A Response to Dr. Panthagani, who believes Peter Hotez shouldn't debate RFK Jr.

Dr. Panthagani recently wrote in support of Peter Hotez's refusal to appear on Rogan's podcast to debate Kennedy

NY Post

Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD, recently defended Peter Hotez’s decision to not appear on the wildly popular JRE podcast to “debate” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on vaccines.

She wrote as a guest author on a widely read substack, “Your Local Epidemiologist” written by Katelyn Jetelina, MPH, PhD.

When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?

Several times over the past few months I have left respectful comments and questions on some of Dr. Jetelina’s posts, hoping that an exchange would ensue. Although a few of her subscribers responded, I never received any response from the authors.

It may be due to the fact that I openly admitted that at the time I was affiliated with Children’s Health Defense. Engaging with the “other side” apparently is not in their playbook. I think this is disappointing, to say the least.

But I’m just a small voice in this. The biggest spreader of “old, tired vaccine rumors” is actually a proponent for safe vaccines and he happens to be running for the Oval Office. Is it really such a good idea to avoid a debate at all costs right now? Are Covid-19 vaccine proponents like Drs. Jetelina and Panthagani serving the interest of public health by refusing to talk things out at a time when the public’s trust in the medical establishment is plummeting?

I don’t think so. Here is the comment I left on Dr. Panthagani’s article:

Dear Dr. Panthagani,

You make some good points about the futility of a debate, especially if it is not moderated well. However many vaccine proponents fall into the same classifications that you attribute to the "antivax" crowd. How flexible are you with the idea that you may be wrong about some things? Or even one thing?

I am a physician. My children have received all of their vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule. I had doubts about the Covid mRNA vaccines so I hesitated until I could know more. It led to a three year education about many things that I never learned in medical school. I was so convinced that we were making a mistake with mandates for all that I left my practice to work for Childrens Health Defense as their science editor for The Defender.

Over the last few months I have left comments on some of your articles that I thought were very fair and worthy of some consideration in hopes that a reasonable dialogue would ensue. Apparently you and Katelyn didn't think it was worthwhile to even engage here, on your own terms, in front of what would be largely a hostile audience towards me, not you.

Without going into the weeds or using a "Gish gallop" approach, I will offer three undeniable facts that should, in a rational world, necessitate an open discussion.

1) All Cause Mortality in the Pfizer trial was higher in the vaccine group. That should have been a hard stop. One cannot say that the deaths in the vaccinated cohort were "unrelated" to the vaccine any more than one can say that the single Covid death prevented was due to the vaccine. A trial only demonstrates correlation. If you wish to grant the vaccine a Covid mortality benefit, you must also acknowledge that it was associated with more deaths from all causes. This is why there has never been any drug, therapy or vaccine that demonstrated more mortality than placebo in a phase III trial that received any kind of approval/authorization. We somehow threw basic logic out the window two and a half years ago.

2) Pfizer only tested 170 out of the 3,410 participants that developed symptoms of Covid-19. Prevention of symptomatic Covid was the primary endpoint of the trial that launched the vaccine campaign. The public was told it was 95% effective. Pfizer had no basis for making that claim by only testing 1 in 20 symptomatic people. Why didn't the FDA ask any questions? If we were to take it on faith that the 95% efficacy would have applied to the other 3,240 people who were symptomatic, that would mean that there were a huge number of vaccinated people in the trial that became susceptible to something that was "like" Covid at a significantly higher incidence than placebo recipients.

3) The recent Cleveland Clinic study that showed that the incidence of Covid was directly correlated with the number of shots was not aberrant. That is precisely what the UKHSA had been reporting beginning in September 2021 across their commonwealth. Infection rates were higher and getting higher in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. By the time they stopped reporting this metric six months later infection rates in the vaccinated were 3-5 times higher than the unvaccinated. We can all accept that the protective benefit of a vaccine can wane but negative efficacy? Surely that constitutes an open conversation about what is going on.

There are a lot of people that think the Covid mRNA vaccines aren't necessary anymore. There are others that think they weren't any good to begin with. This is evidenced by the public's uptake of the bivalent booster which is hovering around 17% right now.

I think this is tragic. The tragedy is in the fact that the pubic is quickly losing faith in the mRNA platform. I think the current products are doing exactly what the trials predicted they would do. If we were being rational we should have demanded another trial or another vaccine. Instead the medical establishment forced these products down people's throats while denigrating anyone, physician or not, who had doubts. It is very possible that in the future the mRNA platform will generate a therapy that is, in fact, safe and effective by reasonable standards, but what good will that be if half the population feel lied to and manipulated?

At this point vaccine proponents have absolutely nothing to lose by allowing the biggest and most noteworthy proponent (Hotez) to come forward and make his case rationally. He is a big boy. He can call out the BS and rhetorical techniques if they occur. Foregoing the 2.6 million dollars that could be used for more research or charity that would be gained not for "winning" but simply showing up is inexcusable.

Why would anyone who is on the fence about these products have any faith in the medical orthodoxy at this point? His refusal to appear is going to drive an enormous wave of skepticism. He's doing far more damage to the future of public health by not engaging in good faith with a man who is running for the highest office in the land.

It pains me to see that Hotez, a man who proudly boasts his affiliation with Baylor College of Medicine, my own alma mater, not come forward and defend his position.