Do Vaccines Increase or Decrease Susceptibility to Diseases Other Than Those They Protect Against?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrary to the long-held belief that the effects of vaccines are specific for the disease they were created; compelling evidence has demonstrated that vaccines can exert positive or deleterious non-specific effects (NSEs). In this review, we compiled research reports from the last 40 years, showing that live vaccines induce positive NSEs, whereas non-live vaccines induce several negative NSEs, including increased female mortality associated with enhanced susceptibility to other infectious diseases, especially in developing countries. These negative NSEs are determined by the vaccination sequence, the antigen concentration in vaccines, the type of vaccine used (live vs. non-live), and also by repeated vaccination. We do not recommend stopping using non-live vaccines, as they have demonstrated to protect against their target disease, so the suggestion is that their detrimental NSEs can be minimized simply by changing the current vaccination sequence. High IgG4 antibody levels generated in response to repeated inoculation with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could be associated with a higher mortality rate from unrelated diseases and infections by suppressing the immune system. Since most COVID-19 vaccinated countries are reporting high percentages of excess mortality not directly attributable to deaths from such disease, the NSEs of mRNA vaccines on overall mortality should be studied in depth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".