SZwanglos – Following Feed

R to @Impf_Info: ... methodologically more than uncertain and also implausible... /14 https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71410

R to @Impf_Info: This study shows as an example how misleading scientific publications are sometimes formulated and published: the "delayed onset" and the "benefit" claimed in the abstract turn out to be clinically irrelevant in the full text of the study, ... /13

R to @Impf_Info: ... then subsides and is no longer detectable 6 years after vaccination. This contradicts the current understanding of the disease development in Alzheimer's dementia, which assumes that the disease occurs decades ago. /12

R to @Impf_Info: In addition, the time horizon found also speaks against a causal connection between the vaccination and the minimal effect found: this is greatest in the first four years after the vaccination, ... /11

R an @Impf_Info: ... beim Studienergebnis gab, was die Autoren in der Diskussion einräumen („die Möglichkeit eines gesunden Impfeffekts kann nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden“), wurde statistisch und methodisch gesehen das eigentliche Ergebnis aber weitestgehend entwertet. /10

R to @Impf_Info: ... among other things, the frequency of self-harming behavior. Here the aHR is 0.64 and therefore in the same order of magnitude as the effect on Alzheimer's dementia, which suggests that there is a systematic distortion (bias - here, for example, the healthy user bias)... /9

R to @Impf_Info: And even this minimal effect is not statistically certain: in order to exclude possible systematic confounders, the authors consider the aHRs for 4 additional study endpoints that, according to current understanding, have nothing to do with the vaccination, ... /8

R to @Impf_Info: However, if we look at the calculated absolute effect sizes, we are talking about 1.1 days of additional disease-free survival per academic year - a dimension that the authors themselves classify as "minimal absolute effect size" in the discussion (not in the abstract!). /7

R to @Impf_Info: The work calculates an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR - ratio of event rates) of 0.88 for memory disorders of all kinds and 0.75 for Alzheimer's dementia, which meant a reduction of an impressive 25% in the latter. /6

R to @Impf_Info: The study uses the so-called RMST (restricted mean survival time) as a decisive criterion, defined here as the difference in dementia-free survival time between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated study cohort. /5

R to @Impf_Info: However, it quickly becomes clear to the attentive reader of the entire study: the effect found is neither clinically relevant nor methodologically safe... . /4

R to @Impf_Info: ... und schlussfolgert im Abstract der Studie vollständig: „Die Lebendimpfung gegen Zoster war mit einem verzögerten Beginn des kognitiven Verfalls verbunden, was auf Vorteile hindeutet, die über die Herpes-Zoster-Prävention in alternden Bevölkerungsgruppen hinausgehen.“ /3

R to @Impf_Info: A large South Korean registry study (n = ≥ 1,000,000) examined the connection between the live vaccination against herpes zoster (Zostavax™) and the occurrence of dementia over a period of 12 years (2012 - 2024) (Oh 2026) ... /2

H. Zoster vaccination and dementia - large study finds no safe or relevant effect https://www.impf-info.de/blog/h-zoster-impfung-und-demenz-studie-find-nicht-sicheren-oder-relevanten-effekt.html

R to @Impf_Info: Kapelus DJ. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2026.128580 van der Straak M. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae537 /10

R to @Impf_Info: to this day there is no methodologically reliable study that has proven the lasting effectiveness of such a third dose. /9

R to @Impf_Info: The demand for a third vaccination dose, which was derived from the decline in immunity in the South African study, lacks any evidence: /8

R to @Impf_Info: ... who also found an earlier drop in antibody levels with a first vaccination before the age of 8.5 months, even if vaccination continued "regularly" (van der Staak 2025, small study). /7

R to @Impf_Info: Even if the vaccine virus strain primarily used in South Africa is not used in Europe, the result of the study fits in with results found in the Netherlands, for example, ... /6

R an @Impf_Info: „Die Seropositivitätsschätzungen könnten in unseren angepassten Analysen überschätzt werden und stellen daher eine konservative Schätzung des Nachlassens der Immunität in unserer Studie dar.“ /5

R to @Impf_Info: This is all the more serious as the authors themselves admit that for methodological reasons (the determination procedure was changed in the course of the study) these titers would tend to be overestimated and the so-called waning (i.e. the loss of protection) would probably be underestimated: /4

R to @Impf_Info: after an accelerated vaccination schedule with measles vaccinations at the age of 6 and 12 months, at the age of 5 years less than 2/3 of those vaccinated (60.8%) still had antibody levels that were considered protective. /3

R to @Impf_Info: The follow-up examination of participants in a South African measles vaccination study (n = 171) showed once again that very early measles vaccination leads to significantly poorer sustainability of the vaccination (Kapelus 2026): /2

R bis @Impf_Info: Cuypers L. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127763 Griffith A. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127763 Thindwa D. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1014065 /16

R to @Impf_Info: In other words: once again it shows that we use naive, mechanistic ideas and tools to vaccinate connections whose complexity we have not even remotely understood... /15

R to @Impf_Info: It is clear: the high-valent PCVs of recent years cannot solve the problem that they themselves cause. /14

R to @Impf_Info: And the problem does not affect 19F alone: other serotypes contained in the vaccines are also experiencing a comeback or were simply never really controlled, such as serotype 3 (especially in Europe), 4, 19A, 9V, 12F (Belgium (Cuypers 2025) and Canada (Griffith 2024), also 14. /13

R to @Impf_Info: The mental approach: serotype in (in the vaccine) means serotype is gone (from the infection spectrum) is simply refuted by these findings. More covered serotypes does not lead to better effectiveness. /12

R to @Impf_Info: In addition to the phenomenon of replacement, which is no longer in question, the PCV would have (have) another fundamental problem: resurgence. /11

R to @Impf_Info: This ultimately meant that the conceptual approach of colonization and infection protection through conjugated polysaccharide vaccines (PCV) could be structurally limited given certain capsule and immunogenicity properties. /10

R zu @Impf_Info: „Wenn das Wiederaufleben stattdessen durch eine verringerte Konkurrenz durch Nicht-Impfstoff-Serotypen vorangetrieben wird, könnte dies zu Problemen für höherwertige Impfstoffe führen, die die Konkurrenz im Nasopharynx weiter verringern würden.“ /9

R to @Impf_Info: ... and the vaccination has created niches that can now be filled again by 19F. This would mean that the current vaccination strategy with ever higher valency vaccines would be one of the causes of the problem: /8

R to @Impf_Info: The most likely explanation remains - also in the authors' opinion - that the use of pneumococcal vaccines with more and more serotypes contained has seriously disturbed the fragile ecological balance in the nasopharyngeal colonization with pneumococci ... /7

R to @Impf_Info: A recent paper from Yale University speculates about the background to this completely unexpected problem and formulates several possible hypotheses, none of which ultimately explains the situation (Thindwa 2026). /6

R to @Impf_Info: In the USA, the number of infections with this serotype is currently as high or even higher compared to the data before the start of every pneumococcal vaccination. There are comparable trends in the UK and Australia, among others. /5

R to @Impf_Info: And although vaccinations against 19F have been taking place for 25 years, it is clear: 19F is back - and it is not alone... /4

R to @Impf_Info: It was clear early on that this was a potential problem germ because the antibody levels necessary to prevent infections with 19F must be higher than for many other pneumococcal types. /3

R to @Impf_Info: Since the first pneumococcal vaccines were brought to market 25 years ago, one serotype has been included in every vaccine: 19F. /2