For the past four years we’ve all heard the phrase “safe and effective” repeated endlessly in relation to vaccines. It’s a powerful slogan which is simple, reassuring, and easy to market. But as I recently discussed with Jennifer Smith PhD, a virologist with decades of experience in influenza vaccine development and a former epidemiologist with the Hawaii Department of Health, the word “safe” is not a scientific term.
In toxicology, nothing is simply “safe” or “unsafe.” Toxicity exists on a spectrum. Even oxygen and water can be toxic in excess. What matters is the dose, frequency, route of exposure, and the vulnerability of the individual.
Dr. Smith explained that every vaccine contains both active and inactive components, including antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, stabilizers. Each one has a measurable toxicological profile. Some vaccines contain aluminum (a known neurotoxin), some contain formalin (a carcinogen), and others are grown in fetal cell lines. That doesn’t mean vaccines are “bad”, but it does mean risk is not uniform.
What Jennifer proposes is a bold reframing: instead of relying on blanket reassurances, we should build a Vaccine Toxicity Index. This would score vaccines across multiple categories:
Ingredient toxicity (what’s in it, and at what dose?)
Biological response (measurable effects like inflammation, mitochondrial stress, or immune dysregulation)
Population-level adverse events (real-world data from VAERS, EudraVigilance, etc.)
Cumulative exposure (particularly in childhood schedules)
Vulnerable populations (infants, pregnant women, those with autoimmune disease or impaired detox pathways)
Rather than telling people a product is “safe,” we could provide a score, of say 0–20 for low toxicity, 21–40 for mild, and so on. Just like food safety inspections or car crash ratings, it would offer quantifiable, transparent information to guide both individuals and public health policy.
Some will say this is unnecessary, that the current system already protects us. But Dr. Smith reminds us that informed consent requires information, not slogans. People deserve to know the risks and benefits in concrete terms, so they can make decisions based on their own circumstances and acceptable risk.
This is not about rejecting vaccines. It’s about demanding better science, better communication, and ultimately, better trust.
The public is smarter than health authorities give them credit for. And if we’ve learned anything from the past few years, it’s that blind reassurance erodes trust faster than uncomfortable truth.
It’s time we stop pretending risk is binary.
Toxicity isn’t black and white — it’s a spectrum.
Vejon COVID-19 Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
