Lafontaine and vaccination: strong words, weak source

The left-wing politician Lafontaine calls vaccinations for children “irresponsible”. He cites a single study as alleged evidence of allegedly impending long-term consequences, which, however, does not provide any information.

Oskar Lafontaine was never considered a man of subtle nuances; not in his time as SPD leader and minister in the SPD-led federal government – and even today, as the parliamentary group leader of the Left in Saarland, the 77-year-old still relies on clear messages. In the current election campaign, he even advised against voting for one’s own party in Saarland.

The former federal politician still likes to talk about international politics: He calls US President Joe Biden “Sleepy Joe”, the USA is the “world terrorist number 1” with “vassals” and “servants” in German politics. It is the well-known rhetoric of a dogmatic left, comparable to that of Jeremy Corbyn in Great Britain.

Even in the corona pandemic, Lafontaine is taking a clear line: “Who are the Covidiotes?”, He asks, for example, in an article on his website – and gives the answer himself: “So-called experts” like Karl Lauterbach went “arm in arm with them Pharmaceutical industry “.

STIKO makes a recommendation

The Standing Vaccination Commission (STIKO) praised Lafontaine for not recommending a general vaccination for children for the time being. The Commission has now changed its position. The reason was it said“On the basis of new monitoring data, in particular from the American vaccination program with nearly ten million vaccinated children and adolescents, possible risks of vaccination for this age group can now be quantified and assessed more reliably”.

The very rare heart muscle inflammations observed in connection with the vaccination should be viewed as side effects of the vaccination. However, “recent studies from abroad indicate that cardiac involvement also occurs in COVID-19 diseases”. In addition, “no signals for further serious side effects after mRNA vaccination have appeared so far, especially not in children and adolescents”.

The STIKO also refers to the changed situation due to the delta variant. It remains uncertain “whether and how often long COVID occurs in children and adolescents”. After a “careful evaluation of these new scientific observations and data”, the STIKO came to the conclusion that, according to the current state of knowledge, the advantages of vaccination outweighed the risk of very rare vaccination side effects. The vaccination should remain unchanged after medical advice on the benefits and risks.

“Irresponsible”

Lafontaine is not convinced, he says: “Child vaccination remains irresponsible!” In the article about it, which he spreads on his website and on Facebook, among other things, he claims that there is “no convincing argument in favor of child vaccinations” – and several who speak against it. The long-term effects are still unclear. Here Lafontaine refers to a study about which the “Cicero” had reported – and which should prove that the mRNA vaccines weaken the immune response against other viruses.

No statement on long-term effects

The study cited by Lafontaine is it is a so-called preprint, that is, the study has not yet been evaluated by other experts. Specifically, it was found that some people vaccinated with the Biontech vaccine may have changed the defense reaction to certain viruses, fungi and bacteria: According to the observations, it was sometimes weaker, in some cases stronger. It is obvious that vaccinations change the immune system – the only question is: does this create a risk? This work gives no answer to that – least of all with regard to children.

The Helmholtz Center for Infection Research (HZI) in Braunschweig emphasized at the request of the ARD fact finderthat it is “a well-scientifically carried out work with thoroughly reasonable interpretative approaches”. However, as the authors themselves write, this study has “weaknesses which were not taken into account in the interpretation of the study by Mr. Lafontaine and some media”.

The data described do not indicate a negative effect of the mRNA vaccination and therefore do not provide a basis for the statement that it is irresponsible to give mRNA vaccines to children: “Since no children were examined in this study, one cannot either draw reliable and reasonable conclusions. ”

Long known for other vaccines

The HZI expert Peggy Riese explained that the “described phenomenon of trained innate immunity is not new and, as also mentioned by the authors, has already been described for some vaccines”. These are, for example, the vaccines against tuberculosis, measles, rubella and mumps. “These are all vaccines that have been administered to children in their first year of life for decades and that successfully protect them against serious illnesses without major side effects.”

According to Riese, the new thing about this study is “that it has now been shown that not only live vaccines but also mRNA vaccines have an influence on the innate immune response”. However, it cannot be deduced from this that the mRNA vaccines are dangerous for children or that they make them more susceptible to other viral infections. It is “completely normal that a vaccination, but also an infection, has an impact not only on the acquired but also the innate immune system and that there is a shift in immune responses.” It is “even the aim that the immune responses are directed in a certain direction, depending on the pathogen and the required protective immune response”.

The authors of the study mentioned also make it clear that although the results are interesting, no conclusions can be drawn and further studies are required.

The “Cicero” Lafontaine was referring to had in his report (“find”) wrote that the study only provides clues, carried out on a “relatively small cohort of middle-aged people, small numbers” and has not yet been scientifically assessed. Lafontaine did not mention that.

Sensitive topic

Vaccinations for children are a particularly sensitive topic – and Lafontaine is very enthusiastic about his position: Thousands of profiles on Facebook shared his comment and agreed. But a single study that makes absolutely no statement about long-term effects in children is not a good basis for discrediting vaccinations for children as “irresponsible” across the board.

The virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit said in an interview with the ARD fact finderthat it is not very helpful to use individual study results as the basis for general statements. The results would first have to be discussed in the scientific community and viewed in context. If individual examinations were picked out, this could also unsettle many people, warned Schmidt-Chanasit. This applies not only to vaccinations, but also, for example, to knowledge about new virus variants.

Not only politicians but also the media can distort their informative value through shortened reporting on individual studies and thus create a false impression. This risk is exacerbated as there is a veritable flood of examinations and studies relating to the corona pandemic, which even push the scientific test systems to their limits.