Great discussion. I have been using this tactic in my clinic - explaining to people that some vaccines are most likely to be beneficial (IPV, Td) and some are not - especially on an individual basis. All medical products have potential for harm, etc. It helps to diffuse this all or nothing mentality. We can start looking at vaccines like all medications - the good, the bad and the ugly. Some vaccines were discontinued due to adverse/unexpected negative effects dengue vaccine) and some likely have questionable clinically significant benefit (RSV, Covid) - except in high risk groups. For some new vaccines (like drugs) - if there is a question regarding risk/benefit ratio and a patient is fairly healthy - we can wait a few years and see what happens in regards to efficacy and safety as these new vaccines are in use for longer periods. Unfortunately, this requires a lot of work on my part - previously, we doctors would simply follow CDC recommendations as we did not and still do not have much time for delving deep into the research and outcome studies. Recognize that vaccine administration is one of the most minor part of my day when providing adult medical care. Having long conversations with patients regarding the merits of a vaccine (HPV comes to mind) is very time consuming and not really possible in a 20 minute visit for multiple other medical concerns.
Hi Brian- my position (and posts) was that we couldn’t know efficacy against severe disease because observational data was inadequate due to healthy user bias. Forgive me, but can you link to your best post on how you conclude it’s effective against severe disease?
It isn't meant to satisfy any kind of question to the effect of 'how can we really know.' I have never made such a post as this.
Obviously there's a default preference in medicine for controlled trials, but the Covid vaccine trials being exploded after a few weeks, we don't have that. But does that mean we 'can't know'? Only to the same extent we can or can't know anything that isn't subject to controlled trial. Severe efficacy was either real or not. The evidence is consistent with severe efficacy being real, and it doesn't make any biological sense that it wouldn't be (e.g. if natural immunity is "1 protective" why wouldn't artificial immunity be ">0 - 1 protective"? there's no sensible argument for "0 protective").
Healthy user bias, I am skeptical that it was such a big problem. You take studies of pre-vaccine risk, what are the biggest HRs you can generate between groups (of hypothetical "users") within age brackets, maybe one or two things will get into the range of 5 (cardiovascular disease yes/no) but most are 2ish. So for example if the unvaxxed were all at the highest BMI and vaxxed were all at healthy BMI thats 3 - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(21)00089-9/fulltext This is the neighborhood of observed severe efficacy within adult age groups. But that's only the extreme poles on the BMI scale.
And, no real life user 'bias' is going to produce such a pure collection of 'healthy' users. Just look at pictures from American vaccination clinics in 2021. These are not healthy people. IRL you have members of your ideal unhealthy group getting vaxxed and vice versa, so whatever healthy user bias you have is going to be a diluted value of such a perfect division. So if you are seeing, consistently across different settings / cultures, unvaxxed per-infection HRs of 3 to 5 in older age groups, is user bias a convincing explanation, I do not think so really.
There are other counter-arguments against 'user bias efficacy illusion' (e.g. bias often shown to go the other way for flu vax) but I have never made a post on the topic, this one battle I decided not to pick.
As Kevin McKernan has pointed out, the problem with the PCR tests is that they tell you how much viral mRNA compared to human DNA is picked up in the swab, nor do they tell you that it is replication competent ... it could be that you mucosa has dealt with that annoying virus.
What is this in regards to? I've probably already given my thoughts on this point, which is that I don't see what the point of the point is. No one was throwing PCR+ people into carbonite, the 'active / recent' distinction was never relevant in any broad sense since all actives become recents become past infections anyway.
There is complexity around vaccines, because there are two different types, and perhaps they should have had different names :-)
Vaccines against bacterial infections are typically designed to produce antibodies against the toxins released by those pathogens, and they do not confer immunity to the pathogen. Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis vaccines are like that.
On the other hand, vaccines against viruses try to produce antibodies against some protein on the surface of the virus, either by injecting an attenuated form of the virus, along with an adjuvant, or, more recently, by injecting a virus vector or an LNP encapsulated modRNA vector that gets your cells to produce the virus' surface proteins without it being replication competent.
Thus, to claim vaccines never work you have to claim that both (or all three, four etc) types never work.
Haven't looked at codagenix. OPV is "domesticated" (according to my personal standards) in part because it still behaves like regular virus, in fact since it is barely replication competent (messed up RNA secondary structure) there is a bottleneck during OPV infection that leads to rapid deattenuation, and this is what is shed. Vs. measles ok well this isn't like infection, and if there's unknown benefits to natural measles (like reduction of autoimmunity or cancer, who knows) then there's no reason to expect those are retained (besides perhaps innate immune antiviral boost).
Thanks, Codagenix CoviLiv is a live attenuated intranasal vaccine intended to induce good mucosal immunity in addition to systemic immunity. The attenuation is from codon pair deoptimization via hundreds of synonymous mutations of the original Wuhan strain but with the FCS removed. It seems to avoid various novel risks of the mRNA vaccines, but based on the brief description above, can you immediately see any potential safety problems with their basic approach (codon pair deoptimization and FCS removal)?
Only a modified version of product quality problems that apply to any deattenuated vaccines. In the case of codon-scrambling you aren't worried about the vaccine virus deattenuating. But what if the wild virus contaminates a batch. But attenuated virus vaccines have already been dealing with this kind of QA for decades.
Would it work - protect the minority of adults who wouldn't have handled the regular virus just fine - maybe. In kids I would be skeptical, first because bad outcomes so rare, second because innate antiviral immunity is tuned so high that anything besides wild virus might not be potent enough. So it's a very elaborate way to effect an extremely marginal mortality reduction among adults, probably. But maybe could turn into a thing for kids for all sorts of (almost harmless to kids) viruses. I might read more on it.
Great article as always; I tend to see dogmatic antivaxxers as having a religious faith in the presence of some unseen central malevolent force behind it all, so getting them to look at data showing _some_ vaccines may be of benefit in _some_ way will be like Galileo trying to get the Pope to look through his telescope.
That said I've come across at least a couple of people who I'd regard as anti-anti-vaxers, they seem to have an ignorant disdain of opposing arguments probably cultivated by the media's obsession with anti vaxxers, and leading to a blind faith in The Science.
What's common to both of these is that reasoning doesn't work too well, it needs a more theraputic approach which I find hard to get right. Perhaps the best that can be done is find some common ground and sympathetically plant some ideas that /may/ come to fruition some day? Though it's hard going in the mean time...
Here in California "anti-anti-" is the default religion, not just for vaccines but for any topic that has a mainstream position or is "scienceTM." This was my neighbor who inspired my childhood mortality series. Just for me to bring up vaccines he assumed I was a loon (unneighborly behavior to say the least). And I was just going wherever he took the conversation and generally with an attitude of "well here's an interesting idea I can plant on that subject," e.g. first example polio only 24th cause of death in children in 1947. And probably I did plant some seeds (he had a weird idea that there was a huge wave of refugees after WWI when I said that immigration stopped in the 1920s lol) but too late for further conversation to be possible given his violent reaction to being told finally that all his facts were wrong.
Is another unmentioned parallel perhaps the polarisation in the Covid-skeptical community?
Either you think it was all a hoax and/or that Covid-19 is a nothingburger OR that everything was justified because Covid was so dangerous. There is barely space for a discussion in the middle where, for example: the pandemic WAS massively exaggerated AND Covid was never significantly more lethal than the flu, BUT the consequence of the frequency with which a huge proportion of the population is getting infected is likely WORSE than the flu?
(Note, this does NOT mean I condone/support draconian measures to limit human interactions.)
Not reaching, not desperate at all. Perhaps you need to look into Commerce and the fundamentals of Law Merchant which is part of Common Law that has existed in some form or other for thousands of years, if not 10,000 or more.
No facts are 'obvious' as to suggest that they are is essential totalitarianism or fundamentalism. There are no inviolate 'facts' that just are. There can only ever be Claim which can appear to be substantially supported by the available evidence - until it is not.
Wrong Brian, Claim is EVERYTHING. To Claim that Virus exists rests on the evidence to support THAT Claim, and to Claim that a mix of Chemicals as in a Vaccine WILL be effective for most against exposure to THAT Virus rest solely upon evidence of BOTH the so called Virus and the Efficacy of the 'vaccine'.
In suggesting that NEITHER Claim has evidence it does not fall to me to produce evidence at all. My Counter Claim rests upon the LACK of evidence for the Claim that a virus exists and a Claim that a chemical mix can counter the effects of that virus. Without a 'virus' a 'vaccine' cannot be Claimed to prevents its effects. To demand I provide evidence that something called by some a 'virus' does not exist is to demand I provide evidence of a 'nothing' UNLESS there is actual evidence presented to support the original Claim of a Virus existing.
"The sun is Hot" No its not I say. "Then prove it is NOT hot to prove it is cold" Why? First show evidence the sun is hot as I do not need to show evidence of either hot or cold. The Claim of a hot sun is what is being challenged for evidence.
So many people do not get it.
Saying that I must show evidence a 'virus' does not exist, is NOT PROOF that a thing some call a Virus does exist. Saying that a 'vaccine' is not effective due to the lack of evidence to show it is, is simply a demand for the evidence to support any Claim saying it is effective.
Any Claim is empty, a void rendering it invalid with no evidence to support it. This is a simple fact of life.
Upset? YOU are the one suggesting 'upset and 'reaching' and 'reacting' which are directed at myself and not the issue of the debate.
Belief by the way is based upon 'faith' which ignores the issue of evidence and often avoids it altogether. An opinion can be given without the need for evidence but a Claim of Fact demands that it be supported by the evidence or it is no more than Opinion based upon a belief.
Out-of-thread comments always show who is upset; a useful feature on substack. Don't comment when upset if you don't want it to be obvious.
Yours is the faith. And your problem is not with whether evidence for viruses exist but whether you consider it "proof." In other words as long as the box called "evidence for viruses" contains one item of inference, you consider the claim defeated. But what does this actually have to do with *what is true*?
Oh Brian, you have stepped into the hole you created for yourself. You are attacking the man and not the debate or the substance even of your own article. I am not accusing you of anything as a man yet you are making statements as to who and what I am and what I am doing wrong and why.
Your article title is directed by the headline at beliefs in whether vaccines work or not and how that relates to a pro-vaccine position.
I am addressing that issue and not you the man. Can you do the same. You refer to people having the same 'moral instincts' despite appearing to hold opposition views.
You make a good point regarding the overlap of two opposing dogmas into the issue of whether 'every body should take them' provided that it is assumed the issue of taking any or all vaccines is solely to be based upon what constitutes efficacy.
What I am suggesting is that neither the pro nor anti dogma is valid unless there is evidence to support the Claims that are the foundation of the respective dogma, ie are there are or are not 'viruses' and the question of whether manufactured chemical mixes known as 'vaccines' effective oir not in preventing the effects attributed to the 'viruses'.
I follow the data and make my conclusions the best that I can from the best possible available data. Therefore, I generally piss everyone off.
My informed opinion is that the best available data show that mRNA vaccination clearly had temporary efficacy against severe outcomes and mortality until the omicron period began in December 2021. But over the last 2 years, the data that support these injections as protective against ANYTHING has progressively become more and more iffy. In fact, the preponderance of the data that have been released since the 12/21 support the hypothesis that the vaccinated are now MORE likely to contract (and therefore spread) COVID than are the unvaccinated: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/17xb137/finally_a_scientific_paper_examines_walgreens/
Furthermore, over the past 2 years, reliable data purporting to measure these injections' protection against severe outcomes have also become spottier and spottier. Long gone are the gaudy Delta era proclamations that the unvaccinated are X times more likely to test positive, be hospitalized, spend time in the ICU, and even die with COVID. While there have been some decent data released to support these claims, healthy vaccinee bias, healthcare discrimination of the unvaccinated, demographic differences, and especially clear and conclusive statistical overestimates of vaccinated populations and clear and conclusive statistical underestimates of unvaccinated populations can at least potentially account for almost all if not all of the supposed protective benefit of mRNA injections against even severe omicron outcomes. And most recent studies of efficacy against severe outcomes are very narrowly concerned with the temporary benefits provided by the experimental subjects' n+1th booster over "control" subjects' nth booster because the vast majority of these studies were and are being done only to sell these injections.
Now, exactly why the efficacy of these injections against both contraction and severe outcomes has so severely diminished is subject to debate. The unvaccinated as a group are more likely to be poor, uninsured, and/or members of minority groups subject to institutional discrimination. On the other hand, the unvaccinated as a group are also more likely to be young, active, and healthy, and thus to have previously developed natural immunity. So with all of these confounders, raw observational data are subject to question. These injections could still potentially provide net temporary benefit, but frankly I would currently recommend them ONLY to the small population of those without natural immunity who also fear death from omicron.
But I agree entirely with your overall point that more than 90% of the opinions I encounter about vaccination are reflexively dogmatic with very few on either side ever daring to consider the inherent weaknesses in the entire underpinnings of our establishment's dogmatic Vaccine Theology.
Vaccines are the only medical products that are routinely mandated universally for all healthy young people with perfectly healthy immune systems. In addition, they are the only medical products whose manufacturers face no liability for any injuries caused by the products they profit from. Finally, it has been deemed unethical to scientifically test to see whether the overall health benefits of these vaccines actually exceed their risks in randomly controlled trials. All vaccine manufacturers have to demonstrate is any level of temporary level of efficacy and that their vaccine is initially "tolerated" comparably to the other vaccines that it is tested against.
So there are no medical products for which capitalistic incentives for safety and efficacy are any more rigged in favor of the manufacturer. And yet there are millions upon millions of otherwise educated people who sincerely believe that just because these products are allowed to be marketed as "vaccines" that this uniquely exempts them from every evil of capitalism that applies to every other manufactured product. Why?
Why are vaccines and vaccines alone deemed so sacrosanct such that anyone who questions any specific vaccine gets immediately vilified an "anti-vax conspiratoid" whose lunatic ravings need to be censored?
What gives vaccines such a magic quality that they and they alone are somehow exempt from all of the pitfalls of capitalism to the point that it is almost universally considered VIRTUOUS among our medical and public health establishment to FORCE them on all those who do not want or need them?
Interesting set of articles on the efficacy of vaccines against contagious diseases. My own position on vaccines has more to do with observations regarding veterinary medicine. For example, kittens born into feral colonies that are not vaccinated against feline distemper rarely survive past the age of three months because the disease kills them. I have seen this over and over again. Likewise,regarding a non-contagious disease, it is now rare for vets who work with farms animals to see a case of tetanus since farmers began vaccinating against the disease. Most vets under the age of 50 have never seen a case. So I vaccinate my cats against feline distemper and my goats against tetanus. Also rabies for my dogs and cats, plus parvo and distemper vaccines for my dogs.
As for humans, while I question the necessity of many (perhaps most) vaccines, I do think it may be best to vaccinate your children against polio and tetanus.
Tetanus vaccine makes sense in animals since they can't self-report injury. Now, in humans, if the point is simply to get antibodies against tetanus toxin, these can be introduced after the fact. So there's nothing obviously crazy about the 'no vaccine' side of the binary. But at the same time you still have some hundreds of annual deaths credited to tetanus in the 1950s, when vaccination is still limited to a portion of those born after ~1943, despite the fact that anti-toxin already existed at the time. So it's a grey area.
Right, it's nothing special about metal (except if maybe competition for space with living bacteria is protective), any deep tissue injury is a risk. Like I said, grey area. Treating tetanus after nonvaccination as child neglect or medical malpractice is I think unwarranted; but at the same time most parents would probably prefer to keep tetanus vaccinating their kids than not. So it should be optional.
And there are animal studies that have been done correctly that indeed show higher herd yield for certain vaccines when comparing injected herds to uninjected herds.
However, I can't help but wonder whether these vaccines work best in the context of domesticated animals fed poorly, housed basically on top of each other in less than sanitary conditions, and medically treated rarely. Your observations of feral cats would seem to contradict this hypothesis, but these cats, though feral, are impacted by the domesticated animal ecosystem that they inhabit.
Dec 31, 2023·edited Dec 31, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Most of the cats that I observed were barn cats. Also, it is in a farmer's best interest to provide his or her animals with good nutrition and a healthy environment because animals that are kept in poor conditions are not productive. In regards to ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats, bison, etc.) that are raised for meat, as a rule, they spend most of their lives on pasture and not confined to a barn.
Sure, but not all factory farms share your ethos. And you have to admit that these living conditions, even when housed in a relatively healthy environment, are not exactly those that these species had evolved to thrive (and also die early) in over tens of thousands of generations. All I am saying is perhaps the human intervention of domestication was a prerequisite for the further human intervention of vaccination to be beneficial to these herds. At least, I have not seen any studies of vaccination comparing wild herds.
First, "factory farm" is a term that was devised by the animal rights movement. The correct term is concentrated animal feeding operation, or CAFO.
Second, I've visited large poultry and pork CAFOs and small farms. I also have a small farm. In regards to sanitation, the CAFOs tend to be much cleaner than smaller operations because they can afford the equipment to spray the shit and piss off the floors and into holding tanks, and to maintain good ventilation systems. Based on these farms, I would suggest that you may be more likely to find unsanitary conditions on the smaller operations.
Third, in regards to the larger operations, how they treat their animals has nothing to do with ethos and everything to do with profitability. Once again, healthy animals are more productive and therefore bring in more cash. That doesn't mean these farmers aren't ethical. It simply means that the bottom line is more likely to determine what is done.
Fourth, in regards to tetanus, horses are more susceptible than other farm animals. Horses are not kept in CAFOs.
Fifth, humans didn't evolve to live in cities. It certainly isn't how we lived for tens of thousands of generations and yet that is how most people live today.
Finally, while I haven't come across any studies on vaccinating wild animals, there have been discussions of vaccinating wolves against canine distemper and parvo. There was one study that suggests black wolves are more immune to canine distemper than are gray wolves. Here is a link to an article on that study...
For some wolves, a black coat isn’t just fashionable—it’s a lifesaver
A gene for black fur protects against distemper virus, making black wolves more attractive
Thanks! As for your observation about humans living in cities, that brings me back to my original point that vaccines may work best in the context of domesticated animals fed poorly, housed basically on top of each other in less than sanitary conditions, and medically treated rarely.
Interesting discussion to start Brian. Hopefully it leads to fruitful discourse, but I also contend that dogma and groupthink sort of dictates a lot of the discussion.
Your argument points to the fact that there really is no nuance allowed in the discussion. Both groups are afraid of providing any information that may cede some artificially drawn line in the proverbial debate sand, and so they rather not acknowledge information with hints of nuance if it may be perceived to help the opposing party in some manner.
I've noticed this with Long COVID. I do think Long COVID pathology is real because post-viral syndrome is likely to be a heavily overlooked pathology that is only being brought to light more through COVID. That being said, it doesn't mean that the rates of Long COVID are accurate (I have a lot of problems with how heavily survey-based these Long COVID studies are), and it certainly doesn't mean that we alter the course of humanity over the fears of Long COVID. We can acknowledge that Long COVID is a reality while understanding that the risks brought on by lockdowns or mandated vaccination campaigns cannot be done under the guise of preventing Long COVID. Both ideas can exist without being contradictory.
But it seems that the vaccine skeptic side is only further entrenching itself in binary thinking. It's all-or-nothing, baby thrown out with the bathwater logic that gets people's attention, and it leads to incorrect assessments of data over narrative.
At this point it sort of just feels like a lot of the discourse is driven more by ego and money than anything else. A bit of a shame, because it would mean that we have fewer people interested in learning and more people interested in herd dynamics.
Long Covid is a Claim. What evidence is there that it has anything of 'Covid' involved at all. About three days into a fever (inflamation) the opportunists, mostly bacteria more than likely, have taken advantage of the disruption, the weakened systems and proliferated making their activities obvious through symptoms. The PCR is no test of anything viral and certainly never a diagnostic tool to identify a causal agent. PCR may suggest the presence of a substance or part thereof, it does not prove causality. The Claim of Covid in a long supposed condition of illness fails.
How were any of these kids 'tested' as positive for Covid or SARS-Cov-2, or for a negative result? A soon as I see that PCR was used as the testing methodology I know the results are simply nonsense. That said the point regarding whether to PCR or not to PCR is still NOT the first issue that needs evidence to support the Claim(s).
What was the supposed Causal Agent that was being 'tested' for? What evidence is there that this agent exists AND that it is the causal agent for a specific illness condition, or not?
When THESE Claims, identified aganet and evidence of that agents effects, are supported by evidence then and only then does it become relevant to discuss how this agent may be shown to be present or not.
To me, whether their COVID tests showed positive or negative is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that just 1 in 238 kids without a COVID positive test had the symptoms of "long COVID" and just 1 in 196 who had a COVID positive test had the symptoms of "long COVID."
So regardless, effectively, kids don't get the symptoms "long COVID" as defined by this study. My guess is that the rate of those having the symptoms of "long COVID" would have had broken out roughly the same for kids who had tested positive for influenza, RSV, or merely self-reported a cold. For roughly 1 in 200, respiratory illnesses take a long time to clear up.
Your last sentence says it all. The question is WHYEEE? Why with these kids did the respiratory illness, whatever it was, require so long for the body to restore what we might consider full health? I get that point loud and clear, though my point that PCR cannot and will never. because of its inherent mechanisms. identify by separation ANY agent of illness.This point makes nonsense of most Claims put forward in research based upon this myth of PCR testing. And you do point out the researchers in the study missed the Elephant standing in front of them - ever so observant - that roughly 1 in 200 kids got some long recovery respiratory illness condition. for reasons they could not identify or explain if at all. Cannot illustrate to others what is not seen in the first place.
The very nature of vacccination prevents a real benefit analysis down to the level of net individual benefit¨.
For instance, take herd immunity. Who are the actual beneficiaries of herd immunity? Well, those who have severely damaged immune systems (Like leukemia).
For say a disease like measles, which with modern nutrition is very mild and even then has excellent treatment options, there is pretty much not likely to be any net individual benefit to vaccination, but a very concentrated benefit to those with malfunctioning or damaged immune systems.
So say measles vaccine gives 0.5% of kids autism, but allows people with leukemia or whatever to be out and out without worrying about getting measles every time there is an epidemic? Would that be an acceptable collective benefit? We know the faces of the leukemia patients, but the kids with autism are random. We just would not be able to handle that kind of honest and frank discussion as a society.
I agree. As I've said in other comments on the childhood mortality series, it's just the trolley problem. Switch the line to save x kids who would have had a severe measles outcome but harm y kids who would have been fine (or deprive them of an unknown benefit from infection, e.g. who knows maybe measles reduces autoimmunity by slashing the B Cell repertoire, but this could even be a fond memory from being sick). It doesn't matter what x and y are, there is no positive ethical solution. But experts put the 'disease prevention' label on it and hide what the real question is.
'And so the dogma that “no vaccines save lives,” what does it do? It gives the pro-vaccine dogma exactly what it wants: A lack of fight over the issues that matter.'
Nothing wrong with being a real anti vaxxer. There doesn't appear to be scientific evidence they cured anything, good sanitation decrease all diseases and the "Ministry of Heath' took credit.
There is obvious evidence polio vaccines reduced polio mortality. Sanitation didn't have a big impact on childhood mortality, this was more the reduction of crowding when urbanization and immigration slowed down after 1914. *edit: I keep messing this up. Nutrition and maybe sanitation do start to bring down over 1yo mortality after 1850, it's just infant mortality that stays level until 1900. I have a confusing log scale graph burned in my brain, which is the problem.
Brian, I strongly suggest you revisit your Claim regarding Polio being reduced due to a vaccine. It simply does not stand up against the evidence. I have had strong reasons to investigate the issues having spent 6 months in hospital in early 1954 with what was called 'Still's Disease'. Supposed Polio case numbers were high in the hospitals at that time, and this was ALL well before widespread attempts at mass immunization. Ironically Measles spread through the wards (me included) and attempts to isolate proved so ineffective that that effort was abandoned. I do not remember, and my mother remembered nothing of any 'cure' put in place for Measles and any child believed to have died of Measles was likely already hovering at death's door. The final straw may not be the cause at all.
See the book "Turtles All the Way Down." It argues that polio mortality declined exactly after introduction of the vaccines because pesticides stopped being used and cases were reclassified. These claims are fatuous and contrived. <= evidence.
Great discussion. I have been using this tactic in my clinic - explaining to people that some vaccines are most likely to be beneficial (IPV, Td) and some are not - especially on an individual basis. All medical products have potential for harm, etc. It helps to diffuse this all or nothing mentality. We can start looking at vaccines like all medications - the good, the bad and the ugly. Some vaccines were discontinued due to adverse/unexpected negative effects dengue vaccine) and some likely have questionable clinically significant benefit (RSV, Covid) - except in high risk groups. For some new vaccines (like drugs) - if there is a question regarding risk/benefit ratio and a patient is fairly healthy - we can wait a few years and see what happens in regards to efficacy and safety as these new vaccines are in use for longer periods. Unfortunately, this requires a lot of work on my part - previously, we doctors would simply follow CDC recommendations as we did not and still do not have much time for delving deep into the research and outcome studies. Recognize that vaccine administration is one of the most minor part of my day when providing adult medical care. Having long conversations with patients regarding the merits of a vaccine (HPV comes to mind) is very time consuming and not really possible in a 20 minute visit for multiple other medical concerns.
Hi Brian- my position (and posts) was that we couldn’t know efficacy against severe disease because observational data was inadequate due to healthy user bias. Forgive me, but can you link to your best post on how you conclude it’s effective against severe disease?
Here I have given some math on healthy vaccinee bias (as well as restatement of the gist of my previous comment regarding severe efficacy evidence) https://unglossed.substack.com/i/141132313/objection-healthy-vaccinee-bias
I recently summarized my position in response to a comment on the next post https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-big-new-covid-vaccine-efficacy/comment/47047915
It isn't meant to satisfy any kind of question to the effect of 'how can we really know.' I have never made such a post as this.
Obviously there's a default preference in medicine for controlled trials, but the Covid vaccine trials being exploded after a few weeks, we don't have that. But does that mean we 'can't know'? Only to the same extent we can or can't know anything that isn't subject to controlled trial. Severe efficacy was either real or not. The evidence is consistent with severe efficacy being real, and it doesn't make any biological sense that it wouldn't be (e.g. if natural immunity is "1 protective" why wouldn't artificial immunity be ">0 - 1 protective"? there's no sensible argument for "0 protective").
Healthy user bias, I am skeptical that it was such a big problem. You take studies of pre-vaccine risk, what are the biggest HRs you can generate between groups (of hypothetical "users") within age brackets, maybe one or two things will get into the range of 5 (cardiovascular disease yes/no) but most are 2ish. So for example if the unvaxxed were all at the highest BMI and vaxxed were all at healthy BMI thats 3 - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(21)00089-9/fulltext This is the neighborhood of observed severe efficacy within adult age groups. But that's only the extreme poles on the BMI scale.
And, no real life user 'bias' is going to produce such a pure collection of 'healthy' users. Just look at pictures from American vaccination clinics in 2021. These are not healthy people. IRL you have members of your ideal unhealthy group getting vaxxed and vice versa, so whatever healthy user bias you have is going to be a diluted value of such a perfect division. So if you are seeing, consistently across different settings / cultures, unvaxxed per-infection HRs of 3 to 5 in older age groups, is user bias a convincing explanation, I do not think so really.
There are other counter-arguments against 'user bias efficacy illusion' (e.g. bias often shown to go the other way for flu vax) but I have never made a post on the topic, this one battle I decided not to pick.
As Kevin McKernan has pointed out, the problem with the PCR tests is that they tell you how much viral mRNA compared to human DNA is picked up in the swab, nor do they tell you that it is replication competent ... it could be that you mucosa has dealt with that annoying virus.
What is this in regards to? I've probably already given my thoughts on this point, which is that I don't see what the point of the point is. No one was throwing PCR+ people into carbonite, the 'active / recent' distinction was never relevant in any broad sense since all actives become recents become past infections anyway.
There is complexity around vaccines, because there are two different types, and perhaps they should have had different names :-)
Vaccines against bacterial infections are typically designed to produce antibodies against the toxins released by those pathogens, and they do not confer immunity to the pathogen. Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis vaccines are like that.
On the other hand, vaccines against viruses try to produce antibodies against some protein on the surface of the virus, either by injecting an attenuated form of the virus, along with an adjuvant, or, more recently, by injecting a virus vector or an LNP encapsulated modRNA vector that gets your cells to produce the virus' surface proteins without it being replication competent.
Thus, to claim vaccines never work you have to claim that both (or all three, four etc) types never work.
Do you consider OPV to be “domesticated” in a sense that differs from all other live attenuated vaccines?
Also, have you looked at all into Codagenix CoviLiv (and/or sCPD9)?
Haven't looked at codagenix. OPV is "domesticated" (according to my personal standards) in part because it still behaves like regular virus, in fact since it is barely replication competent (messed up RNA secondary structure) there is a bottleneck during OPV infection that leads to rapid deattenuation, and this is what is shed. Vs. measles ok well this isn't like infection, and if there's unknown benefits to natural measles (like reduction of autoimmunity or cancer, who knows) then there's no reason to expect those are retained (besides perhaps innate immune antiviral boost).
Thanks, Codagenix CoviLiv is a live attenuated intranasal vaccine intended to induce good mucosal immunity in addition to systemic immunity. The attenuation is from codon pair deoptimization via hundreds of synonymous mutations of the original Wuhan strain but with the FCS removed. It seems to avoid various novel risks of the mRNA vaccines, but based on the brief description above, can you immediately see any potential safety problems with their basic approach (codon pair deoptimization and FCS removal)?
Only a modified version of product quality problems that apply to any deattenuated vaccines. In the case of codon-scrambling you aren't worried about the vaccine virus deattenuating. But what if the wild virus contaminates a batch. But attenuated virus vaccines have already been dealing with this kind of QA for decades.
Would it work - protect the minority of adults who wouldn't have handled the regular virus just fine - maybe. In kids I would be skeptical, first because bad outcomes so rare, second because innate antiviral immunity is tuned so high that anything besides wild virus might not be potent enough. So it's a very elaborate way to effect an extremely marginal mortality reduction among adults, probably. But maybe could turn into a thing for kids for all sorts of (almost harmless to kids) viruses. I might read more on it.
Great article as always; I tend to see dogmatic antivaxxers as having a religious faith in the presence of some unseen central malevolent force behind it all, so getting them to look at data showing _some_ vaccines may be of benefit in _some_ way will be like Galileo trying to get the Pope to look through his telescope.
That said I've come across at least a couple of people who I'd regard as anti-anti-vaxers, they seem to have an ignorant disdain of opposing arguments probably cultivated by the media's obsession with anti vaxxers, and leading to a blind faith in The Science.
What's common to both of these is that reasoning doesn't work too well, it needs a more theraputic approach which I find hard to get right. Perhaps the best that can be done is find some common ground and sympathetically plant some ideas that /may/ come to fruition some day? Though it's hard going in the mean time...
Here in California "anti-anti-" is the default religion, not just for vaccines but for any topic that has a mainstream position or is "scienceTM." This was my neighbor who inspired my childhood mortality series. Just for me to bring up vaccines he assumed I was a loon (unneighborly behavior to say the least). And I was just going wherever he took the conversation and generally with an attitude of "well here's an interesting idea I can plant on that subject," e.g. first example polio only 24th cause of death in children in 1947. And probably I did plant some seeds (he had a weird idea that there was a huge wave of refugees after WWI when I said that immigration stopped in the 1920s lol) but too late for further conversation to be possible given his violent reaction to being told finally that all his facts were wrong.
Is another unmentioned parallel perhaps the polarisation in the Covid-skeptical community?
Either you think it was all a hoax and/or that Covid-19 is a nothingburger OR that everything was justified because Covid was so dangerous. There is barely space for a discussion in the middle where, for example: the pandemic WAS massively exaggerated AND Covid was never significantly more lethal than the flu, BUT the consequence of the frequency with which a huge proportion of the population is getting infected is likely WORSE than the flu?
(Note, this does NOT mean I condone/support draconian measures to limit human interactions.)
Also evident in the response to the mainstream acknowledging over-reaction. "No we won't let you!" lol, why I never joined in on that pile-on
Not reaching, not desperate at all. Perhaps you need to look into Commerce and the fundamentals of Law Merchant which is part of Common Law that has existed in some form or other for thousands of years, if not 10,000 or more.
No facts are 'obvious' as to suggest that they are is essential totalitarianism or fundamentalism. There are no inviolate 'facts' that just are. There can only ever be Claim which can appear to be substantially supported by the available evidence - until it is not.
"Perhaps you need to read my Legend of Zelda fan fiction blug blug blug"
Wrong Brian, Claim is EVERYTHING. To Claim that Virus exists rests on the evidence to support THAT Claim, and to Claim that a mix of Chemicals as in a Vaccine WILL be effective for most against exposure to THAT Virus rest solely upon evidence of BOTH the so called Virus and the Efficacy of the 'vaccine'.
In suggesting that NEITHER Claim has evidence it does not fall to me to produce evidence at all. My Counter Claim rests upon the LACK of evidence for the Claim that a virus exists and a Claim that a chemical mix can counter the effects of that virus. Without a 'virus' a 'vaccine' cannot be Claimed to prevents its effects. To demand I provide evidence that something called by some a 'virus' does not exist is to demand I provide evidence of a 'nothing' UNLESS there is actual evidence presented to support the original Claim of a Virus existing.
"The sun is Hot" No its not I say. "Then prove it is NOT hot to prove it is cold" Why? First show evidence the sun is hot as I do not need to show evidence of either hot or cold. The Claim of a hot sun is what is being challenged for evidence.
So many people do not get it.
Saying that I must show evidence a 'virus' does not exist, is NOT PROOF that a thing some call a Virus does exist. Saying that a 'vaccine' is not effective due to the lack of evidence to show it is, is simply a demand for the evidence to support any Claim saying it is effective.
Any Claim is empty, a void rendering it invalid with no evidence to support it. This is a simple fact of life.
You seem upset at having to realize that your beliefs should be based on evidence too.
Upset? YOU are the one suggesting 'upset and 'reaching' and 'reacting' which are directed at myself and not the issue of the debate.
Belief by the way is based upon 'faith' which ignores the issue of evidence and often avoids it altogether. An opinion can be given without the need for evidence but a Claim of Fact demands that it be supported by the evidence or it is no more than Opinion based upon a belief.
Out-of-thread comments always show who is upset; a useful feature on substack. Don't comment when upset if you don't want it to be obvious.
Yours is the faith. And your problem is not with whether evidence for viruses exist but whether you consider it "proof." In other words as long as the box called "evidence for viruses" contains one item of inference, you consider the claim defeated. But what does this actually have to do with *what is true*?
Oh Brian, you have stepped into the hole you created for yourself. You are attacking the man and not the debate or the substance even of your own article. I am not accusing you of anything as a man yet you are making statements as to who and what I am and what I am doing wrong and why.
Your article title is directed by the headline at beliefs in whether vaccines work or not and how that relates to a pro-vaccine position.
I am addressing that issue and not you the man. Can you do the same. You refer to people having the same 'moral instincts' despite appearing to hold opposition views.
You make a good point regarding the overlap of two opposing dogmas into the issue of whether 'every body should take them' provided that it is assumed the issue of taking any or all vaccines is solely to be based upon what constitutes efficacy.
What I am suggesting is that neither the pro nor anti dogma is valid unless there is evidence to support the Claims that are the foundation of the respective dogma, ie are there are or are not 'viruses' and the question of whether manufactured chemical mixes known as 'vaccines' effective oir not in preventing the effects attributed to the 'viruses'.
You're blowing wind. Do you think I have not banned you for any reason other than pleasure at inflicting negative emotions on you.
I follow the data and make my conclusions the best that I can from the best possible available data. Therefore, I generally piss everyone off.
My informed opinion is that the best available data show that mRNA vaccination clearly had temporary efficacy against severe outcomes and mortality until the omicron period began in December 2021. But over the last 2 years, the data that support these injections as protective against ANYTHING has progressively become more and more iffy. In fact, the preponderance of the data that have been released since the 12/21 support the hypothesis that the vaccinated are now MORE likely to contract (and therefore spread) COVID than are the unvaccinated: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/17xb137/finally_a_scientific_paper_examines_walgreens/
Furthermore, over the past 2 years, reliable data purporting to measure these injections' protection against severe outcomes have also become spottier and spottier. Long gone are the gaudy Delta era proclamations that the unvaccinated are X times more likely to test positive, be hospitalized, spend time in the ICU, and even die with COVID. While there have been some decent data released to support these claims, healthy vaccinee bias, healthcare discrimination of the unvaccinated, demographic differences, and especially clear and conclusive statistical overestimates of vaccinated populations and clear and conclusive statistical underestimates of unvaccinated populations can at least potentially account for almost all if not all of the supposed protective benefit of mRNA injections against even severe omicron outcomes. And most recent studies of efficacy against severe outcomes are very narrowly concerned with the temporary benefits provided by the experimental subjects' n+1th booster over "control" subjects' nth booster because the vast majority of these studies were and are being done only to sell these injections.
Now, exactly why the efficacy of these injections against both contraction and severe outcomes has so severely diminished is subject to debate. The unvaccinated as a group are more likely to be poor, uninsured, and/or members of minority groups subject to institutional discrimination. On the other hand, the unvaccinated as a group are also more likely to be young, active, and healthy, and thus to have previously developed natural immunity. So with all of these confounders, raw observational data are subject to question. These injections could still potentially provide net temporary benefit, but frankly I would currently recommend them ONLY to the small population of those without natural immunity who also fear death from omicron.
But I agree entirely with your overall point that more than 90% of the opinions I encounter about vaccination are reflexively dogmatic with very few on either side ever daring to consider the inherent weaknesses in the entire underpinnings of our establishment's dogmatic Vaccine Theology.
Vaccines are the only medical products that are routinely mandated universally for all healthy young people with perfectly healthy immune systems. In addition, they are the only medical products whose manufacturers face no liability for any injuries caused by the products they profit from. Finally, it has been deemed unethical to scientifically test to see whether the overall health benefits of these vaccines actually exceed their risks in randomly controlled trials. All vaccine manufacturers have to demonstrate is any level of temporary level of efficacy and that their vaccine is initially "tolerated" comparably to the other vaccines that it is tested against.
So there are no medical products for which capitalistic incentives for safety and efficacy are any more rigged in favor of the manufacturer. And yet there are millions upon millions of otherwise educated people who sincerely believe that just because these products are allowed to be marketed as "vaccines" that this uniquely exempts them from every evil of capitalism that applies to every other manufactured product. Why?
Why are vaccines and vaccines alone deemed so sacrosanct such that anyone who questions any specific vaccine gets immediately vilified an "anti-vax conspiratoid" whose lunatic ravings need to be censored?
What gives vaccines such a magic quality that they and they alone are somehow exempt from all of the pitfalls of capitalism to the point that it is almost universally considered VIRTUOUS among our medical and public health establishment to FORCE them on all those who do not want or need them?
Interesting set of articles on the efficacy of vaccines against contagious diseases. My own position on vaccines has more to do with observations regarding veterinary medicine. For example, kittens born into feral colonies that are not vaccinated against feline distemper rarely survive past the age of three months because the disease kills them. I have seen this over and over again. Likewise,regarding a non-contagious disease, it is now rare for vets who work with farms animals to see a case of tetanus since farmers began vaccinating against the disease. Most vets under the age of 50 have never seen a case. So I vaccinate my cats against feline distemper and my goats against tetanus. Also rabies for my dogs and cats, plus parvo and distemper vaccines for my dogs.
As for humans, while I question the necessity of many (perhaps most) vaccines, I do think it may be best to vaccinate your children against polio and tetanus.
Tetanus vaccine makes sense in animals since they can't self-report injury. Now, in humans, if the point is simply to get antibodies against tetanus toxin, these can be introduced after the fact. So there's nothing obviously crazy about the 'no vaccine' side of the binary. But at the same time you still have some hundreds of annual deaths credited to tetanus in the 1950s, when vaccination is still limited to a portion of those born after ~1943, despite the fact that anti-toxin already existed at the time. So it's a grey area.
Young children (under the age of 4) may not report an injury. It's also possible to contract tetanus from thorn pricks although that seems to be rare.
Right, it's nothing special about metal (except if maybe competition for space with living bacteria is protective), any deep tissue injury is a risk. Like I said, grey area. Treating tetanus after nonvaccination as child neglect or medical malpractice is I think unwarranted; but at the same time most parents would probably prefer to keep tetanus vaccinating their kids than not. So it should be optional.
Agreed.
And there are animal studies that have been done correctly that indeed show higher herd yield for certain vaccines when comparing injected herds to uninjected herds.
However, I can't help but wonder whether these vaccines work best in the context of domesticated animals fed poorly, housed basically on top of each other in less than sanitary conditions, and medically treated rarely. Your observations of feral cats would seem to contradict this hypothesis, but these cats, though feral, are impacted by the domesticated animal ecosystem that they inhabit.
Most of the cats that I observed were barn cats. Also, it is in a farmer's best interest to provide his or her animals with good nutrition and a healthy environment because animals that are kept in poor conditions are not productive. In regards to ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats, bison, etc.) that are raised for meat, as a rule, they spend most of their lives on pasture and not confined to a barn.
Sure, but not all factory farms share your ethos. And you have to admit that these living conditions, even when housed in a relatively healthy environment, are not exactly those that these species had evolved to thrive (and also die early) in over tens of thousands of generations. All I am saying is perhaps the human intervention of domestication was a prerequisite for the further human intervention of vaccination to be beneficial to these herds. At least, I have not seen any studies of vaccination comparing wild herds.
First, "factory farm" is a term that was devised by the animal rights movement. The correct term is concentrated animal feeding operation, or CAFO.
Second, I've visited large poultry and pork CAFOs and small farms. I also have a small farm. In regards to sanitation, the CAFOs tend to be much cleaner than smaller operations because they can afford the equipment to spray the shit and piss off the floors and into holding tanks, and to maintain good ventilation systems. Based on these farms, I would suggest that you may be more likely to find unsanitary conditions on the smaller operations.
Third, in regards to the larger operations, how they treat their animals has nothing to do with ethos and everything to do with profitability. Once again, healthy animals are more productive and therefore bring in more cash. That doesn't mean these farmers aren't ethical. It simply means that the bottom line is more likely to determine what is done.
Fourth, in regards to tetanus, horses are more susceptible than other farm animals. Horses are not kept in CAFOs.
Fifth, humans didn't evolve to live in cities. It certainly isn't how we lived for tens of thousands of generations and yet that is how most people live today.
Finally, while I haven't come across any studies on vaccinating wild animals, there have been discussions of vaccinating wolves against canine distemper and parvo. There was one study that suggests black wolves are more immune to canine distemper than are gray wolves. Here is a link to an article on that study...
For some wolves, a black coat isn’t just fashionable—it’s a lifesaver
A gene for black fur protects against distemper virus, making black wolves more attractive
https://www.science.org/content/article/some-wolves-black-coat-isn-t-just-fashionable-it-s-lifesaver
Also, a paper on canine distemper among wild populations...
Cross-species transmission of canine distemper virus—an update
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5462633/
Thanks! As for your observation about humans living in cities, that brings me back to my original point that vaccines may work best in the context of domesticated animals fed poorly, housed basically on top of each other in less than sanitary conditions, and medically treated rarely.
If I claim to have a target that I am shooting at - what am I shooting at and and why am I shooting, if there is no target at all?
Think about it. Things happen as a result of my shooting without doubt. Do the results have anything at all to do with reality if there is no target?
Interesting discussion to start Brian. Hopefully it leads to fruitful discourse, but I also contend that dogma and groupthink sort of dictates a lot of the discussion.
Your argument points to the fact that there really is no nuance allowed in the discussion. Both groups are afraid of providing any information that may cede some artificially drawn line in the proverbial debate sand, and so they rather not acknowledge information with hints of nuance if it may be perceived to help the opposing party in some manner.
I've noticed this with Long COVID. I do think Long COVID pathology is real because post-viral syndrome is likely to be a heavily overlooked pathology that is only being brought to light more through COVID. That being said, it doesn't mean that the rates of Long COVID are accurate (I have a lot of problems with how heavily survey-based these Long COVID studies are), and it certainly doesn't mean that we alter the course of humanity over the fears of Long COVID. We can acknowledge that Long COVID is a reality while understanding that the risks brought on by lockdowns or mandated vaccination campaigns cannot be done under the guise of preventing Long COVID. Both ideas can exist without being contradictory.
But it seems that the vaccine skeptic side is only further entrenching itself in binary thinking. It's all-or-nothing, baby thrown out with the bathwater logic that gets people's attention, and it leads to incorrect assessments of data over narrative.
At this point it sort of just feels like a lot of the discourse is driven more by ego and money than anything else. A bit of a shame, because it would mean that we have fewer people interested in learning and more people interested in herd dynamics.
Long Covid is a Claim. What evidence is there that it has anything of 'Covid' involved at all. About three days into a fever (inflamation) the opportunists, mostly bacteria more than likely, have taken advantage of the disruption, the weakened systems and proliferated making their activities obvious through symptoms. The PCR is no test of anything viral and certainly never a diagnostic tool to identify a causal agent. PCR may suggest the presence of a substance or part thereof, it does not prove causality. The Claim of Covid in a long supposed condition of illness fails.
Here is a discussion of a recent Canadian study that may interest you: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/18uslgt/rates_of_long_covid_significantly_lower_among/
How were any of these kids 'tested' as positive for Covid or SARS-Cov-2, or for a negative result? A soon as I see that PCR was used as the testing methodology I know the results are simply nonsense. That said the point regarding whether to PCR or not to PCR is still NOT the first issue that needs evidence to support the Claim(s).
What was the supposed Causal Agent that was being 'tested' for? What evidence is there that this agent exists AND that it is the causal agent for a specific illness condition, or not?
When THESE Claims, identified aganet and evidence of that agents effects, are supported by evidence then and only then does it become relevant to discuss how this agent may be shown to be present or not.
To me, whether their COVID tests showed positive or negative is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that just 1 in 238 kids without a COVID positive test had the symptoms of "long COVID" and just 1 in 196 who had a COVID positive test had the symptoms of "long COVID."
So regardless, effectively, kids don't get the symptoms "long COVID" as defined by this study. My guess is that the rate of those having the symptoms of "long COVID" would have had broken out roughly the same for kids who had tested positive for influenza, RSV, or merely self-reported a cold. For roughly 1 in 200, respiratory illnesses take a long time to clear up.
Your last sentence says it all. The question is WHYEEE? Why with these kids did the respiratory illness, whatever it was, require so long for the body to restore what we might consider full health? I get that point loud and clear, though my point that PCR cannot and will never. because of its inherent mechanisms. identify by separation ANY agent of illness.This point makes nonsense of most Claims put forward in research based upon this myth of PCR testing. And you do point out the researchers in the study missed the Elephant standing in front of them - ever so observant - that roughly 1 in 200 kids got some long recovery respiratory illness condition. for reasons they could not identify or explain if at all. Cannot illustrate to others what is not seen in the first place.
The very nature of vacccination prevents a real benefit analysis down to the level of net individual benefit¨.
For instance, take herd immunity. Who are the actual beneficiaries of herd immunity? Well, those who have severely damaged immune systems (Like leukemia).
For say a disease like measles, which with modern nutrition is very mild and even then has excellent treatment options, there is pretty much not likely to be any net individual benefit to vaccination, but a very concentrated benefit to those with malfunctioning or damaged immune systems.
So say measles vaccine gives 0.5% of kids autism, but allows people with leukemia or whatever to be out and out without worrying about getting measles every time there is an epidemic? Would that be an acceptable collective benefit? We know the faces of the leukemia patients, but the kids with autism are random. We just would not be able to handle that kind of honest and frank discussion as a society.
I agree. As I've said in other comments on the childhood mortality series, it's just the trolley problem. Switch the line to save x kids who would have had a severe measles outcome but harm y kids who would have been fine (or deprive them of an unknown benefit from infection, e.g. who knows maybe measles reduces autoimmunity by slashing the B Cell repertoire, but this could even be a fond memory from being sick). It doesn't matter what x and y are, there is no positive ethical solution. But experts put the 'disease prevention' label on it and hide what the real question is.
'And so the dogma that “no vaccines save lives,” what does it do? It gives the pro-vaccine dogma exactly what it wants: A lack of fight over the issues that matter.'
That's a useful observation.
Nothing wrong with being a real anti vaxxer. There doesn't appear to be scientific evidence they cured anything, good sanitation decrease all diseases and the "Ministry of Heath' took credit.
There is obvious evidence polio vaccines reduced polio mortality. Sanitation didn't have a big impact on childhood mortality, this was more the reduction of crowding when urbanization and immigration slowed down after 1914. *edit: I keep messing this up. Nutrition and maybe sanitation do start to bring down over 1yo mortality after 1850, it's just infant mortality that stays level until 1900. I have a confusing log scale graph burned in my brain, which is the problem.
Brian, I strongly suggest you revisit your Claim regarding Polio being reduced due to a vaccine. It simply does not stand up against the evidence. I have had strong reasons to investigate the issues having spent 6 months in hospital in early 1954 with what was called 'Still's Disease'. Supposed Polio case numbers were high in the hospitals at that time, and this was ALL well before widespread attempts at mass immunization. Ironically Measles spread through the wards (me included) and attempts to isolate proved so ineffective that that effort was abandoned. I do not remember, and my mother remembered nothing of any 'cure' put in place for Measles and any child believed to have died of Measles was likely already hovering at death's door. The final straw may not be the cause at all.
See the book "Turtles All the Way Down." It argues that polio mortality declined exactly after introduction of the vaccines because pesticides stopped being used and cases were reclassified. These claims are fatuous and contrived. <= evidence.