Vaccines and the metals/lnp’s in them do cause inflammation and sometimes brain damage. Why is this hard to accept? Could it be that vaccine adherence is now a religion? Why can’t we say vaccines save lives but take lives too in sensitive children. Why do we have to lie and act like these injections never harm? The inserts lay out the harms in section 6.1. Vaccines are not perfect.
Offit STILL has yet to explain why aluminum in vaccines somehow isn't a problem. He STILL has yet to explain why there is an autism epidemic. Oh, but wait, he says there IS no epidemic, just better detection. What utter nonsense. The school district I live in now has entire classrooms in one elementary building dedicated to working with children who have autism. Why were there no such classrooms, let's say in the 1950s or 60s or 70s? Offit will say "better diagnosis" and that the definition of autism has been expanded. Those arguments make no sense when you realize that, according to work done by Olmsted and Blaxill, that in 1931 there was 1 child born in the U.S. who developed autism in a population of 124 million people. If autism rates were the same then as they are now (1 in 34 children), in 1931 there should have been 1.8 million autistic Americans. But there were not. Olmsted and Blaxill scoured the medical records and found none. Why won't Offit agree to fund high quality studies and PROVE once and for all that there is no epidemic. He won't do it because he knows what those studies will show. It's also why he won't agree to study causes of autism or to explain why ALL vaccines are inherently unsafe, as President Reagan was told by the Pharma industry just before they were granted liabilty immunity. And if vaccines are so safe, then why not remove the liability shield? I do think that we're finally able to see the end of the Vaccine Era approach to infectious disease. I hope Offit knows when to jump off the Vaccine Train he's been riding all these years.
Better question: why don't you get your science from qualified scientists?
1. "Offit STILL has yet to explain why aluminum in vaccines somehow isn't a problem.
I suppose he would refer you to toxicologists who can explain how the data shows that the aluminum in vaccines is safe.
2. " He STILL has yet to explain why there is an autism epidemic. Oh, but wait, he says there IS no epidemic, just better detection. "
I suppose he would refer you to epidemiologists who have clearly demonstrated that there is NO epidemic of autism.
3. "Why were there no such classrooms, let's say in the 1950s or 60s or 70s? Offit will say "better diagnosis" and that the definition of autism has been expanded. "
I suppose that he would point out that historically kids with autism were denied access to schools--so of course you won't find them in schools!
He would also probably point out that the work from Olmsted and Blaxill is breathtaking stupid.
Did you miss that every country rejects their "arguments"?
4. "Why won't Offit agree to fund high quality studies and PROVE once and for all that there is no epidemic."
First Dr. Offit is NOT a funding agency, so you comment is absurd. Secondly, why don't you listen to actual epidemiologists who have done the high quality studies?
5. "It's also why he won't agree to study causes of autism or to explain why ALL vaccines are inherently unsafe, as President Reagan was told by the Pharma industry just before they were granted liabilty immunity."
First, there are literally tens of thousands of published studies on what causes autism.
Secondly, there is NO liability immunity--all families can sue vaccine makers.
And the fact is that the vaccines cause autism fraud is very well exposed in US Civil lawsuits against vaccine makers:
i suppose Offit could refer us to the toxicology studies that show aluminum is safe to be injected into babies, as referenced by the CDC. but he hasn't done that because (as far as i can tell) there are none. we already went over this in a previous post and hit a dead end on the MRL. so let's revisit that, Albus.
toxicologists assess risk from a variety of exposure routes because the safe exposure levels differ for each. oral ingestion, dermal contact, injection, and inhalation all have different minimum risk levels (MRLs). the ASTDR profile for aluminum is here: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp22-c8.pdf note that they do not list a MRL for injection of aluminum.
so i went back to one of the Mitkus papers referenced by the CDC:
he references a study by Keith, which i found here, but it doesn't let me read the whole thing which is unfortunate. maybe Offit can repost this or direct us to an even better source.
Keith estimates the body burden of aluminum in an infant based on uptake and elimination rates : "The retention of aluminum is directly affected by excretion, which has been studied in both rats and humans. Xu et al. [15] found 66–70% of injected aluminum was excreted in 24 h. In a human study, Priest et al. [11] injected a volunteer with 0.7 μg of radioactive 26Al as citrate and followed blood levels and body elimination. They found that over 50% of the aluminum distributed from blood to other body tissues in 15 min. Long-term observation using excreta and whole body monitoring found..." and this is all i can read. notice the human study injected "a volunteer". and they are still assuming that any miniscule amount retained by the body is safe based on the oral MRL which doesn't account for any potential crossing of the blood-brain barrier. This is all i can find. Please illuminate me on the safety of aluminum being injected into infants, Albus, Offit, anyone.
Paul Offit could have dedicated a substack (and still can!) to the topic of adjuvant safety or other ingredients found in vaccines but he considers it a settled matter (we studied MMR and thimerosol which we dont use anymore, i get it). Instead he is laughably addressing "the coincidence gambit" which is just gaslighting injured people by saying they can't prove the cause of dead babies. SIDS occurs because babies are in a soft bed and got overheated. that is much more plausible! and we have studies to prove it! and conflicts of interest don't exist in the medical community, you nimrod, so you must trust the studies!
You should have paid more attention the first time.
1. "toxicology studies that show aluminum is safe to be injected into babies, as referenced by the CDC. but he hasn't done that because (as far as i can tell) there are none."
Your link has reference to studies that have references to many, many more studies that show the aluminum in vaccines is safe.
Whoops, you didn't read your own link correctly.
2. "note that they do not list a MRL for injection of aluminum."
That is because toxicologists can multiple by 1.0000....you just clearly demonstrated that you just don't have a basic understanding of the science.
3. Some details....
The MRL was based on:
a) fetal exposure--which is highest risk
b) dosing every single day from conception until death--hey that is massively more exposure then from vaccines!
c) adds in a safety factor of 300 fold...that is to say the MRL is 300 times smaller than what the data says is safe!
And the Mitkus paper shows that even in really small infants, the aluminum in vaccines plus from diet results in levels that are way below the super conservative MRL.
Every country permits alu containing vaccines because the data is so clear that they are safe.
To be 100% clear, I want to folks to read and think about science. What you have clearly demonstrated is that amateurs make lots of errors.
risk levels are usually calculated conservatively. i have no doubt that the MRL for oral exposure to aluminum is more than adequate. however, i will repeat - it is for oral exposure. if you give the vaccine orally im sure there will be no issues with the amount of aluminum in it, but then the vaccine wouldn't work.
im perfectly open to the idea that i have missed the evidence but you have yet to present any study that demonstrates a safe level for aluminum injection into the blood stream. a model even? the study on rats? i looked at the references cited for that specific information (vaccine injection) not the oral ingestion you keep repeating about.
you're condescending tone and insulting manners don't help your argument. you clearly don't want people to read or think about the science - otherwise you would be polite. and while some people might feel stupid and doubt themselves upon hearing your retort i just think you're an asshole.
People are different. Personally, I find it beyond hubris that some folks think they can skip the 11+ years it takes to become a scientist and not make lots of mistakes....but hey, that is just me.
You continue to just not understand the data from your links.
Please note the units: mg (of Al) per kg (of body weight) per day.
That is because what is important is the concentration of Al in the body...mg per kg.....and each kg is 1 liter.
It doesn't matter how it got there, what matters is the concentration.
Different routes of administration have different bioavailability for the Al and thus there are different guidelines--to mathematically correct for the differences in bioavailability.
You posted the data: even in very small infants, the Al from vaccines plus the Al from their environment results in a concentration of Al that is many orders of magnitude below the safe dose.
This is very clear and it is validated by the decades of data from health insurance companies and national healthcare systems.
PS: tone does not convey well in a comment box. Other than with folks like Mr Cass, I am direct and blunt in my comments because I deal with facts and complex science is difficult to communicate in a comment.
There is so much here to refute, but right now I’ll just point to one glaring untruth in which you claim that vaccine makers do not have protection against lawsuits and that families can sue vaccine makers. The fact is that no one can sue a vaccine manufacturer for adverse reactions. NO ONE. The US governor did create a vaccine court that families can access. It has paid out precious little, however. And no one can sue a vaccine company for injury resulting from a covid-19 injection. That’s because the injections are still under an EUA. You can’t sue your employer, your doctor, the drug store, or the federal government.
Once again, there are some gross areas of misunderstandings here. Let's begin with an NPR report from Feb. 22, 2011 in which SCOTUS ruled that "federal law shields vaccine makers from suits filed in state courts seeking compensation for injuries or deaths due allegedly to avoidable design problems with the vaccines. Instead, the court said, people who claim injuries need to go through a special no-fault federal vaccine court." As I said above, the federal government created its own vaccine court upon denying citizens the ability to sue vaccine makers. Here is the website: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/02/22/133964322/supreme-court-upholds-liability-shield-for-vaccine-makers. And here is the Wikipedia entry regarding Reagan's signing into law The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
The 1986 law also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which uses the Court of Federal Claims and Special Masters.
If you carefully read the Cornell Law School page, it says: "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, ...." You are only partially right about suing vaccine manufacturers. Parents could sue prior to Oct. 1, 1988, but not after that date. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is still on the books today. Have you noticed that the number of vaccines on the Childhood Schedule has sky-rocketed since that time? Doesn't the liability shield trigger some questions in your mind as to why so many vaccines are now given? Do you really think that aluminum (yes, mercury was eliminated) is a safe element in a child's body, or even yours, for that matter?
1. Since I have provided examples of people suing vaccine makers you absolutely must know that people can sue vaccine makers!
You just can't get around this simple fact.
I note that you too are silent on the facts as documented by the Courts....specifically that the anti-vaccs are frauds...and often morons.
2. The SCOTUS exactly pointed out that after filing with the Vaccine Court...then everyone can sue vaccine makers alleging injuries.
"and that the claimant can then decide whether to accept the court’s judgment or reject it and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer."
Seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer exactly means to sue them!
BTW: here one more, more time is an example of a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers. They have many suits ongoing, and they explain in simple words how everyone can sue vaccine makers.
It really should be obvious to you why such an "argument" of just hypothesizing that a safer version could be made is banned.
4. You really need to read all the words in the law.
"No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages rising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988...."
Yes that is correct, but when you read the rest of the law it clearly explains that after you filed with the Vaccine Court then you can sue vaccine makers. Here again is the key part of the law:
This is really, really simple. You are banned from sue vaccine makers.....UNTIL after you have filed with the Vaccine Court...then everyone can sue!
5. I note that you are silent on the fact that the mRNA vaccines are in fact licensed in the US.
6. I note that you are silent on the fact that even under EUA, in some circumstances it is possible to sue the vaccine maker.
7. "Doesn't the liability shield trigger some questions in your mind as to why so many vaccines are now given?"
Of course not. US law doesn't apply to other countries.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the anti-vaccs can't win lawsuits in these other countries and that these other countries also have licensed the new vaccines.
Do I think there is any chance you will ask: what is the world-wide experience of for-profit health insurance companies or national health care systems with respect to the health of vaccinated kids? I don't think so....
8. "Do you really think that aluminum (yes, mercury was eliminated) is a safe element in a child's body, or even yours, for that matter?"
Of course I do. Every person in the history of our species has had aluminum all through their bodies....breastmilk etc.
Do I think there is any chance you will start getting your science from qualified scientists and see the facts? I just don't think so....
Albus, Here we go again with the same lie about being able to sue.... here is the entire text from the Supreme Court case you cite (READ THE LAST SENTENCE OUT LOUD FOR THE CLASS):
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act) created a no-fault compensation program to stabilize a vaccine market adversely affected by an increase in vaccine-related tort litigation and to facilitate compensation to claimants who found pursuing legitimate vaccine-inflicted injuries too costly and difficult. The Act provides that a party alleging a vaccine-related injury may file a petition for compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, naming the Health and Human Services Secretary as the respondent; that the court must resolve the case by a specified deadline; and that the claimant can then decide whether to accept the court’s judgment or reject it and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer. Awards are paid out of a fund created by an excise tax on each vaccine dose. As a quid pro quo, manufacturers enjoy significant tort-liability protections. Most importantly, the Act eliminates manufacturer liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects.
Hannah Bruesewitz’s parents filed a vaccine-injury petition in the Court of Federal Claims, claiming that Hannah became disabled after receiving a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine manufactured by Lederle Laboratories (now owned by respondent Wyeth). After that court denied their claim, they elected to reject the unfavorable judgment and filed suit in Pennsylvania state court, alleging, inter alia, that the defective design of Lederle’s DTP vaccine caused Hannah’s disabilities, and that Lederle was subject to strict liability and liability for negligent design under Pennsylvania common law. Wyeth removed the suit to the Federal District Court. It granted Wyeth summary judgment, holding that the relevant Pennsylvania law was preempted by 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), which provides that “[n]o 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.” The Third Circuit affirmed.
Held: The NCVIA preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects. Pp. 7–19.
" and that the claimant can then decide whether to accept the court’s judgment or reject it and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer. "
And seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer exactly means sue the vaccine manufacturer in civil court.
2. I expect folks to have basic thinking skills.
Please try to follow the logic: since Americans often do sue vaccine makers, it must be true that it is possible to sue vaccine makers.
I note not one single word from you about the facts revealed in the US Civil lawsuits against vaccine makers.
BTW: here one more time is an example of a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers. They have many suits ongoing, and they explain in simple words how everyone can sue vaccine makers.
"Held: The NCVIA preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects."
A person with integrity would check out exactly what a "design-defect" claim is!
"In a products liability case, a plaintiff can only establish a design defect exists when they prove there is a ****hypothetical alternative design**** that would be safer than the original design, as economically feasible as the original design, and as practical as the original design, retaining the primary purpose behind the original design despite the changes made."
There is now a very long list of examples where the references are put right in front of your eyes....but each time you are unable or unwilling to read the words.
Oh my god, you are just wrong, please look up the word humility and admit it. There is literally a special court set up where parents can present their cases for vaccine injury! Your correct that vaccine injuries occur, but everything else you say is b.s.
I, in fact, did point out that parents can go to the Vaccine Court in cases of vaccine injury. I've said that twice now. What parents cannot do is sue the vaccine makers. In talks with Pres. Reagan, vaccine makers argued that law suits against them was too costly for them. Reagan said, "Then why don't you make safer vaccines?" The reply to Reagan's question was that "vaccines are inherently unsafe." Congress passed the act and Reagan signed it into law in 1986. Within only a few years, with this accountability pass, the number of vaccines given to our kids exploded.
I cant find Ronal Reagan saying anything like your quote, whats your source, https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546#:~:text=Provides%20that%20no%20vaccine%20manufacturer,failure%20to%20provide%20direct%20warnings. Heres a link to vaccine safety act. The part taken out of context ALL THE TIME , by RFK is highlighted but like I see all the time, Anti vaxxers never read the whole law. The Vaccine Makers and the US govt Can and do get sued. Its handled differently than a normal civil case. Handled by what is referred to as a " vaccine court" the claims are paid by the vaccine manufacturers who put money into a fund , not the govt! The law sets up a very thorough follow up on vaccine side affects! And requires vigorous safety studies beforehand or else the company can be held criminally and civilly liable. Cover up data Go To Jail mr Vaccine CEO. Sad thing is RFK sues vaccine mfg all the time but tells Joe Rogan that they cant be sued!
Offit and others have explained this many times over the years. There is no autism epidemic or increase in autism, as far as we know.
The simple fact is that autism started being properly diagnosed in the 90s. Where, previously, kids with autism were lumped in with those that had mental health problems or learning issues, teachers and health professionals were finally required in the 1990s to report these kids as having autism rather than lumping them in with other disorders. It's just that simple.
Not just in this country, but worldwide as well, the rates of autism are exactly the same in unvaccinated children versus children with vaccinations. There's simply no way autism could be caused by vaccination.
I have heard Dr. Offit say exactly that, that it is not unknown for any vaccine, or any medication, to cause harm. All medications come with a risk/reward equation.
Just more fear mongering from RFK Jr. I wish he would get back in his lane and work harder on saving the environment but that wouldn't get him the attention he craves.
I'll be getting my booster and flu vaccine this fall. I'm still here at close to 68 years old with lots of vaccines in my body to keep it going.
documenting extremely rare coincidental medical episodes in children does not mean that the vaccine led to the medical episode. Vaccines save millions of lives.
The mRNA injections caused much damage in retirement communities and now research from Hong Kong shows permanent heart damage in teens from mRNA shots, over 2 percent. 2 in 100 will never be “rare.” The damage of the HPV shot is also interesting and frightening. Why would anyone not believe CHD after watching the terrible outcomes of hpv and covid shots. We will be caring for the mRNA injured and the hpv injured forever.
Please provide a peer reviewed clinical study (in a recognized international medical journal) on the negative impact of mRNA vaccination in susceptible elderly populations. The risk of morbidity and mortality in that cohort was and remains enormous in the absence of vaccination. HPV vaccination does not have serious side-effects; the vaccine is only comprised of capsid-proteins and prevents cervical cancer and its morbidity and mortality.
The anti-vac comments remind me of the comments under some anti-vac YouTube channels, most notably, Dr. John Campbell. Endless accounts of aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, coworkers dying days after a covid vaccine. Children go blind. Men suddenly have erectile dysfunction. Constipation is rampant. All due to the vaccine. If I were to believe even a small fraction of the comments, I would expect to go outside and the street would be empty.
You might want to talk to Dr Campbell before u liable him. He was very pro-vax, until all of the evidence and data began to pile up showing the serious harms of the mRNA shots. Dr. Campbell is one of the most meticulous and science based medical educators on the Earth.
i think if you knew someone who was previously very healthy and they died suddenly within a couple days of their covid shot you would have a different perspective on it. there are thousands of stories like this and most stories ive heard are credible. obviously most people were OK but millions took the shots. apparently the majority of significant side effects reported to VAERS were from a comparatively small number of vaccine batches. so you're playing roulette every time you get a booster. and since there was so much censorship during the pandemic (facebook, twitter, youtube all deleted and blocked stories of adverse events) you find all these comments in one place because people are desperate to tell their story.
"i think if you knew someone who was previously very healthy and they died suddenly within a couple days of their covid shot you would have a different perspective on it. there are thousands of stories like this and most stories ive heard are credible. "
Please work on your basic logic.
More than 10 infants die each day in the US and 20 vaccine doses per child in the first year....of course there are going to be lots of kids that die within one day of vaccination!
It is just counting....do more or fewer vaccinated kids die then you would expect by chance? You have the entire developed world generating data on this for decades.....
but btw, basic logic would be to consider cause and effect. like i injected this baby and then it died. hmm. i know correlation doesn't equal causation but i think it should be considered in the analysis.
People have to base their lives on data when data is available. Usually, people do, even if they do not realize it. People die when exercising. Not many people will claim that people should avoid exercising. People have been killed specifically because they wore a car seat belt. They may well have survived had they not worn it. Who is going to say that seat belts should not be worn? Buy into the hype and it leads to the wrong conclusions.
Exercising and seat belts can both result in injury. That is true. I would not stop using either myself. And i do feel like i understand the risk in both.
I feel the covid shots didn't work as we were told at the beginning of the rollout when the government and media said you only needed two, and you wouldnt get covid, and they were perfectly safe, and didn't cause myocarditis. so how many lies have we been told? and they didn't follow the safety guidelines that are normally in place for a vaccine. and it's a new technology they have never used before.
to be honest, if seat belts were new on the market and i heard stories of them mangling people in accidents, i'd probably wait it out a few years until they worked out the kinks. but as you said, you have to balance risk and reward.
One of the tricks in this day-and-age is to select the correct source for information. When it came to the covid and the vaccine, the place to go was medical websites such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic or even online places such as Healthline. Not MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, or conservative talk radio. Aside from that, a lot of those "lies" were products of a novel virus that had an unavoidable trial-and-error factor to it. That would include lockdowns, masks, handwashing etc. To some degree, all of those concepts were flawed. But all were on the safety half of that risk/reward equation. That includes the vaccine.
"to be honest, if seat belts were new on the market and i heard stories of them mangling people in accidents, "
My 2 cents: making life and death decisions based on stories is a really bad idea.
BTW: I think I provided you a link to a US life insurance company....and how covid deaths are worse than reported and that unvaccinated are the higher risk for dying.....did you read it?
Thanks again. Please don't find the comments below too disheartening, even if I do. America seems to be divided in so many ways, even with vaccinations. Part of the problem is the collective memory of the misery of infectious illness is fading and people, particularly Americans, cannot face up to the reality that we are polluting ourselves out of existence by burning fossil fuels, eating processed meat, non existent waste management, driving and flying.
It's all about trying to shift blame and vaccinations are an easy target. Our brains are loaded with micro-plastics and ferrous nanoparticles from vehicle abrasives and yet some blame vaccines. It's little short of cowardice.
I think we can all agree that losing a child is as bad as it gets in life, and such profound sadness can lead to all sorts of reactions. As we are stuck in 4 dimensions including time, the proximity of events naturally becomes a clue our brains must and should consider when looking for cause and effect. And adverse events do occur after vaccination, but the deaths of these children cannot be explained by gut feelings and remorse. We have to trust the science, because it’s our best tool to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the science has overwhelmingly shown approved vaccines to be much safer than the diseases they prevent. Many of these horrible diseases are rare enough now thanks to vaccination that most people haven’t seen the agony of smallpox killing their child like Ben Franklin did, or felt the justified remorse he felt after failing to inoculate his own child in time.
We would be wise to learn more about how science and evidence work, and learn about our human tendency to fall into the causal fallacy trap, while we extend compassion to those who are devastated- not front page exploitations of their grief for twisted ideologies.
Dr. Offit, are you bullshitting us? Yes, these infants probably did die from SIDS right after vaccination. But, vaccination certainty is a risk factor for SIDS, just as sleeping in the abdomen or being too hot, and is probably causative of SIDS in many cases, just like the mRNA COVID jabs appear to be a cause of sudden adult death syndrome (SADS). Also, yes, vaccination may prevent a few deaths from measles, diphtheria, etc., but infant deaths from these causes are relatively rare. Why vaccinate all infants when only a few, which could be identified with proper testing and observation, need to be vaccinated? We must consider the risk vs. benefits of each vaccination or any other medical intervention.
How about some facts? There is literally decades of checking vaccines as a risk factor for SIDS and guess what? If anything, vaccination appears to significantly REDUCE the risks for SIDS!
Clearly you didn't bother to even read it. It is a met-analysis of 39 studies from all around the world.
You are just making things up!
And not one word from you about what happened when vaccination was stopped....seriously, you just ignored all those needlessly sick...dead kids because of anti-vacc lies!
Appreciate your posts on how to sue a Vaccine manufacturer - quite enlightening.
I am wondering what you think of Dr. Offit's post about a teenager dying from COVID.
I'm concerned this also ruins his point.
The Covid CFR for teenagers is so low and the risk of side effect - rare is it may be - is enough offset the risk-benefit calculus. Several Nordic countries have withdrawn recommendation for teenagers receiving the Covid vaccine.
While there will always be outlying anecdotes, and the case Offit is making is to consider providing the alternative anecdotes; presumably he suggests these anecdotes are suggestive of factual realities, not of missteps and unworthy interventions.
Does Dr. Offit really believe that with current data the original Covid Vax would on average provide more benefit than harm? I'd love to see an RCT where all cause mortality (and hospitalization) was a proven benefit, specifically an exclusive analysis of sub-30 years old. Please share.
I think Offit is pushing his points too far. His final statement "All avoidable by vaccination" is lacking evidence as applied to the influenza vaccine (Cochrane's words not mine). Regarding Covid vaccinations, it ignores the fairly low risk of serious covid complications for that cohort, and the likelihood of adverse effects from the biologic (fails to address the cost benefit analysis).
Re risk calculation, I noted hospitalizations and death. The extent of risk analysis as applied to preventive medicine is indeed a complex ethical quagmire. Does societal benefit of increased productivity justify a vaccine recommendation, or is it necessary to prove substantial benefit pertaining to protection fro the pathogen itself. And even for the latter, Do we reckon with serious outcomes only, or include minor impacts.
In short I don't disagree, but I don't think there is consensus either. An I think for preventive intervention the risk assessment must be pathogen specific defined by serious outcomes. In this regard I'm a student of Sackett https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC117852/.
1. I think you provided the wrong cbs17 link...the second to last link in the article is to a music festival.
About the Cochrane data...they found in adults:
a) "Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate‐certainty evidence)."
That is a 50% reduction in risk, and with many millions vaccinated each year that means millions few cases of influenza.
b) "We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review."
So the vaccines are really safe!
c) " Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalization in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a ***large benefit***"
So the data is not good enough to be very precise, but hospitalizations were reduced and reduction might be quite large.......
d) the results for children are similar, but there is just less quality data so the conclusions are weaker.
Risk calculations are not trivial, but even with the covid vaccines the data is piling up. Using very different approaches, the vaccines seem to be highly cost effective:
1. The link is posted above and in the article, he theme Offit notes is:
"or an unvaccinated 15-year-old girl who died from Covid-19, the father starting a GoFundMe campaign to pay for her funeral" He thinks this is an example of an anecdote which could be cited to prove his point recommending routine C19 vaccinations of teenagers. More below.
A. The vaccine has mild side effects as well. This is a question then for the individual, would you like to take a non-sterilizing vaccine which although in the past was on average 50% effective (and this year we have no way of knowing how effective it might be). You might experience mild side effects, but your chance of getting flu might be lower as well. - But this point strays from the main point at hand. which is:
C. We need evidence to recommend product, there is a wide CI and we cannot say with confidence this medical intervention actually reduces hospitalization. I completely don't understand the ethical standpoint of making a recommendation based on such data. Dr. Offit should know better then this, confidently asserting (without any real data - 'May' does not equal 'does'):
"unvaccinated 12-year-old girl with influenza who was hospitalized for three months on ECMO (life support). All avoidable by vaccination."
As Cochrane notes, this is a statement which might be true. In other words, Offit has made a claim for which good evidence does not exist.
but it isn't the only one...
D) I'm surprised that you would quote to me a generic 'model' and 'retrospective study' as evidence. Really?!? How about an RCT showing that C19 vaccinations are effective at reducing hospitalizations or death from C19?
Your quoted 'model' doesn't seem to include an adjustment for age, sex and other factors.
How about this ethical assessment for the target group in question - young adults?
You admit 'less quality data.. conclusions are weaker', incorrect please bring the receipts of real data. Offit has not bridged the gap of grandiose, definitive claims from evidence. He has stated a belief/mantra "All avoidable by vaccination", no different than the Aztec sun gods, Ivermectin, or colloidal silver.
When a 'Vaccine expert' confidently equates tetanus shots, with poor quality/nonexistent data about Flu and C19 vacines, it undermines his credibility and strengthens those opposed to vaccines.
It seems we might find some agreement on this front, what Offit wrote undercuts his credibility.
In case you haven't been aware, many European countries do not recommend routine C19 or influenza vaccination for teenagers.
Well said Dr. Offitt. Charlatans and socialists promise nirvana but instead deliver misery, hunger and disease.
Vaccines and the metals/lnp’s in them do cause inflammation and sometimes brain damage. Why is this hard to accept? Could it be that vaccine adherence is now a religion? Why can’t we say vaccines save lives but take lives too in sensitive children. Why do we have to lie and act like these injections never harm? The inserts lay out the harms in section 6.1. Vaccines are not perfect.
"Vaccines and the metals/lnp’s in them do cause inflammation and sometimes brain damage. "
Why didn't you provide any evidence to support that?
Offit STILL has yet to explain why aluminum in vaccines somehow isn't a problem. He STILL has yet to explain why there is an autism epidemic. Oh, but wait, he says there IS no epidemic, just better detection. What utter nonsense. The school district I live in now has entire classrooms in one elementary building dedicated to working with children who have autism. Why were there no such classrooms, let's say in the 1950s or 60s or 70s? Offit will say "better diagnosis" and that the definition of autism has been expanded. Those arguments make no sense when you realize that, according to work done by Olmsted and Blaxill, that in 1931 there was 1 child born in the U.S. who developed autism in a population of 124 million people. If autism rates were the same then as they are now (1 in 34 children), in 1931 there should have been 1.8 million autistic Americans. But there were not. Olmsted and Blaxill scoured the medical records and found none. Why won't Offit agree to fund high quality studies and PROVE once and for all that there is no epidemic. He won't do it because he knows what those studies will show. It's also why he won't agree to study causes of autism or to explain why ALL vaccines are inherently unsafe, as President Reagan was told by the Pharma industry just before they were granted liabilty immunity. And if vaccines are so safe, then why not remove the liability shield? I do think that we're finally able to see the end of the Vaccine Era approach to infectious disease. I hope Offit knows when to jump off the Vaccine Train he's been riding all these years.
Better question: why don't you get your science from qualified scientists?
1. "Offit STILL has yet to explain why aluminum in vaccines somehow isn't a problem.
I suppose he would refer you to toxicologists who can explain how the data shows that the aluminum in vaccines is safe.
2. " He STILL has yet to explain why there is an autism epidemic. Oh, but wait, he says there IS no epidemic, just better detection. "
I suppose he would refer you to epidemiologists who have clearly demonstrated that there is NO epidemic of autism.
3. "Why were there no such classrooms, let's say in the 1950s or 60s or 70s? Offit will say "better diagnosis" and that the definition of autism has been expanded. "
I suppose that he would point out that historically kids with autism were denied access to schools--so of course you won't find them in schools!
He would also probably point out that the work from Olmsted and Blaxill is breathtaking stupid.
Did you miss that every country rejects their "arguments"?
4. "Why won't Offit agree to fund high quality studies and PROVE once and for all that there is no epidemic."
First Dr. Offit is NOT a funding agency, so you comment is absurd. Secondly, why don't you listen to actual epidemiologists who have done the high quality studies?
5. "It's also why he won't agree to study causes of autism or to explain why ALL vaccines are inherently unsafe, as President Reagan was told by the Pharma industry just before they were granted liabilty immunity."
First, there are literally tens of thousands of published studies on what causes autism.
Secondly, there is NO liability immunity--all families can sue vaccine makers.
And the fact is that the vaccines cause autism fraud is very well exposed in US Civil lawsuits against vaccine makers:
https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
Whoever you have been listening to lied to you.
i suppose Offit could refer us to the toxicology studies that show aluminum is safe to be injected into babies, as referenced by the CDC. but he hasn't done that because (as far as i can tell) there are none. we already went over this in a previous post and hit a dead end on the MRL. so let's revisit that, Albus.
toxicologists assess risk from a variety of exposure routes because the safe exposure levels differ for each. oral ingestion, dermal contact, injection, and inhalation all have different minimum risk levels (MRLs). the ASTDR profile for aluminum is here: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp22-c8.pdf note that they do not list a MRL for injection of aluminum.
so i went back to one of the Mitkus papers referenced by the CDC:
http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/FDA-aluminum-paper.pdf
he references a study by Keith, which i found here, but it doesn't let me read the whole thing which is unfortunate. maybe Offit can repost this or direct us to an even better source.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X02001652?via%3Dihub
Keith estimates the body burden of aluminum in an infant based on uptake and elimination rates : "The retention of aluminum is directly affected by excretion, which has been studied in both rats and humans. Xu et al. [15] found 66–70% of injected aluminum was excreted in 24 h. In a human study, Priest et al. [11] injected a volunteer with 0.7 μg of radioactive 26Al as citrate and followed blood levels and body elimination. They found that over 50% of the aluminum distributed from blood to other body tissues in 15 min. Long-term observation using excreta and whole body monitoring found..." and this is all i can read. notice the human study injected "a volunteer". and they are still assuming that any miniscule amount retained by the body is safe based on the oral MRL which doesn't account for any potential crossing of the blood-brain barrier. This is all i can find. Please illuminate me on the safety of aluminum being injected into infants, Albus, Offit, anyone.
Paul Offit could have dedicated a substack (and still can!) to the topic of adjuvant safety or other ingredients found in vaccines but he considers it a settled matter (we studied MMR and thimerosol which we dont use anymore, i get it). Instead he is laughably addressing "the coincidence gambit" which is just gaslighting injured people by saying they can't prove the cause of dead babies. SIDS occurs because babies are in a soft bed and got overheated. that is much more plausible! and we have studies to prove it! and conflicts of interest don't exist in the medical community, you nimrod, so you must trust the studies!
have a nice day.
You should have paid more attention the first time.
1. "toxicology studies that show aluminum is safe to be injected into babies, as referenced by the CDC. but he hasn't done that because (as far as i can tell) there are none."
Your link has reference to studies that have references to many, many more studies that show the aluminum in vaccines is safe.
Whoops, you didn't read your own link correctly.
2. "note that they do not list a MRL for injection of aluminum."
That is because toxicologists can multiple by 1.0000....you just clearly demonstrated that you just don't have a basic understanding of the science.
3. Some details....
The MRL was based on:
a) fetal exposure--which is highest risk
b) dosing every single day from conception until death--hey that is massively more exposure then from vaccines!
c) adds in a safety factor of 300 fold...that is to say the MRL is 300 times smaller than what the data says is safe!
And the Mitkus paper shows that even in really small infants, the aluminum in vaccines plus from diet results in levels that are way below the super conservative MRL.
Every country permits alu containing vaccines because the data is so clear that they are safe.
To be 100% clear, I want to folks to read and think about science. What you have clearly demonstrated is that amateurs make lots of errors.
risk levels are usually calculated conservatively. i have no doubt that the MRL for oral exposure to aluminum is more than adequate. however, i will repeat - it is for oral exposure. if you give the vaccine orally im sure there will be no issues with the amount of aluminum in it, but then the vaccine wouldn't work.
im perfectly open to the idea that i have missed the evidence but you have yet to present any study that demonstrates a safe level for aluminum injection into the blood stream. a model even? the study on rats? i looked at the references cited for that specific information (vaccine injection) not the oral ingestion you keep repeating about.
you're condescending tone and insulting manners don't help your argument. you clearly don't want people to read or think about the science - otherwise you would be polite. and while some people might feel stupid and doubt themselves upon hearing your retort i just think you're an asshole.
People are different. Personally, I find it beyond hubris that some folks think they can skip the 11+ years it takes to become a scientist and not make lots of mistakes....but hey, that is just me.
You continue to just not understand the data from your links.
Please note the units: mg (of Al) per kg (of body weight) per day.
That is because what is important is the concentration of Al in the body...mg per kg.....and each kg is 1 liter.
It doesn't matter how it got there, what matters is the concentration.
Different routes of administration have different bioavailability for the Al and thus there are different guidelines--to mathematically correct for the differences in bioavailability.
You posted the data: even in very small infants, the Al from vaccines plus the Al from their environment results in a concentration of Al that is many orders of magnitude below the safe dose.
This is very clear and it is validated by the decades of data from health insurance companies and national healthcare systems.
PS: tone does not convey well in a comment box. Other than with folks like Mr Cass, I am direct and blunt in my comments because I deal with facts and complex science is difficult to communicate in a comment.
There is so much here to refute, but right now I’ll just point to one glaring untruth in which you claim that vaccine makers do not have protection against lawsuits and that families can sue vaccine makers. The fact is that no one can sue a vaccine manufacturer for adverse reactions. NO ONE. The US governor did create a vaccine court that families can access. It has paid out precious little, however. And no one can sue a vaccine company for injury resulting from a covid-19 injection. That’s because the injections are still under an EUA. You can’t sue your employer, your doctor, the drug store, or the federal government.
The irony is beyond infinite.
Here are some actual facts:
1. US law is 100% clear, all US families can sue vaccine makers and the SCOTUS took great care to clearly point out this simple fact.
US law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-21
SCOTUS ruling: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/562/223/
2. US families can and do sue vaccine makers. Fact is that Civil courts clearly detail how the anti-vaccs are idiots and flat-out frauds.
https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
https://casetext.com/case/jane-doe-v-merck-co
3. Fact is that both mRNA vaccines are fully licensed approved vaccines in the US.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/vaccines-licensed-use-united-states
Bonus: even with EUA there are some circumstances when one can still sue the vaccine makers!
https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PREPact/Pages/default.aspx
4. Most important fact: the anti-vacc fraud really does consistent of stupidly lying about ~everything.
Good news! They just aren't very clever and if you try a bit, it is really easy to see the lies.
Once again, there are some gross areas of misunderstandings here. Let's begin with an NPR report from Feb. 22, 2011 in which SCOTUS ruled that "federal law shields vaccine makers from suits filed in state courts seeking compensation for injuries or deaths due allegedly to avoidable design problems with the vaccines. Instead, the court said, people who claim injuries need to go through a special no-fault federal vaccine court." As I said above, the federal government created its own vaccine court upon denying citizens the ability to sue vaccine makers. Here is the website: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/02/22/133964322/supreme-court-upholds-liability-shield-for-vaccine-makers. And here is the Wikipedia entry regarding Reagan's signing into law The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
The 1986 law also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which uses the Court of Federal Claims and Special Masters.
If you carefully read the Cornell Law School page, it says: "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, ...." You are only partially right about suing vaccine manufacturers. Parents could sue prior to Oct. 1, 1988, but not after that date. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is still on the books today. Have you noticed that the number of vaccines on the Childhood Schedule has sky-rocketed since that time? Doesn't the liability shield trigger some questions in your mind as to why so many vaccines are now given? Do you really think that aluminum (yes, mercury was eliminated) is a safe element in a child's body, or even yours, for that matter?
I agree someone sure is misunderstanding a lot!
1. Since I have provided examples of people suing vaccine makers you absolutely must know that people can sue vaccine makers!
You just can't get around this simple fact.
I note that you too are silent on the facts as documented by the Courts....specifically that the anti-vaccs are frauds...and often morons.
2. The SCOTUS exactly pointed out that after filing with the Vaccine Court...then everyone can sue vaccine makers alleging injuries.
"and that the claimant can then decide whether to accept the court’s judgment or reject it and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer."
Seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer exactly means to sue them!
BTW: here one more, more time is an example of a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers. They have many suits ongoing, and they explain in simple words how everyone can sue vaccine makers.
https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2023/april/how-to-file-an-hpv-vaccine-lawsuit/
3. You have completely misunderstood the SCOTUS ruling/the law because you don't understand what a design-defect argument is.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/design_defect#:~:text=In%20a%20products%20liability%20case,the%20primary%20purpose%20behind%20the
It really should be obvious to you why such an "argument" of just hypothesizing that a safer version could be made is banned.
4. You really need to read all the words in the law.
"No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages rising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988...."
Yes that is correct, but when you read the rest of the law it clearly explains that after you filed with the Vaccine Court then you can sue vaccine makers. Here again is the key part of the law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-21
This is really, really simple. You are banned from sue vaccine makers.....UNTIL after you have filed with the Vaccine Court...then everyone can sue!
5. I note that you are silent on the fact that the mRNA vaccines are in fact licensed in the US.
6. I note that you are silent on the fact that even under EUA, in some circumstances it is possible to sue the vaccine maker.
7. "Doesn't the liability shield trigger some questions in your mind as to why so many vaccines are now given?"
Of course not. US law doesn't apply to other countries.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the anti-vaccs can't win lawsuits in these other countries and that these other countries also have licensed the new vaccines.
Do I think there is any chance you will ask: what is the world-wide experience of for-profit health insurance companies or national health care systems with respect to the health of vaccinated kids? I don't think so....
8. "Do you really think that aluminum (yes, mercury was eliminated) is a safe element in a child's body, or even yours, for that matter?"
Of course I do. Every person in the history of our species has had aluminum all through their bodies....breastmilk etc.
Do I think there is any chance you will start getting your science from qualified scientists and see the facts? I just don't think so....
Albus, Here we go again with the same lie about being able to sue.... here is the entire text from the Supreme Court case you cite (READ THE LAST SENTENCE OUT LOUD FOR THE CLASS):
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act) created a no-fault compensation program to stabilize a vaccine market adversely affected by an increase in vaccine-related tort litigation and to facilitate compensation to claimants who found pursuing legitimate vaccine-inflicted injuries too costly and difficult. The Act provides that a party alleging a vaccine-related injury may file a petition for compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, naming the Health and Human Services Secretary as the respondent; that the court must resolve the case by a specified deadline; and that the claimant can then decide whether to accept the court’s judgment or reject it and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer. Awards are paid out of a fund created by an excise tax on each vaccine dose. As a quid pro quo, manufacturers enjoy significant tort-liability protections. Most importantly, the Act eliminates manufacturer liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects.
Hannah Bruesewitz’s parents filed a vaccine-injury petition in the Court of Federal Claims, claiming that Hannah became disabled after receiving a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine manufactured by Lederle Laboratories (now owned by respondent Wyeth). After that court denied their claim, they elected to reject the unfavorable judgment and filed suit in Pennsylvania state court, alleging, inter alia, that the defective design of Lederle’s DTP vaccine caused Hannah’s disabilities, and that Lederle was subject to strict liability and liability for negligent design under Pennsylvania common law. Wyeth removed the suit to the Federal District Court. It granted Wyeth summary judgment, holding that the relevant Pennsylvania law was preempted by 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), which provides that “[n]o 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.” The Third Circuit affirmed.
Held: The NCVIA preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects. Pp. 7–19.
Yes Bill I expect the following:
1. That folks are functionally literate.
Right from the section YOU quoted:
" and that the claimant can then decide whether to accept the court’s judgment or reject it and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer. "
And seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer exactly means sue the vaccine manufacturer in civil court.
2. I expect folks to have basic thinking skills.
Please try to follow the logic: since Americans often do sue vaccine makers, it must be true that it is possible to sue vaccine makers.
I note not one single word from you about the facts revealed in the US Civil lawsuits against vaccine makers.
BTW: here one more time is an example of a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers. They have many suits ongoing, and they explain in simple words how everyone can sue vaccine makers.
https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2023/april/how-to-file-an-hpv-vaccine-lawsuit/
3. I expect people to have integrity.
"Held: The NCVIA preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects."
A person with integrity would check out exactly what a "design-defect" claim is!
"In a products liability case, a plaintiff can only establish a design defect exists when they prove there is a ****hypothetical alternative design**** that would be safer than the original design, as economically feasible as the original design, and as practical as the original design, retaining the primary purpose behind the original design despite the changes made."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/design_defect#:~:text=In%20a%20products%20liability%20case,the%20primary%20purpose%20behind%20the
Oh look! Just a hypothesis that the product could theoretically have been made safer as a basis for receiving compensation.
.
It really should be obvious to you why that "argument" is banned.
And the key point is still that everyone--including the Bruesewitzs--are free to sue vaccine makers and argue that the vaccine caused injury.
Of course, the facts have already demonstrated that vaccines did NOT injure her....if you are willing to read the words!
https://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/MILLMAN.Bruesewitz2.pdf
The pattern Bill is clear.
There is now a very long list of examples where the references are put right in front of your eyes....but each time you are unable or unwilling to read the words.
Oh my god, you are just wrong, please look up the word humility and admit it. There is literally a special court set up where parents can present their cases for vaccine injury! Your correct that vaccine injuries occur, but everything else you say is b.s.
I, in fact, did point out that parents can go to the Vaccine Court in cases of vaccine injury. I've said that twice now. What parents cannot do is sue the vaccine makers. In talks with Pres. Reagan, vaccine makers argued that law suits against them was too costly for them. Reagan said, "Then why don't you make safer vaccines?" The reply to Reagan's question was that "vaccines are inherently unsafe." Congress passed the act and Reagan signed it into law in 1986. Within only a few years, with this accountability pass, the number of vaccines given to our kids exploded.
"What parents cannot do is sue the vaccine makers."
You do realize that most folks will read the words in the law and see that is 100% wrong?
BTW: "Within only a few years, with this accountability pass, the number of vaccines given to our kids exploded."
The massive logic error in your statement has already been explained.
You really do just seem to ignore facts you don't like!
I cant find Ronal Reagan saying anything like your quote, whats your source, https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546#:~:text=Provides%20that%20no%20vaccine%20manufacturer,failure%20to%20provide%20direct%20warnings. Heres a link to vaccine safety act. The part taken out of context ALL THE TIME , by RFK is highlighted but like I see all the time, Anti vaxxers never read the whole law. The Vaccine Makers and the US govt Can and do get sued. Its handled differently than a normal civil case. Handled by what is referred to as a " vaccine court" the claims are paid by the vaccine manufacturers who put money into a fund , not the govt! The law sets up a very thorough follow up on vaccine side affects! And requires vigorous safety studies beforehand or else the company can be held criminally and civilly liable. Cover up data Go To Jail mr Vaccine CEO. Sad thing is RFK sues vaccine mfg all the time but tells Joe Rogan that they cant be sued!
See how the psychology works?
You literally have to refuse to deal with the law...because that would mean admitting that the anti-vaccs lied to you.
Offit and others have explained this many times over the years. There is no autism epidemic or increase in autism, as far as we know.
The simple fact is that autism started being properly diagnosed in the 90s. Where, previously, kids with autism were lumped in with those that had mental health problems or learning issues, teachers and health professionals were finally required in the 1990s to report these kids as having autism rather than lumping them in with other disorders. It's just that simple.
Not just in this country, but worldwide as well, the rates of autism are exactly the same in unvaccinated children versus children with vaccinations. There's simply no way autism could be caused by vaccination.
Yup, always follow the money.
Do you truly not care that SD obviously lied about his funding/sponsorship?
Do you work for Offit?
Nope.
Why are you ignoring SD's lies?
"Vaccines and the metals/lnp’s in them do cause inflammation and sometimes brain damage. "
From your silence I take it that no, you don't have any evidence and are just making things up.
I have heard Dr. Offit say exactly that, that it is not unknown for any vaccine, or any medication, to cause harm. All medications come with a risk/reward equation.
Just more fear mongering from RFK Jr. I wish he would get back in his lane and work harder on saving the environment but that wouldn't get him the attention he craves.
I'll be getting my booster and flu vaccine this fall. I'm still here at close to 68 years old with lots of vaccines in my body to keep it going.
documenting extremely rare coincidental medical episodes in children does not mean that the vaccine led to the medical episode. Vaccines save millions of lives.
The mRNA injections caused much damage in retirement communities and now research from Hong Kong shows permanent heart damage in teens from mRNA shots, over 2 percent. 2 in 100 will never be “rare.” The damage of the HPV shot is also interesting and frightening. Why would anyone not believe CHD after watching the terrible outcomes of hpv and covid shots. We will be caring for the mRNA injured and the hpv injured forever.
Please provide a peer reviewed clinical study (in a recognized international medical journal) on the negative impact of mRNA vaccination in susceptible elderly populations. The risk of morbidity and mortality in that cohort was and remains enormous in the absence of vaccination. HPV vaccination does not have serious side-effects; the vaccine is only comprised of capsid-proteins and prevents cervical cancer and its morbidity and mortality.
Why didn't you provide one example from CHD?
So from you silence, I will take it that, no, you can't provide a single rational/honest example from CHD.
Can you link research from Hong Kong please.
The anti-vac comments remind me of the comments under some anti-vac YouTube channels, most notably, Dr. John Campbell. Endless accounts of aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, coworkers dying days after a covid vaccine. Children go blind. Men suddenly have erectile dysfunction. Constipation is rampant. All due to the vaccine. If I were to believe even a small fraction of the comments, I would expect to go outside and the street would be empty.
You might want to talk to Dr Campbell before u liable him. He was very pro-vax, until all of the evidence and data began to pile up showing the serious harms of the mRNA shots. Dr. Campbell is one of the most meticulous and science based medical educators on the Earth.
You might want to provide one example from Cambell...that isn't complete BS......
BTW: you might want to look up the difference between liable and libel......
My comment was in reference to the comments below his videos. The content of Dr. Campbell's videos is another subject.
I don't recall anyone characterizing the anti-vaccs as being numerate.
But then that is the sort of person that not a scientist Campbell makes his money from.
and no way to verify these anecdotal accounts, Campbell has turned to the dark side and made more money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
But the money is so good....
i think if you knew someone who was previously very healthy and they died suddenly within a couple days of their covid shot you would have a different perspective on it. there are thousands of stories like this and most stories ive heard are credible. obviously most people were OK but millions took the shots. apparently the majority of significant side effects reported to VAERS were from a comparatively small number of vaccine batches. so you're playing roulette every time you get a booster. and since there was so much censorship during the pandemic (facebook, twitter, youtube all deleted and blocked stories of adverse events) you find all these comments in one place because people are desperate to tell their story.
"i think if you knew someone who was previously very healthy and they died suddenly within a couple days of their covid shot you would have a different perspective on it. there are thousands of stories like this and most stories ive heard are credible. "
Please work on your basic logic.
More than 10 infants die each day in the US and 20 vaccine doses per child in the first year....of course there are going to be lots of kids that die within one day of vaccination!
It is just counting....do more or fewer vaccinated kids die then you would expect by chance? You have the entire developed world generating data on this for decades.....
we are talking about the covid vaccine now.
but btw, basic logic would be to consider cause and effect. like i injected this baby and then it died. hmm. i know correlation doesn't equal causation but i think it should be considered in the analysis.
I understand, I gave a simpler example, but basic math is still the same.
Almost 10,000 Americans die each day.
So far almost 700,000,000 covid vaccine doses have been administered to Americans.
It is a mathematical certainty that--by chance--lots and lots of Americans will dies within a couple of days of being vaccinated.
Logic says that you need to calculate relative risk of death....you know, like what the life insurance companies are doing!
People have to base their lives on data when data is available. Usually, people do, even if they do not realize it. People die when exercising. Not many people will claim that people should avoid exercising. People have been killed specifically because they wore a car seat belt. They may well have survived had they not worn it. Who is going to say that seat belts should not be worn? Buy into the hype and it leads to the wrong conclusions.
Exercising and seat belts can both result in injury. That is true. I would not stop using either myself. And i do feel like i understand the risk in both.
I feel the covid shots didn't work as we were told at the beginning of the rollout when the government and media said you only needed two, and you wouldnt get covid, and they were perfectly safe, and didn't cause myocarditis. so how many lies have we been told? and they didn't follow the safety guidelines that are normally in place for a vaccine. and it's a new technology they have never used before.
to be honest, if seat belts were new on the market and i heard stories of them mangling people in accidents, i'd probably wait it out a few years until they worked out the kinks. but as you said, you have to balance risk and reward.
One of the tricks in this day-and-age is to select the correct source for information. When it came to the covid and the vaccine, the place to go was medical websites such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic or even online places such as Healthline. Not MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, or conservative talk radio. Aside from that, a lot of those "lies" were products of a novel virus that had an unavoidable trial-and-error factor to it. That would include lockdowns, masks, handwashing etc. To some degree, all of those concepts were flawed. But all were on the safety half of that risk/reward equation. That includes the vaccine.
"to be honest, if seat belts were new on the market and i heard stories of them mangling people in accidents, "
My 2 cents: making life and death decisions based on stories is a really bad idea.
BTW: I think I provided you a link to a US life insurance company....and how covid deaths are worse than reported and that unvaccinated are the higher risk for dying.....did you read it?
stories are how you learn from somebody else's mistake.
We had an undergraduate in the lab who got his first dose of Hep B vaccine.
Later that night he won ~$10,000 (?) in a lottery.
What did you learn from that story?
BTW: stories are a standard technique of con-men and grifters.
Stories are merely anecdotal and don't prove anything .
Thanks again. Please don't find the comments below too disheartening, even if I do. America seems to be divided in so many ways, even with vaccinations. Part of the problem is the collective memory of the misery of infectious illness is fading and people, particularly Americans, cannot face up to the reality that we are polluting ourselves out of existence by burning fossil fuels, eating processed meat, non existent waste management, driving and flying.
It's all about trying to shift blame and vaccinations are an easy target. Our brains are loaded with micro-plastics and ferrous nanoparticles from vehicle abrasives and yet some blame vaccines. It's little short of cowardice.
Keep up the good work Paul.
I think we can all agree that losing a child is as bad as it gets in life, and such profound sadness can lead to all sorts of reactions. As we are stuck in 4 dimensions including time, the proximity of events naturally becomes a clue our brains must and should consider when looking for cause and effect. And adverse events do occur after vaccination, but the deaths of these children cannot be explained by gut feelings and remorse. We have to trust the science, because it’s our best tool to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the science has overwhelmingly shown approved vaccines to be much safer than the diseases they prevent. Many of these horrible diseases are rare enough now thanks to vaccination that most people haven’t seen the agony of smallpox killing their child like Ben Franklin did, or felt the justified remorse he felt after failing to inoculate his own child in time.
We would be wise to learn more about how science and evidence work, and learn about our human tendency to fall into the causal fallacy trap, while we extend compassion to those who are devastated- not front page exploitations of their grief for twisted ideologies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionable_cause
Dr. Offit, are you bullshitting us? Yes, these infants probably did die from SIDS right after vaccination. But, vaccination certainty is a risk factor for SIDS, just as sleeping in the abdomen or being too hot, and is probably causative of SIDS in many cases, just like the mRNA COVID jabs appear to be a cause of sudden adult death syndrome (SADS). Also, yes, vaccination may prevent a few deaths from measles, diphtheria, etc., but infant deaths from these causes are relatively rare. Why vaccinate all infants when only a few, which could be identified with proper testing and observation, need to be vaccinated? We must consider the risk vs. benefits of each vaccination or any other medical intervention.
"Dr. Offit, are you bullshitting us"
How about some facts? There is literally decades of checking vaccines as a risk factor for SIDS and guess what? If anything, vaccination appears to significantly REDUCE the risks for SIDS!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17400342/
How about if we look at the fairly recent examples of developed countries that listened to the anti-vaccs and stopped using a vaccine?
Did SIDS go down? Nope.
But in each case, once they got tired of burying their children, they resumed vaccinating.
The source of the study you posted is corrupted by Big Pharma and thus is not credible.
Thanks that was helpful.
Clearly you didn't bother to even read it. It is a met-analysis of 39 studies from all around the world.
You are just making things up!
And not one word from you about what happened when vaccination was stopped....seriously, you just ignored all those needlessly sick...dead kids because of anti-vacc lies!
Have you got the figures from Sudden Adult deaths Syndrome covering 2019 to now as separate totals ??And i do mean from an official source .
Thank you Dr Offitt for saving 1000s of childrens lives, RFK and his organizTional heads need to be locked up for murder.
We are lucky that so many examples have been posted here that prove that Kennedy makes money lying to folks that can't read.
Hey!
Appreciate your posts on how to sue a Vaccine manufacturer - quite enlightening.
I am wondering what you think of Dr. Offit's post about a teenager dying from COVID.
I'm concerned this also ruins his point.
The Covid CFR for teenagers is so low and the risk of side effect - rare is it may be - is enough offset the risk-benefit calculus. Several Nordic countries have withdrawn recommendation for teenagers receiving the Covid vaccine.
While there will always be outlying anecdotes, and the case Offit is making is to consider providing the alternative anecdotes; presumably he suggests these anecdotes are suggestive of factual realities, not of missteps and unworthy interventions.
Does Dr. Offit really believe that with current data the original Covid Vax would on average provide more benefit than harm? I'd love to see an RCT where all cause mortality (and hospitalization) was a proven benefit, specifically an exclusive analysis of sub-30 years old. Please share.
You are welcome.
Could you please post which exactly of his posting you are referring to?
Also, please recall that the risk calculation goes way beyond just deaths.
https://www.cbs17.com/community/health/coronavirus/florida-dad-feels-regret-after-unvaccinated-teen-daughter-dies-of-covid-19/
(second to last link in the article).
Also the last link Offit posts: https://www.familiesfightingflu.org/family-stories/
According to Cochrane " Data on the most serious consequences of influenza complications leading to hospitalization were not available". For adult side of influenza vaccines, " Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalization in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a large benefit". (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub5/full, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub6/full)
I think Offit is pushing his points too far. His final statement "All avoidable by vaccination" is lacking evidence as applied to the influenza vaccine (Cochrane's words not mine). Regarding Covid vaccinations, it ignores the fairly low risk of serious covid complications for that cohort, and the likelihood of adverse effects from the biologic (fails to address the cost benefit analysis).
Re risk calculation, I noted hospitalizations and death. The extent of risk analysis as applied to preventive medicine is indeed a complex ethical quagmire. Does societal benefit of increased productivity justify a vaccine recommendation, or is it necessary to prove substantial benefit pertaining to protection fro the pathogen itself. And even for the latter, Do we reckon with serious outcomes only, or include minor impacts.
In short I don't disagree, but I don't think there is consensus either. An I think for preventive intervention the risk assessment must be pathogen specific defined by serious outcomes. In this regard I'm a student of Sackett https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC117852/.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
1. I think you provided the wrong cbs17 link...the second to last link in the article is to a music festival.
About the Cochrane data...they found in adults:
a) "Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate‐certainty evidence)."
That is a 50% reduction in risk, and with many millions vaccinated each year that means millions few cases of influenza.
b) "We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review."
So the vaccines are really safe!
c) " Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalization in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a ***large benefit***"
So the data is not good enough to be very precise, but hospitalizations were reduced and reduction might be quite large.......
d) the results for children are similar, but there is just less quality data so the conclusions are weaker.
Risk calculations are not trivial, but even with the covid vaccines the data is piling up. Using very different approaches, the vaccines seem to be highly cost effective:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129007/#:~:text=Our%20analyses%20show%20that%20the,public%20health%20and%20economic%20perspective.
". Our analyses show that the benefits of vaccination due to reduced hospitalizations translated into cost-savings in the billions of dollars. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8753340/
https://africacdc.org/download/epidemiological-and-economic-impact-of-covid-19-vaccine-rollout-scenarios-in-africa/
Reply?
1. The link is posted above and in the article, he theme Offit notes is:
"or an unvaccinated 15-year-old girl who died from Covid-19, the father starting a GoFundMe campaign to pay for her funeral" He thinks this is an example of an anecdote which could be cited to prove his point recommending routine C19 vaccinations of teenagers. More below.
A. The vaccine has mild side effects as well. This is a question then for the individual, would you like to take a non-sterilizing vaccine which although in the past was on average 50% effective (and this year we have no way of knowing how effective it might be). You might experience mild side effects, but your chance of getting flu might be lower as well. - But this point strays from the main point at hand. which is:
C. We need evidence to recommend product, there is a wide CI and we cannot say with confidence this medical intervention actually reduces hospitalization. I completely don't understand the ethical standpoint of making a recommendation based on such data. Dr. Offit should know better then this, confidently asserting (without any real data - 'May' does not equal 'does'):
"unvaccinated 12-year-old girl with influenza who was hospitalized for three months on ECMO (life support). All avoidable by vaccination."
As Cochrane notes, this is a statement which might be true. In other words, Offit has made a claim for which good evidence does not exist.
but it isn't the only one...
D) I'm surprised that you would quote to me a generic 'model' and 'retrospective study' as evidence. Really?!? How about an RCT showing that C19 vaccinations are effective at reducing hospitalizations or death from C19?
Your quoted 'model' doesn't seem to include an adjustment for age, sex and other factors.
How about this ethical assessment for the target group in question - young adults?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070
You admit 'less quality data.. conclusions are weaker', incorrect please bring the receipts of real data. Offit has not bridged the gap of grandiose, definitive claims from evidence. He has stated a belief/mantra "All avoidable by vaccination", no different than the Aztec sun gods, Ivermectin, or colloidal silver.
When a 'Vaccine expert' confidently equates tetanus shots, with poor quality/nonexistent data about Flu and C19 vacines, it undermines his credibility and strengthens those opposed to vaccines.
It seems we might find some agreement on this front, what Offit wrote undercuts his credibility.
In case you haven't been aware, many European countries do not recommend routine C19 or influenza vaccination for teenagers.
Edited Sep 5 10:00pm