Talk:Non-specific effect of vaccines

For trained immunity see the nice review http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC5087274/. - SCIdude (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The acronym NSE is used several times in this wikipedia article

That's OK, but it should be explained the first time it is used.

NSE = Non-specific effect of vaccines.

--91.159.179.160 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-specific vaccine studies often have big bias

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343628/

Search for "Bias" in this article from 2018.

--ee1518 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Jynneos

Wikipedia says:

All live vaccines studied so far (BCG, measles vaccine, oral polio vaccine (OPV) and smallpox vaccine) have been shown to reduce mortality more than can be explained by prevention of the targeted infection(s).

Jynneos says:

JYNNEOS® Monkeypox Vaccine - Approved in the U.S.

This website provides information about the monkeypox virus, JYNNEOS® (Smallpox and Monkeypox Vaccine, Live, Nonreplicating) suspension for subcutaneous injection, and Bavarian Nordic, the company which manufactures JYNNEOS®.

My question:

Although Nonreplicating, does this vaccine probably have Non-specific effects?

For best antibodies and protection from vaccines, and for protection from diseases like common cold and norovirus etc, should one first take Jynneos and then other vaccines, or first other vaccines and then Jynneos as last vaccine?

91.159.184.121 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfoMD: That was not the question of the IP.

@IP: The "original" smallpox vaccine has shown beneficial non-specific effects, yes. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither of us has yet answered the IP's question, which is about JYNNEOS, eh? RudolfoMD (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert violates NPOV. Non-specific effects can be strongly harmful.

This revert is inappropriate. The WHO-funded 2014 study is garbage; e.g., as Sabra L. Klein points out, it attempts to dismiss a P value of 0.0006 with a bit of handwaving and poor methodology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27753772/. Julius, if you want to include it fine, but wp:NPOV requires you not censoring relevant opinions from numerous top experts in the field, e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0338-x of 2020. Non-specific effects can be strongly beneficial or harmful by increasing or reducing protection against non-targeted infections. Reliable sources say so, the article says so, the lede should too.

Removing quotes within citations is most inappropriate.

The WHO-funded study itself "concluded that ... (DTPw) vaccine [was] associated with effects on mortality that were “more than would be expected through their effects on the diseases they prevent”, as the Nature article notes. These were negative effects. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, your claims are not appropiate. You are only referring to Aaby who ofc wants to defend his work (btw he strongly suggests vaccination). However, WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV apply here.

There is also no "Nature article", you refer to one of Aaby's viewpoint, so a mere opinion of Aaby (WP:NPOV). In addition, Aaby is omitting on crucial point from the cited meta-review: doi:10.1136/bmj.i5170: Evidence suggests that receipt of BCG and MCV reduce overall mortality by more than would be expected through their effects on the diseases they prevent, and receipt of DTP may be associated with an increase in all cause mortality. So while beneficial effects are there, there MAY be negative effects associated under certain conditions in a sex-dependent way (onyl females). Very vague.

Hence I have reverted your POV. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)