SZwanglos – Following Feed

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

R an @Impf_Info: Hsiao A. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2025.11.025 /13

R to @Impf_Info: In other words: in order to prevent a whooping cough infection (not: a severe course), even according to these problematic data, more than 5000 pregnant women would have to be vaccinated (NNV 5400)... . /12

R to @Impf_Info: ... this very, very small risk is reduced by less than 0.02% (ARR) through vaccination during pregnancy. /11

R to @Impf_Info: The striking discrepancy of a total of fewer than 20 infections in more than 250,000 newborns examined shows once again how rarely infants are infected with whooping cough in the critical first two months of life - ... /10

R to @Impf_Info: One pertussis infection was detected in the latter and 17 pertussis infections in newborns of unvaccinated mothers, resulting in an impressive RRR of 96%. /9

R to @Impf_Info: The data from 264,000 infants were examined, 171,000 born to mothers who were vaccinated during pregnancy. /8

R to @Impf_Info: The fact that the study only uses relative risk reductions (RRR) in a methodologically inaccurate way, without mentioning the absolute values ​​(ARR) or the number needed to vaccinate (NNV), as is actually scientifically required, is almost irrelevant. /7

R to @Impf_Info: On the other hand, this study does not allow any statements to be made about clinically relevant endpoints such as the severity of the course or the need for inpatient or even intensive care treatment. /6

R to @Impf_Info: the primary endpoint: "Detection of a whooping cough infection by PCR on doctor's orders" has two weak points: on the one hand, this test could have been prescribed more frequently for children of unvaccinated women for safety reasons. /5

R to @Impf_Info: the restriction to women and newborns who were/are insured with KPNC during and after pregnancy means a classic healthy user bias and thus a tendency to overestimate vaccination effectiveness in such studies /4

R to @Impf_Info: ... this time the name of the vaccine manufacturer does not have to be laboriously searched for in the conflicts of interest, it is in second place on the list of authors... . But this is not the only methodological weakness of the study: /3

R to @Impf_Info: Once again, data from members of the US healthcare provider Kaisers Permanente (KPNC) is being used for a study on the effectiveness of the whooping cough vaccination during pregnancy that at first glance seems impressive, ... /2

R to @Impf_Info: ... also observed in this work in connection with corresponding possible precancerous lesions on the cervix. Morel D. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2026.02.016 /8

R to @Impf_Info: ... this is another indication of a replacement phenomenon associated with the HPV vaccination, ... /7

R to @Impf_Info: Although this study has clear methodological weaknesses (the most frequently vaccinated age group is unequally represented in both groups; ultimately just an ecological study design prone to bias; ...) ... /6

R to @Impf_Info: - this corresponding shift also in the analysis of the cell changes that have occurred on the cervix (CIN 2+, potential precancerous lesions) /5

R to @Impf_Info: - a higher overall prevalence of HPV infections than in the low coverage group - an increase in high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine compared to the low coverage group ... /4

R to @Impf_Info: - a so-called high coverage and a low coverage group. In summary, the following were found in the high coverage group in the most vaccinated age cohort (21 - 29 years): /3

R to @Impf_Info: A US study compares data from early cancer detection examinations of two groups of women who differed significantly in HPV vaccination rates: /2

R an @Impf_Info: Mehr dazu: https://www.impf-info.de/blog/keuchhusten-einzelimpfstoff-new-kid-in-town.html /3

R an @Impf_Info: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-9-12-march-2026 https://www.arznei-telegramm.com/de/6470/chikungunya-lebendimpfstoff-ixchiq-nutzen-schaden-bilanz-positiv /9

R to @Impf_Info: The industry-independent drug telegram points out that none of the vaccines have been proven to be clinically effective and that approval was only based on evidence of antibody levels that are assumed to be protective. /8

R to @Impf_Info: ... and in rare cases (especially in infants, the elderly and those with previous illnesses) can lead to severe disease or death. /7

R to @Impf_Info: Background: Chikungunya is a viral infection transmitted by tiger mosquitoes in (sub-)tropical regions, which typically leads to feverish headaches, muscle and joint pain... /6