The Truth About Vaccines

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

The Truth About Vaccines

Yesterday we asked your views on vaccines, and we got an interesting spread of answers. Of those who responded to the poll, most were in favour of vaccines. We got quite a lot of comments this time too; we can’t feature them all, but we’ll include extracts from a few in our article today, as they raised interesting points!

Vaccines contain dangerous ingredients that will harm us more than the disease would: True or False?

False, contextually.

Many people are very understandably wary of things they know full well to be toxic, being injected into them.

One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are poison, and/or are some manner of conspiracy ” wrote:

❝I think vaccines from 50–60 years ago are true vaccines and were safer than vaccines today. I have not had a vaccine for many, many years, and I never plan to have any kind of vaccine/shot again.❞

They didn’t say why they personally felt this way, but the notion that “things were simpler back in the day” is a common (and often correct!) observation regards health, especially when it comes to unwanted additives and ultraprocessing of food.

Things like aluminum or mercury in vaccines are much like sodium and chlorine in table salt. Sodium and chlorine are indeed both toxic to us. But in the form of sodium chloride, it’s a normal part of our diet, provided we don’t overdo it.

Additionally, the amount of unwanted metals (e.g. aluminum, mercury) in vaccines is orders of magnitude smaller than the amount in dietary sources—even if you’re a baby and your “dietary sources” are breast milk and/or formula milk.

In the case of formaldehyde (an inactivating agent), it’s also the dose that makes the poison (and the quantity in vaccines is truly miniscule).

This academic paper alone cites more sources than we could here without making today’s newsletter longer than it already is:

Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation

I have a perfectly good immune system, it can handle the disease: True or False?

True! Contingently.

In fact, our immune system is so good at defending against disease, that the best thing we can do to protect ourselves is show our immune system a dead or deactivated version of a pathogen, so that when the real pathogen comes along, our immune system knows exactly what it is and what to do about it.

In other words, a vaccine.

One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are important but in some cases the side effects can be worse ” wrote:

❝In some ways I’m vacd out. I got COVid a few months ago and had no symptoms except a cough. I have asthma and it didn’t trigger a lot of congestion. No issues. I am fully vaccinated but not sure I’ll get one in fall.❞

We’re glad this subscriber didn’t get too ill! A testimony to their robust immune system doing what it’s supposed to, after being shown a recent-ish edition of the pathogen, in deactivated form.

It’s very reasonable to start wondering: “surely I’m vaccinated enough by now”

And, hopefully, you are! But, as any given pathogen mutates over time, we eventually need to show our immune system what the new version looks like, or else it won’t recognize it.

See also: Why Experts Think You’ll Need a COVID-19 Booster Shot in the Future

So why don’t we need booster shots for everything? Often, it’s because a pathogen has stopped mutating at any meaningful rate. Polio is an example of this—no booster is needed for most people in most places.

Others, like flu, require annual boosters to keep up with the pathogens.

Herd immunity will keep us safe: True or False?

True! Ish.

But it doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it means. For example, in the UK, “herd immunity” was the strategy promoted by Prime Minister of the hour, Boris Johnson. But he misunderstood what it meant:

  • What he thought it meant: everyone gets the disease, then everyone who doesn’t die is now immune
  • What it actually means: if most people are immune to the disease (for example: due to having been vaccinated), it can’t easily get to the people who aren’t immune

One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are critical for our health; vax to the max! ” wrote:

❝I had a chiropractor a few years ago, who explained to me that if the general public took vaccines, then she would not have to vaccinate her children and take a risk of having side effects❞

Obviously, we can’t speak for this subscriber’s chiropractor’s children, but this raises a good example: some people can’t safely have a given vaccine, due to underlying medical conditions—or perhaps it is not available to them, for example if they are under a certain age.

In such cases, herd immunity—other people around having been vaccinated and thus not passing on the disease—is what will keep them safe.

Here’s a useful guide from the US Dept of Health and Human Services:

How does community immunity (a.k.a. herd immunity) work?

And, for those who are more visually inclined, here’s a graphical representation of a mathematical model of how herd immunity works (you can run a simulation)!

Stay safe!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Butter vs Margarine
  • The Age-Proof Brain – by Dr. Marc Milstein
    Biological aging is modifiable, and Dr. Milstein’s book guides you to a biologically younger brain with practical advice and evidence-based strategies.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • The SharpBrains Guide to Brain Fitness – by Alvaro Fernandez et al.

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We say “et al.” in the by-line, because this one has a flock of authors, including Dr. Pascale Michelon, Dr. Sandra Bond Chapman, Dr. Elkehon Goldberg, and various others if we include the foreword, introduction, etc.

    This is relevant, because those who contributed to the meat of the book (i.e., those listed above), it makes the work a lot more scientifically reliable; one skilled science writer might make a mistake; it’s much less likely to make it through to publication when there are a bevy of doctors in the mix, each staking their reputation on the book’s content, and thus having a vested interest in checking each other’s work as well as their own.

    As for what this multidisciplinary team have to offer? The book covers such things as:

    • how the brain works (especially the possibilities of neuroplasticity), and what that means for such things as memory and attention
    • being “a coach not a patient”; i.e., being active rather than passive in one’s approach to brain health
    • the relevance of physical exercise, how much, and what kind
    • the relevance (and limitations) of diet choices for brain health
    • the relevance of such things as learning new languages and musical training
    • the relevance of social engagement, and how some (but not all) social engagement can boost cognition
    • methods for managing stress and building resilience to same (critical for maintaining a healthy brain)
    • “cross-fit for your brain”, that is to say, a multi-vector collection of tools to explore, ranging from meditation to CBT to biofeedback and more.

    The style is pop-science without being sensationalist, just communicating ideas clearly, with enough padding to feel casual, and not like a dense read. Importantly, it’s also practical and applicable too, which is something we always look for here.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to be given a good overview of what things work (and how much they can be expected to work), along with a good framework to put that knowledge into practice, then this is a great book for you.

    Click here to check out The SharpBrains Guide to Brain Fitness, and optimize your brain health and performance!

    Share This Post

  • Pistachios vs Pecans – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing pistachios to pecans, we picked the pistachios.

    Why?

    Firstly, the macronutrients: pistachios have twice as much protein and fiber. Pecans have more fat, though in both of these nuts the fats are healthy.

    The category of vitamins is an easy win for pistachios, with a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, and E. Especially the 8x vitamin A, 7x vitamin B6, 4x vitamin C, and 2x vitamin E, and as the percentages are good too, these aren’t small differences. Pecans, meanwhile, boast only a little more vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid, the one whose name means “it’s everywhere”, because that’s how easy it is to get it).

    In terms of minerals, pistachios have more calcium, iron, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while pecans have more manganese and zinc. So, a fair win for pistachios on this one.

    Adding up the three different kinds of win for pistachios means that *drumroll* pistachios win overall, and it’s not close.

    As ever, do enjoy both though, because diversity is healthy!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Life After Death? (Your Life; A Loved One’s Death)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The Show Must Go On

    We’ve previously written about the topics of death and dying. It’s not cheery, but it is important to tackle.

    Sooner is better than later, in the case of:

    Preparations For Managing Your Own Mortality

    And for those who are left behind, of course it is hardest of all:

    What Grief Does To Your Body (And How To Manage It)

    But what about what comes next? For those who are left behind, that is.

    Life goes on

    In cases when the death is that of a close loved one, the early days after death can seem like a surreal blur. How can the world go ticking on as normal when [loved one] is dead?

    But incontrovertibly, it does, so we can only ask again: how?

    And, we get to choose that, to a degree. The above-linked article about grief gives a “101” rundown, but it’s (by necessity, for space) a scant preparation for one of the biggest challenges in life that most of us will ever face.

    For many people, processing grief involves a kind of “saying goodbye”. For others, it doesn’t, as in the following cases of grieving the loss of one’s child—something no parent should ever have to face, but it happens:

    Dr. Ken Druck | The Love That Never Dies

    (with warning, the above article is a little heavy)

    In short: for those who choose not to “say goodbye” in the case of the death of a loved one, it’s more often not a case of cold neglect, but rather the opposite—a holding on. Not in the “denial” sense of holding on, but rather in the sense of “I am not letting go of this feeling of love, no matter how much it might hurt to hold onto; it’s all I have”.

    What about widows, and love after death?

    Note: we’ll use the feminine “widow” here as a) it’s the most common and b) most scientific literature focuses on widows, but there is no reason why most of the same things won’t also apply to widowers.

    We say “most”, as society does tend to treat widows and widowers differently, having different expectations about a respectful mourning period, one’s comportment during same, and so on.

    As an aside: most scientific literature also assumes heterosexuality, which is again statistically reasonable, and for the mostpart the main difference is any extra challenges presented by non-recognition of marriages, and/or homophobic in-laws. But otherwise, grief is grief, and as the saying goes, love is love.

    One last specificity before we get into the meat of this: we are generally assuming marriages to be monogamous here. Polyamorous arrangements will likely sidestep most of these issues completely, but again, they’re not the norm.

    Firstly, there’s a big difference between remarrying (or similar) after being widowed, and remarrying (or similar) after a divorce, and that largely lies in the difference of how they begin. A divorce is (however stressful it may often be) more often seen as a transition into a new period of freedom, whereas bereavement is almost always felt as a terrible loss.

    The science, by the way, shows the stats for this; people are less likely to remarry, and slower to remarry if they do, in instances of bereavement rather than divorce, for example:

    Timing of Remarriage Among Divorced and Widowed Parents

    Love after death: the options

    For widows, then, there seem to be multiple options:

    • Hold on to the feelings for one’s deceased partner; never remarry
    • Grieve, move on, find new love, relegating the old to history
    • Try to balance the two (this is tricky but can be done*)

    *Why is balancing the two tricky, and how can it be done?

    It’s tricky because ultimately there are three people’s wishes at hand:

    • The deceased (“they would want me to be happy” vs “I feel I would be betraying them”—which two feelings can also absolutely come together, by the way)
    • Yourself (whether you actually want to get a new partner, or just remain single—this is your 100% your choice either way, and your decision should be made consciously)
    • The new love (how comfortable are they with your continued feelings for your late love, really?)

    And obviously only two of the above can be polled for opinions, and the latter one might say what they think we want to hear, only to secretly and/or later resent it.

    One piece of solid advice for the happily married: talk with your partner now about how you each would feel about the other potentially remarrying in the event of your death. Do they have your pre-emptive blessing to do whatever, do you ask a respectable mourning period first (how long?), would the thought just plain make you jealous? Be honest, and bid your partner be honest too.

    One piece of solid advice for everyone: make sure you, and your partner(s), as applicable, have a good emotional safety net, if you can. Close friends or family members that you genuinely completely trust to be there through thick and thin, to hold your/their hand through the emotional wreck that will likely follow.

    Because, while depression and social loneliness are expected and looked out for, it’s emotional loneliness that actually hits the hardest, for most people:

    Longitudinal Examination of Emotional Functioning in Older Adults After Spousal Bereavement

    …which means that having even just one close friend or family member with whom one can be at one’s absolute worst, express emotions without censure, not have to put on the socially expected appearance of emotional stability… Having that one person (ideally more, but having at least one is critical) can make a huge difference.

    But what if a person has nobody?

    That’s definitely a hard place to be, but here’s a good starting point:

    How To Beat Loneliness & Isolation

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Butter vs Margarine
  • Ultra-Processed People – by Dr. Chris van Tulleken

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It probably won’t come as a great surprise to any of our readers that ultra-processed food is—to make a sweeping generalization—not fabulous for the health. So, what does this book offer beyond that?

    Perhaps this book’s greatest strength is in showing not just what ultra-processed foods are, but why they are. In principle, food being highly processed should be neither good nor bad by default. Much like GMOs, if a food is modified to be more nutritious, that should be good, right?

    Only, that’s mostly not what happens. What happens instead is that food is modified (be it genetically or by ultra-processing) to be cheaper to produce, and thus maximise the profit margin.

    The addition of a compound that increases shelf-life but harms the health, increases sales and is a net positive for the manufacturer, for instance. Dr. van Tulleken offers us many, many, examples and explanations of such cost-cutting strategies at our expense.

    In terms of qualifications, the author has an MD from Oxford, and also a PhD, but the latter is in molecular virology; not so relevant here. Yet, we are not expected to take an “argument from authority”, and instead, Dr. van Tulleken takes great pains to go through a lot of studies with us—the good, the bad, and the misleading.

    If the book has a downside, then this reviewer would say it’s in the format; it’s less a reference book, and more a 384-page polemic. But, that’s a subjective criticism, and for those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing that they like.

    Click here to check out Ultra-Processed People, and understand better what you are putting in your body!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Getting to Neutral – by Trevor Moawad

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We all know that a pessimistic outlook is self-defeating… And yet, toxic positivity can also be a set-up for failure! At some point, reckless faith in the kindly nature of the universe will get crushed, badly. Sometimes that point is a low point in life… sometimes it’s six times a day. But one thing’s for sure: we can’t “just decide everything will go great!” because the world just doesn’t work that way.

    That’s where Trevor Moawad comes in. “Getting to neutral” is not a popular selling point. Everyone wants joy, abundance, and high after high. And neutrality itself is often associated with boredom and soullessness. But, Moawad argues, it doesn’t have to be that way.

    This book’s goal—which it accomplishes well—is to provide a framework for being a genuine realist. What does that mean?

    “I’m not a pessimist; I’m a realist” – every pessimist ever.

    ^Not that. That’s not what it means. What it means instead is:

    1. Hope for the best
    2. Prepare for the worst
    3. Adapt as you go

    …taking care to use past experiences to inform future decisions, but without falling into the trap of thinking that because something happened a certain way before, it always will in the future.

    To be rational, in short. Consciously and actively rational.

    Feel the highs! Feel the lows! But keep your baseline when actually making decisions.

    Bottom line: this book is as much an antidote to pessimism and self-defeat, as it is to reckless optimism and resultant fragility. Highly recommendable.

    Click here to check out “Getting to Neutral” and start creating your best, most reason-based life!

    PS: in this book, Moawad draws heavily from his own experiences of battling adversity in the form of cancer—of which he died, before this book’s publication. A poignant reminder that he was right: we won’t always get the most positive outcome of any given situation, so what matters the most is making the best use of the time we have.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Finish What You Start – by Peter Hollins

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    For some people, getting started is the problem. For others of us, getting started is the easy part! We just need a little help not dropping things we started.

    There are summaries at the starts and ends of sections, and many “quick tips” to get you back on track.

    As a taster: one of these is “temptation bundling“, combining unpleasant things with pleasant. A kind of “spoonful of sugar” approach.

    Hollins also discusses hyperbolic discounting (the way we tend to value rewards according to how near they are, and procrastinate accordingly). He offers a tool to overcome this, too, the “10–10–10 rule“.

    Also dealt with is “the preparation trap“, and how to know when you have enough information to press on.

    For a lot of us, the places we’re most likely to drop a project is 20% in (initial enthusiasm wore off) or 80% in (“it’s nearly done; no need to worry about it”). Those are the times when the advices in this book can be particularly handy!

    All in all, a great book for seeing a lot of things to completion.

    Get your copy of “Finish What You Start” from Amazon today!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: