The introduction to this article is also available as a podcast on Spotify, published under “Gerry at The Health Equation.”

You can search Spotify for Gerry at The Health Equation or use the link below:

https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/gerrygaj

Below is the specific link to the podcast

Gerry Gajadharsingh writes:

In recent years, the question “Are we having too many vaccines—especially in our children?” has moved from the margins of public discourse into mainstream discussion. A 2024 blog published on The Health Equation explored this issue, emphasising the importance of nuanced scientific inquiry and shared clinical decision-making, rather than binary “pro- or anti-vaccine” positions.
https://www.thehealthequation.co.uk/are-we-having-too-many-vaccines-especially-in-our-children/

The release of An Inconvenient Study in October 2025—a documentary examining questions around vaccine research transparency—has further intensified this debate. Rather than simply rehearsing competing claims, the ongoing conversation invites a deeper examination of why these concerns persist and what they reveal about science, clinical practice, and public trust in medical institutions.

With thanks to Thomas Åkerberg, one of my Fencing friends from Sweden who kindly sent me the link for the documentary.

The Core Question: Quantity, Timing, and Scientific Rigour

At the centre of this discussion is not opposition to vaccination itself, but concern about the number, timing, and cumulative physiological impact of vaccines administered during early childhood. As explored in my earlier writing, many real-world clinical questions—particularly those relating to neurodevelopment, immune regulation, and chronic disease—are inherently multifactorial and resistant to simple cause-and-effect explanations.

It is important to acknowledge that childhood immunisation schedules have expanded gradually over many decades, driven by the availability of vaccines that demonstrably reduce serious illness, disability, and mortality. This expansion has not been arbitrary, and the population-level benefits of vaccination are well supported by evidence.

However, a persistent challenge remains: association is not causation, and the scientific tools required to disentangle the two must be sufficiently rigorous, transparent, and intelligible to clinicians and families alike. Many parents and healthcare professionals wish to weigh benefits and risks collaboratively, particularly when considering timing, individual susceptibility, and broader health context.

The Developing Immune System and Cumulative Exposure

One of the most commonly voiced concerns is whether the density and frequency of vaccine doses in early life may place demands on a developing immune system that are not fully captured by existing research models. This concern is often countered by the argument that infants encounter vastly more antigens through everyday environmental exposure than they do through vaccines. While broadly accurate at a molecular level, this reassurance does not fully address the clinical question being asked.

The issue is not simply antigen quantity, but immune timing, biological context, and cumulative exposure during a critical developmental window—along with potential contributions from other substances contained within vaccines, such as adjuvants, preservatives, and stabilisers.

Early childhood is characterised by rapid maturation of immune, neurological, and metabolic systems. Repeated interventions during this period understandably prompt questions about potential longer-term or non-specific effects in a susceptible minority.

There is strong and consistent evidence that individual vaccines are effective at protecting against their target diseases, and this is not in dispute. What is less well studied is the long-term impact of the entire vaccine schedule as an integrated exposure, particularly in relation to outcomes such as immune regulation, allergic disease, autoimmunity, or neurodevelopment.

Most pre-licensing vaccine trials are designed to assess short- to medium-term safety and disease-specific efficacy, often comparing a vaccine to another active comparator rather than to a completely unexposed population. This approach meets regulatory and ethical standards and supports public health decision-making. Nonetheless, it means that some questions regarding cumulative effects, individual variability, and long-term health trajectories remain incompletely answered.

This gap should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence of harm or concealment. Rather, it reflects the inherent limitations of large-scale population research when applied to complex biological systems.

The Documentary: An Inconvenient Study

An Inconvenient Study centres on an unpublished observational analysis conducted within the Henry Ford Health System, comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children. The film suggests that findings indicating higher rates of certain chronic conditions among vaccinated children were not published because they conflicted with prevailing scientific narratives.

The documentary presents this as a call for transparency and open debate. Critics, however, point to well-recognised methodological challenges, including selection bias, confounding variables, and the difficulty of constructing truly comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. In academic medicine, such limitations are often sufficient to prevent publication without invoking suppression or ideological bias.

Both perspectives merit consideration. The absence of publication does not, in itself, imply misconduct, but the scarcity of whole-schedule comparative studies helps explain why these questions persist and why such narratives resonate with the public.

If you wish to view the documentary yourself, it is available at:

ANINCONVENIENTSTUDY.com

The Bandim Health Project and Non-Specific Effects

A critical part of the documentary is the interview with Dr Peter Aaby, who led the Bandim Health Project in Bissau, West Africa. This long-running programme examined the effects of the DTP vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis/whooping cough) between 1981 and 1986. DTP remains one of the most widely used vaccines globally, particularly in low-income countries.

Dr Aaby, a recognised vaccine expert, noted that circumstances at the time created an unusual natural comparison: approximately half of the children had received the vaccine, while the other half had not. This presented an opportunity to examine broader health outcomes beyond disease-specific protection.

His findings were unexpected. While the DTP vaccine clearly protected against the targeted diseases, overall mortality rates were reported to be significantly higher—up to fivefold—in vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. He also observed that routine vaccines are generally not tested for their overall effect on all-cause mortality in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

One of his co-authors, Professor Christine Stabell Benn, Professor of Global Health in Denmark, later discussed these findings publicly, including in a TED talk. She stated that while DTP protected against the three target diseases, vaccinated children appeared to have a higher risk of death from other causes. She concluded:

“The protection for the three deadly diseases unfortunately comes at a very high price, with an increased overall risk of dying of other problems. So, with the best of intentions, unfortunately the use of DTP vaccines will kill more children than it saves. I know these results will be extremely uncomfortable, and I wish—myself included—that they were not true. But this is what the data tells us.”

Relevant publication:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33125458/

Navigating Complexity as Clinicians and Parents

This debate reflects a broader tension in modern healthcare:

  • Public health policy prioritises population-level disease prevention and herd immunity.
  • Clinical practice focuses on individual patients, each with unique genetics, environments, and vulnerabilities.
  • Public discourse, shaped by media and social platforms, often simplifies complex scientific questions into polarised positions.

From a clinical standpoint, acknowledging uncertainty and biological variability does not undermine vaccination programmes. Rather, it supports trust, transparency, and informed consent. Avoiding absolutist language and engaging respectfully with genuine concerns is essential if confidence in medical institutions is to be maintained.

A Balanced View: Evidence, Uncertainty, and Trust

Where does this leave us?

First, continued high-quality research into both individual vaccines and broader health outcomes remains essential, provided it adheres to rigorous methodological standards.

Second, communicating the limits of current evidence honestly—rather than defensively—is more likely to strengthen public trust than weaken it.

Third, clinicians and policymakers must remain open to refining guidance as scientific understanding evolves, while continuing to protect children from preventable disease.

Clarifying Vaccine Doses and Vaccinations

The UK childhood immunisation schedule includes 40+ vaccine doses, while the US schedule includes 70+ doses for a child up to 18 years of age.

Importantly, this does not mean 40 or 70 separate vaccinations. A dose refers to a single injection or oral administration at a given time. Many doses are repeat doses of the same vaccine, and some doses contain multiple vaccines combined into a single injection. As a result, the actual number of vaccination visits and injections is far fewer than the total number of doses listed in the schedule.

Clinical Disclaimer

This article is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice and should not replace individual consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. Vaccination decisions should be made in discussion with an appropriately trained clinician, taking into account current guidelines, individual health status, and personal circumstances.