.
These are 'inactivated' vaccines, but do involve giving the antigen ('dead' virus), an adjuvant (the thing that really triggers the immune response) and the preservative/diluent (the stuff the vaccine is preserved and carried in).
One can get immunity a bunch of ways:
1. get the actual infection - usually the best immunity, as you are exposed to ALL the parts of the virus/bacteria/parasite, and thus your immune system may be able to recognize it even if a number of its features change over the years. The disadvantage is the real infection could be dangerous.
2. get a mild version of the infection - theoretically if the infectious agent is wimpy but otherwise intact, you can get the good above without as much risk of infection complications. The problem is that the infectious agent might not be reliably rendered 'wimpy', and could cause a full-fledged infection.
3. get just a part of the infectious agent administered - here we limit the potential immune response, plus really have to add an 'adjuvant' - a chemical that 'stimulates' the immune system. Often the adjuvant (things like squalene, for instance) is more dangerous than the antigen.
4. generate part of the infectious agent internally - by co-opting the recipient's cells to make part of the virus (or whatever you're trying to immunize against), you can get an unpredictable amount of whatever part you are trying to reproduce, in unpredictable parts of the body, with unpredictable timing. These are the mRNA vaccines, and yes, through reverse transcriptase, they can indeed modify the host's DNA (although many viruses themselves can do this, so therefore so could the vaccines involving an actual virus or attenuated/wimpy virus).
5. get antibodies delivered to you for temporary use - breastfed babies get this in colostrum, adults get it from gammaglobulin or specific antibodies that can be synthesized. Antibodies can be given to viruses, bacteria, or even toxins.
One problem with all vaccines is the tendency to stimulate the antibody-producing part of the immune system, versus the cellular part, at least with anything that isn't "live".
Another is that they often combine several vaccines in one injection - less painful scary shots for kids that way, but more complexity and chance for problems, and harder to see which one caused a problem if something goes wrong.
The vaccines also are treated completely differently from 'pills' from a marketing and regulatory standpoint. Physicians (especially Democrats) are often biased to think that 'pills' are pedaled by greedy drug companies, and so we are assumed to be rampantly prescribing whatever pills the large-breasted drug rep tells us to, as long as the pizza she brought for lunch was good. YET those same physicians who virtue-signal their 'skepticism' of new pills (but still stare at the drug-rep boobs) will eagerly prescribe every vaccine the day it comes on the market, to each and every possible candidate. Pretty odd, when the 'pills' generally are safe, are NOT designed to cause any permanent effects, and usually any side-effects vanish if you discontinue the pills - whereas the vaccines are by their very nature designed to cause PERMANENT effects, and thus side-effects may also be permanent.
The moment the government had to 'shield' vaccine makers from liability, it became clear that they probably had something to hide.
I recommend reading "
Turtles all the way Down" and "
The Moth in the Iron Lung" - both about vaccines and politics.
To be clear, I actually DO recommend some vaccines some times to some patients, but to blanket-recommend all of them to all patients, is ridiculous.
My gut feeling is that for most people, the dT makes sense (not that sure about the 'P' part in adults), the MMR makes sense, and if there is exposure to much blood likely , the HepB makes sense. For all of these giving them too early increases coverage a few months on the front end, but they seem to wear off many YEARS earlier in exchange, and the smaller the child the more the side effects seem to happen. For old people with bad lungs, the highest-valence Pneumococcal vaccine available seems reasonable. I think a few folks should get the zoster vaccine (but liked the older version better), although having a rapid-response with valacyclovir may be as good, if feasible. I prefer sambucol to the influenza vaccines.
ALL THIS CHANGES if the patient has a compromised immune system though - and there are no easy answers there.
It will also be interesting to see how the 'autism link' comes out now that it is actually permissable to discuss it.
My gut feeling there is that the link, if there is one, may be mostly for the 1/3 of the population with a single nucleotide polymorphism of the methyl-tetrahydrofolate reductase gene (MTHFR SNP). Those of who have that don't detoxify things as well and it tends to play out in the nervous system. See Benjamin Lynch's many books and YouTube things on that topic -
Benjamin Lynch on Methylation
AND OF COURSE - "
This is generic and general medical OPINION - so none should be construed as individual doctor-patient medical advice, because without an established doctor-patient relationship involving a thorough history, physical examination, appropriate testing, and individualized evaluation and treatment plan formulation, it is impossible to provide high-quality care. Therefore read and consider the opinions, the sources provided, and then integrate that into consultation with your own personal healthcare provider(s)..."
