It's frustrating to watch anti-science and anti-medical sentiment overtake the public. I applaud your efforts. Best wishes with your efforts to educate.
What are you talking about!? It is precisely the opposite. people ar enow paying attention to the science and they're finding it lacking. the definitions used are out of wack with what people understood and people find it unacceptable.
So Dr. Offit can write Substack articles but isn’t willing to attend the ACIP meeting he was invited to? Wouldn’t that have been the perfect opportunity to participate?
If the meeting were about science and not politics I agree with you. Sadly the deck has been stacked. Before you assume, I'm not, and never have been, a Democrat. I am someone who trusts evidence-based science over politicians.
Did you watch Aaron Siris presentation during the last ACIP meeting? If you can dispute his arguments - I am all ears. Until someone explains why I should not be worried that vaccines are not safety tested with long term placebo controlled trials before FDA licensure I will continue to be skeptical.
Also, I would argue all these ACIP meetings are fundamentally “politics”. They vote on the schedule which is a government created policy (fundamentally, politics)
I did not watch the presentation you referenced as I've given up on HHS for now as it's become anti-science. My son-in-law has a PhD in cellular molecular medicine and runs a university lab developing meds re: cancer. He's worked with mRNA vaccines for over a decade. He could explain this far better. With my SIL and clinical pharmacist daughter advocating vaccines for their children and themselves I'm more than comfortable with the risk vs benefits for myself. We each have to follow what we believe is the best course of action. If I were in your position I'd find a MD or two I trust and gather more information.
I think you are arguing with yourself. people that are "anti-vaccs" as you label them are reasonable and can articulate their position quite easily to you.
your side resorts to racism, hatred, and bigotry when people refuse to agree with your eugenicist inspired views...
It shows that he is aware that there are differences but not when it comes to 'vaccines'. These are universally good and unimpeachable. Has he forgotten his roots in the flat earth movement? Turning on his base spreading doubt and variance. He is a boot licker and hypocrite. You shouldn't be surprised if next week he comes out against 'vaccines' after talking "differences". This is how it all begins.
This post is a perfect illustration of the difference between a crank/dilettante/ignoramus (I.e. RFKJR) and being an "expert," I.e. someone who knows what he's talking about.
I surely never knew about the difference between today's DPT and the DPT I got, and the importance of the number of immune moieties in each vaccine.
But will RFKJR or that weirdo with the Harvard degree who is the public health deranged mope advising the Florida governor.
But will the cranks ever read Dr. Offit? Would any of them understand this lucid explanation if they did?
Why should our vaccine schedule look like Denmark? Because Trump wants America to look like Denmark: Blonde, blue eyed and very, very white.
But the fault, dear Trumpling, lies not in our variegation, but in yourself--it is that which makes you an underling.
"Deadly Choices" is structured as a rebuttal to anti-vaccine arguments. “In this new series, I will break down every study that Offit cites as proof of vaccine safety — and show that none of them actually prove what he claims. ... I won't leave a single stone unturned when it comes to Offit’s arguments.” https://amantonio1.substack.com/
That author's real names are Tal Ilani and Anatolij Uljanovskij, an Israeli Russian linked to esoteric cults. He's a leader of the Rudaševskij sect, accused of sexual abuse and paedophilia propaganda.
He is the hero of the "anti-vaxxers" in Russia. Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, he has become one of the most popular web personalities in Russia, under the pseudonym "Anton Amantonio". He claims to be an electrical engineer living in Israel. In February 2020, he had also published a book, later banned and thus increasing his notoriety, especially in connection with the vaccination campaign. Russian online security specialist Vladimir Kelaskin carried out an investigation that led to his identity being unmasked.
"Guy Montag" outdoes himself with this self-abasememt.
"I wonder why Paul Offit might post all this in a.... blog post... instead of scientific research ..." [and not engage in scientific debate at ACIP etc. https://drgator.substack.com/p/why-wont-top-vaccinologists-debate ] I can think of a few rea$ons [how much has Dr. Offit made off his vaccine royalties?].
I think that Amantonio's Substack posts will probably be the basis of a new book. His 2023 book, "To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate" was largely a “review of hundreds of scientific studies that ... demonstrate that vaccines are not as safe and effective as commonly believed. You can buy his book, or take a look at his online version at: https://en.scibook.org/intro/vaccines
IDK Guy, please tell us how much Offit has profited from.. vaccine royalties. Cite your sources. Dr. Offit posts on many outlets, so not sure what your point is there, but if you must compare the 2 authors, please now do credentials vs credentials and resume vs resume of the 2. Can't wait to see this analysis!
Cool, so your list of sources is a single AI generated blog with "murky" (their word) estimates. Got it. But ok, let's assume for a moment that the conservative estimate is correct. Now what? Back to comparing your author's credentials and resume to Dr. Offit's. Still waiting on that analysis. Maybe there's an AI blog for that? ;)
I can think of a reason why Dr. Offit would publish on a blog rather than scientific journals--never mind he DOES publish prolifically in scientific journals--but it's a matter of the audience he wishes to reach. The audience which can or will actually read a journal article is tiny compared to a Substack post. And we are talking about PUBLIC HEALTH here, so reaching a broader public makes perfect sense, at least to those who possess common sense.
Actually, this appears to me to be a lot of verbiage with minimal conceptual understanding. Not leaving a single stone unturned is different than understanding what you are seeing after you do so.
I am a non-scientist and I did not understand why we give our children more vaccinations than I got in the 50s. I appreciate the explanation. I was pro-vaccine, I had just never looked into it. This puts a lie to the people arguing against vaccines because they "get so many."
Always enjoy your articles and so appreciate your lifelong expertise in this field; I can’t understand the so called “internet experts” entertaining the idea that they can “research” enough to supersede what you and many others, have spent decades studying/researching/practicing. It boggles my mind!
Your comments on the refinements in current vaccines further illustrate the differences between experts, like you, and the know-nothings currently determining our public health policies. I learn something new and important in your posts. Please keep it up and best wishes for 2026!
I am a doctor, but I am not an expert in vaccines like you are, Dr. Offit. My comment here is based solely on my understanding of vaccines before I attended medical school three decades ago.
In your article you equate the danger of vaccines to the number of antigens the recipient is exposed to with inoculation. This is fundamentally untrue.
Vaccines offer an amazing potential benefit because they offer a way of training our immune systems to recognize pathogens with little to no risk of acquiring the diseases they cause.
You write:
"The pertussis vaccine, which was a whole, killed bacterial vaccine, contained about 3,000 different bacterial proteins, each of which induced an immune response"
True. But that is still less than the total number of bacterial proteins on to bacteria itself, Bordetella Pertussis. Of course the acellular Pertussis vaccine shouldn't give a child whooping cough like the bacteria would.
The Diptheria and Tetanus vaccine, as you correctly point out, each contain a single antigen, one that simulates the toxin each of these pathogens secrete. From your perspective, these two vaccines must be thousands of times less toxic than the Pertussis vaccine, which we know is absolutely false.
Exposure to an antigen, which you call a "challenge" to the immune system, is not dangerous. We are likely exposed to countless antigens on a daily basis. It is the adjuvants in vaccines which are the source of potential harm, a harm which we have not yet quantified. This is why more vaccines may be resulting in more harm. This is also why the "antivaxxers" demand safety trials with placebos which have no adjuvants or other excipients in them.
In the absence of any comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals we cannot conclude anything about the safety of an expanding immunization schedule.
I know that you know this. I suggest that this is one of the reasons you have declined significant sums of money to present your position to the ACIP and face direct questions from people who know what they are talking about.
Dr. Offit was invited to the latest ACIP meeting as an expert but he declined to participate… Dr. Offit is probably more comfortable writing Substack articles instead of facing the music for his career of pushing these product without proper safety testing before licensure or mandates.
There is no epidemiological evidence that supports the hypothesis vaccine adjuvants are the source of "potential harm" (a very vague descriptor), with the possible exception of aluminum adjuvant and asthma (which is significantly outweighed by the evidence from Andersson et al. 2025 [https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997]). The only reason we are discussing vaccine adjuvants in this context is because "antivaxxers" already believe vaccines are harmful and have been on a fishing expedition for decades now to justify that belief, a practice which is obviously not scientific or truth-seeking.
"There is no epidemiological evidence that supports the hypothesis vaccine adjuvants are the source of "potential harm" ... with the possible exception of aluminum adjuvant and asthma ..."
Last year, Martin Kuldorff wrote that “Daley et al. have conducted what is probably the best and most important epidemiological study regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines. The results suggested “aluminum exposure in young children was associated with an increased risk of persistent asthma.”
If these products were properly clinically trialed before licensure by FDA, we wouldn’t need to speculate on side effects from certain ingredients. The FDA simply needs to demand long term, inert placebo controlled clinical trials before licensure.
All vaccines are properly clinically trialed before licensure. The idea that they are not is based on mis(dis?)information that originated from social media influencers and retransmitted by people who believe what those influencers say uncritically. In reality, all first-in-class vaccines are tested against inert placebo because there is nothing else to test them against. New vaccine versions or formulations are tested against standard of care, same with any other treatment being tested.
Recombivax HB clinical trials used an active control same-disease vaccine because it was not a first in (therapeutic) class vaccine. Prior to that Merck had Heptavax-B, which was approved based on a placebo-controlled clinical trial because it was first in (therapeutic) class (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6997738/).
Thank you; this appears to be hot off the presses. I read through it. I look forward to reading opinions from experts on the arguments raised. On the surface there seem to be some decent points, though this study is essentially authored by the Avengers of anti-vaccine researchers and their collective credibility is low.
At least one of the authors (and other researchers) DIRECTLY replied to the original journal article which has several detailed scholarly Comments (along with responses from the Editor and Author): https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997
You didn't address the fact that they choose to publish in a chemistry journal where their BS would not have been picked up.
Did you mean from Exley?
"It would have been far simpler and much more definitive if they had simply compared infants who had never received a vaccine with an aluminium adjuvant with infants who had received such."
Anyone that has taken stats 101 knows that is classic scientific fraud. Hey, that is why he was fired!
You're welcome (and Happy New Year!). "... authored by the Avengers of anti-vaccine researchers" That's a GREAT turn of phrase! ... "and their collective credibility is low" Now, that's merely ad hominem; why don't we just focus on the validity of their arguments & evidence? Should I disregard Dr. Offit's arguments merely because he's "pro-vax"?
It's not ad hominem; I didn't attack them personally. Each has produced research that has been criticized has having serious flaws, dubious conclusions, or been retracted. That doesn't invalidate the present study, but as someone not equipped to evaluate all of the present study on its merits those other factors signal how skeptical I should be.
"It is still less than the total number of bacterial proteins on the bacteria itself." Well, yes, that may well be so, but you do not need to expose the adaptive immune system to every single bacterial protein to get immune protection--in fact, the COVID vaccine used only the spike protein but proved astonishingly effective.
So your premise, that the entire genome of each bacterial or virus is needed is wrong.
Adjuvants have been studied, if not exhaustively, then adequately. If there were an absence of comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinate individuals we would be in trouble, but virtually every modern vaccine is tested against placebo, as was the COVID vaccine.
Once you have enough data, then withholding vaccines for measles, polio, rubella would be beyond malpractice and unethical to a rape of the entire public health system.
If your training were adequate, then in the past 30 years since you graduated medical school, you ought to have come across patients who died of influenza, if you trained in a program with enough clinical exposure. Watching someone die of an infectious disease like that--or COVID, measles, Rotavirus, RSV-- is usually enough to convert the most ardent anti vaxxer into a true believe in vaccines.
Those folks who bleat so loudly about the risks of vaccines, who "do their own research" have, to a man, never seen what the actual disease does in living (and dying) patients.
Watching the lividinous skin, the final glassy eyed death, is almost always enough to convince the doubters that disease is something to avoid, especially where the risks of vaccines have been examined. In fact, most people who see what the disease does are only too willing to take a chance on a vaccine.
Plague itself was horrifying, but before antibiotics which could kill Yersinia pestis were available, Alexandre Yersin (out of Pasteur's lab) developed an effective vaccine and saved an entire village in Indo China (Vietnam) from plague. (Without a double blind prospective study.) As far as I know, he is the only European/French speaker to have a statue dedicated to him in Vietnam. Nobody in that village cried out about the risks of his rudimentary vaccine--they had all seen plague.
"So your premise, that the entire genome of each bacterial or virus is needed is wrong."
That is not my premise. My comment has nothing to do with effectiveness of vaccines, it has to do with safety. Offit's premise is that the number of antigens corresponds to the potential danger of a challenge. In his appeal he alludes to the original whole-cell Pertussis vaccines which have three thousand antigens. Where is the proof, then, that this vaccine is more harmful than the tetanus or diptheria vaccines which have only a single antigen each? There isn't.
Moreover, Offit has said multiple times that babies can be exposed to thousands of vaccines and their immune system won't be overloaded. Here is stating that we get exposed to far more in our daily life than through vaccines. In other words, he is emphatically debunking his own premise:
"Adjuvants have been studied, if not exhaustively, then adequately."
In order to do any kind of study about adjuvant safety one would have to inoculate a group of people with the adjuvants and compare their outcomes to a group that gets saline. Of course, that has never been done because why would we inject something that has no benefit and potential harm into people?
The only way to assess their safety would be through vaccine trials that use a saline placebo, and, contrary to what you are saying, no vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule has been tested against saline. That's not opinion, that's how the CDC themselves responded when challenged.
You should have taken my advice and learned some science before commenting again.
1. You counted the number of proteins in Bordetella Pertussis incorrectly.
2. "In order to do any kind of study about adjuvant safety one would have to inoculate a group of people with the adjuvants and compare their outcomes to a group that gets saline"
That is not just wrong, but completely absurd and predicated on you not having a basic understanding of how to do the safety testing correctly.
Referring to an immunization schedule already says they are not talking about vaccination but immunization. They are mixing and matching parts of two incompatible ideas as you are also doing by asserting that your "comment has nothing to do with effectiveness of vaccines, it has to do with safety". They are talking immunization and you are calling it vaccination. In immunization effective means unsafe. You can't separate efficacy from safety. In vaccination the idea is to have your cake and eat it. If you mix these ideas together you come up with the frankenstein mess where safety is used to make 'immunization' less safe, not have controls and add 'adjuvants' to make sure that 'the vaccines' are still 'effective'. It follows therefore that there is no legal basis for this activity since it is neither vaccination nor immunization.
Referring to an immunization schedule already gives it away, because they are not even talking about vaccination, they are talking immunization, except they keep swapping the words like it does not matter, like language is optional. Mixing parts of two incompatible ideas, stitching them together, same thing you are doing when you say it has nothing to do with effectiveness, only safety, as if those can be separated without breaking the whole structure. They say immunization, you say vaccination, back and forth, deliberately blurred. In immunization effective means unsafe, always has, that is the tradeoff they never admit. You cannot pull efficacy out and leave safety behind, that is not how it works, that is sleight of hand. Vaccination was supposed to be the fantasy version, have your cake and eat it too, immune response without consequence, risk-free by definition. When you mash these together you get the Frankenstein system, safety invoked to justify less safety, no proper controls, add adjuvants to force effectiveness so the product still counts as effective even when it is not safe. Words doing all the work, definitions rewritten mid-sentence. So what is this activity even supposed to be, not vaccination, not immunization, something else entirely operating in the gaps, with no legal basis because it fits neither category, just a process that exists because no one is allowed to name what it actually is.
I didn't say it had nothing to do with effectiveness. There is the placebo effect so even if there was efficacy it would need to be greater than the placebo effect. There is a flawed premise being advanced that some level of efficacy is an adequate standard to justify a down side. It would need to be determined if the effect was on the patient or on the doctors and the institutions. The parents, the schools, the politicians and the insurance companies etc. None of these are legally defined as the patient or the virus so efficacy generated by allaying fears and the dosing of kids with tylenol etc. does not mean legal. What the down side was and whether there were better options like dropping the fraudulent germ hypothesis so as not to scare people in the first place which is likewise not a legal treatment and would need to be controlled for in research that couldn't be ethically justified. In other words the boat is in the dock, has no sail and is sinking.
"It is the adjuvants in vaccines which are the source of potential harm, a harm which we have not yet quantified.'
. . .
Exactly! Dr. Offit carefully avoided even mentioning the “elephant in the room” … Aluminum adjuvants in the non-live vaccines. Peter C. Gøtzsche (Danish co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration) discussed the “elephant” in his recent post, “Aluminium in Vaccines Is Harmful” (October 6, 2025) https://brownstone.org/articles/aluminium-in-vaccines-is-harmful/
It's frustrating to watch anti-science and anti-medical sentiment overtake the public. I applaud your efforts. Best wishes with your efforts to educate.
LOOOOL!
What are you talking about!? It is precisely the opposite. people ar enow paying attention to the science and they're finding it lacking. the definitions used are out of wack with what people understood and people find it unacceptable.
So Dr. Offit can write Substack articles but isn’t willing to attend the ACIP meeting he was invited to? Wouldn’t that have been the perfect opportunity to participate?
If the meeting were about science and not politics I agree with you. Sadly the deck has been stacked. Before you assume, I'm not, and never have been, a Democrat. I am someone who trusts evidence-based science over politicians.
Did you watch Aaron Siris presentation during the last ACIP meeting? If you can dispute his arguments - I am all ears. Until someone explains why I should not be worried that vaccines are not safety tested with long term placebo controlled trials before FDA licensure I will continue to be skeptical.
Also, I would argue all these ACIP meetings are fundamentally “politics”. They vote on the schedule which is a government created policy (fundamentally, politics)
I did not watch the presentation you referenced as I've given up on HHS for now as it's become anti-science. My son-in-law has a PhD in cellular molecular medicine and runs a university lab developing meds re: cancer. He's worked with mRNA vaccines for over a decade. He could explain this far better. With my SIL and clinical pharmacist daughter advocating vaccines for their children and themselves I'm more than comfortable with the risk vs benefits for myself. We each have to follow what we believe is the best course of action. If I were in your position I'd find a MD or two I trust and gather more information.
You are willing to conclude it was anti-science, but not willing to see the arguments?
I've seen enough to know an anti-vaccine agenda is afoot. My time is valuable. That being said, good luck to you.
"If you can dispute his arguments - I am all ears."
Again, you could try reading the trials and seeing the proper use of placebos and long-term safety monitoring....
"So perfect!"😍
One more time....how is one invited to present?
From the Working Group.
Where is this invitation? Nowhere!
Fuck off.
Thanks for demonstrating the intellectual and moral character of the anti-vaccs.
Only took you 2 words--most efficient.
Fuck off.
What zero learning curve?
Thanks again for the public service!
I think you are arguing with yourself. people that are "anti-vaccs" as you label them are reasonable and can articulate their position quite easily to you.
your side resorts to racism, hatred, and bigotry when people refuse to agree with your eugenicist inspired views...
Seek help John Q Public
No…
Superb piece. It helps me understand the health care/access differences between the two countries. I hope Secretary Kennedy reads it. He needs to.
He won’t.
I agree. Neither will the disingenuous sycophant Senator Cassidy
Universally good and unimpeachable?
Sounds like quite the religion you guys have created
It shows that he is aware that there are differences but not when it comes to 'vaccines'. These are universally good and unimpeachable. Has he forgotten his roots in the flat earth movement? Turning on his base spreading doubt and variance. He is a boot licker and hypocrite. You shouldn't be surprised if next week he comes out against 'vaccines' after talking "differences". This is how it all begins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEDEZ9WlU0Q
This post is a perfect illustration of the difference between a crank/dilettante/ignoramus (I.e. RFKJR) and being an "expert," I.e. someone who knows what he's talking about.
I surely never knew about the difference between today's DPT and the DPT I got, and the importance of the number of immune moieties in each vaccine.
But will RFKJR or that weirdo with the Harvard degree who is the public health deranged mope advising the Florida governor.
But will the cranks ever read Dr. Offit? Would any of them understand this lucid explanation if they did?
Why should our vaccine schedule look like Denmark? Because Trump wants America to look like Denmark: Blonde, blue eyed and very, very white.
But the fault, dear Trumpling, lies not in our variegation, but in yourself--it is that which makes you an underling.
"But will the cranks ever read Dr. Offit? Would any of them understand this lucid explanation if they did?"
. . .
Here's one. A. Amantonio “fisked” Paul Offit's 2015 book “Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All." https://amantonio1.substack.com/p/questioning-offit-part-1-introduction
"Deadly Choices" is structured as a rebuttal to anti-vaccine arguments. “In this new series, I will break down every study that Offit cites as proof of vaccine safety — and show that none of them actually prove what he claims. ... I won't leave a single stone unturned when it comes to Offit’s arguments.” https://amantonio1.substack.com/
P.S. Here's Amantonio's recent take on antigens, the centerpiece of Dr. Offit's post today: 'Questioning Offit. Part 16. Antigens” (Dec 02, 2025) https://amantonio1.substack.com/p/questioning-offit-part-16-antigens
Wonder why this author might post all this in a.... blog post... instead of scientific research. I can think of a few rea$ons.
That author's real names are Tal Ilani and Anatolij Uljanovskij, an Israeli Russian linked to esoteric cults. He's a leader of the Rudaševskij sect, accused of sexual abuse and paedophilia propaganda.
He is the hero of the "anti-vaxxers" in Russia. Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, he has become one of the most popular web personalities in Russia, under the pseudonym "Anton Amantonio". He claims to be an electrical engineer living in Israel. In February 2020, he had also published a book, later banned and thus increasing his notoriety, especially in connection with the vaccination campaign. Russian online security specialist Vladimir Kelaskin carried out an investigation that led to his identity being unmasked.
"Guy Montag" outdoes himself with this self-abasememt.
Nothing I hadn't already read. Glad to see you can do a simple Google search. Here's the link; https://www.asianews.it/news-en/The-hero-of-Russias-antivaksery-no-vaxers-unmasked-54962.html How much truth to the claims in that article? I don't know. Ad homeium claims; what does any of that have to do with the quality of his arguments?
Plenty - and about you, even more.
That's not the only source about his "colorful history," either.
"I wonder why Paul Offit might post all this in a.... blog post... instead of scientific research ..." [and not engage in scientific debate at ACIP etc. https://drgator.substack.com/p/why-wont-top-vaccinologists-debate ] I can think of a few rea$ons [how much has Dr. Offit made off his vaccine royalties?].
I think that Amantonio's Substack posts will probably be the basis of a new book. His 2023 book, "To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate" was largely a “review of hundreds of scientific studies that ... demonstrate that vaccines are not as safe and effective as commonly believed. You can buy his book, or take a look at his online version at: https://en.scibook.org/intro/vaccines
He does debate and publish science in the appropriate venues.
And he doesn't seem to want to help grift prey upon the scientifically illiterate.
IDK Guy, please tell us how much Offit has profited from.. vaccine royalties. Cite your sources. Dr. Offit posts on many outlets, so not sure what your point is there, but if you must compare the 2 authors, please now do credentials vs credentials and resume vs resume of the 2. Can't wait to see this analysis!
It appears that Dr. Offit made at least $6 million from RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine: https://www.carlagericke.com/ai-and-i-mercks-bag-man-paul-offit-and-his-millions/
Seriously? You linked to a rando webpage that made assertions, but offered no proof for any of them? 🤦♂️
Cool, so your list of sources is a single AI generated blog with "murky" (their word) estimates. Got it. But ok, let's assume for a moment that the conservative estimate is correct. Now what? Back to comparing your author's credentials and resume to Dr. Offit's. Still waiting on that analysis. Maybe there's an AI blog for that? ;)
It appears that all you are interested in is anti-vacc BS.
BTW: what does Dr. Offit's employee agreement say happens to the funds????
Keep on waving your lunatic bona fides, Sweetie. Aman-Fucking-Tonio - Riusky Mir insanity for the New Year! 🥂
I can think of a reason why Dr. Offit would publish on a blog rather than scientific journals--never mind he DOES publish prolifically in scientific journals--but it's a matter of the audience he wishes to reach. The audience which can or will actually read a journal article is tiny compared to a Substack post. And we are talking about PUBLIC HEALTH here, so reaching a broader public makes perfect sense, at least to those who possess common sense.
Until you have stood at the bedside of a patient dying of one of these infectious diseases, you have not "done your own research."
That's quite an emotional appeal. Doesn't make much sense logically to define that as doing your own research though.
Actually, this appears to me to be a lot of verbiage with minimal conceptual understanding. Not leaving a single stone unturned is different than understanding what you are seeing after you do so.
I am always happy to see you’ve written a new post. Thank you for your expertise and decades of caring about and for the children. We need your voice.
Happy New Year and thanks again for being such a hard working communicator.
I am a non-scientist and I did not understand why we give our children more vaccinations than I got in the 50s. I appreciate the explanation. I was pro-vaccine, I had just never looked into it. This puts a lie to the people arguing against vaccines because they "get so many."
Always enjoy your articles and so appreciate your lifelong expertise in this field; I can’t understand the so called “internet experts” entertaining the idea that they can “research” enough to supersede what you and many others, have spent decades studying/researching/practicing. It boggles my mind!
Happy New Year Dr. Offit! TY for all you do!!
Your comments on the refinements in current vaccines further illustrate the differences between experts, like you, and the know-nothings currently determining our public health policies. I learn something new and important in your posts. Please keep it up and best wishes for 2026!
I am a doctor, but I am not an expert in vaccines like you are, Dr. Offit. My comment here is based solely on my understanding of vaccines before I attended medical school three decades ago.
In your article you equate the danger of vaccines to the number of antigens the recipient is exposed to with inoculation. This is fundamentally untrue.
Vaccines offer an amazing potential benefit because they offer a way of training our immune systems to recognize pathogens with little to no risk of acquiring the diseases they cause.
You write:
"The pertussis vaccine, which was a whole, killed bacterial vaccine, contained about 3,000 different bacterial proteins, each of which induced an immune response"
True. But that is still less than the total number of bacterial proteins on to bacteria itself, Bordetella Pertussis. Of course the acellular Pertussis vaccine shouldn't give a child whooping cough like the bacteria would.
The Diptheria and Tetanus vaccine, as you correctly point out, each contain a single antigen, one that simulates the toxin each of these pathogens secrete. From your perspective, these two vaccines must be thousands of times less toxic than the Pertussis vaccine, which we know is absolutely false.
Exposure to an antigen, which you call a "challenge" to the immune system, is not dangerous. We are likely exposed to countless antigens on a daily basis. It is the adjuvants in vaccines which are the source of potential harm, a harm which we have not yet quantified. This is why more vaccines may be resulting in more harm. This is also why the "antivaxxers" demand safety trials with placebos which have no adjuvants or other excipients in them.
In the absence of any comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals we cannot conclude anything about the safety of an expanding immunization schedule.
I know that you know this. I suggest that this is one of the reasons you have declined significant sums of money to present your position to the ACIP and face direct questions from people who know what they are talking about.
I am glad you are interested in science.
Please learn some more before posting. You tend to make yourself look a bit silly--there are lots of examples in your posting above.
BTW #1: how exactly are people invited to present at ACIP.
BTW #2: "Exposure to an antigen, which you call a "challenge" to the immune system, is not dangerous. "
Other than autoimmune diseases and allergies and exposure botulism toxin (an antigen) etc, etc, etc.....whoops!
Dr. Offit was invited to the latest ACIP meeting as an expert but he declined to participate… Dr. Offit is probably more comfortable writing Substack articles instead of facing the music for his career of pushing these product without proper safety testing before licensure or mandates.
Dr. Offit says he was not invited.
Some anti-vaccs say he is lying and was invited.
Who to believe?
Since the invitations come from the Working Group, and since the invitation the anti-vaccs claimed "prove" Dr. Offit was invited did NOT come from the
Working Group.......
I think it must be that Dr. Offit is truthful and the anti-vaccs are not.
They literally said Offit and Hotez were invited during the ACIP meeting. You are sounding quite…. Conspiratorial? Ironic
Who is "they"?
Do you mean anti-vacc liars that prey upon folks that don't understand that the invitations come from the Working Group?
There is no epidemiological evidence that supports the hypothesis vaccine adjuvants are the source of "potential harm" (a very vague descriptor), with the possible exception of aluminum adjuvant and asthma (which is significantly outweighed by the evidence from Andersson et al. 2025 [https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997]). The only reason we are discussing vaccine adjuvants in this context is because "antivaxxers" already believe vaccines are harmful and have been on a fishing expedition for decades now to justify that belief, a practice which is obviously not scientific or truth-seeking.
"There is no epidemiological evidence that supports the hypothesis vaccine adjuvants are the source of "potential harm" ... with the possible exception of aluminum adjuvant and asthma ..."
Nagy appears to be referring to Daley, et al (all CDC approved researchers) that looked at the association between multiple vaccines (measured in mg of Aluminum (AL)) and persistent asthma. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36180331/ AND https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2022.08.006
Last year, Martin Kuldorff wrote that “Daley et al. have conducted what is probably the best and most important epidemiological study regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines. The results suggested “aluminum exposure in young children was associated with an increased risk of persistent asthma.”
From "External Article Review of: Association Between Aluminum Exposure from Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months" https://publichealth.realclearjournals.org/external-article-reviews/2025/01/open-peer-review-of-association-between-aluminum-exposure-from-vaccines-before-age-24-months-and-persistent-asthma-at-age-24-to-59-months/
Interesting.....so you put weight to the views of someone fired from Harvard due to their anti-vacc views....
But you won't listen the rest of the scientific world.
How many billion$ does asthma cost health insurance companies/national health care systems each year?
And how many of them agree that vaccinations increase the risk of asthma.....right, zero.
Yes, that is the study.
If these products were properly clinically trialed before licensure by FDA, we wouldn’t need to speculate on side effects from certain ingredients. The FDA simply needs to demand long term, inert placebo controlled clinical trials before licensure.
All vaccines are properly clinically trialed before licensure. The idea that they are not is based on mis(dis?)information that originated from social media influencers and retransmitted by people who believe what those influencers say uncritically. In reality, all first-in-class vaccines are tested against inert placebo because there is nothing else to test them against. New vaccine versions or formulations are tested against standard of care, same with any other treatment being tested.
Recombivax HB clinical trial had no control group. It was the first recombinant DNA vaccine ever. Let me repeat: no control group whatsoever.
How can you make this statement if the above is true?
“all first-in-class vaccines are tested against inert placebo because there is nothing else to test them against.”
In theory you could go back and read the ~85 clinical studies.
You could read how placebos were properly used.
You could read how the safety data was monitored for years.
But then you would be stuck trying to explain why decade after decade the anti-vaccs can't get these basic facts correct!
Recombivax HB clinical trials used an active control same-disease vaccine because it was not a first in (therapeutic) class vaccine. Prior to that Merck had Heptavax-B, which was approved based on a placebo-controlled clinical trial because it was first in (therapeutic) class (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6997738/).
Please provide evidence (citation, etc.) that Recombivax HB was licensed based on Heptavax-B as safety control group
Placebos are NOT inert.
You could learn the basics about how to do proper clinical trials, but then you would see that the anti-vaccs are not truthful.
You could learn the terms "active comparator" and "excipients" - and "placebo" too, apparently.
Do you follow the crazies for LULZ?
https://substack.com/@albus349934/reads
ANd why do so many of them "follow" you?
https://substack.com/@albus349934/followers
"... significantly outweighed by the evidence from Andersson et al. 2025"
A critical review of Andersson was just published last week: Crépeaux et al, "Aluminium adjuvants and childhood health: a call for science"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X25002238
Thanks for the text book example of how the anti-vacc grifters work!
Thank you; this appears to be hot off the presses. I read through it. I look forward to reading opinions from experts on the arguments raised. On the surface there seem to be some decent points, though this study is essentially authored by the Avengers of anti-vaccine researchers and their collective credibility is low.
Did you notice that they didn't reply directly to the original article?
Instead of sending it to a medical/scientific journal with appropriate experts to evaluate their claims--they submitted to a chemistry journal.
Where they knew the editors/reviews would not be qualifed.....exactly like they are grifters and they know their article is BS....
At least one of the authors (and other researchers) DIRECTLY replied to the original journal article which has several detailed scholarly Comments (along with responses from the Editor and Author): https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997
You didn't address the fact that they choose to publish in a chemistry journal where their BS would not have been picked up.
Did you mean from Exley?
"It would have been far simpler and much more definitive if they had simply compared infants who had never received a vaccine with an aluminium adjuvant with infants who had received such."
Anyone that has taken stats 101 knows that is classic scientific fraud. Hey, that is why he was fired!
You're welcome (and Happy New Year!). "... authored by the Avengers of anti-vaccine researchers" That's a GREAT turn of phrase! ... "and their collective credibility is low" Now, that's merely ad hominem; why don't we just focus on the validity of their arguments & evidence? Should I disregard Dr. Offit's arguments merely because he's "pro-vax"?
It's not ad hominem; I didn't attack them personally. Each has produced research that has been criticized has having serious flaws, dubious conclusions, or been retracted. That doesn't invalidate the present study, but as someone not equipped to evaluate all of the present study on its merits those other factors signal how skeptical I should be.
"It is still less than the total number of bacterial proteins on the bacteria itself." Well, yes, that may well be so, but you do not need to expose the adaptive immune system to every single bacterial protein to get immune protection--in fact, the COVID vaccine used only the spike protein but proved astonishingly effective.
So your premise, that the entire genome of each bacterial or virus is needed is wrong.
Adjuvants have been studied, if not exhaustively, then adequately. If there were an absence of comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinate individuals we would be in trouble, but virtually every modern vaccine is tested against placebo, as was the COVID vaccine.
Once you have enough data, then withholding vaccines for measles, polio, rubella would be beyond malpractice and unethical to a rape of the entire public health system.
If your training were adequate, then in the past 30 years since you graduated medical school, you ought to have come across patients who died of influenza, if you trained in a program with enough clinical exposure. Watching someone die of an infectious disease like that--or COVID, measles, Rotavirus, RSV-- is usually enough to convert the most ardent anti vaxxer into a true believe in vaccines.
Those folks who bleat so loudly about the risks of vaccines, who "do their own research" have, to a man, never seen what the actual disease does in living (and dying) patients.
Watching the lividinous skin, the final glassy eyed death, is almost always enough to convince the doubters that disease is something to avoid, especially where the risks of vaccines have been examined. In fact, most people who see what the disease does are only too willing to take a chance on a vaccine.
Plague itself was horrifying, but before antibiotics which could kill Yersinia pestis were available, Alexandre Yersin (out of Pasteur's lab) developed an effective vaccine and saved an entire village in Indo China (Vietnam) from plague. (Without a double blind prospective study.) As far as I know, he is the only European/French speaker to have a statue dedicated to him in Vietnam. Nobody in that village cried out about the risks of his rudimentary vaccine--they had all seen plague.
"So your premise, that the entire genome of each bacterial or virus is needed is wrong."
That is not my premise. My comment has nothing to do with effectiveness of vaccines, it has to do with safety. Offit's premise is that the number of antigens corresponds to the potential danger of a challenge. In his appeal he alludes to the original whole-cell Pertussis vaccines which have three thousand antigens. Where is the proof, then, that this vaccine is more harmful than the tetanus or diptheria vaccines which have only a single antigen each? There isn't.
Moreover, Offit has said multiple times that babies can be exposed to thousands of vaccines and their immune system won't be overloaded. Here is stating that we get exposed to far more in our daily life than through vaccines. In other words, he is emphatically debunking his own premise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhP6-07O4Hw
"Adjuvants have been studied, if not exhaustively, then adequately."
In order to do any kind of study about adjuvant safety one would have to inoculate a group of people with the adjuvants and compare their outcomes to a group that gets saline. Of course, that has never been done because why would we inject something that has no benefit and potential harm into people?
The only way to assess their safety would be through vaccine trials that use a saline placebo, and, contrary to what you are saying, no vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule has been tested against saline. That's not opinion, that's how the CDC themselves responded when challenged.
You should have taken my advice and learned some science before commenting again.
1. You counted the number of proteins in Bordetella Pertussis incorrectly.
2. "In order to do any kind of study about adjuvant safety one would have to inoculate a group of people with the adjuvants and compare their outcomes to a group that gets saline"
That is not just wrong, but completely absurd and predicated on you not having a basic understanding of how to do the safety testing correctly.
Thank you for the thoughtful advice!
You are quite correct. I honestly don't know much about science and have always struggled with complicated subjects.
Please educate me sir on how to properly do safety testing.
Referring to an immunization schedule already says they are not talking about vaccination but immunization. They are mixing and matching parts of two incompatible ideas as you are also doing by asserting that your "comment has nothing to do with effectiveness of vaccines, it has to do with safety". They are talking immunization and you are calling it vaccination. In immunization effective means unsafe. You can't separate efficacy from safety. In vaccination the idea is to have your cake and eat it. If you mix these ideas together you come up with the frankenstein mess where safety is used to make 'immunization' less safe, not have controls and add 'adjuvants' to make sure that 'the vaccines' are still 'effective'. It follows therefore that there is no legal basis for this activity since it is neither vaccination nor immunization.
Referring to an immunization schedule already gives it away, because they are not even talking about vaccination, they are talking immunization, except they keep swapping the words like it does not matter, like language is optional. Mixing parts of two incompatible ideas, stitching them together, same thing you are doing when you say it has nothing to do with effectiveness, only safety, as if those can be separated without breaking the whole structure. They say immunization, you say vaccination, back and forth, deliberately blurred. In immunization effective means unsafe, always has, that is the tradeoff they never admit. You cannot pull efficacy out and leave safety behind, that is not how it works, that is sleight of hand. Vaccination was supposed to be the fantasy version, have your cake and eat it too, immune response without consequence, risk-free by definition. When you mash these together you get the Frankenstein system, safety invoked to justify less safety, no proper controls, add adjuvants to force effectiveness so the product still counts as effective even when it is not safe. Words doing all the work, definitions rewritten mid-sentence. So what is this activity even supposed to be, not vaccination, not immunization, something else entirely operating in the gaps, with no legal basis because it fits neither category, just a process that exists because no one is allowed to name what it actually is.
https://www.chaturbate.com
I didn't say it had nothing to do with effectiveness. There is the placebo effect so even if there was efficacy it would need to be greater than the placebo effect. There is a flawed premise being advanced that some level of efficacy is an adequate standard to justify a down side. It would need to be determined if the effect was on the patient or on the doctors and the institutions. The parents, the schools, the politicians and the insurance companies etc. None of these are legally defined as the patient or the virus so efficacy generated by allaying fears and the dosing of kids with tylenol etc. does not mean legal. What the down side was and whether there were better options like dropping the fraudulent germ hypothesis so as not to scare people in the first place which is likewise not a legal treatment and would need to be controlled for in research that couldn't be ethically justified. In other words the boat is in the dock, has no sail and is sinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foNp2-9Y8Cw
"It is the adjuvants in vaccines which are the source of potential harm, a harm which we have not yet quantified.'
. . .
Exactly! Dr. Offit carefully avoided even mentioning the “elephant in the room” … Aluminum adjuvants in the non-live vaccines. Peter C. Gøtzsche (Danish co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration) discussed the “elephant” in his recent post, “Aluminium in Vaccines Is Harmful” (October 6, 2025) https://brownstone.org/articles/aluminium-in-vaccines-is-harmful/
The only elephant I see are some folks choose really poorly who they should get their science from!
Was Dr. Offit offered money to speak before ACIP?
No he wasn't. Only from others. I expressed it incorrectly. Thank you for pointing out the error in the sentence.
Seriously, the U.S. needs universal healthcare.
Millions of people can't afford to see a doctor or vaccines.
Thanks again for such a great piece. As always, I so appreciate your efforts to stand up for science. Happy New Years
Really nice article. I shared it on LI.
Excellent post as always.
“Kennedy frequently points out that as a child he only got a couple of vaccines. And he’s fine. But a closer look tells a different story.”
He’s not fine 😝
Thank you Dr Offit, we need people based in facts and truth more than ever.
Thank you Dr. Offit. Now I understand why the old booster for diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus had more unpleasant side effects than the current booster.