Fiona Havers resigned because she feared that RFK Jr. would suppress or manipulate CDC data. “A lot of Americans are going to die from vaccine-preventable diseases,” she warned.
Absolutely! And the laughable comments regarding Fiona Hill’s “conflicts of interest” make me want to scream. Who has more conflicts of interest than the current Secretary? He makes millions from suing vaccine manufacturers, and peddling fake remedies.
Fiona Hill's so called "conflicts of interest" are just conspiracy theories made up on the spur of the moment to cast doubt on her motives for resigning.
Indeed, there are no reputable and credible mainstream, investigative, or "watchdog" organisations that support the claim that Dr. Fiona Havers resigned due to an impending investigation into stock options or financial conflicts of interest, or anything even remotely related to that.
It is nothing but a conspiracy theory circulating on social media platforms and fringe blogs, all of which use vague language for the purposes of "plausible deniability" for when the conspiracy theory is later exposed and lack attribution to named sources.
He has no relevant expertise - what we call a "Fake Expert" - and he used a deadly pandemic not to help people but for personal financial gain, selling useless treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and fenbendazole and pushing that "Fake Disease", turbocancer, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
He has no relevant expertise - what we call a "Fake Expert" - and he used a deadly pandemic not to help people but for personal financial gain, selling useless treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and fenbendazole and pushing that "Fake Disease", turbocancer, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
What I got is dozens of testimonials of people cured with fenben and Ivermectin, testimonials that don't come from him, but are direct first hand testimonials. He teaches people who to do it. People like you are a scourge to humanity, at total ass. Do not respond to me. You disgust me.
He has no relevant expertise - what we call a "Fake Expert" - and he used a deadly pandemic not to help people but for personal financial gain, selling useless treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and fenbendazole and pushing that "Fake Disease", turbocancer, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
CDC is reporting 70 confirmed cases of H5N1 infections in humans. That same number was reported in March 2025. This implies that, miraculously, cattle/bird spillover stopped in March 2025. Alternatively, cases are no longer being confirmed and/or reported. In addition, workers are likely not reporting illness due to draconian immigration policies.
Draconian is another word for laws? We had ten to thirty million illegal immigrants during the Biden years, and it was impossible to continue like that. Crime, unemployment for Americans, lack of housing, skyhigh rents, crowding and diversion of resources in schools, drug cartels. Just look at the UK, Germany, and France. They are probably lost forever. No. Illegals have to be deported.
Sir...your comment has no relevance to the deplorable actions of RFK Jr.
Compassion & caring for those without a chance for a better life can be & has proven to be messy.
You have the rites afforded to you from the various amendments within your constitution to disagree with the actions of President Biden.
Through my lens & I am confident the majority of Americans, including those who voted for the egregious individual occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave would prefer the possibly flawed actions of President Biden over your current administration.
History will record 2025 through 2028/9 has a very dark & regrettable period for the vast majority of Americans.
What is sadder are the consequences of your current president actions, that have resulted in 100,000's of death in various impoverished countries.
These ill conceived actions will also result in compounded hardships & deaths within the USA...there is a serious concern for AID's infections becoming resistant to current treatments, in addition numerous other diseases will not have optimal treatment options because your HHS/CDC/FDA have been decimated 😥
This is all so scary - and why I have been so scared by the DOGE infiltration of all the heath agencies and their ability to manipulate data. I suspect we are in for many more problems beyond vaccines. It's so sad, but I don't trust anything coming out of these agencies anymore.
Whenever people who were likely to have supported vaccine mandates, masking, and terrible covid policy talk about their fear, I get a really great feeling inside for some reason...
many of us have predicted that donOLD's administration would suppress or manipulate all the data that was not concurrent with their expectations. Many investigators have tried to archive/save existing databases (because the fees for cloud storage were cut by Musk/DOGE).
we also knew that essential new datapoints in epidemiology would be missed because of the deep cuts to CDC personnel and funding.
donOLD and Bobby are destructive and not making America healthier
It IS scary, but not for the reasons you give here Dr. Offit.
It's scary to me because after reading through the 29 slides Havers put together I am stunned at how she carefully omitted the most crucial metrics required to make an objective assessment of the effectiveness and safety of the Covid vaccines.
The pretty graphs and charts do a good job of breaking down the epidemiological data around the pathogenicity of Covid-19 by age group and season, as well as the level acuity of the cases. However the Covid vaccines are only mentioned in a handful of places. Here they are:
26% of adults ages ≥65 years hospitalized with COVID-19 received the
recommended 2023-24 COVID-19 vaccine prior to hospitalization.
"Most" adults hospitalized with COVID-19 had received no COVID-19
vaccine since September 2022
Fewer than 5% of children and adolescents hospitalized with COVID-19 had received the
most recently recommended COVID-19 vaccination during the 23-24 season.
Can anyone see the problem here?
This intrepid CDC researcher did not give the committee crucial data points needed to assess vaccine effectiveness, namely:
What percentage of people in these age groups were vaccinated? This is absolutely essential. What is the point of stating that 5% of kids hospitalized with Covid were vaccinated if you don't tell us the percentage of kids in the population who were vaccinated to begin with?
If it was 5% that means that vaccines aren't preventing hospitalization at all. If it was less, that means that they have negative efficacy.
If it were more then we could say that vaccination might confer a protective benefit.
However even if we had that number, the CDC is up to their old game of telling us only what the relative risk reduction would be. That is not how members of the ACIP committee (or anyone else for that matter) can determine the risk vs. benefit ratio.
Why didn't brave Fiona Havers simply calculate the number of kids that have to be vaccinated to prevent a single hospitalization? Given the raw data which she presents, the risk of hospitalization for people 6 months to 49 years of age is one in tens of thousands.
Even if the effectiveness was around 50%, we would have to vaccinate around ten thousand to prevent a single hospitalization. I am just eye-balling the graph on Slide 6 titled:
"Among all age groups, rates of COVID-19–associated
hospitalizations have declined since the 2021–2022 season"
Interesting, isn't it? Hospitalizations have declined with vaccination rates. What should we do? Vaccinate more? (To readers, this is a rhetorical question. We cannot answer this question based on the data in the presentation).
In any case, why should I, or the intended audience of this presentation have to estimate the number of Covid hospitalizations per 100K people by peering at a tiny sliver on a graph? She has the numbers. Why didn't she do the calculation herself?
What else is missing? The same thing that is always missing from CDC reports. Where is the risk assessment? There isn't any. Are we to believe that none of the tens of millions of people who get boosters ever have a serious adverse event that also leads to hospitalization??
This wasn't an earnest effort to inform. This was a snowjob. I have sat through ACIP and VRBPAC meetings myself, so this is of no surprise to me.
What is scary is that YOU, Paul, regard this presentation as a call to redouble our campaign to vaccinate. It isn't. I can understand how some of your readers might skim this data and agree with you, however you are supposed to be a leader and the voice of reason here.
No, I am not an epidemiologist. You don't have to be one to examine data objectively and make basic assessments about what can be concluded. If she was true to her trade she would have included the basic numbers I mentioned above.
The irony here, of course, is that she is the one who "feared that RFK JR. would suppress or manipulate CDC data."
And, as you quoted her saying: "A lot of Americans are going to die from vaccine-preventable diseases." Oh yeah? How many? That is exactly what is missing from her presentation.
This CDC researcher may have had a lifelong career as a CDC analyst in the past. At the moment she is lucky she wasn't fired before she resigned. She is part of the rot in the system. My guess is that there are many more like her in that institution.
The number needed to treat is a useless statistic. It is variable dependent on specific time and place and based on known background rate of infection. At any given effectiveness of treatment the number needed to treat is inversely proportional to infection rate at a specific locale. The number needed to treat in Wuhan, China, January 2020 would not be the same as Washington DC, January 2020.
It's not entirely useless, when defined and interpreted properly. But unfortunately, it's easy for the anti-vaccine "thought leaders" to misuse, and then weaponize. As Daj points out, NNV is only meaningful when you know the absolute risk for a specific population, place, and time. For instance, comparing different COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA vs. adenoviral vector vaccines) in high-risk populations during specific waves (e.g. Delta or Omicron surges). Or comparing standard-dose vs. high-dose flu vaccines for seniors in long-term care settings (in a region).
Applying an NNV from one setting to another without adjusting for baseline risk leads to misleading conclusions.
But that's the same for any data point. Same story for COVID mortality 0.2% across the population but much higher in over 60s. Same for vaccine adverse events myocarditis much higher in younger males than in other populations. Long COVID is more prevalent in females. It goes on and on none of these numbers is perfect. If NNV is meaningless unless you have "absolute risk for a specific population, place and time" then hiw can we have faith in covid vaccine efficacy if you don't have that information either, which you don't in observational studies.
A better measure of vaccine efficacy is the relative risk reduction. Rather than the absolute risk reduction (from witch the number needed to treat is calculated) The RRR is independent of background risk.
"A better measure of vaccine efficacy is the relative risk reduction."
Okay, then how would you be able to assess whether the benefit is worth the risk using RRR alone? That's what the whole "antivax" sentiment is about. It isn't about lack of efficacy. It is about ignoring the risk which is always non-zero in any medical intervention.
There is not a single mention of any risk in the 29 slides that Dr. Offit believes is conclusive evidence that all children should be given the primary Covid series. That is what is scary.
IFR is calculated by dividing number of infections by number of deaths. Neither number is real as they are both dynamic and can never be precise.
NNR takes another number that is also not real (population) and uses the vaccine efficacy percentage (also not real) to give the NNR.
All of the data points in the example above and the ratios derived from them (which can also be described as data points) are wrong. That's just chaos theory.
If it helps you can spell these letters out in your mind.
What you do is "cherry pick". You take certain numbers as gospel when it suits you and discredit ones that don't.
You're maybe a classic 125 mid wit but even if you made that you're definitely one of the ones still happily pressing those buzzers when Milgram tells you to.
Nice Prasadist narcissistic condescension, but tongue my taint and then LLM me up the basics on Lyapunov exponent exploration in epidemiological modeling studies, Dr. Chaos. Then go back to Unacceptable Jessica, you Nepetalactone Nonce. Then choke on your Coffee & COVID & Cock, Kiwi Kunt.
"To estimate NNV the monthly incidence was based on the incidence used for the autumn 2023 calculation (incidence in the winter of 2022 to 2023) but with this incidence halved to reflect the lower rates of COVID-19 seen since this time through 2023 which likely reflect increasing population immunity. As in the 2023 calculation, incidence is stratified by age and risk group."
The incidence they refer to here is an assumption for the absolute risk for all of England for fall 2024.
Well our medical and governing authorities have treated covid infections as though the risk was 100% of the time for 100% of the people. Thus the lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates.
If the risk of infection is not quantifiable, at least in some measure, then maybe we do not need an experimental vaccine that has had more VAERS reports than all other vaccines combined. Most of the reports are filed by healthcare professionals, take a long time to complete (half an hr or more), and report adverse events that had their onset within 48 hours to a week following the injection.
And even the government acknowledges that VAERS has a vast underreporting rate.
“Fewer than 5% of children and adolescents hospitalized with COVID-19 had received the most recently recommended COVID-19 vaccination during the 23-24 season.
Can anyone see the problem here?”
Correctly, you point out that we really need to know the percentage of children in the population who have been vaccinated in order to interpret this information.
The CDC has data on this; …the percentage of children under 18 vaccinated in 2003/4 was 13%.
We can therefore conclude (as she did) that Covid vaccination is effective at preventing hospitalisation.
It is very uncharitable of you to accuse her of manipulating data merely because her presentation could not be as comprehensive as you would wish it to be.
In addition, it is possible to use these figures and the rates of hospitalisation in the under 18s (30-60/100k, call it 45) to calculate the NNV to prevent hospitalisation.
Assuming 4% of hospitalised covid cases under 18 are vaccinated, and background vax rate is 13%, then vaccination has prevented the difference.
There were only 45 hospitalisations per 100k whereas we would expect 45 x 13/4 per 100k without vaccination, or 146 hospitalisations /100k without vaccination.
Vaccination prevented 146-45 (101), meaning you need to vaccinate 100,000/101 children to prevent one hospitalisation (NNV = 990).
Considering how damaging severe covid requiring hospitalisation is, vaccination should be considered, and this is the number that you need to be looking at for the risk assessment.
Since the risks of harm from vaccination are several orders of magnitude lower, then overall the rational choice is to get vaccinated. The math is still in favour of vaccination even when you consider vaccinating healthy children and adolescents.
Mike, you are missing my point entirely. Yes, you have properly estimated the raw NNV. Of course there is no way to compensate for confounders, but one must start some place. The issue is that this is the kind of presentation ACIP members get inundated with. Then they have to make a decision that impacts hundreds of millions of people.
Why wouldn't the CDC analyst whose job is to be clear and rigorous leave it to the panel to do even the roughest of calculation around the utility of the vaccine they are supposed to be evaluating?
They are supposed to get the background vax rate as these slides are flashed in front of them and then determine the NNV for each group? Why was there not a single slide that was cautionary? Such an omission is based on the assumption that there is zero chance of any adverse events which is wrong.
There are lot of other vagaries here. Hospitalization is an outcome we should try to minimize, certainly. But where do we weigh hospitalization from Covid against hospitalization from adverse events? The CDC ignores its own adverse event reporting systems. This means that there is an assumption that the risk is zero. The V-Safe data dump which we finally got a few years into the pandemic indicates that 1 in 4 vaccine recipients either missed school, work or needed medical attention after getting vaccinated with the mRNA products. This is an active surveillance program. It's the best we have. If the CDC was actually interested in doing a risk/benefit assessment they would have to acknowledge that 990 vaccinations would carry the risk of negatively impacting the health of 247 recipients. Is isn't this something the ACIP should at least consider?
Finally you accuse me of being uncharitable for claiming that she is manipulating data. I made no such claim. I said that it is ironic that she claims that Kennedy will manipulate the data when there is no proof of this while she is leaving out key information needed to determine if the risk is worth the benefit.
If I am uncharitable by your standards then you would have to level the same criticism against her too.
In any case, why would she resign based on fears? One would think that someone in her position would endeavor to ensure that that doesn't happen. She can't do that from the sidelines.
I take your point that data is left out of the presentation that could add important information to the message and assist individuals in determining the risk benefits of vaccination.
I was pointing out that the information left out was very supportive of vaccination.
Why the data was not presented in a totally comprehensive manner, I don't know. Maybe she thought sufficient meat was on the bones and she didn't have to add to it. Maybe she was constrained in her number of slides or time. I don't know.
You did not directly accuse her of manipulation, I admit that, but you did say: "This wasn't an earnest effort to inform. This was a snowjob", and so data manipulation is clearly implied. The reason I stated I thought it uncharitable for you to do so was because we do not know the reasons for her omitting what you regard as vital information, and to assume it was done so on the basis of trying to influence the decisions of the panel is speculative. The fact that the information omitted does if anything *strengthen* the argument for vaccination would indicate that she has not left it out because it might make vaccination appear to be ineffective or as part of a "snow job"...as I pointed out, it in fact confirms effectiveness.
"I take your point that data is left out of the presentation that could add important information to the message and assist individuals in determining the risk benefits of vaccination."
Okay, but why would you concede that point while taking issue with
"This wasn't an earnest effort to inform. This was a snowjob"?
In my book that is what a snowjob is, leave out crucial information and highlight other data to make an argument. She is an analyst. Her responsibility is to gather the most important data and present it in a coherent and unbiased manner so that the advisory panel can discuss it and make a recommendation. Her job isn't to make an argument. Her job is to inform. This wasn't an earnest effort to inform in my book.
You have made a reasonable estimation of the NNV. In my opinion this doesn't strengthen any argument for vaccination unless you also include the risk borne by the 990 people who consent to vaccination. What is the risk? The only way it could be irrelevant and unmentionable is if the risk is zero. It isn't. There isn't a medical intervention that carries zero risk.
Why wouldn't she also mention the data coming from the CDC's own adverse event collections systems? As I mentioned before the V-Safe data indicates that a quarter of these people will likely suffer some sort of untoward consequence. That is the best data the CDC has. Isn't it odd that it wasn't mentioned by a CDC analyst? It is true that the V-Safe data may not accurately predict adverse events now (that data was from the first six months of the mRNA vaccine roll out), but how can one decline to mention it and still believe they are doing an acceptable job to inform the advisory panel?
True, we don't know the reasons why she omitted important data. The fact is she did. That can only lead to two possibilities, she was subtly trying to mislead or she was not competent to do her job.
Doesn't it strike you odd that this person who is ostensibly worried that "A lot of Americans are going to die from vaccine-preventable diseases” because the advisory panels like the ACIP are being hijacked by "manipulated data" would quit? I would think that someone with her admirable concerns would do everything she could to remain at her post. That's what I would do. I would love her job.
If the NNV to avert a hospital admission is 990, then I would regard vaccination as providing more benefit than risk as long as the risks of hospitalisation *from vaccination* are lower than one in 990.
Serious side effects from Covid vaccination are extremely rare. You point to VSafe data as though it provides some accurate indication of frequent consequences post-vaccine. The figure you cite (one in four) in no way bears comparison to hospitalisation rates from Covid.
They don’t even represent vaccine reactions or harms…
Firstly, they merely counted the full spectrum of interactions with healthcare providers…be it phone calls, GP visits, ER visits, hospital admissions. Almost all problems were minor, and not requiring formal admission. Secondly, they counted all causes under the same umbrella…eg you break your arm 4 weeks after the shot and it counts as an interaction. Thirdly, the VSafe system allows reports for up to a year after the vaccine shot to be counted. And finally, the average number of healthcare interactions you expect for individuals in the US in any given year is IIRC around one in every four anyhow. In other words, vaccination didn’t increase the occurrence of any measurable healthcare contact above the usual background rate for the unvaccinated.
Given the paucity and how mild “vaccine risks” appear to be following vaccination, it seems that vaccinating 990 persons to avoid one hospitalisation (ie moderate to severe Covid) is quite reasonable action to take.
Of course, there are variations within that ballpark number…the benefits will be greater the older you are, and the more comorbid conditions you have.
A very healthy young person might decide the potential benefits are too few to justify vaccination. I have personally encountered several people with that attitude, but it’s often backed by the statement “but if I did get bad Covid, they have good drugs to treat it now” or some such similar opinion.
Everyone has the right to inform himself and accept or reject this or any vaccine. Many millions died of the bioengineered Covid virus in 2020 and 2021. Millions more have died from the vaccine since 2021. Those interested should not content themselves with assurances from the medical-pharmaceutical industry.
Splitting this up, as my comments are being whisked away periodically.
I know personally more people harmed by the vaccine than who experienced critical care hospitalization. And yes, I know someone who had a critical care hospitalization. I believe that the risk of the vaccine, especially in children, far outweigh the risks of disease. Especially when nutrition, vitamin D and C status are tended to.
Personal anecdote is the lowest tier of scientific evidence.
I’m sure you know many individuals who claim to be harmed by the vaccine. Most antivaxers can volunteer the info that they know dozens. Strangely, independent objective analysis and ecological and epidemiological studies of large populations indicates otherwise.
More unprovable nonsense from Cia. !. don't believe she had myocarditis. I know of one fellow who said the shot turned him into the Incredible Hulk. THAT is the value of unproven personal testimonies. 2. Actual clinical trials on THOUSANDS OF PREGNANT women in several countries showed NO problems at any trimester. 3. long term follow ups on hundreds of thousands of people now, after the shot show NO relationship to cancer. Cia's silly anecdotes prove nothing. Anecdotes often cannot tell you if they actually happened, NEVER can tell you cause and effect, and can't tell you whether the issue would have happened even if the subject had not gotten the shot. There are many good reasons that when you read medical journals, or sit in a medical school classroom where they tell you why certain practices are done, anecdotes are NEVER the reason for the medical decisions!! Cia is a fraud.
I don't believe anything Cia "Pinocchio" Parker says.
Someone who has read and re-read Eleanor McBean's 1957 antivax book "the Poisonous Needle" until the pages have become so ragged and worn that they are considering buying a new copy, is not someone who got vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine or any other vaccine.
Scary times. With no checkpoint or end in sight. I cannot believe this is happening. Still complete silence from agencies such as ACEP, etc. Thanks again for being a voice of reason Dr Offit.
1. Why are no other countries reporting substantial numbers of deaths from covid in healthy children? Even at the height of the pandemic, Sweden and Germany reported that almost no healthy children had died due to covid. Most other countries have concluded that covid poses almost no risk to healthy children. Why is the US the outlier here?
2. The CDC data relies entirely on state immunization systems for vaccination status, which is likely to severely underestimate % “up-to-date” on covid shots. The author does not acknowledge that % vaccinated in the unhospitalized population is also very low (though the CDC report does). The presentation cannot draw any meaningful conclusions of the role of covid shots in averting pediatric covid hospitalization.
3. Even with those limitations of vaccination data, the published report of this presentation (PMID 40604359), the CDC did not find any association of vaccination status with severe disease among those hospitalized. (Figures 3A and 3B)
4. The author does not acknowledge any adverse effect of covid shots in children that must be weighed against the purported benefits.
5. The CDC presentation claims 7 US children died from covid, not 152 (slide 17). The published report (PMID 40604359) states 14 in-hospital deaths in Table 1. These discrepancies are not explained.
6. The presentation makes no conclusions about covid shots for children. It does not present any information on efficacy of covid shots for children in the current phase of the pandemic.
7. Few other countries are recommending covid shots for healthy children. Why? Is it because their doctors and epidemiologists do not care about kids? Is it because they are unintelligent? Or is it because they are looking at the same data and coming to a different conclusion?
The author is misrepresenting this complex subject as simple, black-and-white, good vs. evil. The author should stop with the fear-mongering and polemics and acknowledge the opposing viewpoints in this debate. This is the same kind of fear-mongering, hyperbole, and scapegoating that kept many US public schools closed for 18 months and has discredited the US public health establishment for a generation.
what nonsense. Most of your questions are based on fallacies and false information. 1) Sweden reports few covid peds infections because they have about 8% of the kids the US does. 2) injuries from covid shots are not taken into account because they don't exist. Go back to your koolaid.
read the insert of any medicine and ANY complication no matter how little concern it is listed because lawyer insist. It is called risk aversion....Go the American Heart Association and check there if myocarditis is a concern with the vaccine....
Myocarditis is listed as a side effect, because despite it being extremely rare, usually mild and with few long term consequences, it is the most serious side effect that anyone including the antivaxers can come up with in order to put something on the vaccine warning information sheet.
When the very "worst" thing a vaccine might do to you is give you a brief and inconsequential muscle inflammation, it demonstrates how safe the vaccines usually are.
Teenagers are the risk group...not kids, also skewed to males. The risk of myocarditis in teenage males who contract CoVID or other viral illnesses outweighs that observed with being vaccinated.
Marine is legitimate. He's a Hopkins EP cardiologist, and as credible a "COVID contrarian" as I've come across on SS. He's a real cherry picker and convenient omitter, but definitely not a Crazy Setty.
I don't know why he expends effort here, amidst angry "shouting." Maybe he posts draft material here, while writing for sane audiences. And/or Makary-envy.
Yes, and that's a real worry. But he IS a cardiologist - just like that idiot, Aseem Malhotra - and NOT a virologist, epidemiologists, or immunologist. He's not even a scientist, as far as I can tell. As such, he is nothing but a "fake expert", meaning that he is speaking outside his area of expertise with an MD stamped next to his name.
"Marine is legitimate"
Nope, he is a "fake expert" here.
And don't know what you mean by him being "credible" and writing for "sane audiences". He is a blatant liar and he knows he is lying or should know he is lying.
UK based person here. No healthy UK children have died from covid. What are the Americans doing wrong that so many die there? Or are these figures utter cobblers.
You stated this in another thread, and I corrected you. Then you clarified to reflect, “no healthy children,” and I corrected you a 2nd time. Are you testing my recollective capabilities, or shall I administer the Mini Mental Status Exam to you?
"No healthy UK children have died from covid. What are the Americans doing wrong"
Same in Australia.
The main factors in the US are the lack of a universal health care system, much poorer health of the population overall, and inequality in access to health care.
One study looking at child deaths in England (not the whole of the UK) showed that of the 25 deaths attributed to Covid, six (24%) had no underlying morbidity.
It’s also important to note that the CDC has been cut out of the loop with their ACIP presentation fact checks; the scientists previously used to verify the presentation data and double checked it was supported by the available scientific evidence.
But Redwood gave her presentation at ACIP without the CDC proofreading it, and so she delivered a seriously out of date and invalid talk about thimerosal in vaccines.
"This has become tiresome. I can't be bothered reading this. You have a lot of anger, maybe figure out what's so wrong in your real life that compells you to write pointless, meandering, rants in the comments that influence nothing or no one. You are quite literally pissing in the wind. It must be a sad place, your life. All the best with it."
The comment by Tim Hinchcliff came right after I had schooled him about his misuse of the VAERS database, his rookie error of confusing "adverse event" with "adverse effect", and his seeming lack of knowledge of the "base rate fallacy" and thereby falsely attributing tens of thousands of deaths to the vaccinations.
Perhaps that correlation is worth examining. It seems that the uneducated hoi polloi trust current HHS recommendations more than Dr. Offit.
That's gotta sting! Paul, I appreciate you. You have done more to educate mainstream medical consumers about vaccination science than anyone else in my memory.
Just a reminder that Joshy Hazer works for RFK junior's Children's Health Destruction and, like all antivaxxers, he interprets the corrections of lies as an "attack" and "censorship" and thinks that the public is better informed than the actual experts in virology, epidemiology, and infectious disease.
Josh. How much were you making every month working for Kennedy's campaign? And how much did CHD pay you to be their "parents rights" lawsuit posterboy?
Josh. Everything you do on Substack focuses on Offit-bashing.
The Curious Case of Dr. Thomas Shimabukuro's Missing Emails:
Whoever deleted all of his emails after they were requested by the US Senate has not helped his case.
Dr. Shimabukuro co-led the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), directed immunization safety strategy at the CDC, and shaped how the U.S. public health apparatus communicated vaccine risks and benefits during the most contentious era in its history. Yet the official record of how those decisions were made appears to be—at least in part—gone.
If the CDC is so proud of its actions, WHY did it destroy the emails of one of its leaders?
I wonder WHY Dr. Offit is not talking about THIS huge story?
Why does everyone who is opposed to vaccinations routinely describe hare-brained stories as "BLOCKBUSTERS!" or "BREAKING!" or "HUGE!" In my mind, these are key terms that immediately shout, "Pardon me, but who care?"
The DULLMAN is a stupid homoeopath, so he is clearly capable of believing even the most outrageously ridiculous.
The article the idiot links to is written by the well-known lying antivax arsehole James Lyons-Weiler, pseudoscience bullshit artist and disinformation dog.
The emails are missing, but there is no evidence that Dr. Thomas Shimabukuro deleted them.
Oh really...it is NO wonder that you are anonymous with such crank comments as yours above. The fact that you somehow think that RFK is doing this work is laughable. The DHHS is the largest agency in the US government. But heck, don't let outright fraud by Shimabukuro stand in your way of a silly takedown of RFK.
Ok...so, instead you prefer to hurt others by injecting aluminum into their veins. As a physician, you know that the body is not able to eliminating alumimum that is INJECTED, even though it is able to do so when aluminum is INGESTED (big diff!). As any AI about this. Medical child abuse is a common action that should be considered a crime.
I think Anonymous would actually prefer to just practice evidence-based medicine in peace without all the antivax bullshit, but that's just my read. Since you seem to feel AI is a trusted source and clearly don't understand aluminum metabolism, here's what "any AI" has to say on the subject : AI Overview
Yes, the body can eliminate aluminum that is injected in a vaccine, and it does so effectively.
Here's how:
Processing regardless of the source: Once aluminum enters the bloodstream, whether from vaccines, food, or other sources, the body processes it in the same way.
Binding and elimination: The majority of aluminum in the blood (around 90%) binds to a protein called transferrin, and about 10% binds to citrate. This bound aluminum is then transported to the kidneys.
Kidney excretion: The kidneys are the primary route for eliminating aluminum from the body. They efficiently filter it out of the bloodstream and excrete it in the urine.
Rapid clearance: About half of the aluminum in the bloodstream is eliminated within 24 hours, and more than three-quarters is eliminated within two weeks. This rapid elimination is key to the safety of aluminum-containing vaccines.
No significant accumulation from vaccines: Studies show that aluminum from vaccines does not accumulate to harmful levels in the body. Peak blood levels after vaccination remain lower than the levels absorbed from dietary sources over time.
Dear Dr Dork...Are you lying or simply ignorant (or both)? You, as a pseudo-doctor, should know that vaccines are injected into the soft tissue, not into the bloodstream (thanx for proving that doctors don't know much about vaccines and are the chief providers of misinformation on vaccines!).
Thanx for embarrassing yourself.
Once again, ask ChatGPT or Perplexity or most other AIs about the difference in excretion between INJECTED vs INGESTED aluminum.
Get educated...and stop committing medical child abuse.
Yeah, you have said for years that vaccine mercury is never stored for life in the brain, bones, and organs, when many studies have shown that in many people, like everyone in my familiy, it does. Same with stored vaccine aluminum. Dr. Exley has designed a protocol to chelate it using silica, as in Fiji water. C has been drinking Fiji water several times a day since Mad Hatter recommended it to me, saying how much it had improved her son.
Actually, that was "Dr Dork" who said that vaccines are shot into veins! I said it was shot into soft tissue...and that the body has NO means of eliminating aluminum shot into soft tissue. THAT is why I said that there is a BIG diff between INJECTED vs. INGESTED aluminum. IV access to aluminum is akin to ingesting it.
What Kennedy has done is good and appropriate. Yes, Covid can occasionally be dangerous or fatal even now, but usually isn’t. The vaccine, on the other hand, often causes disabling or fatal side effects.
Traditionally the CDC has just urged people not to worry and let them stumble into the slough of life destruction by vaccines with no concern and no assistance. Kennedy is warning them of the dangers of this and other vaccines. They can still get it, or them, but Kennedy is making them aware that the chances of the vaccine recipient being severely damaged or killed are greater with the vaccine than the disease. For the first time putting children’s lives above revenue.
Martin, this is weird. This comment was in my inbox as being from you, not Bill. In a string which included comments by Frau Katze, Billy Joe, an obscene one supposedly by the genteel Mary Ann Caton, and Steve. Even depraved ones supposrdly by Cia Parker. All really by you. You should be ashamed.
Smallpox eradicated by a worldwide vaccination campaign. Huge success. Smallpox was an awful disease that killed about a quarter of the people who caught it.
Smallpox vaccination had no effect at "eradication," but it did disable and kill millions. As with all the poison jabs and their targeted infections, "Small Pox" fizzled out long long before implementation of jab-poison/induce illness campaign. in fact, jab was inducing outbreaks! That is why they stopped! Pound Sand Offit! Your bull-horn days are over! Blow Hard!
The vaccine also killed many. In the US after 1920, the smallpox vaccine killed more than the disease did. When I took C to the Green Meadows clinic in March 2002 to get her chicken pox on the record, we saw a Dr. Avery, who said he had been glad when the smallpox vaccine was taken off the market, as he had seen it cause many devastating reactions.
Read The Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean. I have an old, tattered copy, just found it on Amazon, which surprised me, and I ordered another copy.
What was used in the nineteenth century was rarely made with cowpox, but instead rotten animal exudate as from horse grease. Hundreds of thousands of vaccinated people died of smallpox. Many thousands died of gangrene, encephalitis, syphilus, TB, or other diseases from contaminated “vaccine,” or of cancer starting at the injection point. Many riots of people refusing to submit to vaccibation laws as the product was so deadly. And ineffective. In the twentieth century a real vaccine was used, but it still caused a lot of severe reactions and death. After the US outbreak in 1896, smallpox here evolved to be much less dangerous, and over a few decades no longer caused death even when it occurred. Most people at that time refused to get it. My neighbor, elderly even then, born in 1928, told me that one of her older sisters caught smallpox when she was boarding in town in Iowa to go to high school. She was sick for a short time, then recovered. I was surprised because I thought that smallpox was always severe and often deadly. But that was typical for smallpox in the US around 1930.
Smallpox has a fatality rate of 30%. The modern vaccine did not kill people. If it had, people wouldn’t have taken it. It was a horrific disease. Check out the photos and description here.
I agree that it was a horrible disease. In the nineteenth century, the vaccine was worthless and dangerous. In the twentieth century, the vaccine was effective but very dangerous, while the disease had become very mild in the US. But regardless of how horrible a disease is, it does not mean that you should take the proffered vaccine without researching it.
For several decades in the twentieth century, most Americans refused to take it. For the last decades of its use, the vaccine killed more Americans than the disease.
MORE BLATANT LIES AND FALSE PERSONAL NARRATIVES FROM PINOCCHIO "PICKNOSE" PARKER.
The silly stupid thing has absolutely no knowledge of medical science or critical thinking but read a book once written by an incompetent contrarian and believed every single word.
ABOUT THE BOOK:
Written in 1957 so really up to date.
The book's lies include:
- that vaccines are responsible for many modern diseases.
- that the medical establishment suppresses evidence of vaccine harm.
- that the 1918 Spanish Flu was caused by mass vaccination, not a virus.
That last one is a doozy (see below).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
- Eleanor McBean was a naturopath, not a doctor.
- she claimed her family avoided the 1918 Spanish Flu by refusing vaccines (NOTE: no flu vaccine existed at that time).
- she argued that vaccines cause cancer, paralysis, and other chronic illnesses.
- she believed germs were not the cause of disease.
Yet, Picknose Parker claims she read that rag of a book and still had three COVID-19 vaccinations! But of course, as we all know...
lol! everything Offit claims is a lire and pseudo science! bottom line: smallpox” like “measles” fizzled way before toxic unproved jabs. offit just pissing on himself
CDC is no longer the practicing physicians’ source of truth. Children and pregnant women should be vaccinated, end of story!
Absolutely! And the laughable comments regarding Fiona Hill’s “conflicts of interest” make me want to scream. Who has more conflicts of interest than the current Secretary? He makes millions from suing vaccine manufacturers, and peddling fake remedies.
Fiona Hill's so called "conflicts of interest" are just conspiracy theories made up on the spur of the moment to cast doubt on her motives for resigning.
Indeed, there are no reputable and credible mainstream, investigative, or "watchdog" organisations that support the claim that Dr. Fiona Havers resigned due to an impending investigation into stock options or financial conflicts of interest, or anything even remotely related to that.
It is nothing but a conspiracy theory circulating on social media platforms and fringe blogs, all of which use vague language for the purposes of "plausible deniability" for when the conspiracy theory is later exposed and lack attribution to named sources.
You should read this: https://substack.com/home/post/p-165774217
^DON'T READ THIS.
William Makis is a grifting lying scumbag.
He has no relevant expertise - what we call a "Fake Expert" - and he used a deadly pandemic not to help people but for personal financial gain, selling useless treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and fenbendazole and pushing that "Fake Disease", turbocancer, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
He is an absolute disgrace.
man. are you. ever stupid.
Arrow <-- "man. are you. ever stupid"
Now, pay attention:
William Makis is a grifting lying scumbag.
He has no relevant expertise - what we call a "Fake Expert" - and he used a deadly pandemic not to help people but for personal financial gain, selling useless treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and fenbendazole and pushing that "Fake Disease", turbocancer, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
He is an absolute disgrace.
Got it? Stupid.
What I got is dozens of testimonials of people cured with fenben and Ivermectin, testimonials that don't come from him, but are direct first hand testimonials. He teaches people who to do it. People like you are a scourge to humanity, at total ass. Do not respond to me. You disgust me.
He's not a doctor.
https://cpsa.ca/news/statement-william-viliam-makis-not-licensed-to-practise-medicine-in-alberta/
Actually he is a doctor.. that is his degree.. he is no longer licensed.... he is saving lives left and right and you are clueless
"Actually he is a doctor"
Actually, he is not a licensed doctor.
"he is no longer licensed"
I see you are learning. |:
"he is saving lives left and right"
You are clueless.
"You are clueless"
looking in the mirror.
you should read this: https://substack.com/home/post/p-165774217
^DON'T READ THIS.
William Makis is a grifting lying scumbag.
He has no relevant expertise - what we call a "Fake Expert" - and he used a deadly pandemic not to help people but for personal financial gain, selling useless treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and fenbendazole and pushing that "Fake Disease", turbocancer, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
He is an absolute disgrace.
It is paywalled?
Yes.
It’s antivax propaganda from Makis, a well known crank. Don’t bother to subscribe.
I have been subscribed to him for 7 months.. he posts incredible information. I highly recommend you subscribe for a while
CDC is reporting 70 confirmed cases of H5N1 infections in humans. That same number was reported in March 2025. This implies that, miraculously, cattle/bird spillover stopped in March 2025. Alternatively, cases are no longer being confirmed and/or reported. In addition, workers are likely not reporting illness due to draconian immigration policies.
Scary!
Draconian is another word for laws? We had ten to thirty million illegal immigrants during the Biden years, and it was impossible to continue like that. Crime, unemployment for Americans, lack of housing, skyhigh rents, crowding and diversion of resources in schools, drug cartels. Just look at the UK, Germany, and France. They are probably lost forever. No. Illegals have to be deported.
1. How do you determine if they are illegal or not?
2. Should those arrested face due process as recognised by the constitution?
3. If someone is in the process of seeking lawful residence/getting a green card, should they still be arrested and deported?
Sir...your comment has no relevance to the deplorable actions of RFK Jr.
Compassion & caring for those without a chance for a better life can be & has proven to be messy.
You have the rites afforded to you from the various amendments within your constitution to disagree with the actions of President Biden.
Through my lens & I am confident the majority of Americans, including those who voted for the egregious individual occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave would prefer the possibly flawed actions of President Biden over your current administration.
History will record 2025 through 2028/9 has a very dark & regrettable period for the vast majority of Americans.
What is sadder are the consequences of your current president actions, that have resulted in 100,000's of death in various impoverished countries.
These ill conceived actions will also result in compounded hardships & deaths within the USA...there is a serious concern for AID's infections becoming resistant to current treatments, in addition numerous other diseases will not have optimal treatment options because your HHS/CDC/FDA have been decimated 😥
JJF Phm 🇨🇦
Why, that is so pathetic it's almost funny. Didn't know there were people this stupid.
Huh?
All that for the same reasons that have always been the reason - government.
Do you think CDC would hide new cases?
Paul you are still using your MD as a marketing director. Time to retire
This is all so scary - and why I have been so scared by the DOGE infiltration of all the heath agencies and their ability to manipulate data. I suspect we are in for many more problems beyond vaccines. It's so sad, but I don't trust anything coming out of these agencies anymore.
Whenever people who were likely to have supported vaccine mandates, masking, and terrible covid policy talk about their fear, I get a really great feeling inside for some reason...
You are taking the smartest path.
Maybe RFK should put Lord Lardass on a diet.
many of us have predicted that donOLD's administration would suppress or manipulate all the data that was not concurrent with their expectations. Many investigators have tried to archive/save existing databases (because the fees for cloud storage were cut by Musk/DOGE).
we also knew that essential new datapoints in epidemiology would be missed because of the deep cuts to CDC personnel and funding.
donOLD and Bobby are destructive and not making America healthier
It IS scary, but not for the reasons you give here Dr. Offit.
It's scary to me because after reading through the 29 slides Havers put together I am stunned at how she carefully omitted the most crucial metrics required to make an objective assessment of the effectiveness and safety of the Covid vaccines.
The pretty graphs and charts do a good job of breaking down the epidemiological data around the pathogenicity of Covid-19 by age group and season, as well as the level acuity of the cases. However the Covid vaccines are only mentioned in a handful of places. Here they are:
26% of adults ages ≥65 years hospitalized with COVID-19 received the
recommended 2023-24 COVID-19 vaccine prior to hospitalization.
"Most" adults hospitalized with COVID-19 had received no COVID-19
vaccine since September 2022
Fewer than 5% of children and adolescents hospitalized with COVID-19 had received the
most recently recommended COVID-19 vaccination during the 23-24 season.
Can anyone see the problem here?
This intrepid CDC researcher did not give the committee crucial data points needed to assess vaccine effectiveness, namely:
What percentage of people in these age groups were vaccinated? This is absolutely essential. What is the point of stating that 5% of kids hospitalized with Covid were vaccinated if you don't tell us the percentage of kids in the population who were vaccinated to begin with?
If it was 5% that means that vaccines aren't preventing hospitalization at all. If it was less, that means that they have negative efficacy.
If it were more then we could say that vaccination might confer a protective benefit.
However even if we had that number, the CDC is up to their old game of telling us only what the relative risk reduction would be. That is not how members of the ACIP committee (or anyone else for that matter) can determine the risk vs. benefit ratio.
Why didn't brave Fiona Havers simply calculate the number of kids that have to be vaccinated to prevent a single hospitalization? Given the raw data which she presents, the risk of hospitalization for people 6 months to 49 years of age is one in tens of thousands.
Even if the effectiveness was around 50%, we would have to vaccinate around ten thousand to prevent a single hospitalization. I am just eye-balling the graph on Slide 6 titled:
"Among all age groups, rates of COVID-19–associated
hospitalizations have declined since the 2021–2022 season"
Interesting, isn't it? Hospitalizations have declined with vaccination rates. What should we do? Vaccinate more? (To readers, this is a rhetorical question. We cannot answer this question based on the data in the presentation).
In any case, why should I, or the intended audience of this presentation have to estimate the number of Covid hospitalizations per 100K people by peering at a tiny sliver on a graph? She has the numbers. Why didn't she do the calculation herself?
What else is missing? The same thing that is always missing from CDC reports. Where is the risk assessment? There isn't any. Are we to believe that none of the tens of millions of people who get boosters ever have a serious adverse event that also leads to hospitalization??
This wasn't an earnest effort to inform. This was a snowjob. I have sat through ACIP and VRBPAC meetings myself, so this is of no surprise to me.
What is scary is that YOU, Paul, regard this presentation as a call to redouble our campaign to vaccinate. It isn't. I can understand how some of your readers might skim this data and agree with you, however you are supposed to be a leader and the voice of reason here.
No, I am not an epidemiologist. You don't have to be one to examine data objectively and make basic assessments about what can be concluded. If she was true to her trade she would have included the basic numbers I mentioned above.
The irony here, of course, is that she is the one who "feared that RFK JR. would suppress or manipulate CDC data."
And, as you quoted her saying: "A lot of Americans are going to die from vaccine-preventable diseases." Oh yeah? How many? That is exactly what is missing from her presentation.
This CDC researcher may have had a lifelong career as a CDC analyst in the past. At the moment she is lucky she wasn't fired before she resigned. She is part of the rot in the system. My guess is that there are many more like her in that institution.
That is what's scary.
Madhava Setty, MD
Another antivax arsehole from the RFK junior's Children's Health Destruction rears its ugly head to spread more deadly disinformation.
The number needed to treat is a useless statistic. It is variable dependent on specific time and place and based on known background rate of infection. At any given effectiveness of treatment the number needed to treat is inversely proportional to infection rate at a specific locale. The number needed to treat in Wuhan, China, January 2020 would not be the same as Washington DC, January 2020.
It's not entirely useless, when defined and interpreted properly. But unfortunately, it's easy for the anti-vaccine "thought leaders" to misuse, and then weaponize. As Daj points out, NNV is only meaningful when you know the absolute risk for a specific population, place, and time. For instance, comparing different COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA vs. adenoviral vector vaccines) in high-risk populations during specific waves (e.g. Delta or Omicron surges). Or comparing standard-dose vs. high-dose flu vaccines for seniors in long-term care settings (in a region).
Applying an NNV from one setting to another without adjusting for baseline risk leads to misleading conclusions.
But that's the same for any data point. Same story for COVID mortality 0.2% across the population but much higher in over 60s. Same for vaccine adverse events myocarditis much higher in younger males than in other populations. Long COVID is more prevalent in females. It goes on and on none of these numbers is perfect. If NNV is meaningless unless you have "absolute risk for a specific population, place and time" then hiw can we have faith in covid vaccine efficacy if you don't have that information either, which you don't in observational studies.
A better measure of vaccine efficacy is the relative risk reduction. Rather than the absolute risk reduction (from witch the number needed to treat is calculated) The RRR is independent of background risk.
"A better measure of vaccine efficacy is the relative risk reduction."
Okay, then how would you be able to assess whether the benefit is worth the risk using RRR alone? That's what the whole "antivax" sentiment is about. It isn't about lack of efficacy. It is about ignoring the risk which is always non-zero in any medical intervention.
There is not a single mention of any risk in the 29 slides that Dr. Offit believes is conclusive evidence that all children should be given the primary Covid series. That is what is scary.
IFR is calculated by dividing number of infections by number of deaths. Neither number is real as they are both dynamic and can never be precise.
NNR takes another number that is also not real (population) and uses the vaccine efficacy percentage (also not real) to give the NNR.
All of the data points in the example above and the ratios derived from them (which can also be described as data points) are wrong. That's just chaos theory.
If it helps you can spell these letters out in your mind.
What you do is "cherry pick". You take certain numbers as gospel when it suits you and discredit ones that don't.
You're maybe a classic 125 mid wit but even if you made that you're definitely one of the ones still happily pressing those buzzers when Milgram tells you to.
Milgram did not assess the relationship between intelligence and compliance in any systemic way, fool.
Nice Prasadist narcissistic condescension, but tongue my taint and then LLM me up the basics on Lyapunov exponent exploration in epidemiological modeling studies, Dr. Chaos. Then go back to Unacceptable Jessica, you Nepetalactone Nonce. Then choke on your Coffee & COVID & Cock, Kiwi Kunt.
An NNV model is used to inform decisions for the UK vaccine campaign.
what absolute risk does the model use or does it predict NNT based on various estimates of absolute risk?
Take a look at the following document - "Independent report
Appendix A: estimating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent a COVID-19 hospitalisation in autumn 2024 in England
Published 2 August 2024"
Thanks!
"To estimate NNV the monthly incidence was based on the incidence used for the autumn 2023 calculation (incidence in the winter of 2022 to 2023) but with this incidence halved to reflect the lower rates of COVID-19 seen since this time through 2023 which likely reflect increasing population immunity. As in the 2023 calculation, incidence is stratified by age and risk group."
The incidence they refer to here is an assumption for the absolute risk for all of England for fall 2024.
Number needed to treat, or on this case, to vaccinate, to prevent the disease should be a standard part of every presentation.
And yes, the background vaccination rate is incredibly important.
The number needed to treat can only be used if you know the absolute risk at a specific place and time.
Well our medical and governing authorities have treated covid infections as though the risk was 100% of the time for 100% of the people. Thus the lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates.
If the risk of infection is not quantifiable, at least in some measure, then maybe we do not need an experimental vaccine that has had more VAERS reports than all other vaccines combined. Most of the reports are filed by healthcare professionals, take a long time to complete (half an hr or more), and report adverse events that had their onset within 48 hours to a week following the injection.
And even the government acknowledges that VAERS has a vast underreporting rate.
you make a great point here Dr. Setty.
No, he doesn't. He proves himself a fool, again. MIT graduate - too funny.
which parts of his note do you object to Reprobater?
Basic Bayesian shit. Pretest probability, denominators in each group.
no, I meant actually communicate the problems you have with his post, not hide behind academic language and sophistry.
are U a computer too?
Bullshit, crazy bitch. That's hardly sophistry. You asked. I told you. Now fuck yourself all the way back to your crazy bitch subscriptions.
Hollis BrownNose: "which parts of his ... do you object to"
The part you just extracted your nose from.
She eats shit. Another consumer of Substack's finest russian propaganda and joo-hate.
you got me there. I do love me some Russian propaganda, but Jew hate? now you’ve gone too far.
Hollis Brown:
"May I kiss you arse "mad hatter" Setty.
poor lonely computer.
someone should program U
to Love…
You're a conspiracy-gobbling freak, Hollis.
https://substack.com/@hollisbrown1/reads
It's not my fault you're always digging your nose into Mad Hatter Setty's arse. It's not my fault they call you Hollis BrownNose.
“Fewer than 5% of children and adolescents hospitalized with COVID-19 had received the most recently recommended COVID-19 vaccination during the 23-24 season.
Can anyone see the problem here?”
Correctly, you point out that we really need to know the percentage of children in the population who have been vaccinated in order to interpret this information.
The CDC has data on this; …the percentage of children under 18 vaccinated in 2003/4 was 13%.
https://www.izsummitpartners.org/2024-03-07/
We can therefore conclude (as she did) that Covid vaccination is effective at preventing hospitalisation.
It is very uncharitable of you to accuse her of manipulating data merely because her presentation could not be as comprehensive as you would wish it to be.
In addition, it is possible to use these figures and the rates of hospitalisation in the under 18s (30-60/100k, call it 45) to calculate the NNV to prevent hospitalisation.
Assuming 4% of hospitalised covid cases under 18 are vaccinated, and background vax rate is 13%, then vaccination has prevented the difference.
There were only 45 hospitalisations per 100k whereas we would expect 45 x 13/4 per 100k without vaccination, or 146 hospitalisations /100k without vaccination.
Vaccination prevented 146-45 (101), meaning you need to vaccinate 100,000/101 children to prevent one hospitalisation (NNV = 990).
Considering how damaging severe covid requiring hospitalisation is, vaccination should be considered, and this is the number that you need to be looking at for the risk assessment.
Since the risks of harm from vaccination are several orders of magnitude lower, then overall the rational choice is to get vaccinated. The math is still in favour of vaccination even when you consider vaccinating healthy children and adolescents.
Mike, you are missing my point entirely. Yes, you have properly estimated the raw NNV. Of course there is no way to compensate for confounders, but one must start some place. The issue is that this is the kind of presentation ACIP members get inundated with. Then they have to make a decision that impacts hundreds of millions of people.
Why wouldn't the CDC analyst whose job is to be clear and rigorous leave it to the panel to do even the roughest of calculation around the utility of the vaccine they are supposed to be evaluating?
They are supposed to get the background vax rate as these slides are flashed in front of them and then determine the NNV for each group? Why was there not a single slide that was cautionary? Such an omission is based on the assumption that there is zero chance of any adverse events which is wrong.
There are lot of other vagaries here. Hospitalization is an outcome we should try to minimize, certainly. But where do we weigh hospitalization from Covid against hospitalization from adverse events? The CDC ignores its own adverse event reporting systems. This means that there is an assumption that the risk is zero. The V-Safe data dump which we finally got a few years into the pandemic indicates that 1 in 4 vaccine recipients either missed school, work or needed medical attention after getting vaccinated with the mRNA products. This is an active surveillance program. It's the best we have. If the CDC was actually interested in doing a risk/benefit assessment they would have to acknowledge that 990 vaccinations would carry the risk of negatively impacting the health of 247 recipients. Is isn't this something the ACIP should at least consider?
Finally you accuse me of being uncharitable for claiming that she is manipulating data. I made no such claim. I said that it is ironic that she claims that Kennedy will manipulate the data when there is no proof of this while she is leaving out key information needed to determine if the risk is worth the benefit.
If I am uncharitable by your standards then you would have to level the same criticism against her too.
In any case, why would she resign based on fears? One would think that someone in her position would endeavor to ensure that that doesn't happen. She can't do that from the sidelines.
Dr Setty,
I take your point that data is left out of the presentation that could add important information to the message and assist individuals in determining the risk benefits of vaccination.
I was pointing out that the information left out was very supportive of vaccination.
Why the data was not presented in a totally comprehensive manner, I don't know. Maybe she thought sufficient meat was on the bones and she didn't have to add to it. Maybe she was constrained in her number of slides or time. I don't know.
You did not directly accuse her of manipulation, I admit that, but you did say: "This wasn't an earnest effort to inform. This was a snowjob", and so data manipulation is clearly implied. The reason I stated I thought it uncharitable for you to do so was because we do not know the reasons for her omitting what you regard as vital information, and to assume it was done so on the basis of trying to influence the decisions of the panel is speculative. The fact that the information omitted does if anything *strengthen* the argument for vaccination would indicate that she has not left it out because it might make vaccination appear to be ineffective or as part of a "snow job"...as I pointed out, it in fact confirms effectiveness.
Mike S,
"I take your point that data is left out of the presentation that could add important information to the message and assist individuals in determining the risk benefits of vaccination."
Okay, but why would you concede that point while taking issue with
"This wasn't an earnest effort to inform. This was a snowjob"?
In my book that is what a snowjob is, leave out crucial information and highlight other data to make an argument. She is an analyst. Her responsibility is to gather the most important data and present it in a coherent and unbiased manner so that the advisory panel can discuss it and make a recommendation. Her job isn't to make an argument. Her job is to inform. This wasn't an earnest effort to inform in my book.
You have made a reasonable estimation of the NNV. In my opinion this doesn't strengthen any argument for vaccination unless you also include the risk borne by the 990 people who consent to vaccination. What is the risk? The only way it could be irrelevant and unmentionable is if the risk is zero. It isn't. There isn't a medical intervention that carries zero risk.
Why wouldn't she also mention the data coming from the CDC's own adverse event collections systems? As I mentioned before the V-Safe data indicates that a quarter of these people will likely suffer some sort of untoward consequence. That is the best data the CDC has. Isn't it odd that it wasn't mentioned by a CDC analyst? It is true that the V-Safe data may not accurately predict adverse events now (that data was from the first six months of the mRNA vaccine roll out), but how can one decline to mention it and still believe they are doing an acceptable job to inform the advisory panel?
True, we don't know the reasons why she omitted important data. The fact is she did. That can only lead to two possibilities, she was subtly trying to mislead or she was not competent to do her job.
Doesn't it strike you odd that this person who is ostensibly worried that "A lot of Americans are going to die from vaccine-preventable diseases” because the advisory panels like the ACIP are being hijacked by "manipulated data" would quit? I would think that someone with her admirable concerns would do everything she could to remain at her post. That's what I would do. I would love her job.
If the NNV to avert a hospital admission is 990, then I would regard vaccination as providing more benefit than risk as long as the risks of hospitalisation *from vaccination* are lower than one in 990.
Serious side effects from Covid vaccination are extremely rare. You point to VSafe data as though it provides some accurate indication of frequent consequences post-vaccine. The figure you cite (one in four) in no way bears comparison to hospitalisation rates from Covid.
They don’t even represent vaccine reactions or harms…
Firstly, they merely counted the full spectrum of interactions with healthcare providers…be it phone calls, GP visits, ER visits, hospital admissions. Almost all problems were minor, and not requiring formal admission. Secondly, they counted all causes under the same umbrella…eg you break your arm 4 weeks after the shot and it counts as an interaction. Thirdly, the VSafe system allows reports for up to a year after the vaccine shot to be counted. And finally, the average number of healthcare interactions you expect for individuals in the US in any given year is IIRC around one in every four anyhow. In other words, vaccination didn’t increase the occurrence of any measurable healthcare contact above the usual background rate for the unvaccinated.
Given the paucity and how mild “vaccine risks” appear to be following vaccination, it seems that vaccinating 990 persons to avoid one hospitalisation (ie moderate to severe Covid) is quite reasonable action to take.
Of course, there are variations within that ballpark number…the benefits will be greater the older you are, and the more comorbid conditions you have.
A very healthy young person might decide the potential benefits are too few to justify vaccination. I have personally encountered several people with that attitude, but it’s often backed by the statement “but if I did get bad Covid, they have good drugs to treat it now” or some such similar opinion.
Everyone has the right to inform himself and accept or reject this or any vaccine. Many millions died of the bioengineered Covid virus in 2020 and 2021. Millions more have died from the vaccine since 2021. Those interested should not content themselves with assurances from the medical-pharmaceutical industry.
Splitting this up, as my comments are being whisked away periodically.
Perhaps your comments are vanishing because they are untrue.
Examples: "bioenginered virus", "Millions died from vaccine" etc.
Excellent comment, in elegant, lucid English!
I know personally more people harmed by the vaccine than who experienced critical care hospitalization. And yes, I know someone who had a critical care hospitalization. I believe that the risk of the vaccine, especially in children, far outweigh the risks of disease. Especially when nutrition, vitamin D and C status are tended to.
Personal anecdote is the lowest tier of scientific evidence.
I’m sure you know many individuals who claim to be harmed by the vaccine. Most antivaxers can volunteer the info that they know dozens. Strangely, independent objective analysis and ecological and epidemiological studies of large populations indicates otherwise.
More unprovable nonsense from Cia. !. don't believe she had myocarditis. I know of one fellow who said the shot turned him into the Incredible Hulk. THAT is the value of unproven personal testimonies. 2. Actual clinical trials on THOUSANDS OF PREGNANT women in several countries showed NO problems at any trimester. 3. long term follow ups on hundreds of thousands of people now, after the shot show NO relationship to cancer. Cia's silly anecdotes prove nothing. Anecdotes often cannot tell you if they actually happened, NEVER can tell you cause and effect, and can't tell you whether the issue would have happened even if the subject had not gotten the shot. There are many good reasons that when you read medical journals, or sit in a medical school classroom where they tell you why certain practices are done, anecdotes are NEVER the reason for the medical decisions!! Cia is a fraud.
I don't believe anything Cia "Pinocchio" Parker says.
Someone who has read and re-read Eleanor McBean's 1957 antivax book "the Poisonous Needle" until the pages have become so ragged and worn that they are considering buying a new copy, is not someone who got vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine or any other vaccine.
Scary times. With no checkpoint or end in sight. I cannot believe this is happening. Still complete silence from agencies such as ACEP, etc. Thanks again for being a voice of reason Dr Offit.
So many questions and concerns about this post:
1. Why are no other countries reporting substantial numbers of deaths from covid in healthy children? Even at the height of the pandemic, Sweden and Germany reported that almost no healthy children had died due to covid. Most other countries have concluded that covid poses almost no risk to healthy children. Why is the US the outlier here?
2. The CDC data relies entirely on state immunization systems for vaccination status, which is likely to severely underestimate % “up-to-date” on covid shots. The author does not acknowledge that % vaccinated in the unhospitalized population is also very low (though the CDC report does). The presentation cannot draw any meaningful conclusions of the role of covid shots in averting pediatric covid hospitalization.
3. Even with those limitations of vaccination data, the published report of this presentation (PMID 40604359), the CDC did not find any association of vaccination status with severe disease among those hospitalized. (Figures 3A and 3B)
4. The author does not acknowledge any adverse effect of covid shots in children that must be weighed against the purported benefits.
5. The CDC presentation claims 7 US children died from covid, not 152 (slide 17). The published report (PMID 40604359) states 14 in-hospital deaths in Table 1. These discrepancies are not explained.
6. The presentation makes no conclusions about covid shots for children. It does not present any information on efficacy of covid shots for children in the current phase of the pandemic.
7. Few other countries are recommending covid shots for healthy children. Why? Is it because their doctors and epidemiologists do not care about kids? Is it because they are unintelligent? Or is it because they are looking at the same data and coming to a different conclusion?
The author is misrepresenting this complex subject as simple, black-and-white, good vs. evil. The author should stop with the fear-mongering and polemics and acknowledge the opposing viewpoints in this debate. This is the same kind of fear-mongering, hyperbole, and scapegoating that kept many US public schools closed for 18 months and has discredited the US public health establishment for a generation.
what nonsense. Most of your questions are based on fallacies and false information. 1) Sweden reports few covid peds infections because they have about 8% of the kids the US does. 2) injuries from covid shots are not taken into account because they don't exist. Go back to your koolaid.
Why is myocarditis listed as a risk then?
It's a LABELED AE, and most cases are mild (to moderate) and self-limited. Go back to your sheri tenpenny wisdom.
This is a great example of an AI bot response. No human would use the term “head-fucked wench.”
Thank for this gem!
read the insert of any medicine and ANY complication no matter how little concern it is listed because lawyer insist. It is called risk aversion....Go the American Heart Association and check there if myocarditis is a concern with the vaccine....
Myocarditis is listed as a side effect, because despite it being extremely rare, usually mild and with few long term consequences, it is the most serious side effect that anyone including the antivaxers can come up with in order to put something on the vaccine warning information sheet.
When the very "worst" thing a vaccine might do to you is give you a brief and inconsequential muscle inflammation, it demonstrates how safe the vaccines usually are.
SADS doesn’t count? I think you could add clotting and immune dysregulation.
Teenagers are the risk group...not kids, also skewed to males. The risk of myocarditis in teenage males who contract CoVID or other viral illnesses outweighs that observed with being vaccinated.
No use replying to this antivax arsehole, he never responds.
The crapper just dumps his load and leaves.
Marine is legitimate. He's a Hopkins EP cardiologist, and as credible a "COVID contrarian" as I've come across on SS. He's a real cherry picker and convenient omitter, but definitely not a Crazy Setty.
I don't know why he expends effort here, amidst angry "shouting." Maybe he posts draft material here, while writing for sane audiences. And/or Makary-envy.
"Marine is ... a Hopkins EP cardiologist"
Yes, and that's a real worry. But he IS a cardiologist - just like that idiot, Aseem Malhotra - and NOT a virologist, epidemiologists, or immunologist. He's not even a scientist, as far as I can tell. As such, he is nothing but a "fake expert", meaning that he is speaking outside his area of expertise with an MD stamped next to his name.
"Marine is legitimate"
Nope, he is a "fake expert" here.
And don't know what you mean by him being "credible" and writing for "sane audiences". He is a blatant liar and he knows he is lying or should know he is lying.
UK based person here. No healthy UK children have died from covid. What are the Americans doing wrong that so many die there? Or are these figures utter cobblers.
You stated this in another thread, and I corrected you. Then you clarified to reflect, “no healthy children,” and I corrected you a 2nd time. Are you testing my recollective capabilities, or shall I administer the Mini Mental Status Exam to you?
"No healthy UK children have died from covid. What are the Americans doing wrong"
Same in Australia.
The main factors in the US are the lack of a universal health care system, much poorer health of the population overall, and inequality in access to health care.
I'm a UK Infection Physician.
One study looking at child deaths in England (not the whole of the UK) showed that of the 25 deaths attributed to Covid, six (24%) had no underlying morbidity.
Superb comment! I screen shotted it!
It’s also important to note that the CDC has been cut out of the loop with their ACIP presentation fact checks; the scientists previously used to verify the presentation data and double checked it was supported by the available scientific evidence.
But Redwood gave her presentation at ACIP without the CDC proofreading it, and so she delivered a seriously out of date and invalid talk about thimerosal in vaccines.
You say that tongue-in-cheek.
This is Tim Hinchcliff talking about himself:
"This has become tiresome. I can't be bothered reading this. You have a lot of anger, maybe figure out what's so wrong in your real life that compells you to write pointless, meandering, rants in the comments that influence nothing or no one. You are quite literally pissing in the wind. It must be a sad place, your life. All the best with it."
"compells" LOL.
Bitchcliff is a magoid Kiwi that fancies himself clever. Better than crazy trolls like Denise and OG Anubis, but bad juju -
"If they had just used the absolute risk reduction of less than 1% people would have had a far more accurate view of the efficacy of the vaccine.
Then they would have had informed consent."
As if.
The comment by Tim Hinchcliff came right after I had schooled him about his misuse of the VAERS database, his rookie error of confusing "adverse event" with "adverse effect", and his seeming lack of knowledge of the "base rate fallacy" and thereby falsely attributing tens of thousands of deaths to the vaccinations.
Denise Ward is a run-of-the-mill stupid conspiracy theorist.
GET A LOAD OF THIS:
From this fool's last comment:
- covid was a total hoax.
- they cannot even show proof of its existence.
- total mass psychosis.
- I never fell for it.
- the jab which is a live experiment.
- they staggered the vials so there were all different doses.
- they also installed a world-wide grid of 5G towers during the lockdowns.
- fluoride in the water ... they're out to debilitate and kill us.
- but you go on and believe everything
THIS IS THE IDIOCY THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
This CDC source shows approximately 13% of US citizens age 6 months to age 18 are 100% covid vaccinated. 22% of those age 18+
https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/data/vaccination-trends.html
33 out of 33 of the past Paul Offit Beyond the Noise substacks have explicitly attacked RFK, Jr.
https://pauloffit.substack.com/archive?sort=new
Perhaps that correlation is worth examining. It seems that the uneducated hoi polloi trust current HHS recommendations more than Dr. Offit.
That's gotta sting! Paul, I appreciate you. You have done more to educate mainstream medical consumers about vaccination science than anyone else in my memory.
Keep up the good work!
Best-
JAM
Annapolis, Md
NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
Just a reminder that Joshy Hazer works for RFK junior's Children's Health Destruction and, like all antivaxxers, he interprets the corrections of lies as an "attack" and "censorship" and thinks that the public is better informed than the actual experts in virology, epidemiology, and infectious disease.
Josh. How much were you making every month working for Kennedy's campaign? And how much did CHD pay you to be their "parents rights" lawsuit posterboy?
Josh. Everything you do on Substack focuses on Offit-bashing.
Exodus 23:1
Proverbs 6:16-19
Proverbs 19:5
Ezekiel 22:12-13
The Curious Case of Dr. Thomas Shimabukuro's Missing Emails:
Whoever deleted all of his emails after they were requested by the US Senate has not helped his case.
Dr. Shimabukuro co-led the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), directed immunization safety strategy at the CDC, and shaped how the U.S. public health apparatus communicated vaccine risks and benefits during the most contentious era in its history. Yet the official record of how those decisions were made appears to be—at least in part—gone.
If the CDC is so proud of its actions, WHY did it destroy the emails of one of its leaders?
I wonder WHY Dr. Offit is not talking about THIS huge story?
To read more, check out: https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-dr-thomas-shimabukuros
Why does everyone who is opposed to vaccinations routinely describe hare-brained stories as "BLOCKBUSTERS!" or "BREAKING!" or "HUGE!" In my mind, these are key terms that immediately shout, "Pardon me, but who care?"
The DULLMAN is a stupid homoeopath, so he is clearly capable of believing even the most outrageously ridiculous.
The article the idiot links to is written by the well-known lying antivax arsehole James Lyons-Weiler, pseudoscience bullshit artist and disinformation dog.
The emails are missing, but there is no evidence that Dr. Thomas Shimabukuro deleted them.
Oh really...it is NO wonder that you are anonymous with such crank comments as yours above. The fact that you somehow think that RFK is doing this work is laughable. The DHHS is the largest agency in the US government. But heck, don't let outright fraud by Shimabukuro stand in your way of a silly takedown of RFK.
BREAKING!
The DULLMAN <-- "outright fraud"
And "DULL MAN" is an understatement.
The idiot is a stupid homoeopath.
Ok...so, instead you prefer to hurt others by injecting aluminum into their veins. As a physician, you know that the body is not able to eliminating alumimum that is INJECTED, even though it is able to do so when aluminum is INGESTED (big diff!). As any AI about this. Medical child abuse is a common action that should be considered a crime.
I think Anonymous would actually prefer to just practice evidence-based medicine in peace without all the antivax bullshit, but that's just my read. Since you seem to feel AI is a trusted source and clearly don't understand aluminum metabolism, here's what "any AI" has to say on the subject : AI Overview
Yes, the body can eliminate aluminum that is injected in a vaccine, and it does so effectively.
Here's how:
Processing regardless of the source: Once aluminum enters the bloodstream, whether from vaccines, food, or other sources, the body processes it in the same way.
Binding and elimination: The majority of aluminum in the blood (around 90%) binds to a protein called transferrin, and about 10% binds to citrate. This bound aluminum is then transported to the kidneys.
Kidney excretion: The kidneys are the primary route for eliminating aluminum from the body. They efficiently filter it out of the bloodstream and excrete it in the urine.
Rapid clearance: About half of the aluminum in the bloodstream is eliminated within 24 hours, and more than three-quarters is eliminated within two weeks. This rapid elimination is key to the safety of aluminum-containing vaccines.
No significant accumulation from vaccines: Studies show that aluminum from vaccines does not accumulate to harmful levels in the body. Peak blood levels after vaccination remain lower than the levels absorbed from dietary sources over time.
Dear Dr Dork...Are you lying or simply ignorant (or both)? You, as a pseudo-doctor, should know that vaccines are injected into the soft tissue, not into the bloodstream (thanx for proving that doctors don't know much about vaccines and are the chief providers of misinformation on vaccines!).
Thanx for embarrassing yourself.
Once again, ask ChatGPT or Perplexity or most other AIs about the difference in excretion between INJECTED vs INGESTED aluminum.
Get educated...and stop committing medical child abuse.
Yeah, you have said for years that vaccine mercury is never stored for life in the brain, bones, and organs, when many studies have shown that in many people, like everyone in my familiy, it does. Same with stored vaccine aluminum. Dr. Exley has designed a protocol to chelate it using silica, as in Fiji water. C has been drinking Fiji water several times a day since Mad Hatter recommended it to me, saying how much it had improved her son.
THE DULLMAN LOSES ALL CREDIBILITY:
"you prefer to hurt others by injecting aluminum into their veins"
Vaccinations are injected into muscles.
ARSEHOLE.
And this from the lying fraud that dispenses useless homoeopathic nostrums.
No one injects aluminium [vaccines] into veins, Dana.
And intravenous aluminium is renally excreted. That’s why it can accumulate in those with renal failure.
Doh!
What should be considered medical abuse/negligence is giving kids homeopathy when there are suitably effective treatments available.
Actually, that was "Dr Dork" who said that vaccines are shot into veins! I said it was shot into soft tissue...and that the body has NO means of eliminating aluminum shot into soft tissue. THAT is why I said that there is a BIG diff between INJECTED vs. INGESTED aluminum. IV access to aluminum is akin to ingesting it.
Actually, physicians are not taught this about aluminum.
Are you on the AAMC board, woo? You know what "physicians are not taught?" You're familiar with medical school curricula nationwide?
What Kennedy has done is good and appropriate. Yes, Covid can occasionally be dangerous or fatal even now, but usually isn’t. The vaccine, on the other hand, often causes disabling or fatal side effects.
Traditionally the CDC has just urged people not to worry and let them stumble into the slough of life destruction by vaccines with no concern and no assistance. Kennedy is warning them of the dangers of this and other vaccines. They can still get it, or them, but Kennedy is making them aware that the chances of the vaccine recipient being severely damaged or killed are greater with the vaccine than the disease. For the first time putting children’s lives above revenue.
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/vaccine-deaths-far-outnumber-covid?r=4u4yo&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=audio-player
THIS IS PINOCCHIO "PICKNOSE" PARKER.
This creature claims to have read a book written in 1957 by a naturopath that claims that:
- vaccines are responsible for many modern diseases.
- the medical establishment suppresses evidence of vaccine harm.
- the 1918 Spanish Flu was caused by mass vaccination, not a virus.
- her family avoided the 1918 Spanish Flu by refusing vaccines.
- that vaccines cause cancer, paralysis, and other chronic illnesses.
- germs are not the cause of disease.
Despite this, the creature wants us to believe that it had three covid vaccinations and suffered vaccine injury. But, as we all know...
ANTIVAXXER = LIAR.
Cia.. this is silly. You know that CoVid has killed FAR,FAR more people than have died of vaccine complications. This is easy to look up
Martin, this is weird. This comment was in my inbox as being from you, not Bill. In a string which included comments by Frau Katze, Billy Joe, an obscene one supposedly by the genteel Mary Ann Caton, and Steve. Even depraved ones supposrdly by Cia Parker. All really by you. You should be ashamed.
Hi Cia - are you the "Cia Parker" that we corresponded via email? I'm confused there seems like there is more than one Cia Parker on SubStack....
Four likes for depravity. By Steve, Bill, Frau Katze, and Mary Ann Caton.
All really by Dr. Martin Dedicoat.
Nailed it! You dullard. Keep accusing. Eventually you might accidentally find yourself to be correct. Like Bob.
Anubis too, I see. I’m correct on this.
LOL! Hey Fiona Havers! Be sure to let the door hit you on the way out!
Offit lying! Havers in panic because she wanted to continue to suppress adverse
data showing piles of vaccines injuries and deaths! Death scam coming to an end!
Millions of lives saved!! Your day is over Offit!
Smallpox eradicated by a worldwide vaccination campaign. Huge success. Smallpox was an awful disease that killed about a quarter of the people who caught it.
total nonsense
What did I write that is nonsense?
Smallpox vaccination had no effect at "eradication," but it did disable and kill millions. As with all the poison jabs and their targeted infections, "Small Pox" fizzled out long long before implementation of jab-poison/induce illness campaign. in fact, jab was inducing outbreaks! That is why they stopped! Pound Sand Offit! Your bull-horn days are over! Blow Hard!
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-smallpox-eradication-programme---sep-(1966-1980)
Thank You! hopefully you’re still in prison. get your booster!
The vaccine also killed many. In the US after 1920, the smallpox vaccine killed more than the disease did. When I took C to the Green Meadows clinic in March 2002 to get her chicken pox on the record, we saw a Dr. Avery, who said he had been glad when the smallpox vaccine was taken off the market, as he had seen it cause many devastating reactions.
Garbage.
Read The Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean. I have an old, tattered copy, just found it on Amazon, which surprised me, and I ordered another copy.
What was used in the nineteenth century was rarely made with cowpox, but instead rotten animal exudate as from horse grease. Hundreds of thousands of vaccinated people died of smallpox. Many thousands died of gangrene, encephalitis, syphilus, TB, or other diseases from contaminated “vaccine,” or of cancer starting at the injection point. Many riots of people refusing to submit to vaccibation laws as the product was so deadly. And ineffective. In the twentieth century a real vaccine was used, but it still caused a lot of severe reactions and death. After the US outbreak in 1896, smallpox here evolved to be much less dangerous, and over a few decades no longer caused death even when it occurred. Most people at that time refused to get it. My neighbor, elderly even then, born in 1928, told me that one of her older sisters caught smallpox when she was boarding in town in Iowa to go to high school. She was sick for a short time, then recovered. I was surprised because I thought that smallpox was always severe and often deadly. But that was typical for smallpox in the US around 1930.
Smallpox has a fatality rate of 30%. The modern vaccine did not kill people. If it had, people wouldn’t have taken it. It was a horrific disease. Check out the photos and description here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
I agree that it was a horrible disease. In the nineteenth century, the vaccine was worthless and dangerous. In the twentieth century, the vaccine was effective but very dangerous, while the disease had become very mild in the US. But regardless of how horrible a disease is, it does not mean that you should take the proffered vaccine without researching it.
For several decades in the twentieth century, most Americans refused to take it. For the last decades of its use, the vaccine killed more Americans than the disease.
MORE BLATANT LIES AND FALSE PERSONAL NARRATIVES FROM PINOCCHIO "PICKNOSE" PARKER.
The silly stupid thing has absolutely no knowledge of medical science or critical thinking but read a book once written by an incompetent contrarian and believed every single word.
ABOUT THE BOOK:
Written in 1957 so really up to date.
The book's lies include:
- that vaccines are responsible for many modern diseases.
- that the medical establishment suppresses evidence of vaccine harm.
- that the 1918 Spanish Flu was caused by mass vaccination, not a virus.
That last one is a doozy (see below).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
- Eleanor McBean was a naturopath, not a doctor.
- she claimed her family avoided the 1918 Spanish Flu by refusing vaccines (NOTE: no flu vaccine existed at that time).
- she argued that vaccines cause cancer, paralysis, and other chronic illnesses.
- she believed germs were not the cause of disease.
Yet, Picknose Parker claims she read that rag of a book and still had three COVID-19 vaccinations! But of course, as we all know...
PICKNOSE PARKER IS AN UNCRUPULOUS ANTIVAX LIAR.
I bought and read my old copy in 2012. Smallpox is gone now, and it is rarely included in books about vaccines now. Contemporary books are valuable.
Cia, may I suggest you posit your nonsensical scenarios to a generative AI, such as ChatGPT?
Then you can argue with it and tell it that it is wrong.
unproven innuendo that you cannot back up. You are a liar
lol! everything Offit claims is a lire and pseudo science! bottom line: smallpox” like “measles” fizzled way before toxic unproved jabs. offit just pissing on himself
not as loose as yours— with you having opened it so wide for Offit!