Credit score: Unsplash/CC0 Public Area
For greater than three many years, researchers Christine Stabell Benn and Peter Aaby from the Bandim Well being Mission have carried out randomized trials involving 1000’s of youngsters in Guinea-Bissau and Denmark to display so-called non-specific vaccine results—that’s, whether or not vaccines additionally shield in opposition to illnesses apart from the one they’re designed to stop.
A brand new complete Danish assessment now reveals that the trials have been unable to display non-specific results for the broadly used vaccinations in opposition to measles, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough. The research has simply been revealed within the journal Vaccine.
“It is concerning that such a prominent research group has conducted so many randomized trials over such a long period without finding real results. Randomized trials are normally considered the gold standard in medical research, so if they do not show anything, one should be very cautious about presenting it as convincing evidence,” says Henrik Støvring from Steno Diabetes Middle Aarhus and Aarhus College, who led the brand new assessment.
Complete evaluation throughout all research
The brand new research is the primary to systematically analyze all of Benn and Aaby’s randomized trials. Whereas others have beforehand criticized particular person research, the researchers behind the brand new assessment examined the total physique of labor.
“We find indications that the researchers systematically selected and highlighted results that supported their theories, while downplaying the fact that they did not confirm the primary hypothesis the trials were actually designed to test. When you look at the overall picture, there are almost no real findings left,” explains Støvring.
Benn and Aaby have claimed that their outcomes meant it was time to vary the worldwide method to vaccination—all new vaccines ought to routinely be assessed for non-specific results, and vaccination packages must be revised worldwide.
When the gold customary doesn’t maintain
The brand new assessment relies on 13 randomized trials introduced in 26 articles containing greater than 1,400 separate statistical analyses. Solely one of many 13 randomized trials demonstrated the impact it was designed to detect—and that trial was stopped early and was thought of unsuccessful by the researchers themselves.
The assessment confirmed that solely about 7% of the numerous hypotheses examined by the researchers may very well be anticipated to be appropriate. Notably, this didn’t apply to the researchers’ personal main hypotheses—these weren’t supported by the corrected outcomes.
“In 23 out of 25 articles, the researchers highlighted secondary findings as support for their theories, but in 22 of these cases the evidence disappeared after proper statistical handling. Overall, the researchers’ interpretation did not take into account how many analyses they had conducted, and they did not focus on the main outcomes of the trials,” says Støvring.
Not a rejection of the sector
The researchers stress that the aim was to not decide whether or not non-specific vaccine results exist, however to look at Benn and Aaby’s analysis practices.
“We hope that others in the field will now re-evaluate the evidence—what do we actually know about non-specific vaccine effects? Although Benn and Aaby have contributed about one-third of all research in the area, others have also studied the question, and this should be included to form a complete picture,” says Støvring.
The research was carried out in collaboration between Støvring (Steno Diabetes Middle Aarhus and Aarhus College), Claus Thorn Ekstrøm (College of Copenhagen), Jesper Wiborg Schneider (Aarhus College), and Charlotte Strøm (SharPen).
Extra data:
Henrik Støvring et al, What is definitely the rising proof about non-specific vaccine results in randomized trials from the Bandim Well being Mission?, Vaccine (2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127937
Offered by
Aarhus College
Quotation:
Randomized trials present no proof of non-specific vaccine results (2025, November 13)
retrieved 13 November 2025
from https://medicalxpress.com/information/2025-11-randomized-trials-evidence-specific-vaccine.html
This doc is topic to copyright. Aside from any truthful dealing for the aim of personal research or analysis, no
half could also be reproduced with out the written permission. The content material is supplied for data functions solely.
