Why are So Many A-List Celebrities and Scientists Vaccine-Hesitant?

Video: A Critical Historic Review of Artificial Active Immunization

Today again, the #Pfizer hashtag is trending on Twitter. For the past two years, questions about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-vaccines or the sordid history of vaccine-makers (see the Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in History) have been controversial and trending on social media. There is a lot of misunderstanding and hype (exaggeration) in the debate but the controversy is not new.

It probably started in late 19th Century with a bitter disagreement between two prominent scientists about the origin of disease-causing (pathogenic) microorganisms. Antoine Béchamp, the father of the microzymian theory, attributed pathogenic organisms to imbalances and dysfunctions in host and environmental conditions, whereas Louis Pasteur, the father of germ theory, blamed “exogenous” bacteria and microorganisms for disease.

Although Pasteur’s view became more mainstream, the controversy over the efficacy and risks of the “artificial active immunization” in contrast to natural active immunity (by our own immune system without the help of injections) has continued. Even the prominent (20th century) microbiologist Rene’ Dubos believed that many bacteria and viruses are not inherently pathogenic: “No metabolic analysis of infectious disease is possible until an ecological concept is introduced to formulate the problem.” (Read the full blog: Informal Tennis Shoes: How a Top Microbiologist Chose America Over Homeland France?)

The vaccine-hesitancy and anti-vaccine movements have grown worldwide. The movement now includes well-known and outspoken scientists and doctors (such as Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Robert W. Malone, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Judy Mikovits, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr. Heather Heying, Dr. Bret Weinstein, Dr. Simone Gold, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Rashid A Buttar, Dr. Luc Montagnier — Nobel prize laureate — , Dr. Mike Yeadon — former Vice President at Pfizer — , Dr. Christiane Northrup, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Professor Dolores Cahill) as well as a large number of the Hollywood's A-list celebrities (Robert De Niro, Jessica Biel, Jim Carrey, Letitia Wright, Rob Schneider, Alicia Silverstone, Jenny McCarthy, James E. Breuer, Toni Braxton, Charlie Sheen) and many others who are privately vaccine-hesitant but reluctant to share it publicly fearing reprisal, deplatforming from social media, or losing licenses and contracts.

Many people do not understand the roots of anti-vaxx movement. It is not easy to directly hear the or see the points made by vaccine-resisters because during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of their pages and channels were removed or suspended in social media, particularly on Facebook, Instagram and Youtube or buried (shadow-banned) by Google and Twitter algorithms.

Whether you are pro- or anti-vaccine, to understand the arguments made by vaccine-hesitant groups, I recommend that you watch the 2014 video series (in 4 parts) by Dr. Suzanne Humphries who offers a fairly extensive critical review of the history of artificial active immunization. Many vaxx-hesitant groups reference this video.

The videos have nothing to do with COVID-19 or the current controversies. Although I find some of her epidemiological analyses incomplete or inconclusive, I find the lectures well-researched, accurate and educational for anyone who wants to understand the growing vaccine-hesitancy movement in the world.

As explained in my previous blog and in my book, our immune system, like our fingerprint, is very unique and complex. The debate over benefits and risks of artificial vs. natural immunity is as complex as our immune system so I personally find it hard to draw any general conclusions (pro- or anti-vaxx) about the risk-benefit ratios of any drugs or injections at the population level or even at the individual level because each immune system is unique. I believe factors such as age, genetics, ecosystem (particularly in childhood), overall metabolic health, population (biome) density, individual’s travel frequency and distance (related to biome diversity) could all impact our immune system and the efficacy/risks of any drugs or vaccines. I am fundamentally for open debates and against censoring any group for their views about drugs, mandates, or any other scientific or social topic even if their views are controversial or against the main stream.

Generally and philosophically speaking, from a historic standpoint, natural selection has relied on fine-tuning our own natural immune system for most of our evolution. But as explained (scientifically and historically) in my book, in the past two centuries we have metamorphosed to a more or less denatured species (which I call Homo economicus) with a lifestyle that has to rely more on innovative adaptive tools than on naturally-evolved adaptive physical traits.

You can find the whole video playlist by Dr. Humphries via this link, which is somehow de-ranked (buried by algorithms) in Youtube searches about the topic. I am sharing this here to make sure people understand the movement instead of following or condemning it blindly.