Dr. Offit, there are uncomfortable truths, such as vaccine makers and developers have zero liability for their products. Vaccines are a modern medical marvel, but the sheer amount of immune manipulation of a baby is unconscionable and irrational. I have two autistic boys, both having terrible reactions to their 6-month vaccines, after which I told my pediatrician that they seemed like different babies. And was that normal? I wasn’t looking for anything. I trusted. I was a dutiful mother who let my babies be pin cushions because I believed it was the right thing to do. But I actually sacrificed their lives on the altar of public health, and I may never forgive myself.
RFK always points out that he’s not against vaccines. But they have run amok. They have lost their purpose and become a religion rather than a science.
And they can be dangerous - and more dangerous for some than others - and we continuously lie to parents that ALL shots are necessary. And safe.
Well, too many of us know that was a lie now. We don’t need charts or studies or people in white coats to tell us anymore. We live in the hell it created.
The practice of immunization was always dangerous. And maybe that is a risk worth taking in the case of some illnesses. But we need to stop lying that it was ever perfectly safe.
I'm so sorry for what happened to you and your children. I believe you. I know you are right. For anyone curious, look up Aluminum toxicity risk given the current CDC schedule. Also, lookup the only published study that the CDC references for the ajudivant's safety. Acetomenophen as a treatment for the fever is also problematic. Again, the relevant published literature for all of this is readily available.
Arrant nonsense. Cochrane is still studying aluminum adjuvant safety NOW in vaccines after maiming and killing millions of kids. My comment included in the document below explains why there is not enough data to even perform a safety study.
You’re a horrible human being, Albus. My comment is my lived experience, which you callously disregard. My children were not born autistic. And until a person walks a day in my shoes and has gone to the depths of hell as I have, they have no real understanding of what is happening to our children. I will not convince you, and you absolutely will not convince me. And only one of us actually has to care about the damage we are causing to the rising generation. And it is not you. Period.
Yes, we have. Aluminum goes to the brain. Why would anyone tell you it doesn’t. Whether ingested or injected! They say it leaves the blood quicker when injected. While that may be true it still goes to your brain. It’s indisputable and proven in studies. Then you’re giving this to a brand new human with fragile immune systems & nervous systems. Come on!
What is indisputable is that you didn't post any such study...I gather you haven't actually read of them...because they clearly show that the aluminum is excreted in the urine....
Strange how the anti-vaccs keep getting confused by this simple fact.
While it sad that you have such a pathological hatred of children, I take great comfort from the fact that anyone that reads the words will see the facts.
Ah - so you cite a study, but clearly one you haven't read. I read it. This journal article is virtually entirely about how vaccines work, not a study about the toxicity or safety of alum adjuvants. And, here are relevant parts regarding the aluminum used in vaccines:
"Aluminum-based adjuvants are well established and the most widely used, although the basis of their action REMAINS UNCLEAR." [emphasis added]
"In spite of the fact that alum-based vaccines are generally well tolerated, these adjuvants may produce granulomas after subcutaneous or intradermal injections, adverse effects that are not associated with the intramuscular route of injection" Note that the article cites no studies showing that alum-based vaccines are generally well tolerated vs. vaccines not alum-based.
Here's the kicker in the polite speak of medical journal articles:
"However, reports of adverse clinical findings regarding the aluminum containing adjuvant Al(OH)3 producing macrophagic myofasiitis (MMF). Beginning in 1993, an increasing number of cases were reported of unusual infiltrations of skeletal-muscle connective-tissue structures by nonepithelioid histiocytic cells [30]. Patients tended to exhibit chronic myalgia in their affected limbs, and a cluster of findings presented a more coherent picture that associated MMF with aluminum salts. These cases exhibited some common characteristics:
1.The site of macrophage infiltration was focal and typically restricted to the site of injection.
2.Muscle damage was almost always absent.
3.The infiltrates of macrophages formed well-delineated sheets of histocytes.
These findings led to the conclusion that MMF is the result of long-term persistence of aluminum hydroxide at the site of injection of the vaccine [31]. The underlying causes of this human toxicity remain unclear and may be related to impaired elimination of aluminum or genetic dispositions to inflammatory disease."
OK, so it is difficult to get a decade of education and decades of data in a comment box....
Are you aware that before clinical trials all vaccines are tested in multiple types of toxicology experiments---and that would include any aluminum adjuvant used.
I'm just asking for the published studies that prove it. The CDC only links to one study for Al adjuvant safety and from what I can tell it has been criticized by other studies. It also seems like Offit and Co. throw a lot of red herrings around: like talking about the Al we ingest as if it's a fair comparison with injection (especially given the CDC's schedule and acute Al exposure).
But, yeah, give me like the top 5 - 10 bulletpoints that summarize your case and specifically address the actual concerns (e.g. Al acute toxicity, Al retention in infants, etc.)
You are so right! People like you, (sadly) know the truth if anyone does. What happens in real life trumps any claims made by the industry; by the white coats!
What happens in real life is that for decades we have people that "observe obvious vaccine reactions", but when you check their home videos it is clear that the medical problems started before the vaccine.......
Wow! What amazing insight that you know what is the absolute truth in each household of nearly 8 Billion people across the world! Prescription drugs are a leading killer in the U.S. But of course, less tested vaccines are perfect; made in fairyland.
Oh look.....you refuse to even consider the decades of home movies that prove how the anti-vaccs lie to people and deceive them into believing non-existent vaccine reactions.
Let me guess: you also won't read the actual studies on "prescription drugs being a leading killer in the US".
Seriously, how would you believe the anti-vacc/drug liars if you actual read the words and learned the facts?
You forget the Autism Omnibus. Around 3 thousand plaintiffs sought a class action claim for vaccine damage. The child who was selected as having the best “evidence” that MMR had caused her autism was presented as the key case.
Experts looked at her videos, and saw signs of autism that predated the vaccine.
One must assume that the video “evidence” of the other 3 thousand was not as convincing, or they would have been selected as the test case.
The child who would/should have been the Test Case was removed from the plaintiff group up front because her case was too GOOD. Her family was PAID OFF handsomely & given a gag order. That was Hannah Poling.
Doctors Kelly & Zimmerman who knew her, said they'd have not believed it themselves if they'd not seen it with their own eyes.
Look at the words! The law exactly says that all US families can sue vaccine makers. Surprise, the anti-vaccs are liars counting on you to be too clueless to find the basic facts.
Good news, there are relevant US Civil Court cases:
Sir, I get it. You're a vaccine apologist. Seriously? "Look at the words?" You can sue the government, not the vaccine makers. That's what the law says. You petition the government for redress. NOT THE VACCINE MAKERS.
And my children's health is not at stake. I've already sacrificed that chasing a myth. I sincerely suggest you listen to the other side, as well, instead of spouting off research from 1971. I was willing to read what you had said before, and find some of the concepts intriguing, however, I find your complete and insulting dismissiveness towards the experience of millions of parents like myself--who know their kids better than any doctor (sorry, "scientist") ever will--to completely torpedo any point you may make. We will keep pushing for real answers, if only to save the next generation of kids.
I will not engage with your abusive gibberish again.
Dude, you’re wrong about being able to sue vaccine makers. It doesn’t take much reading with your 5th grade mind to learn that. Lastly, you’re a keyboard villain that gets drunk off arguing with people and being downright nasty to them.
The only thing you've sacrificed is your integrity, by peddling the lie that vaccines caused your children to be autistic. Your children were born autistic. Autism is genetic. No matter how much you don't want to accept this fact, it will still remain a fact.
Funny. I actually finally got my kids into one of the top geneticists in my state this week. Because I’ve been following all the leads I can. I sat and asked him what leads they have on autism and genetics. Guess what? Autism is not genetic. We can pour billions of dollars into genetic research to exonerate our corrupt medical establishment, but it turns up mostly empty. You are the ones peddling the lie.
Perhaps you shouldn’t say such things in such a strong way when you’re dead wrong, it completely ruins the rest of your argument. Furthermore, find some compassion man. Even if you don’t believe peoples stories about vaccine injuries, why would you be such a jerk? It’s a strange paradox to be so personally invested in vaccines, presumably to help people, but when it comes to dealing with people you’re quite mean and seem to be hellbent on hurting others. It’s just odd.
Perhaps you should read the actual words in the links before commenting?
When folks are lied to by medical frauds, they are victims.
When a parent refuses to read basic words and see they are victims of medical fraud and continue to follow a misdiagnosis, then in many jurisdictions that is child neglect.
Albus. The case against Wyeth related to events that occurred prior to 1988, which is when the statute you cited began protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability.
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
"If the client chooses not to accept the Vaccine Court judgment, the client can opt out of the program, and elect to file a Gardasil lawsuit in civil court."
4. Why are you silent on the facts reveled in the Blackwell ruling?
Part of the law provides the public with a tax payer funded National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. In other words, you can request money from the Government, however the vaccine manufacturer is protected legally. This is spelled out in Part B of the
NVICP:
"Provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death: (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or (2) solely due to the manufacturer's failure to provide direct warnings."
Of course the law itself doesn't deny the possibility that vaccine injuries can occur, but interestingly it acknowledges that there are "unavoidable" side effects.
Prescription drugs often have side effects that are unavoidable. Why are they not extended this level of leniency?
This is a US centric reply--other countries are different.
1. You can almost sue anyone, generally you can't sue gun makers, other industries have some protection against lawsuits.
2. I posted the law. You posted the Bill from the House of Representatives--that is not law.
And from your link:
"Part B: Additional Remedies - Sets forth procedures under which the person who filed a petition for compensation under the program may elect to file a civil action for damages."
Did you get that part? May elect to file a civil action for damages--that exactly means sue the vaccine maker!
If you read the law, you will see it explains clearly that you can't sue vaccine makers, until after you have filed with the vaccine court....then everyone can sue!
"If the client chooses not to accept the Vaccine Court judgment, the client can opt out of the program, and elect to file a Gardasil lawsuit in civil court."
That is a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers. They have a number of current suits on-going, because law exactly permits them.
You were also silent on the facts reported in the US civil court cases posted above.
Geezus - stop citing cornell law school webpages. It's not "the law." I sure hope you didn't go to law school at Cornell because that's a HUGE ad against going there.
Albus - you are a weird duck. Or have severe reading comprehension problems. (Likely both). Literally everything you are citing says the opposite of what you claim or at the least does not support your claim. I've looked at only 3 of your cites now and am not spending the time to look at any others because 3 strikes and you're out.
First - don't cite a page from a law school to cite a law. Just cite the relevant statute itself. That aside, the page you linked to, clearly states that it is about cases brought prior to 1988 where someone received compensation and limits their ability to receive any further compensation. Now, as anyone who's knowledgeable about vaccine manufacturer liability knows, this is an important date because it is when the law was passed shielding manufacturers from liability. So, of course, people were bringing these cases and winning prior to 1988. Apparently, you didn't see the dates in the text you linked to. Then, the page you linked clearly goes on to state that there are "limitations" on bringing civil actions for vaccine injury and death post 1988. Sheesh. READ YOUR OWN LINKS.
Here's the language for everyone who doesn't want to go to Albus' links:
"If a person elects to receive compensation under a judgment of the court in an action for a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine before October 1, 1988, or is deemed to have accepted the judgment of the court in such an action, such person MAY NOT bring or maintain a civil action for damages against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer for the vaccine-related injury or death for which the judgment was entered. FOR LIMITATIONS on the bringing of civil actions for vaccine-related injuries or deaths associated with the administration of a vaccine AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1988, see section 300aa–11(a)(2) of this title." [Emphasis added].
Lastly, with respect to the civil court cases, anyone can FILE suit. It's whether the cases succeed or even survive preliminary motions, which they do not when brought against manufacturers that actually matters. Again - you are either just straight out weird or don't read your own links thinking no one else will take the time to read them either.
"Albus - you are a weird duck. Or have severe reading comprehension problems. (Likely both)."
Thanks for the irony!
1. "First - don't cite a page from a law school to cite a law. Just cite the relevant statute itself. "
I DID site the statue and it is the current law--not the pre-1988 law.
You didn't read the words correctly.
2. "FOR LIMITATIONS on the bringing of civil actions for vaccine-related injuries or deaths associated with the administration of a vaccine AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1988, see section 300aa–11(a)(2) of this title." [Emphasis added]."
I posted the limitations--you have to first file with the vaccine court, then you can sue the vaccine makers.
You didn't read the words in the statute or from the law firm link correctly.
3. "Lastly, with respect to the civil court cases, anyone can FILE suit. It's whether the cases succeed or even survive preliminary motions, which they do not when brought against manufacturers that actually matters. "
I have posted multiple lawsuits against vaccine makers that DID survive preliminary motions...you are just wrong and avoiding the facts detailed in the court rulings....specifically that the anti-vaccs are morons and frauds.
You do not understand what irony means. And, you clearly don't know the difference between citing the US code and a law school webpage. That's alarming for someone who's likely getting paid to troll substack articles. You absolutely cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for anything other than criminal fraud which has never happened. (That is - suing for criminal fraud - although it should happen). Maybe if you looked up actual cases that have gone past summary judgment, you'd realize that. But, I doubt you know what summary judgment means. And, as I said before - I read one case you cited - and it was tossed out. I'm not sure you have basic reading comprehension skills.
Offit has attacked him and I feel he has the right of reply. I ask because your post is the top one in the comments, and I can't see anyone else has linked to it.
I'm so sorry that you and your children are victims of the medical industrial complex.
Yes, it is true that you cannot sue the vaccine maker when vaccines are invented after 1988. This is because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which was passed in 1986. The NCVIA created a no-fault compensation program for people who are injured by vaccines. This means that people who are injured by vaccines cannot sue the vaccine maker, but they can file a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
The VICP is a government program that provides compensation to people who are injured by vaccines. The program is funded by a tax on vaccines. To file a claim with the VICP, you must first file a report with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is a database that tracks vaccine side effects. If your report is accepted by VAERS, you can then file a claim with the VICP.
The VICP has compensated over 4,000 people for injuries caused by vaccines. The average compensation award is $200,000. The VICP has also paid out over $4 billion in compensation.
There are some exceptions to the NCVIA. For example, you can sue the vaccine maker if the vaccine was manufactured with negligence. You can also sue the vaccine maker if the vaccine was not properly labeled.
If you are injured by a vaccine, you should talk to your doctor. Your doctor can help you file a report with VAERS and file a claim with the VICP.
I am extremely disappointed that Dr. Paul Offit, a man I once respected, chose to gaslight, obfuscate and confuse his followers. As a recent Substack article by Dr. Vinay Prasad outlined, in order for public health agencies to regain the trust of the public they need to actually test the safety of all the vaccines in current use and any new vaccines using the following protocol: 1) Make pharmaceutical companies conduct trials with three groups; one group getting the active ingredient (attenuated virus, mRNA, etc.), one group getting the older vaccine or the adjuvants used in the new vaccine, and a third group receiving physiological saline. This is the only proper way to test for vaccine safety. 2) Actively follow the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups for at least several years to see if any long term problems develop.
I ran the Ecotoxicology Laboratory at the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for a number of years before I retired. According to US EPA protocols in the Federal Register, we tested whole municipal and industrial effluents for toxicity by exposing one group of larval fish, daphnia and other organisms (this is analogous to the group receiving mRNA COVID vaccine). We also tested the upstream dilution water for toxicity using another group of test organisms (this is analogous to the older vaccine or adjuvant group). We always tested a third group using the water that the organisms were reared in (by definition nontoxic and analogous to using physiological saline in a vaccine trial). This let us definitively determine that the organisms used in the test were healthy and whether the effluent and/or the upstream dilution water were detrimental to the health of the test organisms. If the use of truly inert placebos are required by law to protect fish in a stream, it seems that we should require their use in studies of vaccines that will be injected into the general public, including children.
Don’t you understand that about half the participants in any drug or vaccine trial get some form of “placebo”; I.e., a dose that does not contain the active ingredient for interest such as a virus, mRNA, etc.? Drug companies prefer to designate the dose with the adjuvant, preservatives, etc., the “placebo”. Because it masks safety signals. This design does test efficacy, bit dies not fully test safety as many of the side effects may be caused by the adjuvant or preservatives. Would you maintain this is unethical since half the group did not get the active ingredient in the vaccine? The only sure way to test for safety is to use a placebo consisting of physiological saline or other truest inert ingredients.
You test newer versions of a product against an existing product. To test against placebo is unethical unless it is a new vaccine (as we saw with the Covid shots for instance)
Do you mean the COVID shots where more people died in the vaccine group than the control group and the FDA still gave it a green light and then tried to withhold the data for 75 years?
We were obviously being lied to about COVID, why would you think they wouldn't lie about other vaccines as well?
Here is a crazy idea--why don't you try reading the words?
Read the numbers--see what the number of deaths in each group was....you know in the data that was published on-line before the scam anti-vacc lawsuit (75 years lie).
Once you do start checking it is really easy to see that it is the anti-vaccs that are lying.
I agree that you test newer versions of a drug or vaccine against an older version to test for efficacy. But, from what I have read, older versions of. vaccines were never tested for safety against a true, inert placebo such as physiological saline.
Are you sure what you are reading is reliable ???? Please don’t get tricked by publicity seeking hucksters.
The original COVID vaccine, as an example, was tested against a saline placebo. See the following paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
I agree that at least one trial of COVID vaccines used a saline placebo. My concern is that Paul Offit says that testing against a true placebo is not necessary. In the interest of safety all vaccines should be tested against a true placebo.
Correct. Also, the "existing products" were never tested against placebos either.
Furthermore, vaccines are a preventive measure, not a therapeutic one. There are higher standards of safety in this regard. We are not looking at two cohorts with a fatal disease. Vaccine trial participants were healthy and the vaccine was designed to prevent symptoms from a highly survivable disease.
In any case, there was more all cause mortality in the vaccinated group in the Pfizer trial. That should have been a hard stop in a rational world.
1) Offit and the FDA define the placebo as anything immunologically inert, including buffers, adjuvants and preservatives. They aren't getting any protection from these substances, they are only getting exposed to potential harm.
The FDA says that these things are absolutely safe. They can say anything they want. They, however, cannot prove that they are. The only way to do that would be run a trial where they give people these "immunologically inert placebos" and test them against people who get a true saline placebo, or nothing at all.
They have never done that study. They can't. It is unethical to run a trial where you seek to identify risk with no benefit. They only way to actually test and confirm that these "immunologically inert" placebos are safe would be use a true saline placebo in a vaccine trial. They haven't done it. They have no basis to make this claim.
2) The argument that it would be unethical to not give the "placebo group" a vaccine is illogical. Think about the hundreds of millions of people who are not in the trial. They aren't getting a vaccine either.
You’ve little concept of what buffers, preservatives and adjuvants do.
Why would a buffer be added to a vaccine? Can you answer that question honestly? I doubt it.
It may certainly be unethical to give placebo to a control group in a trial of a new therapeutic product.
Imagine if you will a study of human insulin in T1 Diabetes. You think it’s ethical to give a diabetic control group a saline placebo rather than the best available standard of care (animal insulin), just because there might be “people out there” who have undiagnosed diabetes?
You surely are joking.
“Hi Mr Jones… we’d like to put your severely ill diabetic child in a trial of a newer version of his current insulin. Of course, we’d like to use inert placebo, so there’s a 50% chance he’d get nothing at all, and would be susceptible to attacks of severe ketoacidosis, hyperglycaemia and death. You OK with that? How long will he be kept off treatment if he’s in the placebo group? …well, if we want to rule out long term effects from the active insulin, I guess at least 2 years”
I could answer that question, but I don't have to. The issue is not around what is in a vaccine, it is what is in a placebo. Dr. Offit and the FDA tells us that buffers could be part of a placebo. He states: "Indeed, a wide range of placebos have been used in vaccine trials. These placebos might contain buffers, stabilizing agents, emulsifying agents, or adjuvants, like aluminum salts."
You seem to know something about medicine. Do you understand the difference between what is a preventative measure and what is a therapeutic one? Vaccines are preventatives. Insulin is therapeutic, and, as you say, in type I diabetes, withholding insulin will certainly result in harm. Withholding a vaccine from a control group does not result in harm. There is no need to give them a different vaccine, or a "placebo" that contains the very substances that could cause harm.
So you think withholding a vaccine from a control group results in harm.
Okay.
So that must mean that every single person OUTSIDE the trial is being harmed too because they aren't receiving the vaccine either. Following your logic, you must conclude that not vaccinating everyone would be harmful. I understand where you are coming from now.
Here's a link that will explain what vaccine components are and what they do. I hope this will help you to understand what a buffer is:
If that is unclear, you may find this helpful. It's published by CHoP (Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia). It's an excellent pediatric hospital. It's also where Dr. Offit practices (Offit is the doctor and vaccine expert that wrote this article). He blessed the information on the page:
There is a huge amount of information on buffers that is readily available on the web. I would be happy to point out other source material if the above is confusing to you.
I think the elephant in the room that you fail to address is how the medical community has gas-lit the entire population on this for many decades. Everything you say may in fact be true, I am not conceding that just saying that is a possibility, but for decades parents were led to believe that placebo (as commonly understood) controlled trials had been conducted on all of these vaccines that were being administered to children and that the quacks out there like RFK Jr were simply lying. There was never any nuance on any of this and now many people are finding out that not everything they were told was as they thought it was and not everything the quacks were saying was a lie. They deduce from this that maybe they should not automatically trust the medical professionals simply because they have a white coat on since it appears they have been, maybe unintentionally but that is irrelevant, leading them to believe for years that a particular kind of testing was being done which frankly was not. That response is not irrational and the way to gain back their trust is not to call them names and berate them. This is a mess of your own making not their fault or RFK Jrs fault or anyone else’s and the clowns in the medical community are making it even worse by their present day responses. Any doctor that argued with a parent about their 10 year old being in grave danger without a COVID shot (this happened frequently) was lying to them even if unintentionally and those parents can see that they were lied to. Don’t call them names when they now don’t trust you.
The casual cruelty of anti-vax crusaders is a luxury afforded by those who are not affected by the very real consequences of an unvaccinated population. They get all the benefits of the vaccinations against which they so heartily rail. Perhaps they should visit countries where the vaccines are not available to see how their anti-vax rhetoric would do. I suspect not well.
If only they also had a Sunshine Act forcing them to report all sources of income...so we knew who was actually funding them!
I respectfully ask you to consider your argument carefully. Who is the beneficiary of a protective measure such as a vaccine? The recipient? Or the one who eschews it because others agree to receiving it?
You are making a mistake by lumping the unvaccinated into a single category. In my experience, those who do not vaccinate would do so even if no one else did. In fact, the so-called antivaxxers are imploring everyone to think twice. They generally wish to live in a world where nobody is vaccinated.
Your position here actually highlights the potential harm from vaccines, not the benefit.
Ugh. I was honestly hoping this would be convincing but it really fell short. The “everything is poison” defense for using the chemicals of concern in the placebo group is really just the weakest argument I can imagine, second only to “The FDA says they were good placebos.” Not sure if you noticed Paul but nobody in the “skeptic” camp really trusts the FDA anymore and it’s not without some merit. There is probably no link or concern with most vaccines and perhaps the studies done make you feel good about saying that but it is not an ironclad case of safety. Why not take the more generous approach and suggest an NIH study design that satisfies all concerned parties? It’s not really RFK that created distrust in the FDA and Pharma—they did that entirely on their own. It’s time to stop calling everyone names and start rebuilding trust with science that actually settles these debates and doesn’t leave lingering questions. I think I represent a lot of reasonable people in the middle that aren’t falling for every wild claim made about medicines and vaccines, but are absolutely justifiably concerned the FDA and Pharma are not doing their job properly on saftey and efficacy. So when we apply that mistrust across the board it may be too far, but it’s not unreasonable to suggest there be further study, better safety signal systems, and no more free pass for vaccines makers on liability. Time to rebuild trust and for you and other experts to stop belittling everyone’s understandable concern. We are not experts but we are also not stupid and can see the problems that need fixing.
That's because the "skeptic camp" are not remotely skeptical at all. They're not "skeptical" vaccines; their belief that vaccines are harmful is akin to a religion.
There are zealots on both ends of this but my belief is that the vast majority of us are reasonable people that have justifiable concerns. If you choose to belittle them by suggesting they are just mindless followers of a malevolent belief system then you do nothing to advance the cause of building trust in public health… a cause that I for one am on board with. Trust won’t be given freely to institutions and people that have let us down of late so experts like Paul and others need to do a better job helping to rebuild that trust. If I were him I would start every sentence with “I completely understand how in this post-covid era how so many people have lost faith in big Pharma and public health, but is a point by point explanation of everything you’re worried about, with citation.
"There are zealots on both ends of this but my belief is that the vast majority of us are reasonable people that have justifiable concerns"
Thank you for that comment.
I really want to believe it is true. But look at the experience here.
No matter how many times I post the US law--it says that all families can sue vaccine makers.....and post examples of US families that have sued vaccine makers....
Zero of the vaccine critics will acknowledge that the anti-vacc keep lying and saying it is impossible to sue vaccine makers.
And zero of the vaccine critics will even acknowledge the facts revealed in the Court cases...
There is no law that says someone or something cannot be sued. You can sue anybody you want. That doesn't mean you will win.
When vaccine critics claim that vaccine Manufacturers cannot be sued we both know that they mean you can never win such a suit. If any moneys are paid out it will not be from the Manufacturers.
This is not a small technicality. This means that vaccine manufacturers, which are for-profit entities whose primary mission is to increase the value of the company and the wealth of their shareholders, have no incentive to make their products safe. None. They have 100% "immunity".
“Trials of vaccine should contain at least 2 control arms. One a placebo arm of salt water, and another placebo arm perhaps containing adjuvant/ preservative/ or a different vaccine. Each control arm has different strengths and weaknesses. One allows accurate assessment of safety; the other preserves blinding, and or downstream behavioral change (think about it for a while).”
I know little about vaccines. Is he obviously wrong?
Gotta love the spin. Even when faced with a risk profile, they are ok with the deaths because one must “consider the risks... in light of benefits...”. What was the risk of death from covid? for young women, roughly 1 in 100,000 infected. Thats at least a 6x, 600% increased risk. How is that acceptable? And, this is research coming from the government that was obviously biased and withholding data.
“There was no significant increase in cardiac or all-cause mortality in the 12 weeks following COVID-19 vaccination compared with more than 12 weeks after any dose for the study population as a whole.
There was evidence of an increase in cardiac death in young women after a first dose of non-mRNA vaccines, with the risk being 3.5 times higher in the 12 weeks following vaccination, compared with the longer-term risk.
The subgroup who received non-mRNA vaccines was more likely to be clinically vulnerable and may be at greater risk of adverse events following vaccination than the general population.
According to the statistical model, 11 out of the 15 cardiac deaths in young women that occurred within 12 weeks of a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine were likely to be linked to the vaccine; this corresponds to 6 cardiac-related deaths per 100,000 females vaccinated with at least a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine.
We find no strong evidence of an increase in risk of cardiac or all-cause death after vaccination for young men for either vaccine type; we will continue to monitor this as more deaths are registered and more doses are administered.
A positive SARS-CoV-2 test was associated with increased cardiac and all-cause mortality among people; the risk was higher in those who were unvaccinated at time of testing than in those who were vaccinated.
It is important to consider the risks of vaccination in light of the benefits; this analysis of vaccine safety contributes to the growing body of scientific work on the impact of vaccinations.“
"Randomisation and masking -- In efficacy cohorts for all studies, participants were randomised 1:1 to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a control product. In COV002, MenACWY was chosen as the control group vaccine to minimise the chance of accidental participant unmasking due to local or systemic reactions to the vaccine. COV003 used MenACWY as the control for the first dose and saline for the second dose. In COV005, participants randomly assigned to the control group were administered saline solution."
COV002 = UK
COV003 = Brazil
COV005 = South Africa
MenACWY = meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine
Yes, he's obviously wrong because *if* a vaccine is already available and known to be safe, it is unethical to deny people access to that vaccine. Only when it's a new vaccine developed for a disease that has no existing vaccine can it be justified to use a placebo rather than the older, already known to be safe vaccine in the control group.
Casual cruelty, absolutely. Thank you for speaking up against it.
It would be interesting to compile the total risks and adverse events of vaccinations against those of the actual diseases over the past 50 years. Vaccination is not risk free, but is incomparably superior.
For example, the Covid vaccination program is estimated to have prevented over 3 million deaths in the US alone, and over 19 million hospitalizations between 12/2020 and 11/2022.
This quote is good, and the opposite of cruel:
“We know that vaccines save lives. But how many lives vaccines have they saved?
The World Health Organisation (WHO) suggests that vaccination prevents 2-3 million deaths each year. However, while we are certain that vaccines have saved millions of lives, calculating a precise number is impossible. Also the quoted number from the WHO is in important ways a very low estimate.
The counterfactual world, in which vaccines would have never been developed, would be so different that an estimate of the impact of vaccines is impossible. One example that makes this clear is to consider the impact of the smallpox vaccine: Smallpox was once an extremely common and deadly infectious disease, but it has been eradicated globally back in 1977 thanks to the vaccination against the disease. It is impossible to know exactly how many people would die of smallpox today if scientists had not developed the vaccine. Reasonable estimates are in the range of around 5 million lives per year, which implies that between 1980 and 2018 around 150 to 200 million lives have been saved.3 This makes clear why it is so difficult to estimate the number of lives saved every year and why the WHO estimate is rather low.”
"For example, the Covid vaccination program is estimated to have prevented over 3 million deaths in the US alone, and over 19 million hospitalizations between 12/2020 and 11/2022."
look at a chart of australia's covid shot roll out, next to cases & deaths
by the time australia 'opened up' upwards of 70% of Aussie's had received 2 doses of mrna shots. then look at the deaths.
would it have been worse if they didnt have the shots first?
maybe, but John Ionadis' IFR studies from Diamond Princess Cruize ship & then follow up study + the evolution of variants becoming more contagious but less pathogenic (less deadly).
most Australian deaths due to covid happened in 2022 after 70%+ of the population was double jabbed by end of 2021. approx. 99% of Aussies over 70 were double jabbed by Jan 2022.
Here is the Guardian's covid tracker...not one to peddle anti-vax conspiracies...
scroll down, the vax uptake stats, cases charts, hospitalizations & death charts are all there =
this author is more econ oriented, but it's a conversation about statistics.
Finally, to Offit's main article, what about treatments?
I appreciate the concept of it being unethical to not give a protecting therapy/vaccine/etc to a patient - however Offit makes the argument as if there are no treatments for the infectious diseases many vaccines are designed to no longer immunize from but "provide protection" from.
Are there no known & effective treatments for: Hep B, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria (aren't all 3 in the DTP bacterial infections ?)
wouldnt it be easy enough to count a patient from the placebo group as infected per the disease being examined...and treat him/her?
The point of contention is this sub thread is this:
“the Covid vaccination program is estimated to have prevented over 3 million deaths in the US alone, and over 19 million hospitalizations between 12/2020 and 11/2022”
Please just address that. And if you also disagree with the above quote, provide details as to why you think it is not true.
lol, i didnt think it was an overwhelming request to view a few charts of covid vaccine administration, cases (defined as a positive test), hospitalizations & deaths...to see that what we were told: 95% effective against symptomatic disease of the really dangerous wild/wuhan strain turned out to not be the case.
you are right in a sense, i dont have the data to refute: “the Covid vaccination program is estimated to have prevented over 3 million deaths in the US alone, and over 19 million hospitalizations between 12/2020 and 11/2022”
because that claim is based on a model, not real world data. how accurate have the modelers been on covid with their other predictions & estimates?
I laughed because the claim is obviously insane. If you need an explanation as to why it's obviously insane then there's nothing I can say to you that would change your mind so I'm not going to waste my time because you're likely insane also.
If the vaccines actually prevented deaths you'd see less excess mortality in the higher vaccinated countries. Instead it's the exact opposite - countries that had more vaccination had higher mortality. I have no idea how you could have missed this at this point unless you didn't want to see it which is why this is a waste of my time to offer up the evidence.
If you can’t explain it, I’ll assume it’s because you don’t have an argument.
That’s not to be a jerk. It’s just to point out that arguing against science by saying, “that’s stupid” is like a toddler saying “no” repeatedly. There’s absolutely no sense to it.
So explain your objections, or we all know you don’t actually have any reasoning behind them.
Those numbers regarding deaths prevented is clearly an exaggeration. The Pfizer trial, one of the few sources of placebo control with matched cohorts demonstrated a single Covid death prevented with approximately 20,000 doubly vaccinated individuals at a time when the circulating strain was matched with the mRNA vaccine.
250 million people in the USA, approx, got the primary series. We are thus talking about Covid deaths prevented in the 10-20 thousand range. At the very least we should be challenging numbers in the millions.
Beyond that, there was higher all cause mortality in the vaccinated group. There is no objective way to rule out the possibility that the vaccine program hurt as many people as it helped.
Furthermore, stats like you cite use observational data that is fraught with confounders. The CDC has also used a specious way of tallying the incidence of outcomes by excluding those in people who are not outside the two week window yet including them in the denominator. This mathematically results in positive effectiveness that persists until the population stops getting vaccinated.
If you map vaccine uptake in the United States you can calculate the vaccine effectiveness of a vaccine with zero efficacy on a week by week basis. It roughly matches what we observed. In other words, it is very likely that the Covid mRNA vaccines provided zero benefit:
You sound smart, but you’re overthinking and parsing data in ways that are simply wrong. Step back and look at the mortality curves, the death rates per 100,000 people. Vaccinated and boosted always do better, much better, especially so during the delta wave. There are always adverse events with vaccination, no one ever claimed there were not. And though the medical community hoped the VE would stay around 95%, the mutating virus with a short incubation period had other plans. But durability of protection against severe disease and death has been good even to this day, and absolutely better than no vaccine.
I’m not that smart. I am, however, very thorough. I simply do not trust CDC data. They have made big statements that could not be substantiated. Their data flew in the face of UKHSA data which indicated negative efficacy with regard to infection by 9/2021. One agency was misrepresenting the data. My analysis is very simple. Excluding cases in the recently vaccinated will allow the CDC to claim effectiveness where none exists. It’s arithmetic, not statistics and probability.
Furthermore, if we are to grant efficacy with regard to Covid mortality based on the trial results we must acknowledge more all cause mortality from the vaccines. One cannot have it both ways.
The other double standard that is often invoked is causation based correlation. Trial investigators are allowed to deem potential injuries and mortality as unrelated to the product. That’s ridiculous. That’s the whole point of doing a trial. They don’t know that anymore than they know that their vaccine prevented Covid outcomes.
Vaccination doesn’t “cause” protection any more than it “causes” harm. Both are correlations only. The Covid trials demonstrated a decreased incidence of severe disease that was correlated with vaccination. Vaccination was also correlated with increased mortality. The FDA and the public should have demanded a larger trial or a different product before issuing an authorization that protected the manufacturers from liability.
If you are aware of any therapy, vaccines or otherwise, where approval/authorization was granted when a phase III trial showed more mortality in the treatment arm I would like to know.
Since that claim has been investigated many times over many years and debunked every single time, I’ll not bother to follow the link. Complain all you like — continuing to make the same claim over and over when it is already thoroughly researched is nonsensical.
"At the level contained in vaccines, all these chemicals are safe, including aluminum salts."
Another lie. Cochrane is still studying aluminum adjuvant safety now. I pointed out to them that they do not even have the data to perform such a study.
"Any chemical on this planet (both water and salt are chemicals) if given at a high enough dose, can be harmful. Drink 3-4 liters of water at one time, and you can suffer fatal water intoxication."
So this clown is implying a saline placebo injection has enough water and salt to kill people?
Don’t be so obtuse. There’s nothing to suggest in the comment that a 0.9% (normal) saline injection would kill people.
After all normal saline is used to flush intravenous lines, to dilute liquid drugs or prepare dry drugs for intravenous injection, normal saline is administered by the litre to unwell patients.
However, the daughter of a friend of ours whilst in labour drank several litres of water, she then had a seizure due to hyponatraemia. Too much sodium chloride can cause hypernatraemia. Low potassium can be fatal. High potassium is fatal (it’s used as part of the lethal injection in the USA).
Our bodies need to be in the Goldilocks zone, where everything is just right.
“ According to ICAN’s lawyer, the only substances that have “no effect on living beings” are water and salt water.” this was the context from which he mentioned the potential toxicity of water and salt.
By the way oxygen can kill, if a person has COPD and is given too much oxygen they will stop breathing. Also there are cells and organs in your body for which oxygen concentration greater than 3% will poison them.
And ICAN's lawyer was referring to "water and salt water" in the context of a placebo injection. So insane to bring in toxicity of drinking 3-4 liters of water.
The point he was making was that toxicity depends on dose, so it's nonsensical to just create two categories "toxic" and "non-toxic." Therefore, substances one might believe are toxic could be perfectly safe at a low enough dose.
This is all bunk .. a bunch of meaningless words with no fact or evidence to back up your claims. We all know you are lying, Mr. Offitt. Everyone. I can’t wait until RFK wins. CANNOT WAIT.
In one of your previous articles, you also referenced the polio trial placebo arm deaths - which proved it was an effective and net beneficial intervention. I quote: "There are no risk free decisions," you said. I think that this is the correct assessment of the situation.
While I agree with much of what you wrote here, I think that the problem that many people are pointing to is the other side of that "risk" coin. We either risk the lives of children in the placebo arm of the trial, resulting in a few tragic lives, lost. Or, we skip the entire placebo controlled mechanism all together, as is often done today for vaccines -therefore omitting those tragic placebo arm deaths, yet accepting an entirely new risk. (one which the vaccine industry/public health is simply unwilling to acknowledge.) the risk that by imposing an intervention not tested against placebo, there is a possibility that the children who receive this vaccination will endure adverse reactions at a higher rate. Potentially inflicting more harm/morbidity than the target pathogen/disease itself. I am sure that there are many vaccinations that are extremely net beneficial. But I also suspect that there are some where that is not the case. It seems a hopelessly confounded problem to try to untangle/prove WHICH ARE WHICH - without the disinfecting sunlight of robust placebo controlled trials. Given this uncertainty, what justifies depriving people of the freedom to choose weather to receive a vaccination or not? Back when I incorrectly ASSUMED all vaccines were placebo control trial vetted, as much of the public does, I found the mandates justified. Given what I know now, and reading your assessment of the moral justification to totally omit a true placebo controlled trial in many cases, I find depriving people of this choice between 2 uncertain choices concerning.
To further complicate things, people are also concerned about the prospect of vaccines inducing autoimmune conditions (perhaps most bio-plausible given effect of many adjuvants. ie Aluminum ect) Many of which have long diagnostic horizons, stretching far beyond the time periods of the short trials run today. This makes the trials feel like more of a cursory rubber stamp to authorize distribution, rather than an in depth scientific study of the harms/benefits of a new medical product.
Who is to say, the rising rate of chronic health conditions/ auto immune disorders is higher than it would have been otherwise - if we did not mandate the mass vaccination of every American child. Could this decline in health be better be explained by environmental changes/attributed to something an identifiably toxic in the food supply? or goodness knows what else the average person encounters in modern daily life? How do we know if the modern decline in infectious disease deaths is due to mass vaccination of the population, rather than being attributable to improved sanitation processes/hygiene/engineering and industrial advancements? I have no idea. But I do know that if we had real placebo controlled trials to vet our (effectively mandatory) mass vaccination schedule, it would be an extremely helpful step in answering these questions. In a democracy, the govt has a limited amount of political capital to deploy when forcing its population into actions they would otherwise not take. To me it seems they burned through it all, at break neck speed, during their wild covid frenzy.
Like you said, there are no risk free choices here. This is why in all other domains of medicine, even the most devastating and heartbreaking cancers (ideally, with the caveats that Vinay Prasad endlessly rails against lol) - the public accepts the risk of "casually cruel" placebo control trials. Because that risk, accepted by informed and willing volunteers in placebo controlled trials, is smaller than the one we bear when deploying a untested medical product on the entire population.
I just wish that the medical sector was comfortable acknowledging, and weighing the impact of both of these risks. But your article only focuses on one, and like you beautifully stated in your other article, there are just simply no risk free decisions here. or as Thomas Sowell puts it regarding economic policy, "there are no solutions, only trade offs."
I too am connected to the medical sector, and my experience during Covid has profoundly shifted my worldview, opening my eyes to some unpleasant truths that I would have never imagined myself questioning. Pandora's box has been opened, and unfortunately for the formerly triumphant reputation of medicine, it can never be closed again. - Yet this public uncertainty does not saddened or upset me. It has simply revealed new wide open frontiers full of unanswered questions for the forces of human curiosity and scientific inquiry to explore and conquer. Yes, much of it will be filled with risk and uncertainty, but that seems to be something inescapable in life. But to ask an entire population to except your dictates on faith, rather than robust irrefutable, evidence is a function of religion, not science. If someone wants to take an experimental treatment, knowing that the benefit is quite uncertain, I am of the medically heterodox view that they should 100% have the freedom to do with their body whatever they choose. But when the state forces a medical product on the population when these things are so uncertain, I think that erodes the foundation of a society meant to be based on justice and individual freedom.
The only thing is, I am sure of in this domain, is that I want to know the answers. No matter if they are unpleasant, controversial, or difficult to pin down.
While I used to think people who had any measure of skepticism towards vaccination were simply hopelessly stupid dimwits, or tragically misinformed to the point society should simply force it's more enlightened assessment of "the science" upon them, I now find that view quite untenable given present reality. Many people characterize the widespread distrust of the medical establishment in African-American communities as tragic, which I used to completely agree with. But given CDC's Tuskegee, (not even to mention the countless other evils and injustices inflicted upon black americans "for their own good") couldn't this also be characterized as appropriate skepticism, or good judgment.
People have more information than ever due to the internet, as as a result, they have generated reasonable questions. Plus, given the non-sensical (unscientific) madness that we went through with Covid vax fanaticism, i think that skepticism is justified. I want to believe that many of the vaccinations we deploy in this country are justified and save lives. But I also want to know that this belief is founded on solid scientific evidence, not theoretical mathematical models. Covid blatantly exposed the perils and absurdities of relying on these speculative models rather than actual empirical evidence. I know it is uncomfortable/annoying for doctors when patients push back against their doctor's recommendations - especially when they demand and question the evidence by which a physician makes their decision. But welcome to the 21st-century with the internet, people know stuff now, and cannot be treated as clueless.
You are completely free to characterize, placebo controlled trials as casual cruelty. But like you previously acknowledged, there are NO risk-free decisions here. No solutions, only trade offs.
Well said. Many of us in the medical profession are on the same path of consistently losing our faith in the science of medicine. Unbiased scientific reason has obviously been replaced by profiteering, posturing and pronouncements. And sadly, Dr. Offit, your direct financial rewards for defending this industry disqualifies you from any objective scientific analysis of the risk-benefit of vaccines.
"Or, we skip the entire placebo controlled mechanism all together, as is often done today for vaccines -therefore omitting those tragic placebo arm deaths, yet accepting an entirely new risk"
Facts matter. I'll be 68 this year and still thriving because of vaccines. And yes received the polio vaccine. Never got COVID (3 shots of vaccine), nor pneumonia, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis. Did get chicken pox but now there is a vaccine for that, plenty of colds (will we ever find a vaccine for the common cold) which led to a couple cases of bronchitis. With the RSV vaccine coming this fall, I have no hesitation at this age of getting it. It would be great if they could include that vaccine with the flu vaccine but no complaints from me. Just gratitude.
I had measles and rubella as an infant in the U.K., pertussis vaccine was only introduced in 1957 here. I know I had the oral polio vaccine when I was at infant’s school. I know I had the diphtheria and tetanus vaccine when I was a baby. Not sure whether I had the pertussis vaccine as I was 1 when it was introduced, so I may not have had it as part of my preschool booster programme.
I also had chicken pox when I was 8, we don’t include the chicken pox vaccine in the childhood vaccine schedule except for specific cases.
Define what is ethical in vaccine “science”. Offit’s argument about prevnar-13 and ethics is absurd. Prevnan-7 was licensed on a clinical trial that used a experimental meningococcal vaccine as the control. And once Prevnar-7 was approved it was then used to approve Prevnar-13. Can you explain how it is ethical to use an experimental vaccine as a control and not ethical to use a immunologically inert placebo?
I understand that a placebo in vaccine science can be an experimental vaccine, or it can be whatever they want as long as it is immunologically inert to the target antigen. That does not mean it is ethical no mater how you try and spin it.
And I fully agree with you that safety cannot be established with clinical trials that are designed to test for efficacy.
Especially when not a single FDA approved vaccine has ever been evaluated for its carcinogenic potential, mutagenic potential, or potential fertility impairment in males.
42 did evaluate fertility in females.
Where is the pre-clinical data that would prove the ingredients in a vaccine are safe to inject into day one babies?
Acetaminophen injection was approved in 1951. It has been tested in pre clinical trials to determine if it was safe to inject into humans. Yet it was not intended to alter the immune system and creat a potential life long immunity to a disease but it has better science!
I’ll make this as clear as possible, based on lack of science presented on every vaccine package insert.
1. Safety has never been established and it never can if your placebo is anything other than a saline solution.
2. Vaccines ingredients can not be determined to be safe or unsafe if they have never been tested for toxicity.
3. Claiming it is unethical to use a true placebo is hypocritical when it is “Ethical to test a new vaccine against a experimental vaccine.”
2. Prenvar trials placebo were immunologically inert to the target disease. It was the correct placebo to use.
3. If the topic interests you, why don't you try listening to scientists and studying some of the 100+ years of figuring out how to use placebos?
E.g. you could learn that a saline placebo in the prenvar trials would break the blinding, making the entire trial invalid--and thus unethically risking the volunteers when no usable data would be generated.
You’re right in the fact that it is immunologically inert to the target antigen but you cannot claim an experimental vaccine is immunologically inert and therefore you cannot claim it is a placebo.
Testing two unlicensed vaccines to determine the safety of one is not science, that is experimentation on children and an epic ethical failure.
4 kids died in the Kaiser study and 8 kids died in the control vaccine group.
We’re the parents fully informed of what the control group was?
Are you suggesting a child would know the difference between a vaccine and a saline placebo? And if he/she perceived a difference the vaccine would fail to work?
I am interested in the topic and I am trying to understand why Offit is trying to promote the idea that placebos are unethical.
The placebo was immunologically inert to the parameters being measured--it was used correctly.
If you are interested in the ethics of placebos, try learning the ethics--Dr. Offit is just pointing out that in some circumstances it is unethical to use a placebo.
Aaron Siri’s rebuttal:
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/what-the-casual-cruelty-of-dr-paul
Dr. Offit, there are uncomfortable truths, such as vaccine makers and developers have zero liability for their products. Vaccines are a modern medical marvel, but the sheer amount of immune manipulation of a baby is unconscionable and irrational. I have two autistic boys, both having terrible reactions to their 6-month vaccines, after which I told my pediatrician that they seemed like different babies. And was that normal? I wasn’t looking for anything. I trusted. I was a dutiful mother who let my babies be pin cushions because I believed it was the right thing to do. But I actually sacrificed their lives on the altar of public health, and I may never forgive myself.
RFK always points out that he’s not against vaccines. But they have run amok. They have lost their purpose and become a religion rather than a science.
And they can be dangerous - and more dangerous for some than others - and we continuously lie to parents that ALL shots are necessary. And safe.
Well, too many of us know that was a lie now. We don’t need charts or studies or people in white coats to tell us anymore. We live in the hell it created.
The practice of immunization was always dangerous. And maybe that is a risk worth taking in the case of some illnesses. But we need to stop lying that it was ever perfectly safe.
I'm so sorry for what happened to you and your children. I believe you. I know you are right. For anyone curious, look up Aluminum toxicity risk given the current CDC schedule. Also, lookup the only published study that the CDC references for the ajudivant's safety. Acetomenophen as a treatment for the fever is also problematic. Again, the relevant published literature for all of this is readily available.
The "aluminum toxicity risk" is zero. And she is absolutely wrong.
Arrant nonsense. Cochrane is still studying aluminum adjuvant safety NOW in vaccines after maiming and killing millions of kids. My comment included in the document below explains why there is not enough data to even perform a safety study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6483624/
Your baseless comment with no supporting evidence makes it clear that you are a Pharma corrupted liar.
Bullshit
Just because you hate children and want them to die, doesn't change the facts.
As proven below, her posting isn't even functionally literate.
Let me guess...you have never actual asked toxicologists about aluminum/adjuvants toxicity....have you?
You’re a horrible human being, Albus. My comment is my lived experience, which you callously disregard. My children were not born autistic. And until a person walks a day in my shoes and has gone to the depths of hell as I have, they have no real understanding of what is happening to our children. I will not convince you, and you absolutely will not convince me. And only one of us actually has to care about the damage we are causing to the rising generation. And it is not you. Period.
Yes, we have. Aluminum goes to the brain. Why would anyone tell you it doesn’t. Whether ingested or injected! They say it leaves the blood quicker when injected. While that may be true it still goes to your brain. It’s indisputable and proven in studies. Then you’re giving this to a brand new human with fragile immune systems & nervous systems. Come on!
Now we see why folks like Mecola and Krisch can fool you so easily....
Still looking for your studies????
What is indisputable is that you didn't post any such study...I gather you haven't actually read of them...because they clearly show that the aluminum is excreted in the urine....
Strange how the anti-vaccs keep getting confused by this simple fact.
Pharma shill how the fuk do u sleep at night? Seriously just filth
I have posted the links many times.
While it sad that you have such a pathological hatred of children, I take great comfort from the fact that anyone that reads the words will see the facts.
I would seriously love to be proven wrong. I'm open to a convincing study and/or argument.
FYI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161388/
"There are five different types of preclinical toxicology study in the evaluation of vaccine safety..."
Ah - so you cite a study, but clearly one you haven't read. I read it. This journal article is virtually entirely about how vaccines work, not a study about the toxicity or safety of alum adjuvants. And, here are relevant parts regarding the aluminum used in vaccines:
"Aluminum-based adjuvants are well established and the most widely used, although the basis of their action REMAINS UNCLEAR." [emphasis added]
"In spite of the fact that alum-based vaccines are generally well tolerated, these adjuvants may produce granulomas after subcutaneous or intradermal injections, adverse effects that are not associated with the intramuscular route of injection" Note that the article cites no studies showing that alum-based vaccines are generally well tolerated vs. vaccines not alum-based.
Here's the kicker in the polite speak of medical journal articles:
"However, reports of adverse clinical findings regarding the aluminum containing adjuvant Al(OH)3 producing macrophagic myofasiitis (MMF). Beginning in 1993, an increasing number of cases were reported of unusual infiltrations of skeletal-muscle connective-tissue structures by nonepithelioid histiocytic cells [30]. Patients tended to exhibit chronic myalgia in their affected limbs, and a cluster of findings presented a more coherent picture that associated MMF with aluminum salts. These cases exhibited some common characteristics:
1.The site of macrophage infiltration was focal and typically restricted to the site of injection.
2.Muscle damage was almost always absent.
3.The infiltrates of macrophages formed well-delineated sheets of histocytes.
These findings led to the conclusion that MMF is the result of long-term persistence of aluminum hydroxide at the site of injection of the vaccine [31]. The underlying causes of this human toxicity remain unclear and may be related to impaired elimination of aluminum or genetic dispositions to inflammatory disease."
Fuku
Thank you very much for proving how immoral and staggeringly stupid the anti-vacc liars are.
Please, please, please post as often as possible about vaccines!
OK, so it is difficult to get a decade of education and decades of data in a comment box....
Are you aware that before clinical trials all vaccines are tested in multiple types of toxicology experiments---and that would include any aluminum adjuvant used.
I'm just asking for the published studies that prove it. The CDC only links to one study for Al adjuvant safety and from what I can tell it has been criticized by other studies. It also seems like Offit and Co. throw a lot of red herrings around: like talking about the Al we ingest as if it's a fair comparison with injection (especially given the CDC's schedule and acute Al exposure).
But, yeah, give me like the top 5 - 10 bulletpoints that summarize your case and specifically address the actual concerns (e.g. Al acute toxicity, Al retention in infants, etc.)
I gave you a published paper about the relevant toxicology studies...there are over 200 published references in the paper!
"Al acute toxicity," There is none from the adjuvants in vaccines.
Yer a sick human
Thank you for posting every single rational thought you have!
You are so right! People like you, (sadly) know the truth if anyone does. What happens in real life trumps any claims made by the industry; by the white coats!
What happens in real life is that for decades we have people that "observe obvious vaccine reactions", but when you check their home videos it is clear that the medical problems started before the vaccine.......
Wow! What amazing insight that you know what is the absolute truth in each household of nearly 8 Billion people across the world! Prescription drugs are a leading killer in the U.S. But of course, less tested vaccines are perfect; made in fairyland.
Oh look.....you refuse to even consider the decades of home movies that prove how the anti-vaccs lie to people and deceive them into believing non-existent vaccine reactions.
Let me guess: you also won't read the actual studies on "prescription drugs being a leading killer in the US".
Seriously, how would you believe the anti-vacc/drug liars if you actual read the words and learned the facts?
You forget the Autism Omnibus. Around 3 thousand plaintiffs sought a class action claim for vaccine damage. The child who was selected as having the best “evidence” that MMR had caused her autism was presented as the key case.
Experts looked at her videos, and saw signs of autism that predated the vaccine.
One must assume that the video “evidence” of the other 3 thousand was not as convincing, or they would have been selected as the test case.
The child who would/should have been the Test Case was removed from the plaintiff group up front because her case was too GOOD. Her family was PAID OFF handsomely & given a gag order. That was Hannah Poling.
Doctors Kelly & Zimmerman who knew her, said they'd have not believed it themselves if they'd not seen it with their own eyes.
Bull shit
Bad: you are breathtaking ignorant.
Worse: you literally refuse to look at the decades of home videos and see how the anti-vaccs lie.
You choose to be on the side of evil. Thanks for making that so very, very clear!
RFK jr:
"When vaccines injure or kill a child, the drug company that produced the vaccine is completely free from liability."
Hey, here is the law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-21
Look at the words! The law exactly says that all US families can sue vaccine makers. Surprise, the anti-vaccs are liars counting on you to be too clueless to find the basic facts.
Good news, there are relevant US Civil Court cases:
https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
Again, look at the words! The vaccines cause autism grifters were exposed not just wrong and morons, but demonstrated to be flat out frauds.
Hard to believe MKnight, but there are some parents that will refuse to read the words and learn that truly evil people have played them for fools.
Hard to believe, this is your children's health at stake.....but here you are.....
Sir, I get it. You're a vaccine apologist. Seriously? "Look at the words?" You can sue the government, not the vaccine makers. That's what the law says. You petition the government for redress. NOT THE VACCINE MAKERS.
And my children's health is not at stake. I've already sacrificed that chasing a myth. I sincerely suggest you listen to the other side, as well, instead of spouting off research from 1971. I was willing to read what you had said before, and find some of the concepts intriguing, however, I find your complete and insulting dismissiveness towards the experience of millions of parents like myself--who know their kids better than any doctor (sorry, "scientist") ever will--to completely torpedo any point you may make. We will keep pushing for real answers, if only to save the next generation of kids.
I will not engage with your abusive gibberish again.
I get it.
You refused to read the words and see that that the vaccine makers like Wyeth can and are sued.
You refused to read the words and see that the anti-vacc lied to you.
You refuse to read the words and see that the vaccines cause autism crowd are liars and frauds.
It is completely incomprehensible to me that you care so little for our/your children that you won't even look at the words.
Bottom line: it is clear I care more about YOUR children then you do.
"it is clear I care more about YOUR children then you do."
You are a horrible person!
Seriously. What a seriously delusional and horrific human being that person is. I'm only sorry I bothered to engage.
Says the person that still won't spend ~ 5seconds and use your ~5th grade reading skills to protect your children from medical fraud.
Hey, she is the person that doesn't care enough about her own children to read a sentence and see that she has been conned by medical fraud.
In many jurisdictions that is child neglect/abuse.
You really sure that is the side you want to be on?
Dude, you’re wrong about being able to sue vaccine makers. It doesn’t take much reading with your 5th grade mind to learn that. Lastly, you’re a keyboard villain that gets drunk off arguing with people and being downright nasty to them.
Yer piece
Of filth albus this why we need a civil war
This dude albus is word salad excuse maker for evil
What you really mean is that you just can't read at the 5th grade level and see that I have proved that that anti-vacc fraud--one that kills children.
But I suppose you are trying your very, very best.
OK, if that is the side you really want to be on...
Good god. You care more about someone else's children than they do? You are definitely not a parent.
Dude yer a souless moron, stop procreating yer dna is malignancy
The links are still all posted above that prove I am correct.
You are just unable to offer a rational thought, and clearly you just don't care that the anti-vacc lies kill children.
The only thing you've sacrificed is your integrity, by peddling the lie that vaccines caused your children to be autistic. Your children were born autistic. Autism is genetic. No matter how much you don't want to accept this fact, it will still remain a fact.
Funny. I actually finally got my kids into one of the top geneticists in my state this week. Because I’ve been following all the leads I can. I sat and asked him what leads they have on autism and genetics. Guess what? Autism is not genetic. We can pour billions of dollars into genetic research to exonerate our corrupt medical establishment, but it turns up mostly empty. You are the ones peddling the lie.
"Guess what? Autism is not genetic."
Guess what? That is a lie predicated on you literally refusing to read.
You're lying. Autism is genetic, and has absolutely no links to vaccines.
Genetics is a lie to distract from vaccine damage.
https://twitter.com/SynthIge/status/1626337690768789505
"Vaccine damage" that doesn't exist.
Stop lying.
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/how-vaccines-cause-autism-a-visual
You're the one lying.
https://twitter.com/SynthIge/status/1677481446548848641
Vaccines have never caused autism, and it's biologically impossible for them to ever cause autism. YOU are a bad person.
Actually, you should stop supporting the anti-vacc fraud that injures and kills children.
Fortunately, the vaccines cause autism fraud is so stupid it doesn't stand up to any good faith effort and looking for the truth.
Perhaps you shouldn’t say such things in such a strong way when you’re dead wrong, it completely ruins the rest of your argument. Furthermore, find some compassion man. Even if you don’t believe peoples stories about vaccine injuries, why would you be such a jerk? It’s a strange paradox to be so personally invested in vaccines, presumably to help people, but when it comes to dealing with people you’re quite mean and seem to be hellbent on hurting others. It’s just odd.
Perhaps you should read the actual words in the links before commenting?
When folks are lied to by medical frauds, they are victims.
When a parent refuses to read basic words and see they are victims of medical fraud and continue to follow a misdiagnosis, then in many jurisdictions that is child neglect.
I find that beyond contempt--you don't?
Albus. The case against Wyeth related to events that occurred prior to 1988, which is when the statute you cited began protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability.
Did you read the links you cited above?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
Thanks Mr Bert for the reply--I am a big fan.
1. Blackwell case--the issue is when did they file suit? It was after 1988--so the law applied.
2. You have to read the entire law. It is clear, you can't sue in Civil court--until after the Vaccine Court.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-21
3. If you don't like the Blackwell case, here is a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers, and they have a number of current cases:
https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2023/april/how-to-file-an-hpv-vaccine-lawsuit/
Note:
"If the client chooses not to accept the Vaccine Court judgment, the client can opt out of the program, and elect to file a Gardasil lawsuit in civil court."
4. Why are you silent on the facts reveled in the Blackwell ruling?
Silence....
First of all, you can sue anybody you want to. There's no law against suing someone or something.
Second, What you have cited is not "the law".
Here is the actual citation of the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
Part of the law provides the public with a tax payer funded National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. In other words, you can request money from the Government, however the vaccine manufacturer is protected legally. This is spelled out in Part B of the
NVICP:
"Provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death: (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or (2) solely due to the manufacturer's failure to provide direct warnings."
Of course the law itself doesn't deny the possibility that vaccine injuries can occur, but interestingly it acknowledges that there are "unavoidable" side effects.
Prescription drugs often have side effects that are unavoidable. Why are they not extended this level of leniency?
This is a US centric reply--other countries are different.
1. You can almost sue anyone, generally you can't sue gun makers, other industries have some protection against lawsuits.
2. I posted the law. You posted the Bill from the House of Representatives--that is not law.
And from your link:
"Part B: Additional Remedies - Sets forth procedures under which the person who filed a petition for compensation under the program may elect to file a civil action for damages."
Did you get that part? May elect to file a civil action for damages--that exactly means sue the vaccine maker!
If you read the law, you will see it explains clearly that you can't sue vaccine makers, until after you have filed with the vaccine court....then everyone can sue!
And you skipped this part from above....
https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2023/april/how-to-file-an-hpv-vaccine-lawsuit/
Note:
"If the client chooses not to accept the Vaccine Court judgment, the client can opt out of the program, and elect to file a Gardasil lawsuit in civil court."
That is a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers. They have a number of current suits on-going, because law exactly permits them.
You were also silent on the facts reported in the US civil court cases posted above.
BTW - you can absolutely sue gun manufacturers. Happens all the time.
I said generally you can't....
Here is the law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105
Geezus - stop citing cornell law school webpages. It's not "the law." I sure hope you didn't go to law school at Cornell because that's a HUGE ad against going there.
Albus - you are a weird duck. Or have severe reading comprehension problems. (Likely both). Literally everything you are citing says the opposite of what you claim or at the least does not support your claim. I've looked at only 3 of your cites now and am not spending the time to look at any others because 3 strikes and you're out.
First - don't cite a page from a law school to cite a law. Just cite the relevant statute itself. That aside, the page you linked to, clearly states that it is about cases brought prior to 1988 where someone received compensation and limits their ability to receive any further compensation. Now, as anyone who's knowledgeable about vaccine manufacturer liability knows, this is an important date because it is when the law was passed shielding manufacturers from liability. So, of course, people were bringing these cases and winning prior to 1988. Apparently, you didn't see the dates in the text you linked to. Then, the page you linked clearly goes on to state that there are "limitations" on bringing civil actions for vaccine injury and death post 1988. Sheesh. READ YOUR OWN LINKS.
Here's the language for everyone who doesn't want to go to Albus' links:
"If a person elects to receive compensation under a judgment of the court in an action for a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine before October 1, 1988, or is deemed to have accepted the judgment of the court in such an action, such person MAY NOT bring or maintain a civil action for damages against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer for the vaccine-related injury or death for which the judgment was entered. FOR LIMITATIONS on the bringing of civil actions for vaccine-related injuries or deaths associated with the administration of a vaccine AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1988, see section 300aa–11(a)(2) of this title." [Emphasis added].
Lastly, with respect to the civil court cases, anyone can FILE suit. It's whether the cases succeed or even survive preliminary motions, which they do not when brought against manufacturers that actually matters. Again - you are either just straight out weird or don't read your own links thinking no one else will take the time to read them either.
(sorry I missed your comment)
"Albus - you are a weird duck. Or have severe reading comprehension problems. (Likely both)."
Thanks for the irony!
1. "First - don't cite a page from a law school to cite a law. Just cite the relevant statute itself. "
I DID site the statue and it is the current law--not the pre-1988 law.
You didn't read the words correctly.
2. "FOR LIMITATIONS on the bringing of civil actions for vaccine-related injuries or deaths associated with the administration of a vaccine AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1988, see section 300aa–11(a)(2) of this title." [Emphasis added]."
I posted the limitations--you have to first file with the vaccine court, then you can sue the vaccine makers.
You didn't read the words in the statute or from the law firm link correctly.
3. "Lastly, with respect to the civil court cases, anyone can FILE suit. It's whether the cases succeed or even survive preliminary motions, which they do not when brought against manufacturers that actually matters. "
I have posted multiple lawsuits against vaccine makers that DID survive preliminary motions...you are just wrong and avoiding the facts detailed in the court rulings....specifically that the anti-vaccs are morons and frauds.
You do not understand what irony means. And, you clearly don't know the difference between citing the US code and a law school webpage. That's alarming for someone who's likely getting paid to troll substack articles. You absolutely cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for anything other than criminal fraud which has never happened. (That is - suing for criminal fraud - although it should happen). Maybe if you looked up actual cases that have gone past summary judgment, you'd realize that. But, I doubt you know what summary judgment means. And, as I said before - I read one case you cited - and it was tossed out. I'm not sure you have basic reading comprehension skills.
Ms Knight,
Would you be so kind as to edit your post to add a link to Aaron Siri's rebuttal?https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/what-the-casual-cruelty-of-dr-paul
Offit has attacked him and I feel he has the right of reply. I ask because your post is the top one in the comments, and I can't see anyone else has linked to it.
I'm so sorry that you and your children are victims of the medical industrial complex.
Done. Fantastic catch. Aaron Siri has been doing hero’s work on this and deserves his say.
Thanks. Indeed, Aaron Siri ROCKS! You're awesome too! What a nice start to the weekend.
(generated by Bard)
Yes, it is true that you cannot sue the vaccine maker when vaccines are invented after 1988. This is because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which was passed in 1986. The NCVIA created a no-fault compensation program for people who are injured by vaccines. This means that people who are injured by vaccines cannot sue the vaccine maker, but they can file a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
The VICP is a government program that provides compensation to people who are injured by vaccines. The program is funded by a tax on vaccines. To file a claim with the VICP, you must first file a report with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is a database that tracks vaccine side effects. If your report is accepted by VAERS, you can then file a claim with the VICP.
The VICP has compensated over 4,000 people for injuries caused by vaccines. The average compensation award is $200,000. The VICP has also paid out over $4 billion in compensation.
There are some exceptions to the NCVIA. For example, you can sue the vaccine maker if the vaccine was manufactured with negligence. You can also sue the vaccine maker if the vaccine was not properly labeled.
If you are injured by a vaccine, you should talk to your doctor. Your doctor can help you file a report with VAERS and file a claim with the VICP.
Sigh.....
1. Here is the exact section of the NCVIA that explains how all US families can sue vaccine makers:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-21
2. Here is a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers and they have a number of current lawsuits against vaccine makers:
https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2023/april/how-to-file-an-hpv-vaccine-lawsuit/
3. Here are a couple of recent examples of US Civil lawsuits against vaccine makers....the anti-vaccs are exposed as morons and frauds:
https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
https://casetext.com/case/jane-doe-v-merck-co
3. Note--US law does NOT apply to the rest of the world....but the anti-vaccs can't win lawsuits in any country under any legal system.
4. "The VICP has compensated over 4,000 people for injuries caused by vaccines. "
That is clearly not true, compensation is routinely paid without any vaccine injury.
Here is the Court site that explains how it works:
https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters
5. Here is a list of anti-vaccs that are truthful about suing vaccine makers:
Silence....
RFK can "point out" all he likes that "he's not against vaccines". But he's still against vaccines.
What's unconscionable and irrational is falsely claiming that vaccines cause autism. They do not. Ever.
I am extremely disappointed that Dr. Paul Offit, a man I once respected, chose to gaslight, obfuscate and confuse his followers. As a recent Substack article by Dr. Vinay Prasad outlined, in order for public health agencies to regain the trust of the public they need to actually test the safety of all the vaccines in current use and any new vaccines using the following protocol: 1) Make pharmaceutical companies conduct trials with three groups; one group getting the active ingredient (attenuated virus, mRNA, etc.), one group getting the older vaccine or the adjuvants used in the new vaccine, and a third group receiving physiological saline. This is the only proper way to test for vaccine safety. 2) Actively follow the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups for at least several years to see if any long term problems develop.
I ran the Ecotoxicology Laboratory at the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for a number of years before I retired. According to US EPA protocols in the Federal Register, we tested whole municipal and industrial effluents for toxicity by exposing one group of larval fish, daphnia and other organisms (this is analogous to the group receiving mRNA COVID vaccine). We also tested the upstream dilution water for toxicity using another group of test organisms (this is analogous to the older vaccine or adjuvant group). We always tested a third group using the water that the organisms were reared in (by definition nontoxic and analogous to using physiological saline in a vaccine trial). This let us definitively determine that the organisms used in the test were healthy and whether the effluent and/or the upstream dilution water were detrimental to the health of the test organisms. If the use of truly inert placebos are required by law to protect fish in a stream, it seems that we should require their use in studies of vaccines that will be injected into the general public, including children.
Don’t you see how unethical it is to subject humans to inactive placebos when there is an existing effective product?
Are you proposing another Tuskegee?
Don’t you understand that about half the participants in any drug or vaccine trial get some form of “placebo”; I.e., a dose that does not contain the active ingredient for interest such as a virus, mRNA, etc.? Drug companies prefer to designate the dose with the adjuvant, preservatives, etc., the “placebo”. Because it masks safety signals. This design does test efficacy, bit dies not fully test safety as many of the side effects may be caused by the adjuvant or preservatives. Would you maintain this is unethical since half the group did not get the active ingredient in the vaccine? The only sure way to test for safety is to use a placebo consisting of physiological saline or other truest inert ingredients.
You test newer versions of a product against an existing product. To test against placebo is unethical unless it is a new vaccine (as we saw with the Covid shots for instance)
Do you mean the COVID shots where more people died in the vaccine group than the control group and the FDA still gave it a green light and then tried to withhold the data for 75 years?
We were obviously being lied to about COVID, why would you think they wouldn't lie about other vaccines as well?
Here is a crazy idea--why don't you try reading the words?
Read the numbers--see what the number of deaths in each group was....you know in the data that was published on-line before the scam anti-vacc lawsuit (75 years lie).
Once you do start checking it is really easy to see that it is the anti-vaccs that are lying.
That is another lie.
I agree that you test newer versions of a drug or vaccine against an older version to test for efficacy. But, from what I have read, older versions of. vaccines were never tested for safety against a true, inert placebo such as physiological saline.
“from what I have read” !!!
Are you sure what you are reading is reliable ???? Please don’t get tricked by publicity seeking hucksters.
The original COVID vaccine, as an example, was tested against a saline placebo. See the following paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
I agree that at least one trial of COVID vaccines used a saline placebo. My concern is that Paul Offit says that testing against a true placebo is not necessary. In the interest of safety all vaccines should be tested against a true placebo.
Correct. Also, the "existing products" were never tested against placebos either.
Furthermore, vaccines are a preventive measure, not a therapeutic one. There are higher standards of safety in this regard. We are not looking at two cohorts with a fatal disease. Vaccine trial participants were healthy and the vaccine was designed to prevent symptoms from a highly survivable disease.
In any case, there was more all cause mortality in the vaccinated group in the Pfizer trial. That should have been a hard stop in a rational world.
1. There are many different clinical trial designs and 50:50 active:placebo is just one.
2. The main function of the placebo is still to correctly measure efficacy--not safety.
With just a bit of work, you can easily find that the anti-vaccs really do lie about ~everything.
Mike S:
1) Offit and the FDA define the placebo as anything immunologically inert, including buffers, adjuvants and preservatives. They aren't getting any protection from these substances, they are only getting exposed to potential harm.
The FDA says that these things are absolutely safe. They can say anything they want. They, however, cannot prove that they are. The only way to do that would be run a trial where they give people these "immunologically inert placebos" and test them against people who get a true saline placebo, or nothing at all.
They have never done that study. They can't. It is unethical to run a trial where you seek to identify risk with no benefit. They only way to actually test and confirm that these "immunologically inert" placebos are safe would be use a true saline placebo in a vaccine trial. They haven't done it. They have no basis to make this claim.
2) The argument that it would be unethical to not give the "placebo group" a vaccine is illogical. Think about the hundreds of millions of people who are not in the trial. They aren't getting a vaccine either.
You’ve little concept of what buffers, preservatives and adjuvants do.
Why would a buffer be added to a vaccine? Can you answer that question honestly? I doubt it.
It may certainly be unethical to give placebo to a control group in a trial of a new therapeutic product.
Imagine if you will a study of human insulin in T1 Diabetes. You think it’s ethical to give a diabetic control group a saline placebo rather than the best available standard of care (animal insulin), just because there might be “people out there” who have undiagnosed diabetes?
You surely are joking.
“Hi Mr Jones… we’d like to put your severely ill diabetic child in a trial of a newer version of his current insulin. Of course, we’d like to use inert placebo, so there’s a 50% chance he’d get nothing at all, and would be susceptible to attacks of severe ketoacidosis, hyperglycaemia and death. You OK with that? How long will he be kept off treatment if he’s in the placebo group? …well, if we want to rule out long term effects from the active insulin, I guess at least 2 years”
…You are stark raving bonkers.
I could answer that question, but I don't have to. The issue is not around what is in a vaccine, it is what is in a placebo. Dr. Offit and the FDA tells us that buffers could be part of a placebo. He states: "Indeed, a wide range of placebos have been used in vaccine trials. These placebos might contain buffers, stabilizing agents, emulsifying agents, or adjuvants, like aluminum salts."
You seem to know something about medicine. Do you understand the difference between what is a preventative measure and what is a therapeutic one? Vaccines are preventatives. Insulin is therapeutic, and, as you say, in type I diabetes, withholding insulin will certainly result in harm. Withholding a vaccine from a control group does not result in harm. There is no need to give them a different vaccine, or a "placebo" that contains the very substances that could cause harm.
“Withholding a vaccine from a control group does not result in harm.”
It certainly does if vaccines are already in use that reduce the risk of infection and serious disease.
I ask again, do you understand what a buffer is, and what constitutes one?
So you think withholding a vaccine from a control group results in harm.
Okay.
So that must mean that every single person OUTSIDE the trial is being harmed too because they aren't receiving the vaccine either. Following your logic, you must conclude that not vaccinating everyone would be harmful. I understand where you are coming from now.
Here's a link that will explain what vaccine components are and what they do. I hope this will help you to understand what a buffer is:
https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/immunizations/chapter/vaccine-components/
If that is unclear, you may find this helpful. It's published by CHoP (Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia). It's an excellent pediatric hospital. It's also where Dr. Offit practices (Offit is the doctor and vaccine expert that wrote this article). He blessed the information on the page:
https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients
There is a huge amount of information on buffers that is readily available on the web. I would be happy to point out other source material if the above is confusing to you.
Vinay Prasad is the one doing the gaslighting, and he took you in with it.
Are you seriously suggesting treating humans the same way as fish ?????????
Well, at least as good as we treat fish.
Isn't Dr Prasad anti-vax? Having that bias is not a good scientific perspective.
I think the elephant in the room that you fail to address is how the medical community has gas-lit the entire population on this for many decades. Everything you say may in fact be true, I am not conceding that just saying that is a possibility, but for decades parents were led to believe that placebo (as commonly understood) controlled trials had been conducted on all of these vaccines that were being administered to children and that the quacks out there like RFK Jr were simply lying. There was never any nuance on any of this and now many people are finding out that not everything they were told was as they thought it was and not everything the quacks were saying was a lie. They deduce from this that maybe they should not automatically trust the medical professionals simply because they have a white coat on since it appears they have been, maybe unintentionally but that is irrelevant, leading them to believe for years that a particular kind of testing was being done which frankly was not. That response is not irrational and the way to gain back their trust is not to call them names and berate them. This is a mess of your own making not their fault or RFK Jrs fault or anyone else’s and the clowns in the medical community are making it even worse by their present day responses. Any doctor that argued with a parent about their 10 year old being in grave danger without a COVID shot (this happened frequently) was lying to them even if unintentionally and those parents can see that they were lied to. Don’t call them names when they now don’t trust you.
The parents were led to believe that because it's the truth. Quacks and kooks out there like RFK Jr *are* lying.
The casual cruelty of anti-vax crusaders is a luxury afforded by those who are not affected by the very real consequences of an unvaccinated population. They get all the benefits of the vaccinations against which they so heartily rail. Perhaps they should visit countries where the vaccines are not available to see how their anti-vax rhetoric would do. I suspect not well.
If only they also had a Sunshine Act forcing them to report all sources of income...so we knew who was actually funding them!
I respectfully ask you to consider your argument carefully. Who is the beneficiary of a protective measure such as a vaccine? The recipient? Or the one who eschews it because others agree to receiving it?
You are making a mistake by lumping the unvaccinated into a single category. In my experience, those who do not vaccinate would do so even if no one else did. In fact, the so-called antivaxxers are imploring everyone to think twice. They generally wish to live in a world where nobody is vaccinated.
Your position here actually highlights the potential harm from vaccines, not the benefit.
Yer a sick human
Another fact-free posting from Tony.
Do you have a single fact in your brain? Just one.....
Ugh. I was honestly hoping this would be convincing but it really fell short. The “everything is poison” defense for using the chemicals of concern in the placebo group is really just the weakest argument I can imagine, second only to “The FDA says they were good placebos.” Not sure if you noticed Paul but nobody in the “skeptic” camp really trusts the FDA anymore and it’s not without some merit. There is probably no link or concern with most vaccines and perhaps the studies done make you feel good about saying that but it is not an ironclad case of safety. Why not take the more generous approach and suggest an NIH study design that satisfies all concerned parties? It’s not really RFK that created distrust in the FDA and Pharma—they did that entirely on their own. It’s time to stop calling everyone names and start rebuilding trust with science that actually settles these debates and doesn’t leave lingering questions. I think I represent a lot of reasonable people in the middle that aren’t falling for every wild claim made about medicines and vaccines, but are absolutely justifiably concerned the FDA and Pharma are not doing their job properly on saftey and efficacy. So when we apply that mistrust across the board it may be too far, but it’s not unreasonable to suggest there be further study, better safety signal systems, and no more free pass for vaccines makers on liability. Time to rebuild trust and for you and other experts to stop belittling everyone’s understandable concern. We are not experts but we are also not stupid and can see the problems that need fixing.
That's because the "skeptic camp" are not remotely skeptical at all. They're not "skeptical" vaccines; their belief that vaccines are harmful is akin to a religion.
There are zealots on both ends of this but my belief is that the vast majority of us are reasonable people that have justifiable concerns. If you choose to belittle them by suggesting they are just mindless followers of a malevolent belief system then you do nothing to advance the cause of building trust in public health… a cause that I for one am on board with. Trust won’t be given freely to institutions and people that have let us down of late so experts like Paul and others need to do a better job helping to rebuild that trust. If I were him I would start every sentence with “I completely understand how in this post-covid era how so many people have lost faith in big Pharma and public health, but is a point by point explanation of everything you’re worried about, with citation.
"There are zealots on both ends of this but my belief is that the vast majority of us are reasonable people that have justifiable concerns"
Thank you for that comment.
I really want to believe it is true. But look at the experience here.
No matter how many times I post the US law--it says that all families can sue vaccine makers.....and post examples of US families that have sued vaccine makers....
Zero of the vaccine critics will acknowledge that the anti-vacc keep lying and saying it is impossible to sue vaccine makers.
And zero of the vaccine critics will even acknowledge the facts revealed in the Court cases...
Albus,
There is no law that says someone or something cannot be sued. You can sue anybody you want. That doesn't mean you will win.
When vaccine critics claim that vaccine Manufacturers cannot be sued we both know that they mean you can never win such a suit. If any moneys are paid out it will not be from the Manufacturers.
This is not a small technicality. This means that vaccine manufacturers, which are for-profit entities whose primary mission is to increase the value of the company and the wealth of their shareholders, have no incentive to make their products safe. None. They have 100% "immunity".
In his last post Vinay Prasad wrote:
“Trials of vaccine should contain at least 2 control arms. One a placebo arm of salt water, and another placebo arm perhaps containing adjuvant/ preservative/ or a different vaccine. Each control arm has different strengths and weaknesses. One allows accurate assessment of safety; the other preserves blinding, and or downstream behavioral change (think about it for a while).”
I know little about vaccines. Is he obviously wrong?
This is what AstraZeneca did. We had an alternative vaccine in the control arm in the U.K. whilst South Africa used saline in their control arm.
And even with these 2 arms, the studies missed (or ignored ) a huge safety signal. Heart attack risks with 12 weeks of the vaccine.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/riskofdeathfollowingcovid19vaccinationorpositivesarscov2testinyoungpeopleengland/8december2020to25may2022
Gotta love the spin. Even when faced with a risk profile, they are ok with the deaths because one must “consider the risks... in light of benefits...”. What was the risk of death from covid? for young women, roughly 1 in 100,000 infected. Thats at least a 6x, 600% increased risk. How is that acceptable? And, this is research coming from the government that was obviously biased and withholding data.
The only risk the vaccine pushers were concerned about was the risk to their bank account balance.
I think we are lucky.
Even for non-scientists, it is pretty easy to listen to life insurance companies--unvaccinated have much higher risks of dying.
And health insurance companies/systems--the unvaccinated are much more likely to get sick and to be sicker.
No Bill...they just understood the math.
And the fact is that everything has risks and benefits. The only thing one can do is to determine which of the two is greater.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X23006102
“There was no significant increase in cardiac or all-cause mortality in the 12 weeks following COVID-19 vaccination compared with more than 12 weeks after any dose for the study population as a whole.
There was evidence of an increase in cardiac death in young women after a first dose of non-mRNA vaccines, with the risk being 3.5 times higher in the 12 weeks following vaccination, compared with the longer-term risk.
The subgroup who received non-mRNA vaccines was more likely to be clinically vulnerable and may be at greater risk of adverse events following vaccination than the general population.
According to the statistical model, 11 out of the 15 cardiac deaths in young women that occurred within 12 weeks of a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine were likely to be linked to the vaccine; this corresponds to 6 cardiac-related deaths per 100,000 females vaccinated with at least a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine.
We find no strong evidence of an increase in risk of cardiac or all-cause death after vaccination for young men for either vaccine type; we will continue to monitor this as more deaths are registered and more doses are administered.
A positive SARS-CoV-2 test was associated with increased cardiac and all-cause mortality among people; the risk was higher in those who were unvaccinated at time of testing than in those who were vaccinated.
It is important to consider the risks of vaccination in light of the benefits; this analysis of vaccine safety contributes to the growing body of scientific work on the impact of vaccinations.“
In case others are interested, the link to the paper is https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2932661-1.
"Randomisation and masking -- In efficacy cohorts for all studies, participants were randomised 1:1 to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a control product. In COV002, MenACWY was chosen as the control group vaccine to minimise the chance of accidental participant unmasking due to local or systemic reactions to the vaccine. COV003 used MenACWY as the control for the first dose and saline for the second dose. In COV005, participants randomly assigned to the control group were administered saline solution."
COV002 = UK
COV003 = Brazil
COV005 = South Africa
MenACWY = meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine
I didn’t know that! I’ll check out their paper. Thank you John!
Yes, he's obviously wrong because *if* a vaccine is already available and known to be safe, it is unethical to deny people access to that vaccine. Only when it's a new vaccine developed for a disease that has no existing vaccine can it be justified to use a placebo rather than the older, already known to be safe vaccine in the control group.
"There's no need for the vast majority of the vaccines, for example the flu, "
Please show the risk benefit analysis---make sure you show your work.
Nope.....simple fact is you can't defend your obviously absurd argument by assertion.
Casual cruelty, absolutely. Thank you for speaking up against it.
It would be interesting to compile the total risks and adverse events of vaccinations against those of the actual diseases over the past 50 years. Vaccination is not risk free, but is incomparably superior.
For example, the Covid vaccination program is estimated to have prevented over 3 million deaths in the US alone, and over 19 million hospitalizations between 12/2020 and 11/2022.
This quote is good, and the opposite of cruel:
“We know that vaccines save lives. But how many lives vaccines have they saved?
The World Health Organisation (WHO) suggests that vaccination prevents 2-3 million deaths each year. However, while we are certain that vaccines have saved millions of lives, calculating a precise number is impossible. Also the quoted number from the WHO is in important ways a very low estimate.
The counterfactual world, in which vaccines would have never been developed, would be so different that an estimate of the impact of vaccines is impossible. One example that makes this clear is to consider the impact of the smallpox vaccine: Smallpox was once an extremely common and deadly infectious disease, but it has been eradicated globally back in 1977 thanks to the vaccination against the disease. It is impossible to know exactly how many people would die of smallpox today if scientists had not developed the vaccine. Reasonable estimates are in the range of around 5 million lives per year, which implies that between 1980 and 2018 around 150 to 200 million lives have been saved.3 This makes clear why it is so difficult to estimate the number of lives saved every year and why the WHO estimate is rather low.”
https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations#:~:text=on%20our%20methods.-,Findings,million%20more%20COVID%2D19%20infections.
"For example, the Covid vaccination program is estimated to have prevented over 3 million deaths in the US alone, and over 19 million hospitalizations between 12/2020 and 11/2022."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Laughing doesn’t explain your objection. Explain how you believe this claim to be faulty.
1.
Australia
look at a chart of australia's covid shot roll out, next to cases & deaths
by the time australia 'opened up' upwards of 70% of Aussie's had received 2 doses of mrna shots. then look at the deaths.
would it have been worse if they didnt have the shots first?
maybe, but John Ionadis' IFR studies from Diamond Princess Cruize ship & then follow up study + the evolution of variants becoming more contagious but less pathogenic (less deadly).
most Australian deaths due to covid happened in 2022 after 70%+ of the population was double jabbed by end of 2021. approx. 99% of Aussies over 70 were double jabbed by Jan 2022.
Here is the Guardian's covid tracker...not one to peddle anti-vax conspiracies...
scroll down, the vax uptake stats, cases charts, hospitalizations & death charts are all there =
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2022/feb/21/covid-19-australia-data-tracker-map-cases-today-coronavirus-tracking-stats-live-data-update-by-state-melbourne-regional-victoria-vic-sydney-nsw-how-many-new-active-case-numbers-statistics-deaths-death-toll
2.
Simpson's Paradox in the correlations between excess mortality and COVID-19 injections: a case study of iatrogenic pandemic for elderly Australians
link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371342838_Simpson's_Paradox_in_the_correlations_between_excess_mortality_and_COVID-19_injections_a_case_study_of_iatrogenic_pandemic_for_elderly_Australians
this author is more econ oriented, but it's a conversation about statistics.
Finally, to Offit's main article, what about treatments?
I appreciate the concept of it being unethical to not give a protecting therapy/vaccine/etc to a patient - however Offit makes the argument as if there are no treatments for the infectious diseases many vaccines are designed to no longer immunize from but "provide protection" from.
Are there no known & effective treatments for: Hep B, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria (aren't all 3 in the DTP bacterial infections ?)
wouldnt it be easy enough to count a patient from the placebo group as infected per the disease being examined...and treat him/her?
Gish Gallop?
The point of contention is this sub thread is this:
“the Covid vaccination program is estimated to have prevented over 3 million deaths in the US alone, and over 19 million hospitalizations between 12/2020 and 11/2022”
Please just address that. And if you also disagree with the above quote, provide details as to why you think it is not true.
lol, i didnt think it was an overwhelming request to view a few charts of covid vaccine administration, cases (defined as a positive test), hospitalizations & deaths...to see that what we were told: 95% effective against symptomatic disease of the really dangerous wild/wuhan strain turned out to not be the case.
you are right in a sense, i dont have the data to refute: “the Covid vaccination program is estimated to have prevented over 3 million deaths in the US alone, and over 19 million hospitalizations between 12/2020 and 11/2022”
because that claim is based on a model, not real world data. how accurate have the modelers been on covid with their other predictions & estimates?
how close were they on the all age IFR of 3%?
I laughed because the claim is obviously insane. If you need an explanation as to why it's obviously insane then there's nothing I can say to you that would change your mind so I'm not going to waste my time because you're likely insane also.
Seriously, your profile says, “I don't believe a word anyone says anymore unless they back it up with solid data.”
So please do that.
Okay.
If the vaccines actually prevented deaths you'd see less excess mortality in the higher vaccinated countries. Instead it's the exact opposite - countries that had more vaccination had higher mortality. I have no idea how you could have missed this at this point unless you didn't want to see it which is why this is a waste of my time to offer up the evidence.
https://twitter.com/ChGefaell/status/1676723139462545410
Good thing actual statisticians have been collecting this data and.....
Surprise! Higher vaccination rates meant less excess mortality just like you would expect to find with an effective vaccine.
You can find this data using pubmed.
A chart posted on Twitter is not data.
Wow you really think that is a compelling argument?
Your ignorance doesn't change the facts.
It's "obviously insane" because you hate vaccines and don't *want* to believe they saved lives.
If you can’t explain it, I’ll assume it’s because you don’t have an argument.
That’s not to be a jerk. It’s just to point out that arguing against science by saying, “that’s stupid” is like a toddler saying “no” repeatedly. There’s absolutely no sense to it.
So explain your objections, or we all know you don’t actually have any reasoning behind them.
Those numbers regarding deaths prevented is clearly an exaggeration. The Pfizer trial, one of the few sources of placebo control with matched cohorts demonstrated a single Covid death prevented with approximately 20,000 doubly vaccinated individuals at a time when the circulating strain was matched with the mRNA vaccine.
250 million people in the USA, approx, got the primary series. We are thus talking about Covid deaths prevented in the 10-20 thousand range. At the very least we should be challenging numbers in the millions.
Beyond that, there was higher all cause mortality in the vaccinated group. There is no objective way to rule out the possibility that the vaccine program hurt as many people as it helped.
Furthermore, stats like you cite use observational data that is fraught with confounders. The CDC has also used a specious way of tallying the incidence of outcomes by excluding those in people who are not outside the two week window yet including them in the denominator. This mathematically results in positive effectiveness that persists until the population stops getting vaccinated.
If you map vaccine uptake in the United States you can calculate the vaccine effectiveness of a vaccine with zero efficacy on a week by week basis. It roughly matches what we observed. In other words, it is very likely that the Covid mRNA vaccines provided zero benefit:
https://madhavasetty.substack.com/p/an-elegant-demonstration-of-how-efficacy
You sound smart, but you’re overthinking and parsing data in ways that are simply wrong. Step back and look at the mortality curves, the death rates per 100,000 people. Vaccinated and boosted always do better, much better, especially so during the delta wave. There are always adverse events with vaccination, no one ever claimed there were not. And though the medical community hoped the VE would stay around 95%, the mutating virus with a short incubation period had other plans. But durability of protection against severe disease and death has been good even to this day, and absolutely better than no vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_whttps://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7206a3.htm
I’m not that smart. I am, however, very thorough. I simply do not trust CDC data. They have made big statements that could not be substantiated. Their data flew in the face of UKHSA data which indicated negative efficacy with regard to infection by 9/2021. One agency was misrepresenting the data. My analysis is very simple. Excluding cases in the recently vaccinated will allow the CDC to claim effectiveness where none exists. It’s arithmetic, not statistics and probability.
Furthermore, if we are to grant efficacy with regard to Covid mortality based on the trial results we must acknowledge more all cause mortality from the vaccines. One cannot have it both ways.
The other double standard that is often invoked is causation based correlation. Trial investigators are allowed to deem potential injuries and mortality as unrelated to the product. That’s ridiculous. That’s the whole point of doing a trial. They don’t know that anymore than they know that their vaccine prevented Covid outcomes.
Vaccination doesn’t “cause” protection any more than it “causes” harm. Both are correlations only. The Covid trials demonstrated a decreased incidence of severe disease that was correlated with vaccination. Vaccination was also correlated with increased mortality. The FDA and the public should have demanded a larger trial or a different product before issuing an authorization that protected the manufacturers from liability.
If you are aware of any therapy, vaccines or otherwise, where approval/authorization was granted when a phase III trial showed more mortality in the treatment arm I would like to know.
Hi. I’ll just conclude with this graph again:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status
I tried to gain some wisdom from this comment by feeding it into Chat GPT. I got this inspired rhyming poem which might help someone:
In a realm of words, opinions they hold,
WHO's stance, Pharma's tale, both bold.
Restructuring calls for FDA's decree,
Vaccine debates, opinions set free.
Yet, amidst this discourse, let's find the grace,
In ancient times, treatments took their place.
Bloodletting, leeches, incantations grand,
Sought to heal, in times of yore's demand.
But knowledge blooms, as time marches on,
Science's light, a new dawn to dawn.
Vaccines emerged, their benefits vast,
Preventing ills of the past.
In fervent debate, voices align,
Seeking truth, understanding to shine.
Safe and effective, evidence sought,
Informed consent, every thought.
Remembering history, we discern,
Lives saved, lessons learned.
In this evolving medical quest,
Safety and health, we're compelled to invest.
So let discourse flourish, knowledge expand,
In search of truths, hand in hand.
Amidst skepticism's candid view,
May science guide, to wellness anew.
Since that claim has been investigated many times over many years and debunked every single time, I’ll not bother to follow the link. Complain all you like — continuing to make the same claim over and over when it is already thoroughly researched is nonsensical.
Keep worshipping at your church of Pharma lies.
The title should be: The cruelty of Offit's casual vaccine lies.
"At the level contained in vaccines, all these chemicals are safe, including aluminum salts."
Another lie. Cochrane is still studying aluminum adjuvant safety now. I pointed out to them that they do not even have the data to perform such a study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6483624/
Wrong location, posted above.
"Any chemical on this planet (both water and salt are chemicals) if given at a high enough dose, can be harmful. Drink 3-4 liters of water at one time, and you can suffer fatal water intoxication."
So this clown is implying a saline placebo injection has enough water and salt to kill people?
Don’t be so obtuse. There’s nothing to suggest in the comment that a 0.9% (normal) saline injection would kill people.
After all normal saline is used to flush intravenous lines, to dilute liquid drugs or prepare dry drugs for intravenous injection, normal saline is administered by the litre to unwell patients.
However, the daughter of a friend of ours whilst in labour drank several litres of water, she then had a seizure due to hyponatraemia. Too much sodium chloride can cause hypernatraemia. Low potassium can be fatal. High potassium is fatal (it’s used as part of the lethal injection in the USA).
Our bodies need to be in the Goldilocks zone, where everything is just right.
So why did Offit the clown INSANELY bring up toxicity in the context of saline placebo injections?
Because the antivaxers bring up that fallacy, talking about vaccine ingredients like formaldehyde or sodium phosphate being deadly toxins.
That’s why.
“ According to ICAN’s lawyer, the only substances that have “no effect on living beings” are water and salt water.” this was the context from which he mentioned the potential toxicity of water and salt.
By the way oxygen can kill, if a person has COPD and is given too much oxygen they will stop breathing. Also there are cells and organs in your body for which oxygen concentration greater than 3% will poison them.
And ICAN's lawyer was referring to "water and salt water" in the context of a placebo injection. So insane to bring in toxicity of drinking 3-4 liters of water.
Just like it's insane to claim that the chemicals in vaccines are toxic.
The point he was making was that toxicity depends on dose, so it's nonsensical to just create two categories "toxic" and "non-toxic." Therefore, substances one might believe are toxic could be perfectly safe at a low enough dose.
FYI, nanograms of milk proteins in vaccines cause autism.
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/how-vaccines-cause-autism-a-visual
What does that have to do with an inert placebo trial that isn't going to use massive amounts of water or salt?
Anti-vaxxers are always obtuse, it's the only way to be an anti-vaxxer.
Pointing out water or salt intoxication was lame. Lost credibility on that. His other arguments are weak.
This is all bunk .. a bunch of meaningless words with no fact or evidence to back up your claims. We all know you are lying, Mr. Offitt. Everyone. I can’t wait until RFK wins. CANNOT WAIT.
You comment has no meaning unless you can explain *how* it’s all bunk, and unless you can detail where the facts or evidence are missing.
I recommend reading either Dissolving Illusions or The Real Anthony Fauci by RFK, Jr.
If you do, and if you can understand it, you will be more informed about vaccines than Mr. Offitt and 99 percent of the world's population.
In one of your previous articles, you also referenced the polio trial placebo arm deaths - which proved it was an effective and net beneficial intervention. I quote: "There are no risk free decisions," you said. I think that this is the correct assessment of the situation.
While I agree with much of what you wrote here, I think that the problem that many people are pointing to is the other side of that "risk" coin. We either risk the lives of children in the placebo arm of the trial, resulting in a few tragic lives, lost. Or, we skip the entire placebo controlled mechanism all together, as is often done today for vaccines -therefore omitting those tragic placebo arm deaths, yet accepting an entirely new risk. (one which the vaccine industry/public health is simply unwilling to acknowledge.) the risk that by imposing an intervention not tested against placebo, there is a possibility that the children who receive this vaccination will endure adverse reactions at a higher rate. Potentially inflicting more harm/morbidity than the target pathogen/disease itself. I am sure that there are many vaccinations that are extremely net beneficial. But I also suspect that there are some where that is not the case. It seems a hopelessly confounded problem to try to untangle/prove WHICH ARE WHICH - without the disinfecting sunlight of robust placebo controlled trials. Given this uncertainty, what justifies depriving people of the freedom to choose weather to receive a vaccination or not? Back when I incorrectly ASSUMED all vaccines were placebo control trial vetted, as much of the public does, I found the mandates justified. Given what I know now, and reading your assessment of the moral justification to totally omit a true placebo controlled trial in many cases, I find depriving people of this choice between 2 uncertain choices concerning.
To further complicate things, people are also concerned about the prospect of vaccines inducing autoimmune conditions (perhaps most bio-plausible given effect of many adjuvants. ie Aluminum ect) Many of which have long diagnostic horizons, stretching far beyond the time periods of the short trials run today. This makes the trials feel like more of a cursory rubber stamp to authorize distribution, rather than an in depth scientific study of the harms/benefits of a new medical product.
Who is to say, the rising rate of chronic health conditions/ auto immune disorders is higher than it would have been otherwise - if we did not mandate the mass vaccination of every American child. Could this decline in health be better be explained by environmental changes/attributed to something an identifiably toxic in the food supply? or goodness knows what else the average person encounters in modern daily life? How do we know if the modern decline in infectious disease deaths is due to mass vaccination of the population, rather than being attributable to improved sanitation processes/hygiene/engineering and industrial advancements? I have no idea. But I do know that if we had real placebo controlled trials to vet our (effectively mandatory) mass vaccination schedule, it would be an extremely helpful step in answering these questions. In a democracy, the govt has a limited amount of political capital to deploy when forcing its population into actions they would otherwise not take. To me it seems they burned through it all, at break neck speed, during their wild covid frenzy.
Like you said, there are no risk free choices here. This is why in all other domains of medicine, even the most devastating and heartbreaking cancers (ideally, with the caveats that Vinay Prasad endlessly rails against lol) - the public accepts the risk of "casually cruel" placebo control trials. Because that risk, accepted by informed and willing volunteers in placebo controlled trials, is smaller than the one we bear when deploying a untested medical product on the entire population.
I just wish that the medical sector was comfortable acknowledging, and weighing the impact of both of these risks. But your article only focuses on one, and like you beautifully stated in your other article, there are just simply no risk free decisions here. or as Thomas Sowell puts it regarding economic policy, "there are no solutions, only trade offs."
I too am connected to the medical sector, and my experience during Covid has profoundly shifted my worldview, opening my eyes to some unpleasant truths that I would have never imagined myself questioning. Pandora's box has been opened, and unfortunately for the formerly triumphant reputation of medicine, it can never be closed again. - Yet this public uncertainty does not saddened or upset me. It has simply revealed new wide open frontiers full of unanswered questions for the forces of human curiosity and scientific inquiry to explore and conquer. Yes, much of it will be filled with risk and uncertainty, but that seems to be something inescapable in life. But to ask an entire population to except your dictates on faith, rather than robust irrefutable, evidence is a function of religion, not science. If someone wants to take an experimental treatment, knowing that the benefit is quite uncertain, I am of the medically heterodox view that they should 100% have the freedom to do with their body whatever they choose. But when the state forces a medical product on the population when these things are so uncertain, I think that erodes the foundation of a society meant to be based on justice and individual freedom.
The only thing is, I am sure of in this domain, is that I want to know the answers. No matter if they are unpleasant, controversial, or difficult to pin down.
While I used to think people who had any measure of skepticism towards vaccination were simply hopelessly stupid dimwits, or tragically misinformed to the point society should simply force it's more enlightened assessment of "the science" upon them, I now find that view quite untenable given present reality. Many people characterize the widespread distrust of the medical establishment in African-American communities as tragic, which I used to completely agree with. But given CDC's Tuskegee, (not even to mention the countless other evils and injustices inflicted upon black americans "for their own good") couldn't this also be characterized as appropriate skepticism, or good judgment.
People have more information than ever due to the internet, as as a result, they have generated reasonable questions. Plus, given the non-sensical (unscientific) madness that we went through with Covid vax fanaticism, i think that skepticism is justified. I want to believe that many of the vaccinations we deploy in this country are justified and save lives. But I also want to know that this belief is founded on solid scientific evidence, not theoretical mathematical models. Covid blatantly exposed the perils and absurdities of relying on these speculative models rather than actual empirical evidence. I know it is uncomfortable/annoying for doctors when patients push back against their doctor's recommendations - especially when they demand and question the evidence by which a physician makes their decision. But welcome to the 21st-century with the internet, people know stuff now, and cannot be treated as clueless.
You are completely free to characterize, placebo controlled trials as casual cruelty. But like you previously acknowledged, there are NO risk-free decisions here. No solutions, only trade offs.
Well said. Many of us in the medical profession are on the same path of consistently losing our faith in the science of medicine. Unbiased scientific reason has obviously been replaced by profiteering, posturing and pronouncements. And sadly, Dr. Offit, your direct financial rewards for defending this industry disqualifies you from any objective scientific analysis of the risk-benefit of vaccines.
"Many of us in the medical profession "
Let me guess: you run some sort of acupuncture, herbal, holistic health business.
That would suggest you don't want to know about medical fraud, because you make money from it.
Wow, you keep digging that hole in your credibility. Done with any discussion with your crude attitude.
Does that mean: you refuse to use your basic reading skills to see the anti-vacc fraud because you personally profit from it????
Wow. That would be staggeringly immoral!
"Or, we skip the entire placebo controlled mechanism all together, as is often done today for vaccines -therefore omitting those tragic placebo arm deaths, yet accepting an entirely new risk"
Except that is not true.
Offit is telling us the corrupted FDA and CDC don't agree on the definition of placebo. Good to know they are corrupted and incompetent.
If they admit they can't agree on a definition of a placebo, they need to reimburse their large salaries and cushy job.
Facts matter. I'll be 68 this year and still thriving because of vaccines. And yes received the polio vaccine. Never got COVID (3 shots of vaccine), nor pneumonia, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis. Did get chicken pox but now there is a vaccine for that, plenty of colds (will we ever find a vaccine for the common cold) which led to a couple cases of bronchitis. With the RSV vaccine coming this fall, I have no hesitation at this age of getting it. It would be great if they could include that vaccine with the flu vaccine but no complaints from me. Just gratitude.
I had measles and rubella as an infant in the U.K., pertussis vaccine was only introduced in 1957 here. I know I had the oral polio vaccine when I was at infant’s school. I know I had the diphtheria and tetanus vaccine when I was a baby. Not sure whether I had the pertussis vaccine as I was 1 when it was introduced, so I may not have had it as part of my preschool booster programme.
I also had chicken pox when I was 8, we don’t include the chicken pox vaccine in the childhood vaccine schedule except for specific cases.
another thoughtful, fact-based analysis of vaccine trials
Paul. Your arguments are clearly made in bad faith. Bad faith arguments do not install confidence in your position.
1. No one is suggesting injecting kids with 4 litres of saline as a placebo.
2. if it is unethical to use a saline placebo then it follows that it is unethical to use an immunologically inert placebo.
1. Dr. Offit is just pointing out an absurd basic conceptual error made by the anti-vaccs.
2. Instead of arguing by assertion, why don't you try and learn the science and listen to the ethics?
Define what is ethical in vaccine “science”. Offit’s argument about prevnar-13 and ethics is absurd. Prevnan-7 was licensed on a clinical trial that used a experimental meningococcal vaccine as the control. And once Prevnar-7 was approved it was then used to approve Prevnar-13. Can you explain how it is ethical to use an experimental vaccine as a control and not ethical to use a immunologically inert placebo?
I understand that a placebo in vaccine science can be an experimental vaccine, or it can be whatever they want as long as it is immunologically inert to the target antigen. That does not mean it is ethical no mater how you try and spin it.
And I fully agree with you that safety cannot be established with clinical trials that are designed to test for efficacy.
Especially when not a single FDA approved vaccine has ever been evaluated for its carcinogenic potential, mutagenic potential, or potential fertility impairment in males.
42 did evaluate fertility in females.
Where is the pre-clinical data that would prove the ingredients in a vaccine are safe to inject into day one babies?
Acetaminophen injection was approved in 1951. It has been tested in pre clinical trials to determine if it was safe to inject into humans. Yet it was not intended to alter the immune system and creat a potential life long immunity to a disease but it has better science!
I’ll make this as clear as possible, based on lack of science presented on every vaccine package insert.
1. Safety has never been established and it never can if your placebo is anything other than a saline solution.
2. Vaccines ingredients can not be determined to be safe or unsafe if they have never been tested for toxicity.
3. Claiming it is unethical to use a true placebo is hypocritical when it is “Ethical to test a new vaccine against a experimental vaccine.”
Immunologically inert placebo meaning a saline injection.
1. Saline is often the incorrect placebo to use.
2. Prenvar trials placebo were immunologically inert to the target disease. It was the correct placebo to use.
3. If the topic interests you, why don't you try listening to scientists and studying some of the 100+ years of figuring out how to use placebos?
E.g. you could learn that a saline placebo in the prenvar trials would break the blinding, making the entire trial invalid--and thus unethically risking the volunteers when no usable data would be generated.
You’re right in the fact that it is immunologically inert to the target antigen but you cannot claim an experimental vaccine is immunologically inert and therefore you cannot claim it is a placebo.
Testing two unlicensed vaccines to determine the safety of one is not science, that is experimentation on children and an epic ethical failure.
4 kids died in the Kaiser study and 8 kids died in the control vaccine group.
We’re the parents fully informed of what the control group was?
Are you suggesting a child would know the difference between a vaccine and a saline placebo? And if he/she perceived a difference the vaccine would fail to work?
I am interested in the topic and I am trying to understand why Offit is trying to promote the idea that placebos are unethical.
Nothing is completely inert.
The placebo was immunologically inert to the parameters being measured--it was used correctly.
If you are interested in the ethics of placebos, try learning the ethics--Dr. Offit is just pointing out that in some circumstances it is unethical to use a placebo.
Silence....you really just don't care what the facts are.....do you?