. Incompetence or indifference?
                https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3595020

                1. You just barfed up a bunch on nonsense predicated on you not understanding big words like safe.

                  It is a simple fact that every country on the earth rejects everything you claim because your arguments are at best silly nonsense.

                  W&N

                    1. You are the gift that just keeps on giving!

                      YOUR link of biggest health risks: “Vaccine hesitancy” That is anti-vaccs like you! Nothing on the list is caused by vaccines.

                      The world (generally at least) uses competent, rational decisions makers for important health care policies….YOU are consistent not even able to read the words correctly….time after time after time….

                      W&N

                2. “So your clinical trials have to last a life time to know if it causes adverse events.”

                  That is clearly not true and demonstrates your complete and total failure to understand everything about determining safety.

                  Here is some ethical advise: try taking immunology 101….not only will you learn why your ERVEBO asserts are wrong….in the lab you can prove it!

                  W&N

              2. The problem would be on the time span how anybody could possibly know – OVG/Jenner/Astra are talking about having their vaccine out with 30m doses by September (although some of the latest reports don’t look so good). They will have experimented on healthy 18-55 year-olds so what will that tell us about children, the sick, the old? It will have been trialed against Men ACWY not saline placebo. Someone (we know who) will make a judgment but they will have very little detail, none about long term effects, interactions with other diseases etc. The data will be very little but a judgement will be made nevertheless. We have on the market products which are long in development but still the data is shaky, the absence of double-blind placebo safety trials in virtually every case has been remarked on. I don’t believe either AG or even a tracking expert from Johns Hopkins is in a position to give us any assurances.

                1. It is obviously a problem also that we have here a health professional of a sort – he certainly parades as one – but because he posts under a pseudonym he does not have to obey any professional discipline. This in itself a kind of unpleasant charlatanism. People who articulate opinions under their own names are then just sprayed with abuse, called liars etc.

                2. Anyone with basic reading skills can easily find lots and lots of double-blind placebo vaccine trials with a second or two at Google….

                  And here is where I point out that the key functions of the placebo are to control for the placebo effect, and for randomization and blinding purposes…for EFFICACY not safety.

                  This is ~5th grade science and to my personal knowledge this anti-vacc lie has been corrected over and over and over….

                  Fact: anyone ethical enough to look can easily learn how to correctly use placebos and see that they are correctly used in vaccine trials.

                  Thanks for demonstrating exactly why so many Courts have gone from rejecting anti-vaccs to mocking them and in some cases attacking their integrity!

                  W&N

              3. Alberto Giubilini

                Thanks for clarifying a few points throughout the comments section. I do not have the time to follow up on all of these or to reply to yours unfortunately

      4. For a product to be safe, it MUST BE DESIGNED FOR SAFETY. Vaccines are developed using “trial and error”. They are NEVER designed. They are unsafe by DEFINITION, for ANY group. Vaccine safety is an oxymoron.
        Ever heard of FMEA? Ever heard of a vaccine design FMEA analysis?
        asq.org/quality-resources/fmea

        No vaccine should ever be approved until FMEA is published.

        ERVEBO Ebola vaccine will create a rice allergy epidemic, add to numerous autoimmune diseases, cancer and make Ebola disease even more severe. Design for safety and vaccine safety regulation remain abject failures. Incompetence or indifference?
        https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3595020

        http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer

        “”We simply don’t know what the rules are to inducing long-lasting immunity,” says Plotkin, who began to research vaccines in 1957. “For years, we were making vaccines without a really deep knowledge of immunology. Everything of course depends on immunologic memory, and we have not systematically measured it.”

        Bali Pulendran, an immunologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, has reached the same frustrating conclusion about vaccine durability. “I keep saying, ‘It’s not well understood, it’s not well understood.’ This is one of the major issues in vaccines.” ”

        Your write: “we need a strong evidence of safety, but I do not doubt that the vaccine we will have will have that”
        When vaccine developers admit they are clueless, how did you jump to your conclusion?

        1. Takes most folks about 1 second on google to find the FMEA studies are done with vaccines.

          As usual….it is not just that you can’t follow the science…you just keep not reading the words correctly….

          W&N

            1. You know that posts with links here take a long time to appear.

              The more important question is: why didn’t you spend the one second required to google: “vaccine FMEA”…I got 673,000 hits….

              W&N

              1. I was waiting for you to advertise your ignorance.

                I am not looking for vaccine manufacturing process FMEA. I am looking vaccine design FMEA. You cannot “google” it because nobody has performed it.

                You spent a “long time” posting countless worthless posts. So you can wait for the time it takes for a good citation to appear.

                1. 1. Proper control of manufacturing is a critical component of vaccine safety.

                  2. YOU provided the link to FMEA and vaccines exactly apply it properly.

                  Once again you are unable/unwilling to read the words in YOUR link correctly.

                  W&N

      5. “The great thing about vaccines is that you can protect people indirectly, i.e. by vaccinating someone else.”

        Wrong.
        http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html
        “Acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization (carrying the bacteria in your body without getting sick) or spread of the bacteria”

        So you have herd spreading, the exact opposite of herd immunity. These vaccinated children kill their teachers by causing multiple sclerosis.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298515301078?via%3Dihub
        “Government data indicate increased MS mortality among elementary and secondary school teachers, compared with all other professional occupations (proportional MS mortality: 161%, p < 0.0001), which persists after adjustment for gender, race and age (Walsh and DeChello, 2001)"

        Your ignorance is extremely dangerous.

        1. Oh dear…you didn’t read your CDC link correctly….it mentions herd immunity from aP vaccine.

          Takes most folks a couple of seconds on google to find how vaccine induced herd immunity has been measured all around the world….but apparently you couldn’t!

          W&N

            1. No surprise….you just were not able to understand the basic English meaning of the two words “cannot rely” means. Most folks over the age of ~8 understand that is different from “doesn’t occur”.

              And naturally you refused to spend a second on Google and find all the examples of the vaccine induced herd immunity….of course that would require you to be able and willing to read the words correctly….so maybe it is pointless for you to even try….

              Thanks,
              W&N

    2. “As far as I understand it, there is no current coronavirus (as a type of virus) vaccine-”

      There are no human vaccines against coronavirus….there are a number of vet vaccines against different coronaviruses.

      So the proof of concept already exists, it is now a matter of the details (disease vs potential vaccines).

      W&N

  2. And in China, Health Code is an app that determines whether you can go out and mingle or if you re defined as Covid-positive. The app, which was developed by the Chinese government and runs on several platforms including Alipay and WeChat, is not a big a departure from the norm in China, when seen in the context of the country s broader social credit system. In this system, small bits of data about your life, such as your health history and willingness to pay bills on time, can determine access to many services even down to whether you can board planes and trains or not. So in China, contact tracing has been a part of everyday data gathering by the state, with a very high penetration of the population.

    1. Alberto Giubilini

      Thanks Chase. Yes China operates in quite a different way with regard to contact tracing and privacy in general. It is an approach that has its own positive and negative side and might work better in certain situations than in others. Here I was referring primarily on the way the UK Government is planning to use the app.

  3. I think your argument on contact-tracing apps is flawed in two ways. Firstly, the ethical cost might not be “some small cost in term of privacy infringement”. Your argument largely rests on governmental assurances, that data will not be used for anything except tracing of COVID-19 infections and will be deleted, once it is not needed for that purpose any more. However, many countries have a track record of not following up on such assurances. (They commonly frame such behaviour in terms of “changing circumstances”, “fighting terrorism” or “child abuse” – because who wouldn’t agree with fighting those.) Whatever trust you have in a government to do or not do this, the potential for massive privacy infringements is there (de-anonymisation is not a big problem, if you have ubiquitous tracing data) and any argument for or against such an app should deal with that potential and not simply treat assurances about future behaviour as fact.
    The second problem is similar: Whether or not such tracing apps can help to “prevent some much greater harm” is entirely unproven. There are serious doubts, that they work at all (e.g. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/05/me_on_covad-19_.html). How can you argue that the usefulness of the app outweighs its problems, if there is no data on the usefulness as of yet. Such apps (and the whole concept of bluetooth-based tracing) should be tested and demonstrated to be effective (just like the vaccines) before an ethical evaluation can come to a result.

    1. Alberto Giubilini

      Thank you Sly. Yes, the argument above relies partly on governmental assurance, and on the fact that there will be a high enough level of scrutiny. However, even accepting your point that data might be used for other purposes, the main question is whether that risk would be worse than those implied by the alternative scenarios, where the infringement in question is not privacy, but on health and/or freedom of movement and/or freedom to work and/or economic loss and/or significant risks for people mental health. We are assessing privacy against all these other things (which would be entailed either by a continued lockdown or by exposing people to infection after the lockdown) . I find it hard to think of any misuse of data that would outweigh all these considerations, even if one shared your profound distrust of democratic Governments

      As for your second point, I agree that the app needs to be effective. As I say in the post, a condition is that the app will have to be effective. The trial on the Isle of Wight this week is meant precisely to prove that. If it is not effective, then my argument does not apply. Thanks for sharing that blogpost. At this stage, though, while we wait to see whether the experiment on the Isle of Wight will support the app’s effectiveness, this article in Science does suggest so: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/09/science.abb6936

      1. Hi Alberto, thanks for your reply.

        “I find it hard to think of any misuse of data that would outweigh all these considerations, even if one shared your profound distrust of democratic Governments.” Well, let me put that next to a quote from this BBC article [1]: “Apple, Google and hundreds of privacy advocates have raised concerns that this risks hackers or even the state itself being able to re-identify anonymised users, and thus learn details about their social circles.” That is not a proper argument, of course, but when one finds that Apple and Google of all companies are concerned about one’s privacy infringements, then one should be very cautious indeed.

        But even if: To “outweigh all these considerations”, that app needs to work. I only had the time to read the summary of the article you linked – my apologies –, but it seems to talk about the epidemiological success of a modelled app, am I wrong? The technical problems raised by Schneier (and many others) would suggest that you can’t get such an app. Let’s see what the trial run reveals. (There has been a similar experiment in Germany, which – if I’m not mistaken – revealed quite a high false-positive rate. Whether or not that is acceptable and/or can be compensated by the epidemiological model behind the app seems to be an open question.)

        [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52532435

  4. Alberto Giubilini

    Thank you Sly. Yes, the argument above relies partly on governmental assurance, and on the fact that there will be a high enough level of scrutiny. However, even accepting your point that data might be used for other purposes, the main question is whether that risk would be worse than those implied by the alternative scenarios, where the infringement in question is not privacy, but on health and/or freedom of movement and/or freedom to work and/or economic loss and/or significant risks for people mental health. We are assessing privacy against all these other things (which would be entailed either by a continued lockdown or by exposing people to infection after the lockdown) . I find it hard to think of any misuse of data that would outweigh all these considerations, even if one shared your profound distrust of democratic Governments

    As for your second point, I agree that the app needs to be effective. As I say in the post, a condition is that the app will have to be effective. The trial on the Isle of Wight this week is meant precisely to prove that. If it is not effective, then my argument does not apply. Thanks for sharing that blogpost. At this stage, though, while we wait to see whether the experiment on the Isle of Wight will support the app’s effectiveness, this article in Science does suggest so: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/09/science.abb6936

  5. 2 questions:

    1- If Vaccines are So SAFE, why the UK Gov has paid £74m in compensation? ( & we are NOT mandatory yet LET ALONE COMPULSORY) & USA paid out $4BN ?
    2- WHY Pro Vaccine scientists REFUSE to atone LIVE debates with Pro SAFEY Vaccine Scientists? EVER.

    1. Alberto Giubilini

      Thanks. Can you please provide the evidence you have for both? Which vaccines are you referring to, specifically?

        1. Alberto Giubilini

          Thanks for the link. For the UK, that amounts to about 900 claims in over 40 years. Some of those vaccines are no longer in use and 40 years ago we knew less about risk groups. Today vaccines are not administered to groups at risk. Safety is very close to 100%. If you look at the same document, you will see that the risks of non-vaccination are vastly larger. 20 million of cases of measles and thousands of deaths have been prevented in the UK alone thanks to the vaccine for instance.
          As for the US, the document says that in 75% of cases compensation has been paid without the causal connection having been proved, but they were just settlements to minimize the time and expense of litigating a case and the desire to resolve a petition quickly. Even considering this, 1 individual was compensated every million doses of vaccine. That makes 0,000025% compensations with causal connections.

          1. Alberto

            I think the safety is more hearsay (as is the care). When the reputation of the programme was under pressure 40 years ago from the media the British government introduced an award scheme and quickly compensated 600 cases but I don’t think they started showing more care – they didn’t remove the the product for a further quarter of a century and they accelerated the delivery in 1990 so infants were getting it younger. They did not seek out those infants especially at risk, they just stopped awarding when the pressure was off. You can damage a lot of babies without getting to the point of statistical significance: in the event of a bad reaction the parents will probably just receive advice from the GP to give acetaminophen and go away and stop making a fuss – but they may have to deal with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

            I also recall a BMJ on-line correspondence in which Profs Larson, Offit and Plotkin failed to respond when asked to produce the gold standard vaccine double blind placebo safety trials when challenged by Profs Exley, Healey and my lesser self, and we remain to be enlightened. For that matter why would the extreme professional harassment of Prof Exley continue if powerful interests were genuinely concerned about product safety? What do you know about aluminium adjuvants?

            1. Thank you for detailing my above questions with evidence regarding the lack of proper safety studies being done. Maybe the author of this article will respond with links and proof that indeed, the gold standard was used in some instances. Take care

              1. Why don’t you try reading the rapid response from BMJ (the title is Vaccine safety: British are less sceptical than Europeans, but younger people need assurance).

                And see exactly how dishonest the anti-vacc fraud.

                W&N

                1. I am very happy for people to look it up. It is abundantly clear Larson, Offit, and Plotkin were unable to cite any double-blind placebo safety trials for the schedule. If any can be discovered it will only further demonstrate the general absence. W&N, can you tell me where I can look these up? Not in Paul Offit’s archive, for sure..

                  1. I am happy the most parents care enough to actual read the words at BMJ.

                    One example, there are many, many more posted there: Block et al

                    Number of patients: 21, 480
                    Median follow up time: 6.6 years
                    Comparison: vaccinated verus placebo

                    Thanks,
                    W&N

                  2. Apologies…I left out an important part of Block et al

                    They captured ALL…serious and non-serious….medical events for all patients for the entire duration of the study.

                    W&N

            2. And I think an ethical person would read the BMJ rapid responses….whoops, YOU “forgot” the reference….

              Here it is: Vaccine safety: British are less sceptical than Europeans, but younger people need assurance

              Well look at that! Many examples were provided….all it takes is basic reading skills….and integrity to look…to see that once again the anti-vaccs are caught flat out lying.

              W&N

                1. Gosh John….

                  We have gone through this before but you still keep making the same basic thinking error.

                  Anyone can post here under any name.

                  It is possible that you are an unethical Merck vaccine salesperson posting under the name John Stone with the intent to make the anti-vaccs look dishonest and fools.

                  If so, you doing a great–but still unethical–job.

                  Bottom line: your comment is just absurd.

                  W&N

          2. Alberto, if you claim that the settlements in the U.S. are bogus and dont actually show vaccines cause harm, lets discuss the case of Hannah Polling. Im sure you are familar with this case. It is a case in which a 19 month old little girl regressed into severe autism as a result of vaccination. The parents were awarded 20 million dollars by the U.S. government and the governments own resident autism expert, Dr. Zimmerman, became convinced that the vaccination did indeed cause Hannah’s autism. Here is a good link about the details: https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/clear-legal-basis-vaccines-cause-autism. Please comment on this case and the effect that it had on many other autism cases that were in fact thrown out of the special master court in DC because the court fraudulently refused to consider the hannah pollings case and in fact paid the parents off to keep quiet and threatened to take back the 20 million if they talked.

            In addition, please answer Johnny’s relevant question: why do pro vaccine scientists REFUSE to do a live debate with vaccine safety experts, such as Jeremy Hammond and Robert F Kennedy Jr.?? The proponents of vaccines always back out of such a debate. And they claim the science is already settled, so why debate the topic of an already settled debate? That is about the worst excuse possible and a total lie. I would agree in fact the science is settled and the real science shows clear and present danger from vaccination. There is no science that shows vaccines are safe and there is a mountain of science that shows they are harmful.

            In fact, I have a challenge for you: Please refer me to ONE SINGLE study (or meta-analysis) that shows real vaccine safety. It must be at least a real placebo and it must last longer than a few weeks or a few months – any such study is rubbish. If you claim that a study lasting a few days/weeks/months that does not use a real placebo is a valid safety study, you are the one being unscientific.

            If fact what the real science shows is that vaccines are terribly harmful and are causing massive disease throughout the world. I contend that we have traded measles, mumps, and chicken pox, for autoimmune disease epidemic, allergy epidemics, and developmental problems such as ADHD and autism (which is also an epidemic). the former diseases are actually healthy for a childs immune system and are much easier to deal with than the later diseases.

            Since you say vaccines are 100% safe, i would like to hear your comments on Human DNA fragments in vaccines and aluminum injection from vaccines. Please explain how these are safe? I have references to many studies that i will be glad to share that indicate in fact they are NOT safe and in fact are extremely harmful and are damaging millions of children all over the world. This is not to mention many other toxic substance in vaccines including mercury, retro-viruses and their corresponding reverse transcriptase, , polysorbate 80, formaldehyde, sodium borate, phenol, glyphosate, glutaraldehyde, and peanut, dairy, and egg proteins which cause severe allergies when injected into the muscle.

            I would also like to hear your comments on several studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children? I have 9 such studies in my research and they are all very consistent and show that unvaccinated children a far far healthier than vaccinated children. Here is one such study reference (references several studies): https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Vaxxed-Unvaxxed-Full-Presentation-Parts-I-VII.pdf. Please comment. if vaccines are so wonderful, why are vaccinated children so sick?

            Finally, since you are so certain that vaccines are “100%” safe, please comment on two more fundamental safety issues:
            1. the SV40 contamination of the polio vaccine that was responsible for almost half of the 55k non-hodgkins lymphoma cases that were occurring each year. This was published in a lancet study in 2002. This type of contamination can occur in any vaccine.
            2. the issue that sarah brought up about the H1N1 vaccine causing narcolepsy in 1300 children in europe. Do you think this was just made up but the government sitll paid out millions of dollars in compensation anyway or do you actually acknowledge that the vaccine did the harm?

            thanks for your time.

            1. Alberto Giubilini

              Thanks. There is no causal connection between vaccination and autism. Many scientific studies have come to this conclusion. Here is one: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101. There are others.
              There is plenty of evidence about the risks of permanent injury and of death of diseases like flu, measles, and COVID-19

              1. This is not a clever study to cite. For instance, it only purports to show that MMR does not cause autism (not vaccines) but there is so much background noise it is meaningless. Look how many more vaccines there were compared with its 2002 counterpart, the Madsen study, and how many more cases of autism! Moreover, an earlier study found that many of the alleged MMR unvaccinated on the database were vaccinated.

                https://ugeskriftet.dk/files/scientific_article_files/2018-08/a5345.pdf

                If you want to test the hypothesis at an epidemiological level why in good faith design a study like this? Why the consistent reluctance by governments to design transparent vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies? There are no government funded studies which offer such a level of clarity. And why the harassment of anyone who wants to conduct such a study?

                Moreover, how would this show neurological harm of this sort had not been caused in individual cases?

                It is incredibly naive to go round citing studies of this kind as proof something does not happen (including Hannah Poling).

                1. “This is not a clever study to cite.”

                  You broke my irony meter!

                  The bar is the most basic reading skills….the paper has data on different utilization of different vaccines (not just MMR) and compare risk to NEVER vaccinated kids….and you complete missed the most basic English meaning of Alberto’s post.

                  Please keep up the great work!

                  W&N

                  1. Look W&N I had not noticed the “literacy” of your contribution. When I wrote to the last British CMO asking her about MMR safety studies she sent me the weak Taylor meta-analysis 2014 and the first study it cited regarding MMR was 2002, 14 years after the three products from SKB (GSK), Merieux (Sanofi) and Merck were introduced in 1988-9, 30 years after MMR1 was introduced in the US (the SKB and Merieux products were hastily withdrawn by the manufacturers in the UK in 1992). Well, this was obviously closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. And they still will not produce simple vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies.

                    1. You posted:

                      “it only purports to show that MMR does not cause autism (not vaccines)”

                      There is excellent data on autism risk from MMR and DTaP, IVP and Hib vaccines…..and all the groups are compared to kids that received ZERO vaccines.

                      For folks with ethics to read the words….100% unvaccinated kids had a slightly (non-statistically significant) HIGHER risk for autism.

                      Look…this has been going on for decades….you grossly misrepresented ~ever part of the science and make ZERO good faith effort at being accurate.

                      W&N

              2. The United States government in its Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, however, have acknowledged the connection between vaccines and autism on a number of occasions.

                The HHS HRSA told journalists Sharyl Attkisson and David Kirby on separate occasions [1,2]

                “The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”

                And CDC director Julie Gerberding admitted to CNN following the Hannah Poling settlement [3]

                “Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism…”

                An investigation into US vaccine injury court in 2011 found 83 cases of compensated vaccine injury in which autism is mentioned, but which because they are sealed cannot be used as precedents [4] In an unsealed ruling relating to autism it is stated [5].

                “The Court found, supra, that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay

                [1] Sharyl Attkisson, ‘Vaccines, Autism and Brain Damage: What’s in a Name?’, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/ (Downloaded 28 August 2018)

                [2] David Kirby ‘A new theory of autism causation’, Huffington Post 29 March 2009, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673

                [3] House Call with Dr Sanjay Gupta, 29 March 2009, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/hcsg.01.html

                [4] Mary Holland, Louis Conte, Robert Krakow and Lisa Colin, ‘Unanswered Questions: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury’, Pace Environmental Law Review, vol. 28, no. 2, 2011, https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss2/6/

                [5] http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BANKS_CASE.pdf

                1. Alberto Giubilini

                  Thanks for putting this together. The point remains: there is zero scientific evidence of any causal connection between vaccines and autism, and many scientific studies have been carried out about. that. We would need to agree on what we consider ‘evidence’, though. I am talking about rigorous scientific research which includes rigorously peer reviewed publications. I don’t see any in your links.
                  As for other possible side effects, you will not find any serious scientist or other scholar who tells you that it is “impossible’ that vaccines have side effects. That is because basically everything has side effects, including aspirin or indeed manythings you eat. In the case of vaccines, the risks are so small that they are often even difficult to estimate statistically. And then you’d need to consider the effects, not even the ‘side’-effects, of things like measles or COVID-19, for which the risks are vastly greater and which pose a serious threat not just for the individual who chooses not to vaccinate, but for the vulnerable people around them

                  1. Alberto

                    For ordinary citizens the US vaccine court is notoriously hard to navigate and you do have to present scientific evidence. This is a paper about the Poling case:

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16566887

                    Everything has side effects and if you subject populations to industrial products which induce inflammation by unnatural routes (nature did not envisage a hypodermic) you had better be careful. I have actually cited a much published scientist above, Christopher Exley (his latest peer reviewed article is in Nature btw) pointing to the unnatural presence of aluminium in autistic brains.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32385326

                    He also wrote another interesting article last year about the dangers of aluminium adjuvants:

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31561170

                    Previously, when I alluded to this you ignored it.

                    It is disturbing that despite widespread acceptance by his peers Prof Exley is being persecuted over funding including through a hostile article in the Sunday Times last year in which your colleague Prof Pollard dismissed his work – if I remember correctly – as “bad science” (Prof Pollard whose Bexsero vaccine is said by the manufacturers to cause KD in 3 in 1000 children!)

                    https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1710/rr

                    And this is not trivial (and only one instance). Some might consider it a professional foul.

                    I am not sure by what science you have formed a hard opinion that a COVID vaccine, any COVID vaccine?, will be better than the disease (which may even now be fading), or acceptably safe but I do note the British government have a huge financial and reputational investment in the Oxford product and that Prof Pollard is both advisor to the regulator and chair of the JCVI which recommends vaccine products to the schedule. I am not sure that this is an arrangement which leads to scientific objectivity, and it certainly is not transparent.

                    https://www.ageofautism.com/2020/05/a-letter-to-my-member-of-parliament-.html

                    I am afraid that fundamentally until big science can listen to its critics (and understand its own biases) it will continue to trample over its human subjects. That is putting it kindly.

                    1. “For ordinary citizens the US vaccine court is notoriously hard to navigate and you do have to present scientific evidence. ”

                      No you do not have to present any scientific evidence to win….the rules are still posted.

                      And AP did a good investigation of the vaccine court. Yes there are problems with it….but the biggest by far was the massive anti-vacc fraud knowingly filing bogus claims and making countless million$ per year.

                      This massive scam is hurting families that actually do have vaccine injuries….but I can’t find a single anti-vacc that will condemn this scam….belying ANY anti-vacc claim of actually caring about children.

                      W&N

                  2. Please find new comment in the spam. Additionally, it does strike me that your reply still has an element of “we are big and you are small” about it, and that doesn’t seem have an ethical dimension at all.

                  3. “rigorously peer reviewed publications”

                    Prof. Ioannidis of Stanford University School of Medicine wrote:
                    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
                    https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

                    That is what your “rigorously peer reviewed publications” are producing.

                    Sorry, but you are out of touch with reality.

                    Quality and value: The true purpose of peer review

                    https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05032.html

                    “… scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.”

                    Obviously, you don’t understand that.

                    1. If only you would learn some basic logic and basic science….you might have a chance at making a rational argument….

                      W&N

                2. The Banks case:

                  “Non-autistic developmental delay”

                  The court has NEVER acknowledged a connection between vaccines and autism and your entire deceiptive posting is predicated on folks not reading correctly.

                  W&N

              3. Of course, an even more fundamental logical point is that even good epidemiological studies will not address the issue of causality, or its absence. Am I wrong?

                1. You are wrong.

                  Sadly, you refuse to listen to actual scientists and learn anything…..

                  W&N

                  1. No, epidemiology cannot show causality. We used to be constantly told “correlation does not equal causation” by the very people who were trying to show there was no causation using epidemiology. Well, first of all such studies had to have poor, opaque designs, but more fundamentally they had to ride rough-shod over people’s experience – which for doctors ought to be fundamental. But doctors are taught to tdisregard adverse vaccine events, so it is rather rubbish in rubbish out. Notwithstanding, if you had transparent vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies, they would likely show things governments don’t want you to see,

                    1. Yes John we all understand how the anti-vaccs work.

                      This is where I point out that for many, many years I referred you to qualified scientists so that you could try and get the science correct. You always refuse to do so.

                      Instead you just keep posting nonsense.

                      This is a really, really simple concept.

                      Correlation does not mean causality–that is correct.

                      Now put your thinking cap on and try really, really hard with the next part…

                      If there is causality, then there MUST be a correlation.

                      But there is no correlation between vaccines and autism!

                      Too bad you have never cared enough about our children to even try and get the science correct.

                      W&N

                1. Oh dear…..

                  The authors took the time to explain in really simple terms how you were complete lost and just not thinking correctly….clearly you have still failed to understand your foolish errors and just keep on repeating the same old nonsense…over and over….

                  W&N

                  1. The authors and you are too foolish to understand that it is impossible to scientifically study ANY product that has uncontrollable, uncharacterized, contaminants.
                    Science means CONTROLLED studies. Not the sloppy garbage that your corrupted friends publish. You are of course incapable of understanding any of that.
                    If your “experts” knew ANYTHING, why don’t they have root cause for ANY disease? Why are they so dumb?

                    1. No Vinu….you are basically arguing that reality isn’t real….you are just too lost to understand the absurdity of your POV.

                      But hey…what you lack in a rational thought you make for with silly name-calling.

                      W&N

              4. One of the worst study ever made :

                – studying autism and neurodevlopmental disorders on registry is dump as ICD codes have little clinical relevance for psychiatric conditions and disorders
                – the danish vaccination registry has been audited, and in a small sample more than thalf (55%) of “MMR unvacinated” children were actually … vaccinated (Danish MMR vaccination coverage is considerably higher than reported; Dan Med J. 2017 Feb;64(2). pii: A5345.), this point completely jeopardizes the results of the study
                – While the authors claim to have studied “regressive autism”, the closest ICD-10 code relevant for this condition is missing from the protocol (F84.3)
                – While the authors claimed to have studied “regressive autism”, they only had the diagnose date in the registry, they couldn’t retrieve the onset date as they claimed “No individual medical charts were reviewed.”
                – 1/3 of the cohort was too young to be correctly diagnosed -> misclassification bias again
                – when actually 0.7% of the cohort has received no vaccine at all (+ healthy user bias), based on a registry of doubtful quality, this study seems to be perfectly meaningless.

                This study, which has been shown everywhere as the “best study ever made”, is actually just a bunch of bullshit. And if this one is the best, it tells a lot about the others.

                1. I think an ethical person would ask qualified statistician about the quality of a statistical study…but you didn’t….

                  The only BS here are your criticisms….and the only question is do you care enough to learn the facts????

                  W&N

              5. I don’t think you are well-informed about vaccines. Every ingredient is highly antigenic: the modified disease pathogen, the chemical adjuvants and preservatives (dangerous in themselves even in minute quantities), the detergents and antibiotics, and the remnants from the cell cultures where they were grown using extremely antigenic foreign proteins. For genetic reasons, a large portion of the population is predisposed to react with dangerous and disabling adverse reactions. Many people, especially babies, react with vaccine encephalitis and brain and GI damage. I reacted to my first DPT at three months old with screaming syndrome for days, which showed vaccine encephalitis. and Asperger’s. My brother reacted the same way the following year. At nineteen I reacted to a tetanus booster by having both arms paralyzed for several days, brachial plexus neuropathy. I was later diagnosed with sometimes paralyzing MS by MRI. My newborn daughter was given the hep-B vaccine without my knowledge or permission. She reacted with constant, inconsolable screaming syndrome for four days and nights and was later diagnosed with low-verbal autism. She is 20 now but will never be independent. We are both disabled by vaccine damage. One in 35 children in the US, even higher rate in Britain, has autism and it is caused by vaccines.

                The childhood diseases are mild and beneficial for the vast majority. Measles had mortality of less than one in 10,000 in 1960, before the vaccine. Like the flu now. Recovery from the natural diseases improves immune function for life and prevents many chronic diseases, including cancer for at least five years. Dr. Peter Aaby did a Senegal study which showed that the 90% of children in Africa who recovered from measles had only one-fifth the all -cause mortality in the subsequent four years. I had measles at six: 99% of American children did then, there were 450 deaths out of four million cases, and for the vast majority it was a beneficial experience, providing protective benefits for the rest of their lives.

                Covid is much more dangerous, but the antibody-dependent enhancement occurring with vaccines for SARS, Covid, and dengue INCREASE rather than decrease severe sickness and death in those who get it.

                Those who want to take their chances with a Vovid vaccine should be free to do so and we’ll observe the results. But it, like all vaccines, should not be compulsory for anyone. At this time in the US, about 50% say they would either refuse or hesitate to take a Covid vaccine, including my daughter and me.

                1. Alberto Giubilini

                  thanks. Vaccines should be given at the right age and risk groups should be exempted, of course. E.g. no one advocates giving certain vaccines to immunosuppressed people. All these statements about the causal link between vaccines and autism in these comments – including yours and those of other anti-vaxxers who have commented – are simply false and dangerous misinformation. Your claim that 1 every 35 children in the US has autism is false. The CDC estimates that 1 in 54 children in the US has some form of autism spectrum disorder, and many of these are very mild forms. The causes of autism are largely genetic. No causal connection ever demonstrated by serious scientific studies. I have reported one such study in response to another comment to this post
                  Also, measles is definitely not a beneficial experience. It only is if one is lucky enough 1) to survive measles and 2) to survive measles without permanent brain damage. The fact that you survived measles definitely does not show measles is beneficial

                  1. The causes of autism are largely genetic.

                    -> Insufficient Evidence for “Autism-Specific” Genes
                    Am J Hum Genet. 2020 May 7;106(5):587-595. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.04.004. Epub 2020 Apr 30.
                    PMID: 32359473 PMCID: PMC7212289

                    No causal connection ever demonstrated by serious scientific studies. I have reported one such study in response to another comment to this post

                    There is 0 serious scientific study conducted to this date. The latest danish cohort is not a serious scientific study as the protocol and the dataset are largely flawed.

                    1. Alberto Giubilini

                      we obviously disagree about the notion of ‘scientific evidence’ and its implications

                    2. Oh dear….the first paragraph of YOUR paper explains that the causes of autism are largely genetic.

                      Once again….you didn’t understand the science and you clearly didn’t read the words correctly.

                      W&N

                  2. Alberto

                    I think the reason why the US Autism figure is given as 1 in 54 is that they are always years behind in publishing data which is in itself highly misleading. According to the Northern Ireland office where they keep up to date the rate was 3.3% in schools as of May last year (1 in 30), up from 1.2% a decade before. Nothing to see here folks!

                    https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/health/asd-children-ni-2019.pdf

                    The term “misinformation” is highly problematic (I would have thought especially so for philosopher). If something is simply untrue that is one thing but if you are simply classifying information you don’t like in that way that is quite something else. Respectably we ought to be discussing what is true not just disqualifying other people who have as much right to interpret truth as you do. You talk like a bureaucrat. I am sure you will not like this article on measles by Tetyana Obukhanych.

                    https://www.tetyanaobukhanych.com/blog/previous/2

                    I suppose if an 8 week old infant was was not immunosuppressed before they had in the U.K. Hexavalent Vaccine (DTP, Hib, polio, Hep B,), 13 strain pneumococcal, rotavirus, Men B (Bexsero), they might well be afterwards. But I do not see this big search going on for those who are vulnerable. That is surely a myth.

                    1. Just a standard anti-vacc deception.

                      Comparing autism numbers with ASD numbers….of course they are different!

                      I think an ethical person would get their autism epidemiology from epidemiologists.

                      Interesting that anti-vaccs like you won’t!

                      W&N

                    2. “Just a standard anti-vacc deception. Comparing autism numbers with ASD numbers….of course they are different!I think an ethical person would get their autism epidemiology from epidemiologists. Interesting that anti-vaccs like you won’t!”

                      I am using autism in the general sense of the last 30 years ie Autistic Spectrum Disorders. British officials were monitoring occurrence of ASD or PDD way back into the 90s. More ad hominem abuse.

                    3. (For John, since it is no longer possible to post below on this thread).

                      The exact point John is that you are doing an invalid comparison that inevitably results in false conclusions.

                      You refuse to listen to epidemologists because your claims are simply not true.

                      W&N

                    1. Link free version:-

                      I think the reason why the US Autism figure is given as 1 in 54 is that they are always years behind in publishing data which is in itself highly misleading. According to the Northern Ireland office where they keep up to date the rate was 3.3% in schools as of May last year (1 in 30), up from 1.2% a decade before. Nothing to see here folks!

                      Ian Waugh, ‘The prevalence of autism (including Asperger Syndrome) in school age children in Northern Ireland 2019’, Information Analysis Directorate, 10 May 2019.

                      The term “misinformation” is highly problematic (I would have thought especially so for philosopher). If something is simply untrue that is one thing but if you are simply classifying information you don’t like in that way that is quite something else. Respectably we ought to be discussing what is true not just disqualifying other people who have as much right to interpret truth as you do. You talk like a bureaucrat. I am sure you will not like this article on measles by Tetyana Obukhanych: ‘Should you be afraid that measles can give you immune amnesia’, 1 November 2019.

                      I suppose if an 8 week old infant was not immunosuppressed before they had in the U.K. Hexavalent Vaccine (DTP, Hib, polio, Hep B,), 13 strain pneumococcal, rotavirus, Men B (Bexsero), they might well be afterwards. But I do not see this big search going on for those that are vulnerable. That is surely a myth.

                  3. We cannot be in this position where Alberto Giubilini or a bureaucracy decide what knowledge is. It is absurd.

                  4. The CDC in its official autism statistics three years ago said that the new figure was one in 36 children. Since then I’ve seen one in 35. When my daughter was born in 2000, it was one in 170 children, but with the tripling of routine childhood vaccines around 1990 (when Hib (for some good reason) and Hep-B for healthy infants born to healthy mothers was added for no good reason) cases quickly soared, as a direct result. And have never stopped since then.

                    Read Dr. Richard Moskowitz’ Vaccination: A Reppraisal. He provides copious scientific, statistical, and personal evidence regarding the prevalence and severity of vaccine damage, with explanations of the reasons for the brain, other neurological, GI tract, and every kind of allergic and autoimmune disease caused by vaccine reactions, which are the rule rather than the exception. Most severe damage doesn’t manifest immediately, but all vaccines work for better or worse by setting in motion an autoimmune reaction which plays out over years, as in my case. Without this reaction none of the desired antibodies would be produced, but in many people the reaction is acute, severe, and often becomes chronic, causing permanent allergic or autoimmune disease. The patient ALWAYS has to consider his personal risk factors both from the disease he’s considering a vaccination for, and his fears and predispositions, genetic and epigenetic, for a severe, disabling, even fatal vaccine reaction.

                    My daughter and I have a history of disabling vaccine reactions, as do many members of our family. We would not take any coronavirus vaccine, even though I am afraid of the virus. We are taking extra C, B3, and zinc. If we get the disease we will take HCQ with AZT and zinc, and IV C. And Ivermectin. Nothing is worth incurring further vaccine damage, especially a vaccine which causes antibody-dependent enhancement. When we go out, which is rarely, we always wear an N95 mask and disposable gloves, and social distance. I support a mask mandate and universal testing for both the disease and antibodies, contact tracing (Asian countries have very sophisticated methods of doing so by cell phone traceage), and isolation at state expense of all positives.

                    Vaccines may never be made mandatory for anyone. No one has a right to disable anyone for life, as my daughter and I were by vaccines. Those who want them should get them, and careful records be kept of the results. Everyone who gets them must read a summary of the risks and how often they have been recorded as occurring with all vaccines, and sign as a record of his informed consent. No vaccine may be given in the absence of proof of the patient’s informed consent.

                    1. “The CDC in its official autism statistics three years ago said that the new figure was one in 36 children. ”

                      Again an outright fabrication.

                      The CDC site is still there for anyone that wants to see the truth.

                      W&N

                    2. Thanks Vinu,

                      As usual you are very helpful!

                      While you are calling folks liars….the truth is you don’t have even the most basic reading skills….and thus didn’t see that your link is for Autism SPECTRUM Disorder.

                      Epidemiologists have been explaining this part of the anti-vacc fraud for more than a decade…if you care…

                      W&N

                  5. So why is there no record anywhere of any child having autism before Kanner’s study published in 1943? He said it was so unusual that if it had occurred somewhere over the millennia, someone would have described it, but no one ever did. His first autistic cohort lived in the early years of the diphtheria vaccine. Read the stunning, meticulously-referenced book The Age of Autism by Olmsted and Blaxill.

                    Also, Dr. Leo Kanner collaborated with his fellow medical professionals at Johns Hopkins to write an anthology in nineteen thirty five, Child Psychiatry, with descriptions of every mental disease in children ever described anywhere but nothing even vaguely resembling autism es described

                    In 1980 in the US the autism rate was one in 10,000. In 1987 in a North Dakota prevalence study examining the school and medical records of every child in North Dakota, it was three in every 10,000 children, probably from the increased use of the MMR. Then with the introduction of the hep-B and Hib vaccines, three each, rates started to climb through the roof.

                    You appear to be unaware of historical trends. Blaxill and Olmsted’s later book Denial, again, meticulously explained and documented, might help fill the gaps in your knowledge.

                    1. “So why is there no record anywhere of any child having autism before Kanner’s study published in 1943”

                      There are such records–a fact you know already. In deed, the first paragraph of Kanner’s 1943 paper (pages 241/242) he explain how these children existed and were previously given different diagnosis.

                      Your falsehoods are obvious, systematic, and have been corrected over and over for many years….it is clear that you just don’t care about the facts.

                      W&N

                    2. “Indeed the first paragraph of of Kanner’s 1943 paper (pages 241/242) he explains how these children were previously given a different diagnosis.:

                      No he does not. This is the first paragraph of the 1943 paper:

                      “Since 1938, there have come to our attention a number of children whose condition differs so markedly and uniquely from anything reported so far, that each case merits – and, I hope, will eventually receive – a detailed consideration of its fascinating peculiarities. In this place, the limitations necessarily imposed by space call for a condensed presentation of the case material. For the same reason, photographs have also been omitted. Since none of the children of this group has as yet attained an age beyond 11 years, this must be considered a preliminary report, to be enlarged upon as the patients grow older and further observation of their development is made.”

                      W&N: In my experience over a decade you have played the game of citing things on the basis that almost no one will bother to look it up. Most evidently this what you are doing here.

                    1. In a budgetary appeal to Congress as head of the Human Genome Project in 2006 Francis Collins wrote:

                      “Genes alone do not tell the whole story. Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool as those changes take much more time to occur. They must be due to changes in the environment, including diet and physical activity, which may produce disease in genetically predisposed persons.”

                      As Director of NIH he has sat there doing nothing except being obstructive as the problem just got several times worse.

                    2. Please see my other comment on peer-review.
                      Comments posted here are not peer-reviewed. So nobody should read them?

                      If genes caused 1 in 50 children to develop autism, why are genes not causing 1 in 50 children to develop three eyes, two noses or a tail?

                      75% of autism patients test positive for folate receptor alpha antibodies (FRAA) (1,2)⁠. These FRAA bind to folate receptors in the choroid plexus, block folate uptake to the brain thus resulting in cerebral folate deficiency and autism. These FRAA are of the IgG4 subclass and bind with higher affinity to bovine folate receptor alpha (FRA) than to human FRA (3)⁠. Bovine FRA is a protein present in cow’s milk. Supplying folate to the brain via an alternate path, improves symptoms (4)⁠. A milk-free diet downregulates IgG4 FRAA levels and improves symptoms (3)⁠.

                      Genetic mutations cannot explain such a specific adaptive immune response against a non-self protein.

                      We explain how cow’s milk protein-containing vaccines induce FRAA related autism (5–7)⁠.

                      References

                      1. Frye RE, Sequeira JM, Quadros E V, James SJ, Rossignol DA. Cerebral folate receptor autoantibodies in autism spectrum disorder. Mol Psychiatry [Internet]. 2013 Mar [cited 2019 Mar 12];18(3):369–81. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
                      2. Ramaekers VT, Sequeira JM, DiDuca M, Vrancken G, Thomas A, Philippe C, et al. Improving Outcome in Infantile Autism with Folate Receptor Autoimmunity and Nutritional Derangements: A Self-Controlled Trial. Autism Res Treat [Internet]. 2019 Jun 18 [cited 2019 Jun 21];2019:1–12. Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/jou
                      3. Ramaekers VT, Sequeira JM, Blau N, Quadros E V. A milk-free diet downregulates folate receptor autoimmunity in cerebral folate deficiency syndrome. Dev Med Child Neurol [Internet]. 2008 May [cited 2019 May 21];50(5):346–52. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
                      4. Frye RE, Slattery J, Delhey L, Furgerson B, Strickland T, Tippett M, et al. Folinic acid improves verbal communication in children with autism and language impairment: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Mol Psychiatry [Internet]. 2018 Feb 18 [cited 2019 Feb 4];23(2):247–56. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifi
                      5. Arumugham V, Trushin M V. Autism pathogenesis: Piecing it all together, from end to beginning …. J Pharm Sci Res [Internet]. 2018;10(11):2787–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5281/zen
                      6. Arumugham V, Trushin M V. Role of NMDA receptor autoimmunity induced by food protein containing vaccines, in the etiology of autism, type 1 diabetes, neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. Int J Pharm Res [Internet]. 2019 Mar 1 [cited 2019 Apr 15];11(1):428–37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5281/zen
                      7. Arumugham V. Epidemiological studies that ignore mechanism of disease causation are flawed and mechanistic evidence demonstrates that vaccines cause autism [Internet]. 2017. Available f rom: https://doi.org/10.5281/zen

                    3. Alberto,

                      Did you know that comments posted are considered “ongoing, post-publication, peer-review”?
                      You are asking for peer-review to be peer-reviewed? Absurd.

                  6. “measles is definitely not a beneficial experience”

                    False choice. Clean, safe, effective vaccines can prevent disease too. You don’t need to sicken people with type 1 diabetes, using dirty, animal protein-containing vaccines, to prevent measles.

                    For 20 years, the medical community has known that bovine proteins in adjuvanted vaccines sicken dogs by causing autoimmunity.

                    Yet, they sickened millions of humans and continue to sicken millions more with the same animal protein (bovine, chick, porcine)-containing adjuvanted vaccines. These diseases include autism, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and countless other autoimmune disorders. And worse, they cook the science and lie about it. THIS IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

                    Vaccine-Induced Autoimmunity in the Dog
                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9890057

                    “the most likely sources of cross-reactive epitopes are bovine serum and cell culture components. These are present in almost all vaccines as residu-al components of the cell culture necessary to generate vaccine viruses and may purposely be added to the vaccine as a stabilizer. In the presence of an adjuvant, these bovine products stimulate a strong im-mune response and induce antibodies that cross-react with conserved canine antigens.”

                    1. In YOUR article they tried to induce autoimmunity in dogs via vaccination…and they couldn’t!

                      “We did not find any evidence of autoimmune disease in the vaccinated dogs”

                      You don’t just fail to understand the science….you keep not even reading the words correctly.

                      W&N

                    2. W&N,
                      “We did not find any evidence of autoimmune disease in the vaccinated dogs, but the
                      study was terminated when the dogs were 22 weeks of age, well before
                      autoimmune diseases usually become clinically apparent.”

                      “you keep not even reading the words correctly.”

                      You stop reading before the sentence is completed.
                      Proves once again, that your specialty is lying about science.

                    3. Poor Vinu….still struggling with your basic reading.

                      1. YOU asserted:
                      “For 20 years, the medical community has known that bovine proteins in adjuvanted vaccines sicken dogs by causing autoimmunity.”

                      2. YOU provided a study from 20 years ago that tried to induce autoimmunity in dogs by vaccination….and they couldn’t! No dog had any evidence of autoimmunity.

                      YOUR reference is the exact opposite of your assertion.

                      Your entire argument is not functionally literate.

                      W&N

                    4. “2. YOU provided a study from 20 years ago that tried to induce autoimmunity in dogs by vaccination….and they couldn’t! No dog had any evidence of autoimmunity.

                      YOUR reference is the exact opposite of your assertion.”

                      Thanks for repeatedly proving that you cannot read or understand English.

                      The study says:

                      “At 22 weeks of age there was a significant increase of IgG antibodies reactive
                      with 10 of 17 antigens in the vaccinated dogs versus no increase in the
                      unvaccinated dogs (Table I). ”
                      and
                      ” However, vaccination did induce autoantibodies and
                      antibodies to conserved heterologous antigens. ”

                      They not only observed autoimmunity, they explain why. And we have described the complete immunological mechanism behind it. You and your “vaccine experts” of course are incapable of understanding any of this so they continue to kill and maim us using dirty, animal protein contaminated vaccines.

                      Professors at Stanford University who are investigating Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy, another vaccine-induced autoimmunity disaster, are in agreement with me on this matter. I don’t need your blessing.

                      Cancer immunology, bioinformatics and chemokine evidence link vaccines contaminated with animal proteins to autoimmune disease: a detailed look at Crohn’s disease and Vitiligo
                      https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1034776

                  7. “anti-vaxxers”

                    After billions and decades wasted on “research”, “medical experts” admit they are clueless about the root cause of autism, asthma, food allergies, leukemia or countless autoimmune disorders such as type 1 diabetes.
                    The warning about these diseases was provided 100 years ago by a Nobel winning doctor:
                    http://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1913/richet/lecture/
                    DO NOT INJECT ALIEN PROTEINS INTO HUMANS.

                    If you insist on referring to people who bring up vaccine safety issues as “anti-vaxxers”, why don’t you refer to these “medical experts” as “ignorant, sickening, childkillers”?

                    1. Why are you called an anti-vacc?

                      Because you are the one that is completely clueless and no matter how many times your obvious basic factual and conceptual errors are pointed out you just keep posting the same falsehoods over and over and over….

                      W&N

                  8. Alberto, it is in fact you and blind pro vaccine advocates like you who are spreading dangerous information that vaccines are all safe and effective and we have nothing to worry about. It does not matter what evidence is presented to people like you because you are brainwashed. You are brainwashed from medical school. You are brainwashed by the media who cannot speak ill of vaccines without ending their careers. You are unwilling to look at real science, real studies, real lives being destroyed. You know full well that the autism epidemic cannot be explained by genetics but you cling to your fantasy to try to justify your position. Meanwhile you are being intellectually dishonest. You cannot even give me ONE single study that shows safety. NOT ONE!!! I beg you to open your eyes. Currently you have them closed and you are not acting like a scientist, who looks at new evidence and new research and objectively weighs the new evidence and research.

                    You made the statement: the risk of vaccination “is so small that it is hard to even estimate statistically”. Really? Again, it is really easy to just say that, but you cannot prove it and in fact it has been proven wrong over and over and over. For example, please look at the pre-licensure studies done on the HPV vaccine by MERK. These studies (accepted by the FDA) show very high statistical harm being done to children. They in fact show that about 2% of children who receive the vaccine will develop a serious auto immune disease. They also showed about 50% severe adverse reactions. See the presentation on this data here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/video/video-playlist/rfk-jr-video-and-facts-about-gardasil/. These are not low percentages as you claim.

                    What about the recent 2017 study out of Africa (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188123) that found the DPT (or DTP) vaccine is causing TEN TIMES the death rate as are the diseases the vaccine is supposed to protect against?? Dr. Peter Aaby, who is a big pro vaccine advocate, was one of the authors of the study and is now begging the WHO for a policy change on this vaccine. This is a 1000% increased risk of death for those who take the vaccine as opposed to those who dont take the vaccine. 1000% is NOT statistically insignificant as you claim. And BTW, this vaccine is probably the most widely used vaccine in the world and it is the same vaccine that caused the 1986 indemnity law where big pharma cannot be sued for vaccine injury was put in place. Pharma was being sued so hard and frequently over this vaccine because it was causing major damage to children that they threatened to stop making vaccines so instead of investigating the harm being done, our idiot pro corporate government decided to indemnify the vaccine manufacturers instead of protecting our children. This action is a clear statement that corporate/big pharma profits and stock prices are more important to our government than is the safety of our children.

                    What would you say to the 1300 children who developed narcolepsy from the H1N1 vaccine? You dont matter because you are statistically irrelevant. What if one of those children were yours? What if only ONE child was harmed, is that still ok? Should we still say vaccines are 100% safe and cannot cause harm? What about the several thousand families destroyed by vaccines who have receive compensation from the U.S. vaccine court? Do they also not matter? You pro vaccine doctors and scientists are given WAY to much credibility. You all are only human. You all have your own biases. And you all should not take such arrogant stubborn positions for the sake of “being right” that then cause great harm to others. REMEMBER : “FIRST, DO NO HARM”!! Not doing harm is every doctors FIRST DUTY!! Not to prevent a disease at the expense of another – that is NOT your first duty!!

                    I personally was severely damaged by a vaccine and suffered terribly for 10 years. Both my children were injured by a vaccine. I had to apply extreme nutrition to recover my children. My mother was injured by a vaccine that ruined her entire life. Hmmmm … what tiny statistics again are you spouting? It sure doesnt apply to me. It sure didnt apply the all of the tens of thousands of young girls whose lives have been destroyed by the HPV vaccine. It didnt apply to the 1300 children who developed narcolepsy via the H1N1 vaccine. It didnt apply the potentially millions of children being killed by the DPT vaccine!

                    It seems that your “small” statistics only apply to your fantasy world where vaccines are perfect and safe and effective, which unfortunately is just not reality. I wish it were. But it is not. In reality, you live in a medical big pharma fantasy world and I will tell you that wiser, more compassionate, and more knowledgeable people are coming forth who will dispell and put an end to the lies and misinformation that you and people like you promulgate. Vaccines are likely the biggest medical fraud ever committed against humanity (either vaccines or statins, im not sure which is more of a fraud – they are both full of fraud, lies, bad research, bad science, and both make lots and lots of money for big pharma).

                    THE TRUTH will (eventually) prevail.

                    Thanks for your time.

                    1. Thank you for your excellent comment. My brother and zi reacted to our first DPT with vaccine encephalitis and Asperger’s. I reacted to a tetanus booster with brachial plexus neuropathy, both arms paralyzed for several days, starting the same day. I was later diagnosed by MRI with sometimes-paralyzing multiple sclerosis. My baby daughter reacted to the hep-B vaccine at birth, given without permission, with encephalitic screaming syndrome and autism. She’s twenty now and will never be independent. At seven she developed a new aspect of her vaccine damage, inflammatory bowel disease, after a high fever from summer flu. My father reacted to a flu vaccine in 1999 with paralysis for the last three years of his life. My mother reacted to their yearly flu vaccines with Alzheimer’s for the last fifteen years of her life. My brother reacted to yearly flu vaccines with POTS, developing very low blood pressure and fainting at work or while jogging. His son reacted to vaccines with Asperger’s and much later, after a high fever from bronchitis, inflammatory bowel disease.

                      Vaccines usually work to prevent the targeted disease, but everyone must be aware of the high cost often exacted. About a third of our children have a neurological disorder from vaccine reactions, autism being one of them, and about half have an allergic or autoimmune disease caused by it. What VPD is both common enough and severe enough to be worth the risk? The milder diseases like measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella (in everyone but fetuses), even flu, pertussis (in everyone but the youngest newborns), rotavirus, and hep-A are usually mild in children and extremely beneficial for their lifetime health.

                    2. David

                      You possibly mistake the role of someone like AG on this. Wellcome, Bill and Melinda Gates, Pirbright etc do not need biothecists to understand the science, they need them to bless their projects like a priest blessing a war. In some ways for the purpose the less AG knows about the science the better – in fact if he makes up his mind on the propagandised version (ie something like vaccines are safe and effective therefore everyone should have them on every possible occasion and the more the better), and he does not have to do very much else and if you ask him about the science he does not seem to know that much about it. He can point to an endless collection of porous studies like the one by Hviid.

                      In fact, we could all say if vaccines were safe and effective that every one should have them, and as far as I can see AG does not have some great intellectual project which goes beyond that (he can correct me if I am wrong) and it just depends professional endorsement as a bioethicist – it his status and not his intellectual acumen which is being invoked.

                      To make sure products are safe, we need such things as rigorous safety testing against genuine placebo (which is almost unknown), we need to test for the groups who are going to receive the vaccine (not just the young and robust in health), we need to test over a long period, we need the regulator and our governments to be independent from the industry – in this case the British government is deeply enmeshed in at least two projects, and the regulator is paid for by the industry, and advised by the the developers), while the developer may also sit on the body the recommends the product. This, at least, is something that an ethicist might be in a position to comment on.

                      As it is we are engaged in the heroic saga of our government getting out a product against all the odds by September, throwing care to the wind and hoping that the disease will not have petered out, while the bioethicists dispense incense from a thurible.

                    3. Informed Consent

                      DAVID MILLS IS A HERO! A voice for the injured.

                      THE PEOPLE WANT JUSTICE

                      “The exercise of justice is joy for the righteous, But is terror to the workers of iniquity.” Proverbs 21.15, NASB.

                    4. One example:

                      “And BTW, this vaccine is probably the most widely used vaccine in the world and it is the same vaccine that caused the 1986 indemnity law where big pharma cannot be sued for vaccine injury was put in place.”

                      Please read the law….it is on line…here is the relevant section:

                      42 U.S. Code § 300aa–21.Authority to bring actions

                      Just read the words and see that all US families can sue vaccine manufacturers! Yes…the anti-vaccs have been lying about this simple fact for 30+ years counting on you to not check.

                      More importantly there are recent, relevant US Civil court cases online:
                      Blackwell v wyeth
                      Doe v merck

                      Where the foolishness and outright fraud of the anti-vaccs is well detailed. Which is why the anti-vaccs lie…they don’t want you to read these cases!

                      Please correct your law error and then we can go with the rest of the posting….where ~everything you posted is not true.

                      Thanks,
                      W&N
                      W&N

                2. “Every ingredient is highly antigenic”

                  Once again…an outright fabrication.

                  Common vaccine ingredients that are NOT immunogenic include:
                  Salts
                  Sugars
                  WATER, etc, etc.

                  Once again your dishonesty doesn’t stand up even the most childish effort at fact-checking.

                  W&N

            2. OK…again one example….the Polling case.

              Please read the court ruling–they did not rule that vaccination caused her autism.

              And then please read Ms Polling’s posting at Age of Autism (Nov 11, 2013, article title: Rolf Hazlehurst On VICP at Congressional Briefing)

              Where she clearly explains that the ruling was NOT vaccination caused autism..and she exactly (politely) points out that the anti-vaccs are lying about their case….they are still lying!

              Please read the documents and correct your error….and then we can go to the rest of your points….~everything you posted is wrong.

              Thanks,
              W&N

              1. Well with a the minced words this was what Julie Gerberding – at the time head of the CDC – said on CNN:

                “Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism…”

        1. Alberto Giubilini

          no your address is considered spam by the system, so I have to authorize the comments each time.

        2. Shocking John…you were wrong!

          In contrast, scam sites like AoA ruthlessly censor comments….can’t have facts interfering with the anti-vacc fraud.

          Still it really should matter….e.g. this recent posting: “CDC Claims Adult Autism Rate Same as Pediatric”

          I honestly don’t know how anyone over the age of ~8 could honestly believe such obvious and really, stupid anti-vacc lies!

          W&N

            1. That is not really much of a surprise.

              Even though I have personally (years ago to be fair) put the exact words in front of your face that proved the lies….

              Thanks for not even trying to pretend that AoA doesn’t censor facts from being posted–much appreciated.

              W&N

    2. So if your intention is to be ethical and honest…why didn’t you:

      1. provide the relevant definition of safe?
      2. provide the rules for winning compensation?
      3. note many pro vaccine scientists testify under oath….where perjury would apply….but your side won’t?

      W&N

      1. “pro vaccine scientists testify under oath”

        When they do, they admit that vaccines cause food allergies, asthma, autism and countless autoimmune disorders:

        Rubella vaccine developer Dr. Stanley Plotkin admits vaccines cause food allergies, asthma, autism and autoimmune disorders
        https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2648249

  6. I appreciate you taking the time to write this article and providing links, that I have yet to look at. I kindly disagree with you first and foremost on the fact that I cannot find one vaccine in existence that has had safety and efficacy testing using a double blind inert placebo group. Every vaccine I have looked into has been tested against a so called placebo group, that was given an already deemed “safe and effective” vaccine that was again, not tested against a true placebo. I am not a doctor, just a lowly nurses aide. I do not claim to be an expert or even highly educated in this topic. But this alone troubles me. And when doing the studies on covid-19 vaccines, if a placebo group is not used and compared against the group receiving the trial vaccine, I 100 percent believe that it would be vile and terrible for any part of this world to make it mandatory. If you can please provide me a link or several to tell me that the Gold(en) Standard (? I believe that is what it is referred to as) is indeed being used with any vaccine safety trials I would greatly appreciate it. And I do not agree with the argument I have heard that it is unethical to use a placebo, or in simple terms pretty much unethical to not vaccinate someone when given opportunity. That is the only attempt at justification have heard that explains this. Thank you, be safe and stay healthy.

    1. Oh dear….there are lots and lots of references online for how to correctly use “true” placebos.

      The a few seconds on pubmed or Google and you can find 1000s of vaccine studies that correctly used placebos.

      W&N

  7. Hi Alberto,

    I totally agree with the thrust of this post and I particularly appreciate the way you make the ethical points. I made a similar argument – somewhat more polemically a day later – on May 7th. In terms of implementation, it is critical to have a human in the loop, a call centre that works well and the app implementation must be effective.

    This will not be easy. There are a ton of technical challenges – the biggest of which is dealing with a potential tsunami of false positives and false alarms – which is why a human in the loop and human triage of the data collected is essential. There is a significant technology challenge here but machine learning can help humans triage the data at scale to focus attention on the most likely app users to be infected.

    Those thinking giving the government more data about where they are and who they are close to will lead to the end of democracy, surveillance states and authoritarianism are frankly clueless. Democratic governments all have had the power to do location tracking via mobiles – with no apps installed on them at all – for decades – and yet, democracy is still with us. If you have any clue about how mobile phones actually work, you know the telco has to know where your phone is (i.e. proximity to a given mobile tower) at all times. If you are carrying your mobile phone (which is the entire point of having one), then the telco knows where you are at all times. The police and security services routinely access this data and have done for decades. This is why senior terrorists do not carry mobiles at all and drug dealers rotate them daily. A few bytes of targeted data collected by the NHS is not going to turn the UK into a dictatorship. Google and Facebook know vastly more about most people than the NHS. They use their data to flog ads which is how they make their money.

    I suggested the ethical recommendation in Ferretti et al was too timid. There is no “democratic” right to opt out of a valid quarantine measure. In terms of efficacy, voluntary adoption is not likely to work – and 100% is way better then 60% or 50% or 40% in any case – so either fold the contact tracing idea completely and stay in the Middle Ages for a while longer with the blunt instrument of indiscriminate lockdown, or let technology enhance and augment the necessary human response and start reducing the “banker’s bill” of job losses and bankruptcies without running up the “butcher’s bill” of COVID-19 fatalities. To me, this is a moral and political no-brainer. But you need to be on top of community transmissions before you re-open and this app has to be tested, shipped and debugged. This is the case in NZ and AU but Europe’s per capita numbers on COVID-19 are appalling.

    Links are disabled here but my article is on the front page of Quillette at the time of writing. It is entitled The Case for a Mandatory COVID-19 App.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  8. “We do not even need to rethink our hierarchy of values. We just need to acknowledge that these are not normal times”

    An hierarchy of values has already been considered and inherently included within this article and coloured the decisions informing it. Any acknowledgement beyond that indicates novel perspectives are seen which require including or denying.

    In any compulsory vaccination programme those who already have the antibodies would seemingly not require the jab, and so including them would be inefficient during a time of shortage, but that would mean people would require a test before they had the vaccine, and in that case the workloads are increased. Simpler, more widely acceptable and more effective to leave it to the individual (where possible) to identify if and when they require that vaccination. Which leaves society with the conundrum can it cope with the inherent level of uncertainty contained in a strategy of that type, or will it require more control of the issue as a means of increasing the certainty of the outcome.

    Additional social issues applicable to contract tracing are the exemptions generally contained within regulations, ‘National Security, Collection of any tax or duty, Policing, Political philosophical or religious purposes and so on’. We are being lead to believe that none of those apply, or will ever be allowed to apply to any of the material collected for COVID-19 contact tracing. Even accepting that all the material upon the phone will be depersonalised, given how easily data collections of that type may be re-personalised, if exemptions to those exemptions do apply, how will that data be controlled when in the normal course of events peoples phones are seized under an exemption where equally strong arguments exist supporting a limited re-personalisation for that new purpose. It is accepted that big data considerations have attempted to be avoided in the way the data is created and stored.

    Reversing the focus of the last paragraph the mandatory use of contact tracing could potentially be compromising for social functions legitimately exercised by the: security services; police; politicians; members of the media; human rights organisations; or persons working in sensitive commercial or legal positions and others. So would exemptions be available from any mandatory use of the application. Ignoring digital security, how could any exemptions be reliably applied when phones physically left the nation states regulative area, would they all require to be cleaned at the frontier exit point as a means of being certain about the wider social groups security. Once more, if the app is to be used, better that the individual makes any decision whether to load the app and then those who require, or perceive they will benefit from it will take it up, and those who will not because for instance they may only mix in a very limited community, will not be required to. Leaving those social actors who for security reasons cannot safely use it a greater chance of remaining hidden in the crowd. Like most private communications in public spaces, when enabled blue tooth technology certainly provides privacy challenges.

    Great information is coming from these debates regarding the value of individual life and the importance attached to the life of the social group. Keep it up.

    1. Alberto Giubilini

      thank you for your comments, very interesting observations. Yes I am very interested where this debate goes and if and how fundamental values of democratic societies are applied or even rethought once we have more info about the app and the vaccine.

      1. “how fundamental values of democratic societies are applied or even rethought”

        An alteration in democratic values more often leads to something other than a free democracy.
        Just as challenging inclusion may easily become exclusively challenging to the extent that social freedom becomes privately exercised to the detriment of society. For example many of the protections social groups enact to protect themselves which eventually merely project themselves.

        It seems a multitude of perspectives regarding any social matter do appear and they only become properly visible when clearly enunciated and widely discussed. Free democratic values support that, enabling any dissensus to eventually be more easily understood and included within any outcomes.

  9. Informed Consent

    Alberto Giubilini is a MONSTER!
    He knows NOTHING of ethics because he is willing to sell out for an idol.
    SHAME ON YOU ALBERTO!

    I elect ALBERTO GIUBILINI to receive the same adjuvant filled, toxic, diploid cell line, monkey cell line vaccine that the poorest citizen in his country receives FIRST! Hope his immune system can take it – a cyto storm is coming!

    President Trump, Sir! ARE YOU READING THIS?
    THE INNOCENT ARE LOSING THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS!

    INFORMED CONSENT
    INFORMED CONSENT
    INFORMED CONSENT

    “God is our refuge and strength,
    A very present help in trouble.
    Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change
    And though the mountains slip into the heart of the sea;
    Though its waters roar and foam,
    Though the mountains quake at its swelling pride. Selah.” Psalm 46:1-3, NASB.

    1. Isn’t it interesting how anti-vaccs spray all this hate-filled comments….but are unable/unwilling to even read the ingredients in vaccines correctly!

      The bar here is ~3 rd grade reading skills….but apparently too high for you….

      W&N

  10. You call yourselves intellectuals? HA!

    YOU CENSOR
    YOU LIE IN YOUR HEARTS
    YOU SMILE WITH YOUR MOUTH
    YOU SELL YOUR SOULS FOR MONEY AND ABANDON THE TRUTH
    SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME

    Only God will show mercy on you at this point. Too many injured parties.

    Children’s Health Defense – GOOGLE IT!
    National Vaccine Information

    DEATHS FROM VACCINES MOUNT
    LA VERITE MONTE
    National Vaccine Information Center
    NVIC do your frickin research intellectuals!

    OUT!

    1. Hey…did you see that the president of NVIC…the one that get countless $100,000’s per year in contributions based on scaring folks about vaccines sued scientists because they called her a liar about vaccines?

      She lost!

      No surprise, one can’t have a middle-school education and honestly believe NVIC or CHD!

      W&N

  11. Seriously?! Sir, you and the medical community have lost your way… or your mind thanks to proprietary “science”! Either way, your plans for our species is unethical if not criminally negligent. I pray you see your error before the coming of rage and retribution.

      1. Guess you missed the fact that there was nothing of substance in the Van’s posting….no data….no reason….no logic…no argument…..

        And you find that impressive???????

        W&N

    1. Seriously….if you have a rational thought to contribute….please do so.

      Thanks,
      W&N

  12. Injecting viral proteins makes the immune system learn to attack the virus upon future exposure. Result: Disease protection.

    Injecting milk proteins makes the immune system learn to attack the milk upon future exposure. Result: Milk allergy.

    Any school kid can understand that. But doctors cannot understand such a basic concept?

    Vaccines and Biologics injury table based on mechanistic evidence – Feb 2020 Covering over 125 conditions
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2582634

    1. Injecting anything often teaches the immune system to attack that or a similar substance when it appears again. Inject a molecule of plastic and it often creates an allergy to that plastic. You may not have benefited if your immune system learns, as it often does, to react with an autoimmune syndrome when it perceives one or more of the vaccine ingredients again. Great. Now you’re protected from getting a usually mild, beneficial disease like measles or chicken pox. But now you’re burdened with one of the dozens of diseases often caused by the vaccine, many of which are listed on the package insert. Coronavirus is certainly a lot more dangerous than measles or chickenpox, but the SARS vaccines were discontinued because they were so dangerous, even fatal. The dengue vaccine was given up when it killed 600 Philippine children. Every person must study the track record and the potential risks and benefits of getting this or any other vaccine. I wouldn’t get it, even though I am afraid of the disease.

      1. “Injecting anything often teaches the immune system to attack that or a similar substance when it appears again”

        That is a complete flat out fabrication. Fortunately most folks are not so silly as to fall for such anti-vacc BS.

        W&N

        1. W&N,
          No one is paying attention to you. You have a million comments but ZERO citations to back ANYTHING up.

          1. Actually I have posted many references here today.

            Once again you are just not up to reading correctly…much less offering a rational argument.

            W&N

    2. And anyone with 5th grade math skills can immediately see your error!

      Given the huge number of scientists that have previously pointed out your extraordinary list of errors in your “paper”….let’s just summarize by pointing out you get pretty much everything wrong….logic…biology…chemistry….etc, etc,…

      W&N

  13. The US Institute of Medicine (IOM) found that most epidemiological studies are useless. Yet ALL your vaccine safety claims are based on such useless epidemiological studies.

    Institute of Medicine: Most epidemiological vaccine safety studies are useless
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3244496

    1. The bar here is basic reading skills!

      The IOM never…ever…ever said that most epi studies are useless and epi studies are only one part of vaccine safety data.

      Could you please try and read the words correctly?

      W&N

  14. “peer review”

    This article you wrote here is not peer-reviewed. Why should anyone read it? So you demand “peer-review” only when it suits you? Double standards? Hypocrisy?

    1. Please learn what peer review is and when it is appropriate….your comment is just absurd.

      W&N

  15. “peer review”

    COVID-19 proved once again that our “medical experts” are incompetent. For example, they said “no mask needed” and flip-flopped after killing thousands. They admit they are clueless about vaccine immunological mechanisms, root cause of asthma, autism, food allergies, leukemia or countless autoimmune disorders. How are these incompetent people qualified to perform “rigorous peer review” of ANYONE’s work?

    1. Oh dear….there are lots and lots of basic logic primers online…please try and learn how to think correctly so you can stop making such silly errors.

      Thanks,
      W&N

  16. “if the candidate being tested turns out to be safe and effective.”

    How would you know it is safe when OVG cheats on the clinical trial by using an “active comparator”, a MenACWY vaccine, instead of saline placebo?
    Interestingly, the archive shows they initially proposed saline placebo. What happened? See Mar 26 version:
    https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT04324606

    1. Please read what the purpose of a placebo control is and your error will be obvious!

      W&N

    1. You didn’t read the words correctly in YOUR study.

      No serious adverse events occurred…none! Your study supports the safety of egg based vaccine manufacturing even in people with pre-existing relevant IgE titers.

      W&N

      1. Thanks for admitting that you don’t understand the difference between sensitization and elicitation.

        1. Yawn ….

          1. You asserted ” It is physically impossible to safely inject egg proteins into a human.”

          2. You posted a link that tested your assertion and found it was in fact safe.

          Your entire argument isn’t even functionally literate…now you are just trying to hide your error.

          W&N

  17. The perils of group think. Peer review will not escape the fact that when something is wrong it is wrong. AG presents the Hviid paper as a proof that vaccines do not cause autism but it wasn’t showing that even if it had been a well designed and executed paper: all it did do was re-inforce what people like AG think. Peer review cannot save this dreadful paper. When you point out that it did not do what AG said it did, and was flawed anyway, AG does not respond.

    Unfortunately this does have practical implications: if we have shoddy methods we will have damage. AG did not respond when I pointed to the failure of Larson, Offit and Plotkin to produce double blind placebo safety studies for any existing vaccine products at all. Why were we doing stupid studies like the Hviid nearly 5 decades after the first MMR was first marketed.? Wasn’t it because the science was never done in the first place?

    The other method by which the science is skewed is by running repressive campaigns against anyone who criticises, and this is also group think. The group does not behave well, and it doesn’t do science. It just gags the witnesses to its own failures.

    1. You forget that in the real world (outside of cesspools like AoA) parents actually care about their children and will read the words at BMJ and will read the words in the Hviid and see how profoundly stupid the anti-vacc fraud is.

      As the comments here demonstrate….clearly the anti-vaccs just can’t do any better!

      Cheers,
      W&N

      1. Apart from resorting to abusive statements, which do not really resolve anything, people are welcome read what was said in BMJ (Rapid Responses to Iacobucci ‘Vaccine safety: British are less sceptical than Europeans, but younger people need assurance’) and make up their own mind. In the end ad hominem and innuendo can be seen for what they are: desperate moves. As a Doctor of Public Health you would perhaps not write like this under you own name, and it is a bit sad.

        1. This is really, really simple.

          The bar is functional literacy. The studies were asked for and many, many were provide.

          This isn’t ad hominem and there is no innuendo….it is a proven fact: the anti-vaccs are caught again lying.

          W&N

          1. They were unable to cite any double-blind placebo safety studies and there were none amongst Prof Offit’s archived material – it was what they forgot to do.

  18. It may also be mentioned that in the case of measles the long term effect of vaccination will not be eradication but the destruction of the “herd immunity” we had when children caught the disease routinely, as the vaccine does not confer life-long immunity and is not effective after the second shot. It could make COVID-19 look like a picnic.

    We have just had this rather fanciful idea going around that the older generation are susceptible to COVID, not because they have lowered general immunity – not least because they are vastly over-medicated – but because they never received the MMR! Shortly, however, we will have an older generation who are not only not protected against measles because they never caught it in childhood, but for whom after having already had multiple applications of measles vaccine it will not be effective.

    1. As usual we can mention that your arguments by assertion are not true.

      For example, measles vaccination almost always results in life-long immunity:
      https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066092

      “ The decrease in measles-specific antibodies (Figure 1B) was not significant (P=0.94) and is likely to be maintained for life (estimated half-life, 3014 years; 95% CI, 104 to infinity).”

      W&N

      1. It also says:

        “On average, subjects were 52 years of age at the conclusion of the study, and most had contracted natural measles, mumps, or rubella infections during childhood. It is unknown whether vaccine-induced immunity is as long-lived as that induced by natural infection.”

        So they don’t seem to sure. Here are some other studies that demonstrate the fragility of measles vaccine immunity. I have a load more.

        [Markowitz LE, Albrecht P, Rhodes P, Demonteverde R, Swint E, Maes EF, Powell C, Patriarca PA., ‘Changing levels of measles antibody titers in women and children in the United States: impact on response to vaccination. Kaiser Permanente Measles Vaccine Trial Team.’, Pediatrics. 1996 Jan;97(1):53-8., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8545224

        Kontio M, Jokinen S, Paunio M, Peltola H, Davidkin I, ‘Waning antibody levels and avidity: implications for MMR vaccine-induced protection’, Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;206(10):1542-8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis568. Epub 2012 Sep 10.

        Sandra Waaijenborg, Susan J. M. Hahné, Liesbeth Mollema, Gaby P. Smits, Guy A. M. Berbers, Fiona R. M. van der Klis, Hester E. de Melker, and Jacco Wallinga, ‘Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage’, J Infect Dis. 2013 Jul 1; 208(1): 10–16.

        Zhao et al, ‘Low titers of measles antibody in mothers whose infants suffered from measles before eligible age for measles vaccination’ Virol J. 2010; 7: 87., Published online 2010 May 6. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-7-87

        Kang et al, ‘An increasing, potentially measles-susceptible population over time after vaccination in Korea’, VaccineVolume 35, Issue 33, 24 July 2017, Pages 4126-4132, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17308551

        Fiebelkorn et al, ‘Measles virus neutralizing antibody response, cell-mediated immunity, and IgG antibody avidity before and after a third dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in young adults’, J Infect Dis. 2016 Apr 1; 213(7): 1115–1123.

        Published online 2015 Nov 23. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv555

        Paunio et al, ‘Secondary measles vaccine failures identified by measurement of IgG avidity: high occurrence among teenagers vaccinated at a young age’, Epidemiol Infect. 2000 Apr;124(2):263-71.,https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2359/rr-0

        Rosen JB, Rota JS, Hickman CJ, Sowers SB, Mercader S, Rota PA, Bellini WJ, Huang AJ, Doll MK, Zucker JR, Zimmerman CM., ‘Outbreak of measles among persons with prior evidence of immunity, New York City, 2011’, Clin Infect Dis. 2014 May;58(9):1205-10. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu105. Epub 2014 Feb 27

        Felicia Roy, Lillian Mendoza, Joanne Hiebert, Rebecca J. McNall, Bettina Bankamp, Sarah Connolly, Amy Lüdde, Nicole Friedrich, Annette Mankertz, Paul A. Rota, Alberto Severini , ‘Rapid Identification of Measles Virus Vaccine Genotype by Real-Time PCR’ https://jcm.asm.org/content/55/3/735 “Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (RJ McNall, unpublished data)”.

        Gregory A. Poland and Robert M. Jacobson, ‘The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines?’, Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5; 30(2): 103–104

      2. They weren’t too sure in the end – they also said:

        “On average, subjects were 52 years of age at the conclusion of the study, and most had contracted natural measles, mumps, or rubella infections during childhood. It is unknown whether vaccine-induced immunity is as long-lived as that induced by natural infection.”

        Actually, there are many studies testifying to the dwindling herd immunity from measles vaccination – I posted a bundle of them before and they are presumably in the spam. All you have is a sentence wrenched out of context. I will attempt to post again tomorrow.

  19. So, do we know what we are doing? This is from an article published in Vaccine in January, from the US armed forces reporting on the flu season of 2017-18. It could not be more peer reviewed, rubber stamped, official. But what we learn was that although the vaccine was held to be effective against the target strains, those who had it were 36% more likely to manifest a coronavirus.

    “Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively)…”

    Gregg G Wolff, ‘ Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season’, VACCINE, Volume 38, Issue 2, 10 January 2020, Pages 350-354

    Of course, in 2017-18 a coronavirus was only something like a cold so it didn’t matter much, but what about 2019-20 when, btw many flu vaccines for the elderly had been redesigned and re-inforced in many countries? Can we be sure that the seasonal flu vaccination programme did not assist the progress of SARS-CoV-2? It is a reasonable question since the issue was even recognised in the cited research (how does flu vaccine effect other viruses?). I have no doubt our health officials will persist with the flu vaccine this coming winter, notwithstanding, because to do otherwise might be to implicate themselves in the present debacle, but they may well be compounding error and making the problem worse. And because of the sycophantic media, politicians, academic faculties no astute questions will be asked, while the officials (and the government) are forever locked in to defending what they have already done.

    1. Based on history we “know” that none of the anti-vaccs will listen to virologists or statisticians about what the Wolff study actual means.

      W&N

      1. However, you label people there is a problem. If anyone has stated that flu vaccine has made people more susceptible to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in all its mutations they were exceeding perhaps what is known. But Wolff clearly found that the vaccine used in 2017-18 was making people more susceptible to other viruses, and this adds plausibility. Instead of just pouring scorn on people who are asking reasonable questions health officials should be trying to find the answers before the next flu season – unfortunately they may also identify themselves as having responsibility for the present debacle, so they will be discouraged from going there. Moreover, months go by and all that is being cited as far as I know is absence evidence, on the basis than none has been collected -and in the words of the title of a famous article ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. Failing to collect the data is no excuse.

        1. I note what you didn’t post.

          You didn’t say anything like:

          “Our children’s health is really important, I should ask a virologist and a statistician so I correctly understand the paper”.

          From the conclusion: “Receipt of influenza vaccination was ***not*** associated with virus interference among our population”
          See table 5 for the relevant data.

          You have no understanding of the paper or the methods or their correct interpretation.

          W&N

          1. Perhaps what people need to do is not be bamboozled by language. Everyone is concerned for their families and everyone needs to be able to read the small print rather than get an “expert” to do it for them. And obviously the statement at the end goes too far. In some instances with other viruses the risks were reduced but in case of coronavirus and another they were markedly increased, so it averaged out – but it does not mean that the rise in two instances was not potentially significant in retrospect. This may not have mattered in 2017-18 but it should certainly be one of many real concerns at the moment. It is a reasonable thing to ask that this be looked at, and in a transparent way.

            1. This is an ethics blog.

              Simple concept: an ethical person would want to get the science correct and do the obvious thing…ask qualified scientists for help.

              In contrast…you have just demonstrated that you will not try and get the science correct.

              That is not ethical….but it is necessary for you to do so because your position is not true and indeed completely indefensible.

              W&N

              1. I have the science correct – I don’t need someone to read it for me, innuendo aside. The issue is that responsible officials would check this out, but when it is raised there is just silence. They should publish the data – they publish much other data, it is quite simple.

  20. Sandra M Correia

    No, absolutely not… in the USA we value our rights granted to us by the Constitution. My right to privacy, my right to make my own choices for my life, and my right to practice my religio are very important to me. I will not relinquish my right to privacy, my locations and comings and goings…I will not relinquish my choice to my healthcare, and my right to refuse vaccinations that are probably dangerous, I will also refuse chip implantation and tattoo based on my religion…Because you can do something ( force tracking and vaccines) does not mean it is morally right to do.

    1. Fair enough, except we do have more than a century of Supreme Court rulings that mandatory vaccination is constitutional. So you are not losing any rights.

      And one of the basic points of ethics is to try and determine what is right to do…rather than simple argument by assertions.

      Cheers,
      W&N

      1. Well, we also have the Nuremberg Code (which the United States signed) and the history of medical experiments being done on Jews in WW2 since those vaccine mandates occurred (or at least most of them). The very essence of the Nuremberg code is Informed Consent, which mandatory vaccination is NOT. In fact one could argue that the very essence of practicing ethical medicine is informed consent.

        Moreover, NO ONE would agree that it is constitutional to force inject a toxic poison into someone that may kill them or harm them severely against a persons will. This amounts to murdering or assaulting someone if the risk of death or injury is known beforehand. Not being murdered or assaulted is also a constitutional right. When these vaccine mandates were issued in the past i dont think we really knew or understood the danger of vaccines and the harm they were doing, but now we do – or some of us do – others are in denial. These new facts might cause a different decision to be made by the supreme court.

        Would it be constitutional/ethical to force a medical treatment on someone when that medical treatment has been declared “Inherently Unsafe” by the Supreme Court?? Not in my opinion. This declaration was made in this century long after any vaccine mandates.

        Mandatory vaccination might be considered ethical and logical if vaccines were absolutely 100% safe, but they are no where near that. This is proven with one simple fact: The > 4 Billion dollars paid out by the U.S. government for vaccine injuries. This alone proves vaccines do harm and are not 100% safe at least according to the U.S. government who would also be the ones enforcing mandatory vaccination.

        Food for thought.

        Best regards.

        1. Thank you for the helpful comments.

          1. Please read the actual Nuremberg Code. By end of the first sentence it is obvious how anti-vaccs try and deceive folks about the most basic facts.

          2. There is nothing toxic or poisonous in vaccines…..toxicologists have literally spent decades explaining how foolish this anti-vacc lie is.

          3. Please read the SCOTUS rulings….they have NEVER ruled that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe….that is an old anti-vacc lie.

          BTW: it really, really helps if you know the definitions! Here is the relevant text for unavoidably unsafe products (there are lots of such products like knives!):
          “Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.”

          4(a) helps if you know the proper definition of the word “safe”.

          4 (b) please read the vaccine court site. It has NOT paid 4 billion for injuries…and ZERO of the compensation came from the US government…it all came from vaccine manufactures.

          W&N

          1. “nothing toxic or poisonous in vaccines”

            Thanks for admitting that you are clueless about immunotoxicology.

            1. Thanks for providing all the evidence you have to support your position.

              That was very helpful.

              W&N

              1. reply to point 2:

                2. No you are very wrong. There are many actual real toxicologists who have warned about the toxic substances in vaccines for a LONG time. The issue is that ignorant people like you and especially pediatricians who dont know anything about toxicology start spouting ridiculous claims like aluminum is natural and helpful for fetal development – exactly what Paul Offit erroneously claimed. Ridiculous! Here is a (partial) list of HIGHLY TOXIC substances in vaccines: mercury, aluminum, foreign human DNA, glyphosate, Polysorbate 80, Phenol, Retro viruses and their reverse transcriptase, formaldehyde, QS-21 Stimulon, LPS, and there’s more but thats a good starting place. And many of these toxins are injected into infants who barely have a functioning immune system and during the most vulnerable ages for brain and immune system development. If you want to argue oh yeah these are in vaccines, but the dose makes the poison, you are a fool and dont know what you’re talking about and are about as ignorant as a typical pediatrician. I would like to hear why, in your opinion, mercury and aluminum would not be considered a toxin when injected into the muscle? Please enlighten me. And please make my day and say its because “the dose makes the poison”.

                1. “I would like to hear why, in your opinion, mercury and aluminum would not be considered a toxin when injected into the muscle”

                  Here is the definition of toxin:

                  “an antigenic poison or venom of plant or animal origin, especially one produced by or derived from microorganisms and causing disease when present at low concentration in the body.”

                  Mercury and aluminum are NOT toxins! BTW: you got your chemistry wrong…there is no mercury in vaccines.

                  All you have done is to repeat anti-vacc lies about toxicology. They don’t stand up to honest fact-checking if you care about the truth…

                  W&N

                  1. Mercury is still present in US in multi dose vials for flu vaccine – search CDC ‘Thimerosal in Flu Vaccine’. Whatever hair splitting semantics you use metals such as mercury and aluminium are still poisonous.

                  2. You are about clueless.

                    First of all, not only is mercury still in certain vaccines (such as the one John brought up), there is often trace amounts in many vaccines. And any amount of mercury will cause tissue damage.

                    Those pro vaxers fooled you man.

                    Second, you are so tripped up over precision of word usage you completely betray whatever point you’re trying to make. What i clearly mean is these substances are toxic or poisonous or DANGEROUS. The point is DANGER! I will be more careful to not use the word toxin next time – thank you for pointing out my misuse.

                    Now on to the main point: for you to say mercury and aluminum are not toxins implying they are not toxic or poisonous is scientifically tantamount to saying the earth is flat and stationary and the center of the universe. I really dont even know where to begin. It is an UNDENIABLE FACT that these are highly poisonous and damaging and destructive and deadly. There is a very large body of medical literature on these two substances with well done studies and well understood science that to deny they are harmful is pointless and absurd. The biggest argument you pro vaxers try to come up with is that it is excreted quickly from the body and so therefore does not do any harm. WRONG! That is not science that is a myth – check your facts! In fact both aluminum and mercury WHEN INJECTED have been clearly shown to stay in the body for months, years, and lifetimes. Anyone who denies this is scientifically illiterate!! These are cumulative poisons and accumulate all over the body. They especially like the brain! If you want to see studies i have them and will be glad to share them.

                    Suffice it to say, you are the one who is being fooled and lied to by big pharma. You believe all their propaganda. They are the most fined for fraud industry in the history of the world for all kinds of fraud and bribery and falsifying research. They have massive conflicts of interest and much of the “facts” you believe come from them! These are not facts they are made up science. They are ghostwritten made up mumbo jumbo. Pharmaceutical companies have a very perverse relationship to the current allopathic health care system: the sicker people get, the richer they become, the greater their profits are, the higher their stock prices are. They do not want people healthy, they want them sick! Wake UP!!

          2. For some reason i am being blocked when i try to reply, so i will reply one point at a time.

            You are wrong and/or deceptive on every point you make. You like to play with words…Lets dig into the data and facts:

            1. I have read the Nuremberg Code, it says exactly what i said: Here is a direct quote :
            “1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

            This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

            That is informed consent and is my point!! if you think that forcing a medical procedure on someone without informed consent is ok, you are barbaric and inhumane in my opinion. That’s exactly what the was done to jews. If a government official or doctor forced someone to be vaccinated against their will, it is no different in my and many peoples view as what was done to the jews

            1. You should have done what I said and read the first sentence.

              “The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical ***experiments*** on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally.”

              The code is about experiments. Licensed vaccines are NOT experiments.

              The anti-vaccs fooled you.

              W&N

              1. ” Licensed vaccines are NOT experiments.”

                Of course they are. You admitted there is no long term vaccine testing. The only long term testing that can occur is therefore in the general population. We REFUSE to be your guinea pigs.

              2. Yes vinu is correct, of course vaccines are an experiment. Thats exactly what they are thats exactly why the nuremberg code applies. And I claim vaccines are the greatest medical fraud ever committed against humanity in the history of medicine ( though statins may rival vaccines in fraud, unfortunately statins are a total fraud as well – thanks big pharma for both).

                i suppose you think then, that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is” NOT “absolutely essential” to certain medical procedures. well i disagree. we can leave it at that. if this is not obviously unethical and barbaric to you, you truly should seek help man. This is called violence and assault and this is NEVER ok to do to an innocent person.

          3. reply to point 3:

            3. In fact you are right here, the SCOTUS did not directly say this, but congress did. I should have stated Congress, not the supreme court. It is accurate to say “US Law regards vaccines as unavoidably unsafe.” My apologies for getting congress, the law, and SCOTUS confused. This statement actually comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 USC 300aa-22. which was passed in the late 1980s, subsequent to mandatory vaccines. And, the SCOTUS acknowledged this statement or belief by congress and the law in the 2010 Wyeth versus Bruesewits case (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf). It may even be more consequential that congress and the law state this because it is congress who could pass a law to prevent mandatory vaccination – the SCOTUS cannot do that. I hope congress does. Either way, the very existence of this law is substantial proof that vaccines are dangerous.

          4. reply to point 4a:
            4.a. You are playing with words and you weaken your argument by doing so. You sound like you’re babbling about nothing. But, regardless, here is my definition of safe when it comes to vaccines: they cannot cause permanent harm, damage, or death. If you dont like the word safe to mean this, then feel free to substitute another word. However, using this definition, vaccines are NOT SAFE.

            1. “But, regardless, here is my definition of safe when it comes to vaccines: they cannot cause permanent harm, damage, or death.”

              That is staggeringly absurd.

              In your definition no drug, no vaccine, no car, no plane….nothing(!!!!!!) is “safe”.

              The actual definition of safe is: the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms.

              If it is not immediately obvious to you why that is the correct definition…then you should find a new topic to discuss.

              W&N

              1. “The actual definition of safe is: the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms.”

                You just admitted risk/harm cannot be determined because vaccine testing duration is too short. So you have admitted that vaccine safety claims are a fraud.

              2. No, it is staggeringly common sense. Im not really sure if you actually have any, so i understand why you might be confused.

                The ENTIRE context is a pharmaceutical product called a vaccine. That is the ONLY context i am talking about here. Did you happen to notice the words “when it comes to vaccines”???????? I am NOT being general, which you cannot seem to grasp.

                Since you are struggling so much, I wont use the word safe .. so let me put it a different way: Vaccines cause permanent harm, damage, and death. PERIOD. Your definition also admits to the fact that vaccines can cause harm. Oops!

                Since you are so smart and such the vaccine expert, please enlighten us on the immunology of vaccines. What is the difference in TH1/TH2 immune response to a vaccine versus catching the sickness in the wild?? And if you can actually explain this and why it happens, then please tell me how this repeated out of balance over stimulation of the immune system does not easily explain much of the major immune system dysfunction that occurs from vaccination? i.e. please explain to me how this repeated over stimulation is not harmful to the immune system. Then i would like to hear you explain how foreign human DNA in vaccines (proven by Merks own data) does not cause massive microglia excitation problems in the brain leading to massive brain inflammation (encephalitis, autism, development problems) – we know these DNA fragments cross the blood brain barrier and causes problems and the FDA is in denial – are you?

              3. W&N

                “The actual definition of safe is: the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms.”

                On that definition if a vaccine killed two people for every three it saved it would be “safe”. I think that would be just about enough to justify anyone’s scepticism regarding the vaccine programme. I wonder what Alberto would say?

                Btw I wonder what the ethics are of swanking around here flashing your credentials all the time without identifying who you are. That is something we definitely would not allow on AoA.

          5. reply to 4b.
            4.b.yes they have paid out > 4 billion, go the governments own website to see. i cannot put the link in here because it keeps blocking me. They have paid out more than 4.3 billion – i just looked.

            And you also deceive everyone by what you say that vaccine manufacterers pay for it all. Sure, they give a small amount for each vaccine in case of injury, however they make billions off of Vaccines. So the small amount they give is only coming from profits they make. So can you really say they pay for it? Not in my opinion. However, they definitely get rich off of them. You could easily argue that it is the U.S. citizen who is actually paying for it in the first place – the ones paying for the vaccines. And furthermore, who cares who pays for it, the point is that it is the U.S. government who decides which victims get paid (in the special masters vaccine court) and it is the FACT that people are receiving compensation for VACCINE INJURY that is the the main point here, i.e. vaccines cause injury and there have been > 4 billion dollars paid to US citizens to compensate for the injuries.

            1. Please read the actual words at the site.

              1. All the money paid in compensation comes from a tax paid by vaccine manufacturers on each dose of vaccine they sell. 100% of the money….

              2. Compensation paid does not mean there was any vaccine injury. The rules for receiving compensation make this completely clear.

              Of course if you do read the words you risk learning that the anti-vaccs have been lying to parents about the law for more than 30 years….

              W&N

              1. 1. That is exactly what i said – thanks for verifying. However the fact that the manufacturers are getting rich off of them, hardly means they are paying for it. If this is not immediately obvious to you, you should find another topic to discuss as well.

                2. Thats so easy to say…but you offer no proof. Many of these cases drag on for years. It is not easy get compensated and they have to present scientific evidence. Its not like its just a free meal ticket! Please, as I asked AG to do and he failed, give me ONE SINGLE study that shows vaccines are actually safe. JUST ONE.

                The fact is that people like you are not only deceiving parents, you are causing great harm to our children and this entire generation. You are arrogant and you are the one who has failed to fact check. Please explain to me why if vaccines are so great and necessary, why vaccinated children as so sick? Why when vaccinated children are compared to unvaccinated children the health outcomes of the vaccinated are incredibly worse. Everything from auto immune disease, to allergies, to autism, the vaccinated are far sicker. The truth is that we have traded measles, mumps, and chicken pox for an auto immune epidemic, an allergy and asthma and eczema epidemic, and and autism and developmental disorder epidemic. The former diseases are potentially healthy for the immune system and are much simpler to deal with than the later. This is the fault of people just like YOU! And its getting worse really fast.

  21. The situation is fast approaching when The Public will be confronted with forced injection which can be regarded as Criminal Assault . There are Common Law principles that we do have Right To PHYSICAL Self Defend Ourselves , especially , like now , when the alleged criminals are in breach of the 1351 Treason Act by “clipping the coin” or as the B.o.E. & The Fed put it “quantitative easing” PRINTING MONEY . They are stealing our money then spending it on stuff we do not want . This is Tyranny . Lets face it , our civilization is broken , our leaders have failed in every respect and not one word of what they say can be trusted . Its no longer acceptable for “lessons to be learned” because there is no time left for that now . These expert professors are being paid with stolen money , I don’t wanThe situation is fast approaching when The Public will be confronted with forced injection which can be regarded as Criminal Assault . There are Common Law principles that we do have Right To PHYSICAL Self Defend Ourselves , especially , like now , when the alleged criminals are in breach of the 1351 Treason Act by “clipping the coin” or as the B.o.E. & The Fed put it “quantitative easing” PRINTING MONEY . They are stealing our money then spending it on stuff we do not want . This is Tyranny . Lets face it , our civilization is broken , our leaders have failed in every respect and not one word of what they say can be trusted . Its no longer acceptable for “lessons to be learned” because there is no time left for that now . These expert professors are being paid with stolen money , money stolen from us , I don’t want them nor their expert opinions . I refuse them , refuse their opinions and refuse their injections .

  22. I think it would have been better for Alberto Giubilini to engage with the substantive comments. X knows how to kill a comment column – he’s been doing it since at least 2008 under various name – by making insinuating, unsubstantiated comments all over the place (like scralling graffiti) but it is also a sure sign that someone somewhere is bothered by what has been said, and does not want to go on.

    1. Poor John…you are just mad because I keep over and over and over suggesting that folks fact-check.

      And with even the most childish effort the anti-vacc fraud is immediately obvious….all it takes is integrity to look.

      W&N

  23. W&N

    When I first encountered you (comments LA Times summer 2008?) you were trying to do an honest job arguing about something – you even seemed an erudite and likeable person though we were not in agreement. Now it is just mechanical personal attacks innuendo and smears – approaching 50 of them in less than four hours – maybe it’s got to 50 while I have been writing . Well, I guess you have a family to support but it’s a shame for you personally that you do this. I think it’s also a shame for the blog. It ought to welcome intelligent comment that does not necessarily agree with the author but it needs to reconsider its policy if it allows this to happen.

Comments are closed.