What Adam Is Reading
The Infection Sends a Second Bill
Three University of Virginia immunologists argue that vaccines should be graded on what they prevent years later, not only on what they prevent this season. The idea is right. The evidence they chose is uneven, and some of the best support for it is missing from their references.
Anti-Anti-Science · Single source review · Nature Microbiology Comment, 2026 · 30 sources · October 2026

My read, up front. We grade vaccines on one season of hospitalizations and deaths, and that undercounts them. The editorial is right about that. The strongest support comes from randomized trials after heart attack and from the shingles and dementia natural experiments, and the shingles studies are not in its references. The weakest is its headline French mortality figure, which also "protects" against drowning. If the government is now building systems to count vaccine harms years out, the same systems should count the benefits.

The argument fits on an index card. An infection can do damage that outlasts the infection. Long COVID is the famous example, but rheumatic heart disease after strep throat and post polio syndrome are older ones. If that is true, a vaccine that softens the acute illness may also prevent some of what comes after it. And if that is true, the trials we use to judge vaccines are measuring the wrong end of the story.

In Su Cheon, Mark Esser and Jie Sun of the University of Virginia make that case in a short Comment in Nature Microbiology. They propose grading every vaccine on two axes.

Axis one
Acute protection

Infection, symptomatic disease, hospitalization, death. Measured over months. This is what every efficacy trial and every season's effectiveness estimate already reports.

Axis two
Chronic protection

Fewer post infection syndromes, fewer flares of existing disease, less new chronic illness, slower biological ageing, and lower mortality years later. Mostly unmeasured.

Their practical fix is to link trial participants to electronic health records and disease registries so later outcomes can be counted cheaply. Their model is DANFLU‑2, a Danish trial of high dose versus standard dose flu vaccine that randomized hundreds of thousands of older adults and took its outcomes straight from national registries.


The claims
1
Acute infections leave lasting damage after the pathogen is gone
What the evidence shows

This is the strongest part of the piece. The list of infections with a long tail is not speculative. Group A strep causes rheumatic heart disease. Polio causes post polio syndrome. Tuberculosis leaves scarred lungs. Measles is the cleanest case. It wipes out 11% to 73% of a child's existing antibody repertoire, a change that MMR vaccination does not cause (Mina, Science 2019). Measles epidemics track non measles childhood deaths for two to three years afterward (Mina, Science 2015). A disease that erases immune memory is one where vaccine benefit has to be counted in years.

What to hold loosely

The figure of "at least 400 million" people with long COVID is a modeled cumulative estimate built on assumed incidence rates, with wide uncertainty (Al‑Aly, Nat Med 2024). The cardiovascular risk numbers after COVID come largely from the Veterans Affairs cohort (Xie, Nat Med 2022), which is mostly older white men, whose controls include people with undetected infections, and whose tested patients have more contact with the health system. Later studies in broader populations generally found smaller excess risks.

Solid
2
Infection accelerates biological ageing and may promote cancer
What the evidence shows

Epigenetic clocks run fast in people sick with COVID, more so with severe disease (Cao, Nat Commun 2022). Flu drives cellular senescence in mouse lungs, and clearing senescent cells improves repair. In mice, prior severe viral pneumonia leaves the lung full of tumor friendly neutrophils with lasting chromatin changes, and tumors grow faster. Vaccination blunted that effect (Qian, Cell 2026). The authors say plainly that definitive evidence is lacking.

What the framing inflates

The clocks in Cao were measured during or near acute illness, when inflammation and shifts in blood cell mix move methylation, and some of the acceleration reversed later. That reading reflects acute illness more than an older body. The human half of the cancer claim is an electronic record association (hazard ratio about 1.24 for lung cancer after COVID hospitalization) adjusted only for age, sex and smoking. People hospitalized with COVID get more chest CT scans, and an early cancer can make COVID more severe rather than the other way around. The Cell abstract still says the findings "establish a causal link." And the Cell paper comes from the senior author's own lab, with Cheon as a coauthor (see below).

Embellished
3
Flu vaccine already prevents cardiovascular events
What the evidence shows

This has randomized evidence behind it, which is rare for an "off target" claim. The meta analysis the authors cite pools six randomized trials (9,001 patients) and finds major cardiovascular events fell from 5.4% to 3.6%, a relative risk of 0.66 (Behrouzi, JAMA Netw Open 2022). In IAMI, a double blind trial of flu vaccine given right after a heart attack, death, heart attack or stent thrombosis fell from 7.2% to 5.3% at one year (hazard ratio 0.72), and all cause death fell too.

What to hold loosely

The benefit sits almost entirely in people with a recent acute coronary syndrome (relative risk 0.55). Without one, it disappears (1.00), and cardiovascular death was not significantly reduced overall. On the high dose question the editorial highlights, DANFLU‑2 missed its primary endpoint (flu or pneumonia hospitalization, 0.68% versus 0.73%). The heart failure finding is a secondary, exploratory outcome from an open label trial funded by the vaccine maker. The absolute difference was 0.11% versus 0.15%, roughly 2,500 people given high dose vaccine for each heart failure admission avoided. INVESTED, an earlier blinded trial of high versus standard dose in 5,260 high risk cardiac patients, found nothing (hazard ratio 1.06).

Mostly Solid
4
28 million French adults show mRNA vaccination lowered four year mortality
What the evidence shows

The French national health data study is enormous and well run. It compared 22.8 million vaccinated adults aged 18 to 59 with 5.9 million unvaccinated adults for a median of 45 months. Vaccinated people had 25% lower all cause mortality (weighted hazard ratio 0.75) and far fewer severe COVID deaths (0.26). The authors weighted for 41 comorbidities and started the clock six months in to avoid a known bias. As a safety finding it is reassuring. Four years after millions of mRNA doses, there is no excess death signal.

Why it cannot carry the editorial's argument

The editorial says this result "strongly" suggests a long term health benefit. Look at the paper's own cause of death table. Vaccinated people were also 27% less likely to drown (0.73), 26% less likely to die in a traffic crash (0.74) and 20% less likely to die in a fall (0.80). An mRNA vaccine does not teach anyone to swim. Those numbers measure the difference between people who show up for preventive care and people who do not, the healthy vaccinee effect. A drowning gap of about the same size as the all cause gap means the all cause gap cannot be read as a vaccine effect. This newsletter made the same point in August about a shingles vaccine poster that reported a two thirds cut in all cause death in one year (The Number That Gives It Away). The rule does not change because the conclusion is one I like.

Embellished
5
Vaccination before infection reduces long COVID
What the evidence shows

The direction is consistent across studies and the mechanism is plausible, since a milder acute illness should leave less damage behind. In the Veterans Affairs data, one year long COVID incidence in the Omicron era was 3.5 per 100 in vaccinated people versus 7.8 per 100 in unvaccinated people, and the authors attribute most of the decline in long COVID over the pandemic to vaccination (Al‑Aly, NEJM 2024).

What to hold loosely

Every study is observational. A systematic review of 16 of them found odds ratios ranging from 0.22 to about 1.0, too inconsistent to pool, and rated the certainty low because of confounding (Byambasuren, BMJ Med 2023). Long COVID itself has no agreed definition, which is one of the editorial's own complaints.

Mostly Solid
6
The fix is registry linked pragmatic trials with long follow up
What the evidence shows

This is the right prescription, and the best proof that the second axis is real comes from studies the editorial does not cite. In Wales and in Australia, shingles vaccine eligibility was set by date of birth, which created natural experiments where people a week apart in age had very different access. In Wales, eligibility cut new dementia diagnoses by 3.5 percentage points over seven years, about a 20% relative reduction (Eyting, Nature 2025). Australia found 1.8 points over 7.4 years, with no change in other preventive care that would signal healthier people self selecting (Pomirchy, JAMA 2025). And the oldest version of the argument is not controversial at all. HPV vaccination given before age 17 cut invasive cervical cancer by about 88% in a Swedish national cohort (Lei, NEJM 2020). Hepatitis B vaccine prevents liver cancer. Nobody calls those off target effects. We call them the reason for the vaccine.

What to hold loosely

Registries capture what gets coded, so "biological ageing" and "health span" will be measured by proxies for a long time. And a second axis has to count both columns. The same follow up that finds fewer heart failure admissions will find the rare long tail harms. For mRNA myocarditis the long tail is already measured. In France, vaccine associated myocarditis had fewer cardiovascular complications at 18 months than ordinary myocarditis (weighted hazard ratio 0.55), while myocarditis after COVID infection itself did no better than ordinary myocarditis (1.04). That is how the honest ledger looks. Small harms, counted, and set against benefits, counted.

Solid

The authors and the money

Esser disclosed that he previously worked at Merck, MedImmune and AstraZeneca, sits on the board of Circurna (an RNA therapeutics company) and has consulted for Pfizer's vaccine business. Cheon and Sun declared no competing interests. No funding is listed for the Comment.

The undisclosed issue is self citation, which is not a conflict in the formal sense but is worth knowing. At least three of the 15 references come from Sun's own lab, including the Cell paper behind the cancer claim (Cheon and Sun are both authors) and the lung fibrosis studies behind the claim about worsening chronic disease. The heart failure analysis they hold up as the model trial was funded by Sanofi, which makes the high dose vaccine. A Comment is an opinion piece, and people with a stake in an idea write most opinion pieces. It does mean the cancer and ageing claims come from the authors' own research program and still need independent confirmation.


The week it landed

The editorial arrives during an argument in Washington about which side of the vaccine ledger gets counted.

Sept 2
The Vaccine Integrity Project at CIDRAP publishes three evidence reviews in JAMA covering COVID, flu and RSV. The COVID review added 155 new studies and found no new safety concerns. Flu vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization last season was about 31% in adults 65 and older and 29% in adults 18 to 64, and 80% against flu deaths in children over eight seasons. AAP, AAFP, ACOG and IDSA issue their own recommendations from these reviews.
Sept 23
CDC posts edited COVID vaccine guidance. Statements that benefits outweigh risks are removed, and a new list of serious adverse events is added. (Covered here last month in Who Writes the COVID Schedule This Week.)
Oct 5 to 8
HHS announces a vaccine injury initiative. NIH opens a Bethesda clinic for people with health problems after vaccination, CMS proposes paying physicians to file VAERS reports, federal health IT rules will require EHRs to capture vaccine adverse events, and VAERS gets a new contract to modernize it.

Notice the overlap. HHS wants EHRs to record what happens to people after vaccination. The editorial wants trials linked to EHRs and registries to record what happens to people after vaccination. The plumbing is the same. The only question is whether it gets run in one direction.

VAERS reports, on their own, cannot show that a vaccine caused anything. More reports with no comparison group will produce more numbers that look like harm. A second axis built properly has a denominator and a control group, and it counts the heart failure admission that did not happen, the dementia diagnosis that came later or never, and the drowning that the vaccine had nothing to do with. If we are going to look harder at the long tail, we should look at all of it.

So What

Grading a vaccine only on this winter's hospitalizations undercounts it, and the shingles, HPV and post heart attack evidence shows by how much. The editorial is right to ask for the second axis. It should have been stricter about the evidence it offered, because a bad argument for vaccines is still a bad argument.

Confidence: high that infections leave long term damage and that some vaccines prevent it (measles, HPV, hepatitis B, flu after heart attack, shingles and dementia). Moderate for long COVID prevention. Low for vaccine effects on biological ageing and cancer, and for any all cause mortality benefit from observational data. Daniel standard: no patients or clinical encounters appear in this piece.

Limits of this analysis. I read the full Comment and checked its key references against primary sources. I did not retrieve the subgroup numbers from the FLUNITY‑HD JACC analysis itself (the heart failure figures come from the companion pooled analysis in Circulation), the confidence interval on the Cell lung cancer hazard ratio, or the full text of the September 2 JAMA reviews (numbers come from the published summaries). Critiques of the Veterans Affairs cohort are general and not drawn from a single source.

Claude drafted this review.

Primary

The editorial: Cheon IS, Esser MT, Sun J. Acute infection as a driver of chronic diseases and the unsung benefits of vaccination. Nature Microbiology Comment, 2026. doi.org/10.1038/s41564-026-02506-0

References checked from the editorial

French mortality cohort: Semenzato L, et al. JAMA Netw Open 2025;8:e2546822. doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.46822

Flu vaccine and CV events, RCT meta analysis: Behrouzi B, et al. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e228873. doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8873

FLUNITY‑HD ASCVD analysis: Pareek M, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2026;87(11). doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.12.080

Long term CV outcomes after COVID (VA): Xie Y, Xu E, Bowe B, Al‑Aly Z. Nat Med 2022;28:583–590. doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01689-3

Viral pneumonia and lung cancer: Qian W, et al. Cell 2026;189:2845–2856. doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2026.02.013

Epigenetic age in COVID: Cao X, et al. Nat Commun 2022;13:2135. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29801-8

Long COVID review and 400 million estimate: Al‑Aly Z, et al. Nat Med 2024;30:2148–2164. doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03173-6

Corroborating and conflicting evidence

DANFLU‑2 and FLUNITY‑HD CV outcomes: pooled CV analysis, Circulation 2026. doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.077801; FLUNITY‑HD primary, Lancet 2025 doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01742-8; ESC 2025 summary at acc.org

IAMI trial: Fröbert O, et al. Circulation 2021. doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057042

INVESTED trial: Vardeny O, et al. JAMA 2021. doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.23649

Shingles vaccine and dementia, Wales: Eyting M, et al. Nature 2025. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08800-x

Shingles vaccine and dementia, Australia: Pomirchy M, et al. JAMA 2025. doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.5013

HPV vaccine and cervical cancer: Lei J, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1340–1348. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1917338

Measles immune amnesia: Mina MJ, et al. Science 2015 doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa3662; Mina MJ, et al. Science 2019 doi.org/10.1126/science.aay6485

Vaccination and long COVID: Byambasuren O, et al. BMJ Med 2023 doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000385; Xie Y, Al‑Aly Z, et al. N Engl J Med 2024 doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2403211

Healthy vaccinee bias: Jackson LA, et al. Int J Epidemiol 2006 doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi274

Myocarditis long term outcomes: Semenzato L, et al. JAMA 2024. doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.16380

Policy context

Vaccine Integrity Project reviews: COVID‑19 jamanetwork.com; influenza jamanetwork.com; RSV jamanetwork.com; flu numbers via Pharmacy Times; society recommendations via Immunize.org

HHS vaccine injury initiative (8 Oct 2026): hhs.gov

CDC guidance edits and injury initiative analysis: CIDRAP, The State of U.S. Vaccine Policy. cidrap.umn.edu

Related WAiR: The Number That Gives It Away; One in Eight Cancers, and Half a Vaccine; Who Writes the COVID Schedule This Week