Dr. Prasad: Please share with your membership any and all long term safety studies for vaccines measured against true placebos. Also please assess the quality of those long term studies.
You're not getting that from Vinay or any other doctor, because their entire identity rests on these constructs. The whole "vaccines are safe and effective" self-hypnosis is required because what you request simply does not exist. In an honest world where scientists were doing pure science, this would. However, past basic high school science, most of science is not actual science for pure curiosity and truth, but rather has largely been captured by people in power. Repeat this for 50 decades, and you have the whole picture we're looking at now.
Rather than scientists and doctors just trying to do their job and the serve society that ultimately makes them who they are, they serve profit interests and drug manufacturers instead. The entire history of vaccine science is a testament to this fact and the avoidance of all inconvenient truths that might act as a threat to the increasingly shaky ground that scientists and doctors sit on in their false positioning propped up by money instead of people's genuine trust.
If you're curious just follow the censorship, the firings, and the cancelations, and so on. Not WHO is being canceled, but rather look at who is doing the canceling. Human nature seems to show that anyone who cannot make a good argument based on actual merit, rather than admitting that something needs to be learned, people are shut up and even criminalized for simply asking questions.
It's not just vaccines, it's many many things at this point. As the ground becomes shakier, the empire clamps down. It seems like it's gonna be a big fight, but I'd say, maybe it's pretty simple: all we have to do is stop buying the bullshit, stop acquiescing to "lesser evils", and simply point out the obvious.
My question wasn't for Dr. Prasad. It was asked rhetorically to demonstrate to his readership that his inability to respond to this request was the reveal of his disingenuousness about the claim that "some vaccines are safe" and "some vaccine are safety tested." A legitimate answer was not what I was looking for, since I knew there was none.
Yeah..I was also interested in seeing what vaccines for serious diseases were "safe and effective"..he has mentioned before that he doesn`t even read the comments so don`t pin too much on his silence..
The fact that Big Pharma is a mafia, that medicine has been corrupted (to the bone) by money and is not a science does not mean everything that comes out of it is crap. Does polio, smallpox and measles, among others, ring a bell? Same for antibiotics, some anti-neoplasics, anti-inflammatory drugs. Banting and Best sold their patent for insulin for 1$. It’s not their fault greedy companies decided to screw people (maybe you think insulin is a scam too?).
This, historically, has been my position. I was that parent who did my own research and found a truly independent doctor (cash lay only! Does not take insurance!) who is very conservative with prescriptions and vaccines. However the more I’m learning about nonsense studies (surrogate endpoints, poor controls, etc etc), corrupt FDA, and from what I saw with the absolute lying about side effects and ultimate efficacy of the Covid 19 vaccine has turned me… I’m trying really hard to stay balanced and not throw out the baby with the bath water but these people are the same people who STILL are pushing masks and Covid boosters. Each of my children has had _fewer_ vaccines -my fourth child born in 2021-has had very few. (I think one or two DTaPs-that’s it.) we practice ecological breastfeeding & do not do extended time away (Ie no daycare) which I surmise may be two of the most effective tools to fight infections in the under 5 set.
Dr. Prasad, I agree with many of your points, am grateful that you are courageous enough to even look at this issue. I would like clarification of your disagreement with the comparison of vaccines and drugs. Can you be more specific?
1) Which drugs are given to the healthy, and why? And how is "healthy" defined? For example, are people given drugs to address high blood pressure considered "healthy?" (I'm not saying they should or should not be, I'm just attempting to get clarification, as one could make an argument either way.)
2) Which drugs are given to people with prior reactions and why? What data supports the decision to do so? And if there IS another reaction, can't the doctor be sued for medical malpractice? Remember, that's not the case with vaccines, where doctors and nurses administering the shot have full liability protection, even if they give a shot to someone who had a previous adverse reactions, and even if they administer the wrong shot.
3) Which drugs have NOT been compared in clinical trials with true placebos -- and (here is the important part) were these drugs the first drugs to address a particular health issue (in which case there would be no similar drug to use as comparator)? This is significant, because the Covid mRNA vaccines were actually the first ones to publish results against a true placebo (but there are many serious issues with those clinical trials, which is food for a whole 'nother discussion).
Gardasil is the only other vaccine I could find that included a [VERY small] saline placebo arm in their massive trials. ALL OTHER VACCINES, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, WERE STUDIED FOR SAFETY AGAINST AN OLDER, FREQUENTLY MORE REACTIVE VACCINE AS "PLACEBO." (In all caps to emphasize significance -- sorry if it seems like I'm shouting!)
And in the case of Gardasil, I could not find where Merck EVER published the safety results of the placebo arm separately. They added 594 placebo recipients to 13,023 "not-really-a-placebo recipients," and then reported the results of the group of 13, 6017.
See the problem there?
According to the package insert (linked below:
"Across the clinical studies, 258 individuals (GARDASIL N = 128 or 0.8%; placebo N = 130 or 1.0%) out of 29,323 (GARDASIL N = 15,706; AAHS control N = 13,023; or saline placebo N = 594) individuals (9-through 45-year-old girls and women; and 9- through 26-year-old boys and men) reported a serious systemic adverse reaction.
Of the entire study population (29,323 individuals), 0.04% of the reported serious systemic adverse
reactions were judged to be vaccine related by the study investigator. "
So the study investigator, who was paid by Merck, got to judge which reported systemic adverse reactions were vaccine-related? Seriously? No conflict of interest there?
Here's what the rest of the "placebo"-controlled clinical trials looked like, from the same package insert:
"Subjects either received GARDASIL and RECOMBIVAX HB (n = 466), GARDASIL and RECOMBIVAX HB-matched placebo (n = 468), RECOMBIVAX HB and GARDASIL-matched placebo (n = 467) or RECOMBIVAX-matched placebo and GARDASIL-matched placebo (n = 470) at Day 1, Month 2 and Month 6. Immunogenicity was assessed for all vaccines 1 month post completion of the vaccination series.
The "matched placebo" included all the ingredients of the listed vaccine minus the antigen for the targeted infection. This means that they included the aluminum adjuvant.
Aluminum adjuvants, like all vaccine adjuvants, are intended to provoke a stronger immune response. There is no way that can be considered a true placebo for safety assessments.
From the same package insert: AAHS = Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate: “The ability of an antigen to induce a potent, long-lasting immune response is dependent on the form of aluminum adjuvant used for the selected antigen, probably due both to the adjuvant’s relative ability to adsorb and slowly release the antigen, as well as its immunostimulatory properties with the selected formulation. Merck Aluminum Adjuvant (AAHS) is a proprietary aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate formulation that is both physically and functionally distinct from traditional aluminum phosphate and aluminum hydroxide adjuvants."
So even the placebo participants received 2-3 doses of 500 mcg of the aluminum adjuvant over the course of the study -- and they were offered the real vaccine at the conclusion of the study. So much for assessing long-term issues...
Also, notice that the package insert (linked below) states that immunogenicity was assessed at one month. It says NOTHING about whether safety was assessed, or how, or at what point.
Did the FDA not notice this? Or did they notice and just look away? Either way, I'd say that the FDA fell down on the job here.
Gardasil is given to prevent an STD -- Human Papilloma Virus -- which is strongly linked with certain cancers, but cannot apparently cause cancer on its own, and the vast majority of infected people recover from the virus and clear it from their system with no medication, and usually with no obvious symptoms.
This is a great post. Sadly, over many years I have learned that either Vinay never reads the comments or he never responds. They are just for our own amusement as near as I can tell.
Well, that's discouraging. I understand he has a job, and probably a family, and spends quite a lot of time writing and podcasting, but it's not like he has thousands of comments to sift through here -- only 11 comments in the 7 hours this post has been up as I write this.
The best way to avoid falling into the echo chamber pit is to engage in dialog with dissenters. (Note, I said "dialog," not "catfighting.")
I was hoping that if I made any incorrect assumption, that Dr. Prasad would explain them, and also, that he might be open to listening to and discussing dissenting conclusions.
Allison, Maybe you are more special than I am. Over the years I have made many comments, some with hundreds of upvotes, on this site. Never a single response. Nor have I seen dialogs with others (might have missed them, of course, but have looked). But my personal experience is not hopeful.
@Dr. K (or anyone else who has an answer): if our comments here are only for our own amusement, and Dr. Prasad either doesn't bother to read them or doesn't bother to respond, then what is the point of subscribing, when we can read most of his posts without subscription?
I asked myself that question years ago -- I was one of his earliest subscribers. But I have come to appreciate the voices in the comments as much as Vinay's. There is much wisdom in many of them. So I find the comments and the interactions in the comment space to have separate and decent value. Just one man's opinion.
Boy do you have this one wrong! I agree with you on most of your posts, but you're way off here. Vaccines may have some similarities with drugs, but some very important differences:
1. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, protects manufacturers from liability for vaccine injury (this act also set up the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program). Note that injury compensation in the VICP is funded by our tax dollars, with an excise tax added to every dose of vaccine administered,
2. Vaccines are often mandated, whether for childhood school programs, employment, international travel, and other reasons. Exemptions to the mandates, eg health or religious reasons, are often ignored or not recognized, and there are powerful advocacy groups working to eliminate these exemptions in many states. Drugs are rarely mandated and only under very special circumstances, such as severe mental illness with threat of harm to self or others.
3. Financial conflicts of interest are rampant and egregious within the health industry, both with vaccines and drugs. But vaccines are worse, because of the mandatory use described above. Ties between CDC, FDA, NIH and the vaccine manufacturers orchestrate the flow of billions of dollars directly to the organizations with the authority and power to mandate vaccines; this is unacceptable and untenable.
4. Vaccines are perhaps unique in the almost absolute lack of adequate study on their efficacy and safety. Clinical trials on drugs are often poor, even terrible, but we still see at least the occasional placebo-controlled RCT. Not with vaccines.
And here is the key point for Dr. Prasad: You speak eloquently of the value of RCTs as the best mechanism to study many medical interventions. How have you essentially let this idea go for vaccines? Are you familiar with the literature (and lack of) on this topic? Please do your homework!
*Vaccines are presrcibed on a one-size-fits-all basis without any medical evaluation of the patient. Drugs are prescribed on an as-needed basis, and only after a medical evaluation of each patient.
Actually, in a way, drugs are mandated - there's Fluoride in the water. And since fluoride is used to treat hyperthyroidism, those who are hypothyroid are being prescribed the wrong drug against their will.
(Yes, if you spend a good chunk of money you can buy filters to try to get the fluoride out, but it's expensive. Another one of those "the rich can fix this while the poor suffer.")
I'm a pediatrician and a vaccine proponent. I agree with you that we should think about vaccines as drugs in the sense that we should use the right vaccine in the right person at the right time, and acknowledge that every drug, including vaccines, has benefits and risks. When they are treated as a political statement we don't give them the respect they deserve. There is one aspect of vaccines that is different from other drugs however. They are permanent in a way (some more than others). That's why we have vaccine records but not "drug records". No one cares if you took most medications one time 10 years ago (maybe certain chemotherapy agents would be exceptions), but for vaccines that's meaningful That lasting effect has ethical implications. It's one of many reasons that we should have a higher standard for evidence for their use, especially for univeral recommendations.
"Mandates should never be used for vaccines that don’t have third party benefit."
Vaccine Mandates should never be allowed until all the other conditions you mentioned are met, namely, better/longer RCTs, no legal immunity for manufacturers, no revolving door between FDA and pharma, and so on.
As far as I know, boosters with Omicron have not been shown to be benificial in any age category (not only in young men), except maybe elderly (> 70 or 80?) and/or immunocompromised and/or people with conditions that have a higher risk of bad outcome (no good studies, no answer). I've had the first series of 3 (should have stopped at 2, but did not want any trouble) and since then had a common cold caused by SARS-CoV-2 three times. I'm done with mRNA vaccines since 2022. If they ever get the intranasal live vaccine (which is way better in animal models) to market, I will think about it. The Medicago vaccine (plant-engineered VLP) was effective, but it was not approved by the WHO because a tobacco company had shares? Are you kidding me???
10000000%!!!!! The craziest thing people do is lump vaccines and the diseases they treat all together as if they're all the same. Measles is not the same as HPV or Hep B.
If RFK can do half of what he wants to do, there will be a net benefit to everyone. There was a time I believed vaccines were a net benefit to society. That medical profession was an honorable one. No Longer. Was blind...now I see.
I shared article on FB. Within 15-30 minutes; it was removed as “spam”. The trigger for censorship was either “substack” or “Prasad”. I followed-up by publicly issuing a 2nd warning to FB about unwarranted censorship. I warned Facebook that further violations would result in banning FB from my household.
Dr. Prasad: Please share with your membership any and all long term safety studies for vaccines measured against true placebos. Also please assess the quality of those long term studies.
Thank you!
Don't you get it?
You're not getting that from Vinay or any other doctor, because their entire identity rests on these constructs. The whole "vaccines are safe and effective" self-hypnosis is required because what you request simply does not exist. In an honest world where scientists were doing pure science, this would. However, past basic high school science, most of science is not actual science for pure curiosity and truth, but rather has largely been captured by people in power. Repeat this for 50 decades, and you have the whole picture we're looking at now.
Rather than scientists and doctors just trying to do their job and the serve society that ultimately makes them who they are, they serve profit interests and drug manufacturers instead. The entire history of vaccine science is a testament to this fact and the avoidance of all inconvenient truths that might act as a threat to the increasingly shaky ground that scientists and doctors sit on in their false positioning propped up by money instead of people's genuine trust.
If you're curious just follow the censorship, the firings, and the cancelations, and so on. Not WHO is being canceled, but rather look at who is doing the canceling. Human nature seems to show that anyone who cannot make a good argument based on actual merit, rather than admitting that something needs to be learned, people are shut up and even criminalized for simply asking questions.
It's not just vaccines, it's many many things at this point. As the ground becomes shakier, the empire clamps down. It seems like it's gonna be a big fight, but I'd say, maybe it's pretty simple: all we have to do is stop buying the bullshit, stop acquiescing to "lesser evils", and simply point out the obvious.
My question wasn't for Dr. Prasad. It was asked rhetorically to demonstrate to his readership that his inability to respond to this request was the reveal of his disingenuousness about the claim that "some vaccines are safe" and "some vaccine are safety tested." A legitimate answer was not what I was looking for, since I knew there was none.
Yeah..I was also interested in seeing what vaccines for serious diseases were "safe and effective"..he has mentioned before that he doesn`t even read the comments so don`t pin too much on his silence..
Yeah, I think you have a great question and I am also being rhetorical too. You obviously understand the issue ;)
The fact that Big Pharma is a mafia, that medicine has been corrupted (to the bone) by money and is not a science does not mean everything that comes out of it is crap. Does polio, smallpox and measles, among others, ring a bell? Same for antibiotics, some anti-neoplasics, anti-inflammatory drugs. Banting and Best sold their patent for insulin for 1$. It’s not their fault greedy companies decided to screw people (maybe you think insulin is a scam too?).
This, historically, has been my position. I was that parent who did my own research and found a truly independent doctor (cash lay only! Does not take insurance!) who is very conservative with prescriptions and vaccines. However the more I’m learning about nonsense studies (surrogate endpoints, poor controls, etc etc), corrupt FDA, and from what I saw with the absolute lying about side effects and ultimate efficacy of the Covid 19 vaccine has turned me… I’m trying really hard to stay balanced and not throw out the baby with the bath water but these people are the same people who STILL are pushing masks and Covid boosters. Each of my children has had _fewer_ vaccines -my fourth child born in 2021-has had very few. (I think one or two DTaPs-that’s it.) we practice ecological breastfeeding & do not do extended time away (Ie no daycare) which I surmise may be two of the most effective tools to fight infections in the under 5 set.
Dr. Prasad, I agree with many of your points, am grateful that you are courageous enough to even look at this issue. I would like clarification of your disagreement with the comparison of vaccines and drugs. Can you be more specific?
1) Which drugs are given to the healthy, and why? And how is "healthy" defined? For example, are people given drugs to address high blood pressure considered "healthy?" (I'm not saying they should or should not be, I'm just attempting to get clarification, as one could make an argument either way.)
2) Which drugs are given to people with prior reactions and why? What data supports the decision to do so? And if there IS another reaction, can't the doctor be sued for medical malpractice? Remember, that's not the case with vaccines, where doctors and nurses administering the shot have full liability protection, even if they give a shot to someone who had a previous adverse reactions, and even if they administer the wrong shot.
3) Which drugs have NOT been compared in clinical trials with true placebos -- and (here is the important part) were these drugs the first drugs to address a particular health issue (in which case there would be no similar drug to use as comparator)? This is significant, because the Covid mRNA vaccines were actually the first ones to publish results against a true placebo (but there are many serious issues with those clinical trials, which is food for a whole 'nother discussion).
Gardasil is the only other vaccine I could find that included a [VERY small] saline placebo arm in their massive trials. ALL OTHER VACCINES, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, WERE STUDIED FOR SAFETY AGAINST AN OLDER, FREQUENTLY MORE REACTIVE VACCINE AS "PLACEBO." (In all caps to emphasize significance -- sorry if it seems like I'm shouting!)
And in the case of Gardasil, I could not find where Merck EVER published the safety results of the placebo arm separately. They added 594 placebo recipients to 13,023 "not-really-a-placebo recipients," and then reported the results of the group of 13, 6017.
See the problem there?
According to the package insert (linked below:
"Across the clinical studies, 258 individuals (GARDASIL N = 128 or 0.8%; placebo N = 130 or 1.0%) out of 29,323 (GARDASIL N = 15,706; AAHS control N = 13,023; or saline placebo N = 594) individuals (9-through 45-year-old girls and women; and 9- through 26-year-old boys and men) reported a serious systemic adverse reaction.
Of the entire study population (29,323 individuals), 0.04% of the reported serious systemic adverse
reactions were judged to be vaccine related by the study investigator. "
So the study investigator, who was paid by Merck, got to judge which reported systemic adverse reactions were vaccine-related? Seriously? No conflict of interest there?
Here's what the rest of the "placebo"-controlled clinical trials looked like, from the same package insert:
"Subjects either received GARDASIL and RECOMBIVAX HB (n = 466), GARDASIL and RECOMBIVAX HB-matched placebo (n = 468), RECOMBIVAX HB and GARDASIL-matched placebo (n = 467) or RECOMBIVAX-matched placebo and GARDASIL-matched placebo (n = 470) at Day 1, Month 2 and Month 6. Immunogenicity was assessed for all vaccines 1 month post completion of the vaccination series.
The "matched placebo" included all the ingredients of the listed vaccine minus the antigen for the targeted infection. This means that they included the aluminum adjuvant.
Aluminum adjuvants, like all vaccine adjuvants, are intended to provoke a stronger immune response. There is no way that can be considered a true placebo for safety assessments.
From the same package insert: AAHS = Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate: “The ability of an antigen to induce a potent, long-lasting immune response is dependent on the form of aluminum adjuvant used for the selected antigen, probably due both to the adjuvant’s relative ability to adsorb and slowly release the antigen, as well as its immunostimulatory properties with the selected formulation. Merck Aluminum Adjuvant (AAHS) is a proprietary aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate formulation that is both physically and functionally distinct from traditional aluminum phosphate and aluminum hydroxide adjuvants."
So even the placebo participants received 2-3 doses of 500 mcg of the aluminum adjuvant over the course of the study -- and they were offered the real vaccine at the conclusion of the study. So much for assessing long-term issues...
Also, notice that the package insert (linked below) states that immunogenicity was assessed at one month. It says NOTHING about whether safety was assessed, or how, or at what point.
Did the FDA not notice this? Or did they notice and just look away? Either way, I'd say that the FDA fell down on the job here.
Here is the package insert: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm111263.pdf
Gardasil is given to prevent an STD -- Human Papilloma Virus -- which is strongly linked with certain cancers, but cannot apparently cause cancer on its own, and the vast majority of infected people recover from the virus and clear it from their system with no medication, and usually with no obvious symptoms.
So which drugs are used comparably?
This is a great post. Sadly, over many years I have learned that either Vinay never reads the comments or he never responds. They are just for our own amusement as near as I can tell.
Well, that's discouraging. I understand he has a job, and probably a family, and spends quite a lot of time writing and podcasting, but it's not like he has thousands of comments to sift through here -- only 11 comments in the 7 hours this post has been up as I write this.
The best way to avoid falling into the echo chamber pit is to engage in dialog with dissenters. (Note, I said "dialog," not "catfighting.")
I was hoping that if I made any incorrect assumption, that Dr. Prasad would explain them, and also, that he might be open to listening to and discussing dissenting conclusions.
Allison, Maybe you are more special than I am. Over the years I have made many comments, some with hundreds of upvotes, on this site. Never a single response. Nor have I seen dialogs with others (might have missed them, of course, but have looked). But my personal experience is not hopeful.
If by "special," you mean "naïve," you're probably right...
@Dr. K (or anyone else who has an answer): if our comments here are only for our own amusement, and Dr. Prasad either doesn't bother to read them or doesn't bother to respond, then what is the point of subscribing, when we can read most of his posts without subscription?
I asked myself that question years ago -- I was one of his earliest subscribers. But I have come to appreciate the voices in the comments as much as Vinay's. There is much wisdom in many of them. So I find the comments and the interactions in the comment space to have separate and decent value. Just one man's opinion.
Boy do you have this one wrong! I agree with you on most of your posts, but you're way off here. Vaccines may have some similarities with drugs, but some very important differences:
1. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, protects manufacturers from liability for vaccine injury (this act also set up the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program). Note that injury compensation in the VICP is funded by our tax dollars, with an excise tax added to every dose of vaccine administered,
2. Vaccines are often mandated, whether for childhood school programs, employment, international travel, and other reasons. Exemptions to the mandates, eg health or religious reasons, are often ignored or not recognized, and there are powerful advocacy groups working to eliminate these exemptions in many states. Drugs are rarely mandated and only under very special circumstances, such as severe mental illness with threat of harm to self or others.
3. Financial conflicts of interest are rampant and egregious within the health industry, both with vaccines and drugs. But vaccines are worse, because of the mandatory use described above. Ties between CDC, FDA, NIH and the vaccine manufacturers orchestrate the flow of billions of dollars directly to the organizations with the authority and power to mandate vaccines; this is unacceptable and untenable.
4. Vaccines are perhaps unique in the almost absolute lack of adequate study on their efficacy and safety. Clinical trials on drugs are often poor, even terrible, but we still see at least the occasional placebo-controlled RCT. Not with vaccines.
And here is the key point for Dr. Prasad: You speak eloquently of the value of RCTs as the best mechanism to study many medical interventions. How have you essentially let this idea go for vaccines? Are you familiar with the literature (and lack of) on this topic? Please do your homework!
Excellent points here, Dr. Prasad. THIS IS WORTH DISCUSSION!!!
Two big differences between vaccines and drugs:
*Only vaccines have mandates; drugs never do.
*Vaccines are presrcibed on a one-size-fits-all basis without any medical evaluation of the patient. Drugs are prescribed on an as-needed basis, and only after a medical evaluation of each patient.
Actually, in a way, drugs are mandated - there's Fluoride in the water. And since fluoride is used to treat hyperthyroidism, those who are hypothyroid are being prescribed the wrong drug against their will.
(Yes, if you spend a good chunk of money you can buy filters to try to get the fluoride out, but it's expensive. Another one of those "the rich can fix this while the poor suffer.")
I'm a pediatrician and a vaccine proponent. I agree with you that we should think about vaccines as drugs in the sense that we should use the right vaccine in the right person at the right time, and acknowledge that every drug, including vaccines, has benefits and risks. When they are treated as a political statement we don't give them the respect they deserve. There is one aspect of vaccines that is different from other drugs however. They are permanent in a way (some more than others). That's why we have vaccine records but not "drug records". No one cares if you took most medications one time 10 years ago (maybe certain chemotherapy agents would be exceptions), but for vaccines that's meaningful That lasting effect has ethical implications. It's one of many reasons that we should have a higher standard for evidence for their use, especially for univeral recommendations.
"Mandates should never be used for vaccines that don’t have third party benefit."
Vaccine Mandates should never be allowed until all the other conditions you mentioned are met, namely, better/longer RCTs, no legal immunity for manufacturers, no revolving door between FDA and pharma, and so on.
As far as I know, boosters with Omicron have not been shown to be benificial in any age category (not only in young men), except maybe elderly (> 70 or 80?) and/or immunocompromised and/or people with conditions that have a higher risk of bad outcome (no good studies, no answer). I've had the first series of 3 (should have stopped at 2, but did not want any trouble) and since then had a common cold caused by SARS-CoV-2 three times. I'm done with mRNA vaccines since 2022. If they ever get the intranasal live vaccine (which is way better in animal models) to market, I will think about it. The Medicago vaccine (plant-engineered VLP) was effective, but it was not approved by the WHO because a tobacco company had shares? Are you kidding me???
10000000%!!!!! The craziest thing people do is lump vaccines and the diseases they treat all together as if they're all the same. Measles is not the same as HPV or Hep B.
Shared this article on facebook and they removed it.
If RFK can do half of what he wants to do, there will be a net benefit to everyone. There was a time I believed vaccines were a net benefit to society. That medical profession was an honorable one. No Longer. Was blind...now I see.
Mass vaccination is not about science it's about fear-mongering, germophobia and hygiene MORALITY.
It should not exist.
Disagree with 5.
Third party benefit is a cope.
Contagious Diseases do population control. There is no moral rational stance to want to eradicate them or defy death on a global scale.
100% of medical decisions should be personal.
0 exceptions.
I shared article on FB. Within 15-30 minutes; it was removed as “spam”. The trigger for censorship was either “substack” or “Prasad”. I followed-up by publicly issuing a 2nd warning to FB about unwarranted censorship. I warned Facebook that further violations would result in banning FB from my household.
Admired colleague Dr Prasad
Thanks a million for the work you have done.
For high risk patients, is the non-mRNA vaccine from Novavax a better option than Moderna and Pfizer vaccines?
Dr Salomon Jakubowicz
Amen!