Vaccinologist Extraordinaire Paul Offit stoops to a new level

Offit drops 14 minutes of shameless lies about our new Secretary of HHS in a recent interview.

Paul Offit made another appearance on the YouTube Channel “MicrobeTV” this week where he gives interviews explaining what he writes on his substack newsletter ironically called “Beyond the Noise”. In the latest episode he argues that Kennedy is unfit to lead public health in America because he holds “weird views” which can be attributed to a few pages out his book “The Real Anthony Fauci” where Offit believes he has found the proof that the Secretary of HHS doesn’t believe that germs exist.

First Some Background

Offit was a relatively unknown physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania when I was completing my training in anesthesiology there 25 years ago. Several years later, through a collaborative effort with Stanley Plotkin, widely considered the greatest living authority on vaccines today, Offit developed a widely used vaccine for rotavirus subsequently licensed by Merck under the name RotaTeq in 2006. According to Wikipedia, “Offit received an unspecified sum of money for his interest in RotaTeq.”

This effort brought Dr. Offit’s career into prominence. He received numerous awards as well as powerful advisory appointments at the CDC in the following years.

Offit is undeniably an accomplished physician and recognized authority in pediatric infectious diseases but he’s really bad at knowing when to keep his mouth shut.

The most damning example of this is when he was caught on camera encouraging experts to never admit to the media that it is impossible to rule out a link between the MMR vaccine and autism:

Two years ago, while doing a series of interviews during his run for POTUS, Mr. Kennedy introduced the public to the idea that vaccines on the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule may not be as safe as we have assumed. Why? Because none of them have ever been tested against a saline placebo in a proper double blinded pre-licensing trial.

This came as a shock to me. To prove this was the case, Kennedy, Del BigTree and Attorney Aaron Siri demanded that the DHHS offer a single example of a vaccine trial that met this accepted standard for safety. In responding to the request, Dr. Melinda Wharton, acting director of the National Vaccine Program Office did not offer an example as demanded but instead stated,

“Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required.”

The statement is false. If it isn’t obvious that this case, why then are medicines compared to inert placebo controls to understand the their safety profiles? Shouldn’t parents demand that what is injected into their children from the time that they are newborns be tested against a proper placebo?

The HHS and the medical establishment were caught. This is where Offit should have kept his mouth shut. But he didn’t. He “tweeted” this that summer (he has since deleted the post):

To defend Dr. Wharton’s illogical assertion, Offit is arguing that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe “placebo”. Even a tiny aliquot of saline carries risk. Why? Because saline, a solution comprised of water and sodium chloride at a concentration that nearly matches the fluid in our bodies is comprised of water and salt. Both water and salt if given separately in large quantities can be dangerous. Therefore 0.2 milliliters of saline carries the risk of harm.

He actually believes the public is too stupid to see through this ridiculous line of reasoning. This is the length this man will go to defend the indefensible. This week, Offit took it further.

He appeared on the MicrobeTV podcast (linked above) and expounded on this recent essay he penned on substack:

Understanding RFK Jr.

Offit explains to MicrobeTV host, Vincent Racaniello, a professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Columbia University, that he now understands why RFK Jr. has it all wrong. It’s because he doesn’t believe in germ theory—the idea that illness can be caused by germs.

To prove his case, he alludes to a subsection of Kennedy’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci” titled Miasma vs. Germ Theory.

Offit writes:

“In short, RFK Jr. doesn’t believe in the germ theory. He believes in something called the miasma theory.

The miasma theory is a long-abandoned medical theory that holds that diseases are caused by poisonous vapors (i.e., miasmata) that are generated by rotting organic matter, such as trash sitting out on the street. According to the miasmists, diseases aren’t passed from one person to another; rather, they are the product of poor hygiene and sanitation.”

Offit encourages us to read the section for ourselves. Okay. Here’s what Kennedy writes (emphasis mine):

"Miasma theory emphasizes fortifying the immune system through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses. Miasma exponents posit that disease occurs when an immune system provides germs an enfeebled target to exploit."

Read that last sentence again. ...disease occurs when an immune system provides GERMS an enfeebled target to exploit. Kennedy is explicitly saying that germs cause disease.

But is that what Kennedy believes? Paul Offit and his sycophantic host jump to the conclusion that because Kennedy defines Miasma theory, he believes it exclusive of all other theories. Kennedy explicitly tells the reader what he believes in the same chapter. The problem is one must read it in order to know what it says. Reading can be like that.

Kennedy concludes:

“As a final side note, it seems to me that a mutually respectful, science-based, evidence-based marriage, incorporating the best of these two clashing dogmas would best serve public health and human kind.”

Of course if Offit were interested in Kennedy’s actual position, he would find himself in the awkward position of agreeing with him. That’s not his intention. His intention is to use his exalted position to smear the head of public health in America. So he has to make things up, like the idea that a twentieth of a teaspoon of saline can be dangerous, or that the Salk Polio vaccine was tested against a saline placebo which he has claimed previously.

This is categorically false. Here is the relevant page from that trial 70 years ago. The placebo that Offit assures us was saline actually was a mixture of “199 solution” (a synthetic tissue culture medium and ethanol) phenol red, antibiotics, and formalin. Was the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and internationally recognized vaccine expert unaware of this or was he making things up like he was on his latest podcast interview?

It doesn’t matter. He and the captured experts have to somehow explain why it would be necessary to put formalin, antibiotics and ethanol into a placebo without stumbling upon the obvious reality that putting these substances into the “placebo” can only serve one purpose and one purpose only: to hide some of the possible deleterious effect of the vaccine.

Just as the “vaccines are extremely safe because they have been rigorously tested” tenet is fundamentally based on nothing but thin air, so is Offit’s entire argument that Kennedy has “weird” ideas about the science because he denies the existence of germs. He doesn’t.

The Samoan measles outbreak of 2019

Nevertheless, by falsely asserting that he does, he uses it to explain to his audience why Kennedy doesn’t believe in vaccines. Why do you need vaccines if germs don’t exist? This is why Kennedy, according to Offit, did not encourage the PM of Samoa in 2019 to resume vaccination in his country after a measles outbreak that year.

You can download and read the actual letter Kennedy wrote to the Prime Minister of Samoa on November 19, 2019 here in an article from the Brownstone Institute. In contrast to Paul Offit’s claim, Kennedy is advocating for a deeper dive into the unfortunate outbreak. He correctly suggests that

• Some of the casualties were among infants who were not of age to receive the vaccine and their illnesses and fatalities were due to the failure of the their vaccinated mothers to pass on effective antibodies to their babies.

• Merck’s vaccine is not effective against all strains of measles virus in circulation. In other words, some fatalities would not have been prevented even if the person was vaccinated.

• Some of the measles cases could have been caused by the vaccine itself, as evidenced by official data from a California measles outbreak of 2015.

Contrary to Offit’s allegation, Kennedy does not assert that the measles virus was not to blame. Offit is lying.

The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 and HIV/AIDS

Dr. Offit was just getting warmed up. He next claims that Kennedy believes the pandemic of 1918 was due to the flu vaccine while smugly smiling at Kennedy’s ridiculous notion because flu vaccines were not available for another 25 years. Offit offers no citation to back up his allegation.

This leads Offit to HIV/AIDS. Kennedy doesn’t believe that AIDS is caused by HIV infection. Why? Because HIV is a germ.

Really Paul?

Why then does Kennedy devote a full third of his book to teach us of the enormous amount of problems there have been with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Kennedy cites numerous giants in virology like Dr. Peter Duesberg, Nobel Laureates like Walter Gilbert and Drs. Kary Mullis and Luc Montaigner and preeminent epidemiologists like Gordon Stewart who have openly protested the conclusion that HIV is the sole causative agent of Acquired Immunodeficiency Sydrome (AIDS).

This is because, among other reasons, Koch’s postulates, the established standard for attributing a pathogen with a disease, have never been satisfied with regard to HIV and AIDS. Moreover the diagnosis of AIDS requires the presence of at least one of over thirty different “opportunistic” infections or cancers, all of which can occur in the absence of HIV.

Another necessary criteria of AIDS is the depletion of CD4+ T-Cell lymphocytes, which also occurs in the absence of HIV infection.

Kennedy cites the evidence for a more likely causative agent, Human Herpes Virus 6 (HHV6), which is known to be cytotoxic to CD4 T-Cells but also CD8+ T-cells, natural killer cells and mononuclear phagocytes, all of which are important elements in our immune systems. The HHV6 possibility was first offered by none other than Robert Gallo, the researcher (falsely) attributed to have first made the HIV/AIDS connection.

Kennedy weaves together a potent counterfactual argument to the HIV/AIDS dogma over four chapters bringing together several hundred citations to scientific literature and commentary from some of the world’s best researchers. This is not the work of a “personal injury lawyer” who believes viruses don’t exist. This is, in fact, the work of a seasoned prosecution attorney who, in front of a jury of readers, systematically and patiently exposes the defense’s inconsistencies in logic and lapses in evidence.

In the end, despite what Offit says about what Kennedy thinks, Kennedy declines to take a position on the debate, instead allowing readers to make up their own minds.

Kennedy exaggerates the benefit of improved sanitation

Finally, Offit uses his false premise to dismantle the argument that vaccines enjoy undeserved recognition in eliminating infectious diseases. Vaccine realists, like Kennedy, have no evidence for this. The problem for Offit is that there is evidence for this and Kennedy offers it in the clearest fashion: published data coming from legitimate sources like the CDC and Scientific American among others:

Why did mortality from measles, pertussis, influenza, and polio drop so precipitously prior to the advent of vaccines? And just as importantly, how can one separate the drop in mortalities after the vaccines were introduced from the benefit of better sanitation or other factors that were already in play?

With regard to scarlet fever and TB, what has caused the steep downtrend in mortality in the absence of any vaccine for these diseases?

Even the journal Pediatrics (The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) agrees with Kennedy:

“Once again, nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.”

If it wasn’t antibiotics or vaccines, Paul, what then was it?

Paul never addresses these most peculiar trends. He and his host offer their audience a more plausible view of how a disease like polio works: “better sanitation made polio endemic”. Nodding vigorously, Paul Offit explains why centuries of living in a filthy environment kept polio from spreading.

Offit: “Polio was common. When mothers would bear their children they would passively pass their antibodies to those babies who would then get infected early in life. With improved sanitation then they may not be infected until later in life when those antibodies wore off and therefore they would be at greater risk of disease so improved sanitation made polio worse. At least that is my understanding…”

Racaniello: “Of course he[Kennedy] has no clue about that.”

They are citing the “Improved Hygiene theory”. First, they are both admitting that the polio virus has always been in the environment but wouldn’t result in disease outbreaks because the populations living with poor sanitation would be naturally immune. This is a true statement. The mother’s antibodies to the pervasive strains would protect their babies who would be exposed early in life when living in a dirty environment. In a cleaner environment, exposure to the virus would happen later when the child was no longer protected through maternal antibodies. The child would be at greater risk of developing polio when exposed.

The two experts didn’t feel it necessary to explain:

Why the need for a polio vaccine if a population already had immunity to the virus?

If exposure to the virus happens less often in a cleaner environment that means that better sanitation decreases the risk of exposure to the virus. Isn’t that an argument for the miasma, or terrain theory?

Moreover, there are mountains of expert opinion that refute this hypothesis including Stanley Plotkin (Offit’s own collaborator) who states in his tome “Vaccine”:

“Lower socioeconomic status has been shown to be a risk for paralytic poliomyelitis in developing countries, probably because children belonging to the lower socioeconomic group experience more intense exposure to poliovirus (ie, a higher virus inoculum, which has been shown in experimental studies to be a risk factor for paralytic disease).”

And Albert Sabin, who found that antibody levels in children in areas of both good and bad sanitation were low. He wrote in the American Journal of Public Health (1951):

“It is evident from these data that neither among the lower income groups in the United States nor in the Far East or Egypt were Lansing antibodies (and presumably infection) acquired to any significant extent during the period of diminishing placentally transmitted antibody.”

Of course Offit has no clue about that.

Conclusion: A note to Dr. Offit

As I was dissecting this remarkable interview between these two experts to extract the most telling bits of the exchange I paused the video by chance at this frame:

This is what I would call the blind leading the blind. In this case they were, at that moment, missing their own hypocrisy. Dr. Vincent Racaniello had just finished asking Dr. Offit if he chooses publishers that ensure the statements in his books are properly referenced, unlike Kennedy who, they believe, makes stuff up as he goes along. This, after Offit skipped four chapters of densely cited explanations in “The Real Anthony Fauci” to conclude that Kennedy doesn’t believe that HIV exists.

I left a long comment on Offit’s newsletter. Here is a portion of it:

Dr. Offit, As a physician who has trained at CHoP and UPenn, it saddens me to see you stoop to this level. You don't have to agree with Secretary Kennedy on anything, but that doesn't justify what you are doing here: misrepresenting him entirely.

What you are doing is extremely counter-productive. We are both part of the medical establishment. The public has lost faith in us and for good reason. You are destroying our credibility further by resorting to making false claims and ignoring the valid points our new HHS secretary has been making.

Please stop. Can you see that you are undoing the progress you have contributed to over the last two decades? What good will the next medical breakthrough be if nobody will trust it?

As physicians and scientists we should be able to agree that there is an epidemic of chronic diseases, shockingly in children as well. This emerged concomitantly with the expansion of the CDC's immunization schedule. While this doesn't prove a causal relationship, if there were one this is EXACTLY what we would be observing. The public can see this just as clearly as you and I can.

By mocking Mr. Kennedy and dismissing his demand for radical transparency you are undermining your own credibility and, in doing so, the medical orthodoxy as well.

It should be our hope that deep dives into the troves of CDC data will NOT reveal that the scaled up version of our public vaccination program has resulted in more harm than we have acknowledged. But we have do more than just hope. It is incumbent upon us to remain humble and diligent. I fear that your frequent public statements which have often veered from any sense of balance will not age well.