NEW PAPER OUT. We investigated the effect of rabies vaccine on the mortality of Danish pigs. Why did we do that - Danish pigs do not get rabies?
Here follows an explanation and the results of the study. #NSEvacsciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Our group has found that many child vaccines have important non-specific effects #NSEvac, affecting the risk of other infections. Live vaccines have beneficial #NSEvac. Non-live vaccines, in contrast, have been observed to have harmful #NSEvac in females. thelancet.com/journals/lanin…
In 2016, analysing data from a trial of a new non-live malaria vaccine (RTS,S), we found that girls had 2-fold higher all-cause mortality if they received RTS,S vs. a control vaccine. The RTS,S group also had more cerebral malaria and meningitis. mbio.asm.org/content/7/2/e0…
Some argued that RTS,S might not have negative effects. One of the age groups studied got rabies vaccine as control vaccine. The researchers proposed that rabies vaccine has beneficial #NSEvac that would make the RTS,S vaccine look bad in comparison. linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S…
Subsequently, however, the researchers conducted a randomised trial of non-live rabies vaccine in dogs. Corroborating that non-live vaccines may be harmful for females, they found that rabies vaccine was associated with 3-fold higher mortality in females. mdpi.com/2414-6366/5/1/…
In the meantime, we set out to study the effect of rabies vaccine in Danish pigs. We are interested in the effect of maternal priming, so we randomised both 575 sows and their 5747 offspring to rabies vaccine or no rabies vaccine and followed for mortality and use of antibiotics.
We found significant interaction between maternal and offspring vaccination and sex: In offspring of unvaccinated sows, rabies vaccine was associated with benefits in females but harm in males. In vaccinated sows, the effect was negative in both sexes, most so in females.
Our results contradict the hypothesis that non-live rabies vaccine has beneficial #NSEvac. The study indicated #NSEvac, with effect modification by sex and maternal vaccination. It is thus another piece of evidence supporting that vaccines have important non-specific effects.
Final words: It does not seem likely that beneficial #NSEvac of rabies vaccine explain the observed 2-fold higher mortality in girls after RTS,S malaria vaccine. The roll-out of RTS,S vaccine to 720,000 children in Africa remains a great concern. bmj.com/content/368/bm…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The statements put forward by @GVDBossche have created anxiety. @GVDBossche has invited to discussion, but few scientists seem to have replied. The lack of response seems to generate more anxiety. I have received many requests to give my take and felt obliged to do so. 1/n
First a few words on my background: I am an MD working in epidemiology/global health>27 years. Our studies show non-specific effects of vaccines on other infections #NSEvac; I therefore also did immunological vaccine studies to understand mechanisms. 2/n thelancet.com/journals/lanin…
My main interest in COVID-19 vaccines is whether these new vaccines also have #NSEvac (So far none of them have been studied for their effect on other infections). Thus, vaccine immunology is not my main area, but I do know more than most. Hence my feeling of obligation. 3/n
Det mener jeg også. Studiet antager, at en person, der tester positiv så lidt som een dag efter indexcase, er smittet af indexcase. Det kan skabe falsk association ml. høj CT og smitterisiko, hvis mange bare er familie ”lilla periode” - se figur.
Jeg har spurgt forfatterne, om de vil prøve med større vindue; formodningen er, at associationen mindskes. En anden måde test er ved at se på, hvor mange sekundærcases, der kom på hospital; formodningen er, at der var meget få blandt "sekundærcases" til de med højt CT.
Studiet bekræfter fund fra England og Spanien: der er flot korrelation mellem CT-værdi og smitterisiko. Det er det eneste studie, der angiver at finde smitte ved høje CT. Det kalder på grundig undersøgelse af om der kunne være fejlkilder a la ovenstående.
I @Orientering (56:29): Hvis der er god dokumentation for gavn af en Corona-anbefaling (test, isolation, etc) og man gør det praktisk muligt for folk, så vil folk følge anbefalingerne. Lad os skaffe den dokumentation ved at teste vores anbefalinger. dr.dk/radio/p1/orien…
Lad os lave masser af forsøg. Fx om der er gavn af at teste asymptomatiske i ikke-udbrudssituationer - som vi nu er i gang med i stor stil - ved at lade nogle skoler have de to gange ugentlige tests, men fritage andre fra dem. linkedin.com/pulse/et-%C3%A…
Lad os teste, om vi kan forbedre smitteopsporing ved at inddrage viden om mængden af virus i prøven, og give de folk, der har meget virus i halsen, besked om, at de kan være mulige superspredere og at det er ekstra vigtigt at informere alle kontakter.
Jeg medvirker i denne artikel, men er ikke tilfreds med, at der er kludder i begreberne. "Falsk positive" med PCR er hvis man ikke har noget virus i halsen, men alligevel testes positiv. Det er der meget lille risiko for. 1/ tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/anal…
"Funktionelt positiv" er noget andet. Det handler om, hvorvidt man har LEVENDE virus i halsen og dermed kan smitte andre. Vi ved, at jo flere "cykler" (=jo højere "CT"), jo mindre er den statistiske sandsynlighed for, at man har levende virus i halsen. 2/ medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
SSI har ikke offentliggjort CT tallene, men baseret på andre studier er der mange "funktionelt negative", altså folk der testes positive uden at kunne smitte andre. Statistisk set er de fleste asymptomatiske med høj CT nogle, der har haft infektion. 3/ nytimes.com/2020/08/29/hea…
Skal alle danskere vaccineres mod COVID-19? Baseret på hvad vi ved, er mit svar et klart nej. Her mine tanker.:1) Diskussionen er for tidligt ude. Vi har ikke en vaccine endnu. Vi har aldrig skabt en effektiv vaccine mod Corona-virus. Vi har ventet >35 år på en HIV-vaccine.1/8
2) Hvis vi får en vaccine, ved vi ikke, hvor mange doser, der skal til for at give beskyttelse. "Ikke-levende” vacciner skal man typisk have 2-3 doser af for at opnå immunitet. 3) Vi ved ikke, hvor længe beskyttelsen varer, det kan være som influenzavaccine: en ny hvert år. 2/8
4) Baseret på ovenstående kan vi risikere at en strategi med at vaccinere alle danskere er dyr og ineffektiv. 5) Dertil kommer sikkerheden. Med en ny vaccine er der risiko for bivirkninger. Den hidtil hurtigst udviklede vaccine tog 4 år at udvikle. Her er vi under tidspres. 3/8
ORAL POLIO VACCINE (OPV) – SOME CLARIFICATION. I’m a big OPV fan, but when I write about OPV I get negative feedback. So time to go through why I’m a fan and explain why I don’t see the same problems as some people do. Ready to get assumptions challenged? Follow this thread (1/n)
OPV was developed in the 1950s. At that time, polio was a problem. Epidemics followed epidemics, and though most people had asymptomatic disease, at its peak in the 1940s and 1950s, polio would paralyze or kill over 500,000 people worldwide every year (2/n)
After the introduction of the two polio vaccines, OPV and the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), the incidence decreased. Cases due to wild poliovirus decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350,000 cases then, to 33 reported cases in 2018 (3/n) who.int/en/news-room/f…