In my physician experience, actually a lot of people have a nuanced view on vaccines; picking and choosing which to take (or their own schedules for boosting etc) - it's just the online discourse and politics of it all that are polarized, (as is true of most online discourse and politics these days).
A few things jump out from my knowledge base here as overly skewed against vaccines.
1) If you look at correlational data of course of course it looks like sicker people get more vaccines. They legitimately are higher risk individuals that may be making the rational choice to vaccinate more often (eg. my parents made me get the flu shot growing up only because I had asthma). Additionally, they are interfacing with the healthcare system more often, generally, and so have both more opportunity and more rapport with healthcare workers to take what is recommended. Moreover, the people who are healthcare-seeking are going to get quite a lot more "diagnoses" than those that never visit the doctor, even if the disease burden is the same. There is a reason RCTs are the gold standard...
2) For Hep B specifically, of course, there is a reason this became the protocol (doctors are not just torturing babies for no reason: if it makes no sense look harder). Vaccination at birth prevents vertical transmission from mom to baby which was a very common mode of transmission, and one that results in particularly high levels of chronic infection (as opposed to the immune system beating the infection). Testing mom is not fool proof as there are window periods where infection gets missed. And despite waning antibody titers - which do not reflect the full scope of immune memory - childhood vaccination seems to give good long term protection not just for 10 years. The rates of hep B have fallen dramatically thanks to this vaccine - and even still, deaths from hep B still remain higher than *correlated* reports of death in the time period after vaccination which largely are not thought to be causative.
I agree with you, and regularly preach that everything we do in medicine, as in life, has risks and benefits. We should of course continuously scrutinize those risks and benefits both in our public health recommendations and in our individual decision making. Can we make them without as much gross ingredients? Should the incentives be changed? I don't have insider knowledge on those fronts. But vaccinations are overall a huge benefit of modern medicine and something we do that is actually preventative in a broken sick care system so let's not lose sight of that.
Thanks for sharing the information Justin, unfortunately I have made it to the point long ago to very seldom trust anything a DR, the govt or any regulatory agency tries to give me advice on. I have all but quit going to the dr except for yearly free bloodwork (got sick and tired of them pushing vaxxes every visit) Instead I have revamped my diet, exercise regimens and sleeping patterns etc and I feel better than ever!
THANK YOU FOR THIS!! Finally, someone put into words what I try to explain. I don’t consider myself antivax but the ridiculous number that my doc tries to talk me into—every time I have an appointment—is annoying. I try to take care of my immune system through healthy choices and stress reduction. If I decide not to take a vaccine, that should be my gamble.
This article in clear detail show the massive changes to the vaccine schedule since I was a child (1960s). But I I ever question it, I’m told I don’t believe in science. Belief is the very antithesis of science!!!
Great discussion! ‘Context is that which is scarce’ feels so relevant to the vaccine debates. We should always be questioning if the current recommendations are the best and be cognizant of perverse incentives that drive everything related to health.
Thank you for being brave and sharing this information in a rational, non-threatening way! This topic is fraught with so much emotion because we are talking about the health of our children! The concerning conflicts of interest from government organizations and pharmaceutical companies coupled with a lack of excellent research on the safety of childhood vaccines makes this a hard conversation to navigate. Thank you for sharing this information. I hope it leads to improved conversations, studies and possible changes in our vaccine schedules for the health and future of our most precious assets, our children.
Fantastic! Everything that’s been spinning around in my head for years, laid out perfectly and backed up with sources. When my kids were little 20 years ago, i received many eye rolls and lectures for spacing out vaccines or refusing (gardasil for 9 year olds) some. I’m hopeful people start seeing the benefit of this middle of the road take on vaccine schedules.
This is an absolutely fantastic piece. It's well researched, fact based, and calls out some very important incentives & questions. Thank you for writing this.
I have no expertise regarding vaccines but: my mum is now in her eighties and well recalls one of her brothers getting polio. The newly formed NHS - I am in the UK - meant his most serious outcome was not too bad - modified shoes for a slightly shortened leg. But mother also remembers kids in wheel chairs, iron lungs etc etc. In the UK those days are over thanks to the polio vaccine.
So I hear all you say but respectfully suggest we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the exceptionally good. Vaccines in the round have reduced disease and consequent suffering, disability and childhood deaths.
I would add as the father of four children they have all had their vaccines as they fell due.
Thank you for posting this stack and starting the conversation. Conversations like this are not allowed in so many circles because people are so fearful of being called “anti-vax”. Consequently people who are injured by a vaccine become ignored acceptable collateral damage. My friend, Suzanna, is that-her injury is a taboo topic. She is even called “anti-vax” when she discusses her injury even though she chose to get vaccinated. Please make that make sense. Here is Suzanna’s story. The more we share the stories of those who are injured, the more we humanize these tragic events, and are able to start conversations. https://teamhumanity.substack.com/p/neighbors-helping-neighbors?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
Hey dude! Great essay. I couldn’t agree more with the skepticism, but I take it one step further in saying I’m hesitant with all of them, because a lot of the ingredients can easily be interpreted as sacrilegious.
One of the most troubling ingredients, which is listed in the “Vaccine Excipient Summary” document as the first ingredient for multiple vaccines, including the Hep A (Havrix) shot, is “MRC-5”.. what the heck is that, you ask? I’ll leave this right here:
“MRC-5 (Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid cell culture line composed of fibroblasts, originally developed from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted Caucasian male fetus. The cell line was isolated by J.P. Jacobs and colleagues in September 1966.”
Just.. why? How troubling, other than it’s heinous origin, especially because this is from lung tissue, when Hep A only affects the liver, and it’s most commonly contracted via sexual contact; this is to be given to a 1 year old.
Another ingredient, found in many of these shots, that should be cause for concern is “Madin-Darby Canine Kidney cells (MDCK)”, which was isolated in 1958 of epithelial cells from the kidney tubule of an adult Cocker Spaniel dog! Is this really a necessary ingredient? I would wager it isn’t.
Also: Triton X-100, found in multiple flu vaccines, is a “nonionic surfactant and emulsifier used in many applications, including biochemical research, cleaning, and bioremediation”. Its main function seems to be that of a detergent.
Formaldehyde is a very common ingredient across most vaccines. It’s a known carcinogen and is used to embalm corpses, (preserve/prevent biological progression), amongst its applications with other industrial tasks.
Aside from multiple food colorings and metals, just straight up DNA is also injected into us via these vaccines. Why? Don’t we already have our own? I believe our bodies are more than capable out of the womb as-is, and we are without the need of these foreign chemicals and compounds before we are developed children or adults. The forced nature of this vaccine schedule, having increased by orders of magnitude in just a few decades, says all one needs to know about the ultimate goal here: money. This imposed industry, which thrives on sickness without cure to create a revolving door of repeat customers, seems to be the very worst of capitalism and human greed. The people that denounce capitalism full stop are doing so in an unaimed fashion and it’s a shame, (as capitalism allows entrepreneurs like us to thrive while providing products people want and jobs people need). This is what they should be referring to.
On a lighter note! (Haha), you mentioned the subject of hair growth in “🏀 Random”, and I believe I found a supplement that might peak your interest with lots of primary evidence: Here are the benefits of spermidine for hair follicle growth and regeneration based on recent and significant clinical studies:
Spermidine improves hair growth by promoting the anagen phase, supporting follicle stem cell function, and providing antioxidant and anti-inflammatory protection. These properties make it a promising agent for addressing hair loss and promoting regeneration:
Evidence:
1. Promotion of Hair Shaft Elongation and Prolongation of Anagen Phase:
Spermidine promotes hair shaft elongation, prolongs the growth (anagen) phase, and enhances the expression of stem cell-associated keratins (K15 and K19), which are critical for hair growth. It also modulates genes related to cell adherence and mitochondrial function (Ramot et al., 2011).
2. Anagen Phase Prolongation in Humans:
A randomized, placebo-controlled study found that a spermidine-based nutritional supplement increased the number of hair follicles in the anagen phase, boosted cellular proliferation markers (Ki-67), and reduced apoptosis markers (c-Kit). This led to improved hair retention in test subjects compared to a placebo group (Rinaldi et al., 2017).
A stable spermidine analog (N1-methylspermidine) prolonged the anagen phase and reduced hair follicle cell apoptosis, possibly through antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects. This suggests that spermidine can also protect hair follicles from oxidative and inflammatory damage (Ramot et al., 2015).
4. Critical Role in Hair Follicle Development:
Spermidine is necessary for normal hair follicle function, as it regulates polyamine synthesis and supports follicular cell proliferation. Studies indicate that deficiencies or disruptions in spermidine metabolism can lead to compromised hair growth (Pietilä et al., 1997).
5. Support for Hair Follicle Stem Cell Functions:
Spermidine enhances the stemness and colony-forming efficiency of hair follicle epithelial cells, which are essential for hair regeneration and overall follicle health (Ramot et al., 2011).
Phenomenal article. This will alter our plan for our two kids and future kids. Sending to Adee immediately. Please keep us updated on what you're learning as you keep exploring this topic.
This was a great article. Thank you for doing all the research it took to put it together. Our society really needs to have the curtain pulled back on the relationship between our government and the pharmaceutical companies.
In my physician experience, actually a lot of people have a nuanced view on vaccines; picking and choosing which to take (or their own schedules for boosting etc) - it's just the online discourse and politics of it all that are polarized, (as is true of most online discourse and politics these days).
A few things jump out from my knowledge base here as overly skewed against vaccines.
1) If you look at correlational data of course of course it looks like sicker people get more vaccines. They legitimately are higher risk individuals that may be making the rational choice to vaccinate more often (eg. my parents made me get the flu shot growing up only because I had asthma). Additionally, they are interfacing with the healthcare system more often, generally, and so have both more opportunity and more rapport with healthcare workers to take what is recommended. Moreover, the people who are healthcare-seeking are going to get quite a lot more "diagnoses" than those that never visit the doctor, even if the disease burden is the same. There is a reason RCTs are the gold standard...
2) For Hep B specifically, of course, there is a reason this became the protocol (doctors are not just torturing babies for no reason: if it makes no sense look harder). Vaccination at birth prevents vertical transmission from mom to baby which was a very common mode of transmission, and one that results in particularly high levels of chronic infection (as opposed to the immune system beating the infection). Testing mom is not fool proof as there are window periods where infection gets missed. And despite waning antibody titers - which do not reflect the full scope of immune memory - childhood vaccination seems to give good long term protection not just for 10 years. The rates of hep B have fallen dramatically thanks to this vaccine - and even still, deaths from hep B still remain higher than *correlated* reports of death in the time period after vaccination which largely are not thought to be causative.
I agree with you, and regularly preach that everything we do in medicine, as in life, has risks and benefits. We should of course continuously scrutinize those risks and benefits both in our public health recommendations and in our individual decision making. Can we make them without as much gross ingredients? Should the incentives be changed? I don't have insider knowledge on those fronts. But vaccinations are overall a huge benefit of modern medicine and something we do that is actually preventative in a broken sick care system so let's not lose sight of that.
Thanks for sharing the information Justin, unfortunately I have made it to the point long ago to very seldom trust anything a DR, the govt or any regulatory agency tries to give me advice on. I have all but quit going to the dr except for yearly free bloodwork (got sick and tired of them pushing vaxxes every visit) Instead I have revamped my diet, exercise regimens and sleeping patterns etc and I feel better than ever!
You’re living in the wrong place. In Arkansas, docs discourage as if it’s akin to knowingly drinking poisoned koolaide.
THANK YOU FOR THIS!! Finally, someone put into words what I try to explain. I don’t consider myself antivax but the ridiculous number that my doc tries to talk me into—every time I have an appointment—is annoying. I try to take care of my immune system through healthy choices and stress reduction. If I decide not to take a vaccine, that should be my gamble.
This article in clear detail show the massive changes to the vaccine schedule since I was a child (1960s). But I I ever question it, I’m told I don’t believe in science. Belief is the very antithesis of science!!!
Got fed up with my office trying to push vaxxes on every visit! I quit going in person
BASED
You've just given me my opening salvo for the Thanksgiving table. Excellent summary!
Great discussion! ‘Context is that which is scarce’ feels so relevant to the vaccine debates. We should always be questioning if the current recommendations are the best and be cognizant of perverse incentives that drive everything related to health.
this was the most level headed thing I've seen on vaccines in years
Really, REALLY appreciate this honest, balanced, courageous and nuanced take. Thank you Justin! 🙏🏼
Thank you for being brave and sharing this information in a rational, non-threatening way! This topic is fraught with so much emotion because we are talking about the health of our children! The concerning conflicts of interest from government organizations and pharmaceutical companies coupled with a lack of excellent research on the safety of childhood vaccines makes this a hard conversation to navigate. Thank you for sharing this information. I hope it leads to improved conversations, studies and possible changes in our vaccine schedules for the health and future of our most precious assets, our children.
Fantastic! Everything that’s been spinning around in my head for years, laid out perfectly and backed up with sources. When my kids were little 20 years ago, i received many eye rolls and lectures for spacing out vaccines or refusing (gardasil for 9 year olds) some. I’m hopeful people start seeing the benefit of this middle of the road take on vaccine schedules.
This is an absolutely fantastic piece. It's well researched, fact based, and calls out some very important incentives & questions. Thank you for writing this.
I have no expertise regarding vaccines but: my mum is now in her eighties and well recalls one of her brothers getting polio. The newly formed NHS - I am in the UK - meant his most serious outcome was not too bad - modified shoes for a slightly shortened leg. But mother also remembers kids in wheel chairs, iron lungs etc etc. In the UK those days are over thanks to the polio vaccine.
So I hear all you say but respectfully suggest we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the exceptionally good. Vaccines in the round have reduced disease and consequent suffering, disability and childhood deaths.
I would add as the father of four children they have all had their vaccines as they fell due.
Cheers Brads
Its interesting. I think there comes a point where the original goal of vaccines becomes lost with the complexity of the body.
Thank you for posting this stack and starting the conversation. Conversations like this are not allowed in so many circles because people are so fearful of being called “anti-vax”. Consequently people who are injured by a vaccine become ignored acceptable collateral damage. My friend, Suzanna, is that-her injury is a taboo topic. She is even called “anti-vax” when she discusses her injury even though she chose to get vaccinated. Please make that make sense. Here is Suzanna’s story. The more we share the stories of those who are injured, the more we humanize these tragic events, and are able to start conversations. https://teamhumanity.substack.com/p/neighbors-helping-neighbors?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
Hey dude! Great essay. I couldn’t agree more with the skepticism, but I take it one step further in saying I’m hesitant with all of them, because a lot of the ingredients can easily be interpreted as sacrilegious.
One of the most troubling ingredients, which is listed in the “Vaccine Excipient Summary” document as the first ingredient for multiple vaccines, including the Hep A (Havrix) shot, is “MRC-5”.. what the heck is that, you ask? I’ll leave this right here:
“MRC-5 (Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid cell culture line composed of fibroblasts, originally developed from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted Caucasian male fetus. The cell line was isolated by J.P. Jacobs and colleagues in September 1966.”
Just.. why? How troubling, other than it’s heinous origin, especially because this is from lung tissue, when Hep A only affects the liver, and it’s most commonly contracted via sexual contact; this is to be given to a 1 year old.
Another ingredient, found in many of these shots, that should be cause for concern is “Madin-Darby Canine Kidney cells (MDCK)”, which was isolated in 1958 of epithelial cells from the kidney tubule of an adult Cocker Spaniel dog! Is this really a necessary ingredient? I would wager it isn’t.
Also: Triton X-100, found in multiple flu vaccines, is a “nonionic surfactant and emulsifier used in many applications, including biochemical research, cleaning, and bioremediation”. Its main function seems to be that of a detergent.
Formaldehyde is a very common ingredient across most vaccines. It’s a known carcinogen and is used to embalm corpses, (preserve/prevent biological progression), amongst its applications with other industrial tasks.
Aside from multiple food colorings and metals, just straight up DNA is also injected into us via these vaccines. Why? Don’t we already have our own? I believe our bodies are more than capable out of the womb as-is, and we are without the need of these foreign chemicals and compounds before we are developed children or adults. The forced nature of this vaccine schedule, having increased by orders of magnitude in just a few decades, says all one needs to know about the ultimate goal here: money. This imposed industry, which thrives on sickness without cure to create a revolving door of repeat customers, seems to be the very worst of capitalism and human greed. The people that denounce capitalism full stop are doing so in an unaimed fashion and it’s a shame, (as capitalism allows entrepreneurs like us to thrive while providing products people want and jobs people need). This is what they should be referring to.
On a lighter note! (Haha), you mentioned the subject of hair growth in “🏀 Random”, and I believe I found a supplement that might peak your interest with lots of primary evidence: Here are the benefits of spermidine for hair follicle growth and regeneration based on recent and significant clinical studies:
Spermidine improves hair growth by promoting the anagen phase, supporting follicle stem cell function, and providing antioxidant and anti-inflammatory protection. These properties make it a promising agent for addressing hair loss and promoting regeneration:
Evidence:
1. Promotion of Hair Shaft Elongation and Prolongation of Anagen Phase:
Spermidine promotes hair shaft elongation, prolongs the growth (anagen) phase, and enhances the expression of stem cell-associated keratins (K15 and K19), which are critical for hair growth. It also modulates genes related to cell adherence and mitochondrial function (Ramot et al., 2011).
2. Anagen Phase Prolongation in Humans:
A randomized, placebo-controlled study found that a spermidine-based nutritional supplement increased the number of hair follicles in the anagen phase, boosted cellular proliferation markers (Ki-67), and reduced apoptosis markers (c-Kit). This led to improved hair retention in test subjects compared to a placebo group (Rinaldi et al., 2017).
3. Metabolically Stable Analogs Enhance Hair Growth:
A stable spermidine analog (N1-methylspermidine) prolonged the anagen phase and reduced hair follicle cell apoptosis, possibly through antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects. This suggests that spermidine can also protect hair follicles from oxidative and inflammatory damage (Ramot et al., 2015).
4. Critical Role in Hair Follicle Development:
Spermidine is necessary for normal hair follicle function, as it regulates polyamine synthesis and supports follicular cell proliferation. Studies indicate that deficiencies or disruptions in spermidine metabolism can lead to compromised hair growth (Pietilä et al., 1997).
5. Support for Hair Follicle Stem Cell Functions:
Spermidine enhances the stemness and colony-forming efficiency of hair follicle epithelial cells, which are essential for hair regeneration and overall follicle health (Ramot et al., 2011).
—-> Brandon
Phenomenal article. This will alter our plan for our two kids and future kids. Sending to Adee immediately. Please keep us updated on what you're learning as you keep exploring this topic.
This was a great article. Thank you for doing all the research it took to put it together. Our society really needs to have the curtain pulled back on the relationship between our government and the pharmaceutical companies.