Vaccine trail science is very outdated. And have been for decades.

1. The end point it typically antibodies and we now know that the immune system is way more complicated then antibodies. Also, antibodies do not equal immunity. It is a very incorrect end point.

2. Also, vaccines have not been tested against a true inert placebo. EVER. Can’t be more unscientific then that.

3. Most vaccines in the past have been tested/monitored way less then 6 months. The Hep B for example was monitored for 4 and 5 days in the two trials.

4. Trials are conducted by the manufacturers. Major conflict of interest. As we have seen with the Covid vaccines, if they don’t like a result they either delete them, or change them. This has been going on for decades....

5. Safety monitoring systems are not in place. The ones they have are very hard to use and are not even taught to those giving the shots. Most doctors didn’t even know about the VAERS system until Covid vaccines came along. And now that we see signals in this system, they do nothing about it anyway. They never really have.

6. The manufacturers have no liability so there is no real consumer protection. Lawsuits are a consumer protection mechanism which is not being utilized so improvements of these products are not happening. There is no need to. So profits can be maximized because no monies are put into R&D or compensation or advertising. (Although a percentage of each shot does go into a pot for compensation. They have BILLIONS to pay out but vaccine (kangaroo) court is so defunct that no one can get compensated quickly or accurately.) Advertising is done by our government in the form of a childhood vaccine schedule and school mandates. Talk about the perfect profit ensurer for any vaccine that is put on the schedule!!

I am thrilled to see more smart people looking into the questions about vaccines. Especially the 74 doses currently on the childhood schedule. Maybe now we can take a look at true health markers like the increase of autism to 1 in 36 now vs 1 in 10,000 in the 1970’s. Allergies, obesity, diabetes, chronic health issues, asthma, cancers and so many other “now common” childhood issues can now be considered “not normal”. Let’s do a comparison of the vaxxed vs the unvaxxed. Should be pretty easy to do. Just saying ;) Keep digging.

Expand full comment
Apr 20, 2023Liked by eugyppius

At last count, I could see no significant drop-off in the excess mortality numbers in those jurisdictions still reporting such things accurately. This suggests that the problem, far from going away, remains as important - if not more so - due to the 'higher-hanging fruit effect'.

Interestingly, the high excess mortality in Sweden suggests that lockdown related deaths (never a terribly plausible hypothesis) are not likely to be a credible alternative explanation to the vaxxine.

Expand full comment

The objective of "The Medical/Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex" is to turn the bloodstream into a "drugstream" for new cash-streams.

Isn't it curious that a diagnosis or risk of a disease becomes so much easier and prevalent (and standardized) when a new drug/vaccine is launched?

The is the greatest achievement of the Medical/Pharma Industrial Complex":

To diminish individual care by reduction of healthcare to an aperture that can only capture care through the lense of general public healthcare.

Through this myopic lense, healthcare becomes vulnerable to being captured. Hmmm....it's almost as if general public healthcare is defined by The Complex in order to eliminate individual care. Very similar to the common good fallacy.

The current driving force of The Complex:

A system where a physician does not have to think when a diagnosis comes rolling through as the sidecar of a new drug/vaccine - same thing with diagnostics referrals, i.e., MRI's, etc., etc.

Funny that billing doesn't require thinking either and that insurance is a driver of diagnosis. The only thinking required is what is billable.

Why do you think the first thing you do when you visit a doctor is to fill out forms with insurance information

Expand full comment
Apr 20, 2023·edited Apr 21, 2023Liked by eugyppius

I've written a bit about non-specific effects here:


Benn and Aaby's research on non-specific effects is brilliant and revolutionary -- a generation ahead of the rest of the field. I would hasten to add two qualifiers though:

1. All attenuated live virus vaccines eventually revert to virulence. That's why none of the live virus vaccines touted by Benn & Aaby (measles by itself, oral polio, and BCG) are offered in the U.S. -- no politician or regulator wants to be responsible for causing a viral (or bacterial) outbreak.

2. Millions of children and adults in the U.S. have damaged immune systems from the current vaccine schedule and this damage makes them especially vulnerable to the potentially harmful effects of attenuated live virus vaccines.

So, at first the research on non-specific effects appears to be a sane way out of this whole mess -- a way to save the vaccine program by narrowing it to attenuated live virus vaccines (as if that were possible politically when it's not). But when you actually follow the logic all the way to the end, one realizes that all vaccines are unworkable in practice and we need completely new approaches (hello, antivirals) to health and well-being.

Expand full comment

Midwit technocrats see (and fetishize) vaccines as an inexpensive and miraculous public health measure. They discount the benefits of modern sewers, healthy diets, heating and cooling, food storage, etc. Too complicated for them, and they don't offer direct, invasive control.

Expand full comment

You know, it's a funny thing. I'm old enough to have received only a few, relatively speaking, vaccines over the course of my life, but even so I've got an interesting history of auto-immune afflictions triggered by extreme stress. And one seems to vanquish the previous one. Very strange.

I've read that the fad for tonsil removal led to adult-onset asthma later, and I'm certainly a statistic adding to that hypothesis too. Lots to look at.

Expand full comment

>Viruses and their human hosts together form complex systems, which do not react in predictable ways to simplistic interventions.

Yeah, this is correct and important, but it goes much further than you might expect. Many of the childhood infections like measles are consistently associated with reduced risk of cancer later in life for reasons not well understood, but likely to include proliferation of NK cells. Vaccinating against them, particularly with inactivated vaccines, may lead to increased risk of cancer later on in life.

The effect has even been observed for influenza, which is often linked to reduced risk of lung cancer and increases life expectancy in lung cancer patients upon infection:


There are also adenoviruses found to reduce our risk of type 2 diabetes, probably by increasing adipocyte proliferation.

Essentially all of this follows from applying the holobiont theory to the human organism: As humans we're host to a wide variety of organisms that together make our consciousness possible. We have a population microbiome we need to keep intact if we wish to keep our population healthy.

Of course if a bunch of low grade morons decide to experiment with a sarbecovirus in humanized mice and gaslight the world after the whole thing blows up in their faces that virus won't fit into the holobiont model.

Expand full comment
Apr 20, 2023Liked by eugyppius

Great post!

I had my last flu vaccination some 14 years ago. (Yes, I got the flu)

Have not had the flu since.

As an occasional optimist, as this Covid-19 story unfolds, and vaxx long-term effects become more apparent, will people reject the next fix for the next scare??

Expand full comment

Christine Stabell Benn did an interesting video on the same subject which I discuss and transcribe here


Expand full comment
Apr 20, 2023Liked by eugyppius

"As a society, we’ve concluded on the basis of simple, unsophisticated studies that vaccines are absolutely great, and then proceeded to use them so widely, that we’ve lost much of our ability to detect their drawbacks."

Well, that can't be good.

Expand full comment
Apr 20, 2023Liked by eugyppius

You will also have to look at how the "non specific" studies were done. If these are observational rather than randomized, as I suspect, then differences in mortality can be due to a whole host of obvious and less obvious confounders.

The data on mortality difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated for covid is being systematically suppressed world wide, which is frankly enough to tell us about what the raw numbers are, but these suffer from the same effects.

There is also the argument that as the covid vaccines prevented a certain amount of (covid) mortality (I think this is actually a true claim in principle but not to the _extent_ claimed, with BS modelling showing millions of lives saved in Europe) the covid vaccinated population is actually at elevated all-cause mortality risk relative to the unvaccinated population (which has already had covid-susceptible selected out to a certain degree).

Putting numbers on all of this is hard. The excess mortality is modest but real. It's small enough that it will not get anecdatally noticed. How much of it is down to 3 years of destroyed life versus vaccines is going to be very hard to tell.

The reduction in birth rate, and the fact that it is still ongoing, is a greater concern to me as there is more than just circumstantial evidence pointing at the vaccines.

Expand full comment

The basic premise of vaccines is to limit severity of a natural infection by presenting, ahead of time, a milder version (either attenuated or partial antigen) to the immune system so it can respond more swiftly when exposed to the real thing. Unfortunately, the immune system's response and vaccinal response have been distilled into the "mo' antibodies, mo' betta" immuno-bridging tagline which is used to paint a broad brush across multiple pathogens with multiple routes of entry and highly differentiated immune responses (NK cell, Tcell, innate, adaptive etc.)

While one would have to recognize that, in theory, the attenuated exposure to a pathogen, should work, the measurement of the vaccine efficacy, the complexity of the immune system signaling cascade, the highly variable immune responses (and side effects) from person to person etc.. have been reduced to "vaccines work" ,"they give you antibodies" or "they're safe", despite legitimate concerns of our understanding of this process and its variability.

The blatant yearly push of ineffective flu vaccines and labelling mRNA transfections as "vaccines"

and the broad assumption that intramuscular shots can prepare for a mucosal (gut, lung, skin) infection should rightfully raise fundamental questions about the entire vaccine 'program'.

While one might consider it unfortunate to question the entire basis of vaccination based on recent developments (shenanigans), I think it is only fair. Who knows? Maybe there isn't a baby in the bathwater, after all. Or we might have to admit we have no effin' clue what we're doing.

Expand full comment

So, not only does the Covid vaccine *not* prevent transmission, it actually makes transmission *higher*? Wow.

Expand full comment

To gain a broad and deep understanding of the issues raised by vaccine clinical trials and to understand why you should question widely-accepted claims of safety and efficacy, read "Turtles all the Way Down: Vaccine Science & Myth." The information in the book is credible and clear.


Expand full comment

Don't know how it is in Germany, but here in the United States there are an insane amount of vaccines that doctors administer to children. Along the same time, childhood pathologies have skyrocketed, and he methods the FDA uses to test vaccine safety is to test it against not saline solution, but other vaccines.

If you try to look at comparison studies between fully vaccinated children and completely unvaccinated children, I don't think thy exist. I knew several families hat have eschewed all vaccines because of the lack of serious long term studies not allowing thm to make a proper risk assessment.

Tragic, because these aren't conspiracy nuts, but reasonable people who smell something is wrong. It's clear the results will be some vaccines are positive while some are detrimental in the long-term, and in modern terminology, that's being an anti-vaxxer.

Expand full comment

Isn´t the most parsimonious explanation for this lack of knowledge that the important people in the medical establishment do not want to know because the very concept of (especially universal) vaccination is about as close as it gets to a license for printing money without having to show any benefit? The issues you mentioned should not be hard to see for anybody who thinks about these matters or who is professionally involved with them. It´s not rocket science to notice that you do not have an understanding of something.

Expand full comment