A recent commentary, published in the journal Vaccine by Christine Stabell Benn of the Bandim Health Project at the University of Southern Denmark, challenges the conventional view of vaccines.
While vaccines are recognised for their ability to prevent specific diseases, Benn highlights a critical but overlooked phenomenon: non-specific effects (NSEs).
NSEs can either bolster or weaken overall health by shaping the immune system’s response to other infections.
No drug that is effective can be totally safe; there will always be harms, and it is essential to understand them.
At Kennedy’s confirmation hearings, we saw a stark example of “vaccine absolutism”—the refusal to entertain any discussion of nuance in vaccine policy.
Ironically, those most fearful that Kennedy will roll back vaccinations are, in their efforts to suppress debate and control the narrative, causing more damage to public confidence in vaccines.
As one of my colleagues always says, “If you have nothing to hide, then hide nothing.”
If we want to restore trust in vaccination, we must move beyond the binary thinking of “pro-vaccine” versus “anti-vaccine” and instead foster a more open, evidence-based discussion about their benefits and harms.
Acknowledging the complexity of vaccines—both their intended and unintended effects, positive and negative—is the only way to ensure that public health policies truly serve the best interests of all.
Finally, there is some nuanced views of vaccines coming into public view. There are a lot of different effects of vaccines, both positive and negative that are being hidden from the public. As the author states; “If you have nothing to hide, then hide nothing.” I think RFKjr is taking this tact in the vaccine investigations: there are both good and bad effects for vaccines and we should know about both of them.