Questioning Offit. Part 1. Introduction

Any book worth banning is a book worth reading.
Isaac Asimov

My first book "To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate" is essentially a review of hundreds of scientific studies that challenge the established paradigm in the field of vaccination and demonstrate that vaccines are not as safe and effective as commonly believed.

The book gained considerable popularity but also faced harsh criticism from staunch defenders of vaccination. Although I have thoroughly refuted the arguments of everyone who engaged with me in debate, the main criticism that remains is that the studies I cite are allegedly small or low-quality, and that supposedly there are larger, higher-quality studies that prove the opposite. While this is simply not true, many people unfamiliar with the world of scientific research on vaccines tend to believe the vaccine advocates when they claim such studies exist.

That is why I am launching a second series of articles, where I will analyze the studies that supposedly "prove" vaccine safety and show that they, in fact, do not prove what they are claimed to prove. Unlike "To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate", which was written for parents who had no strong pre-existing views on the subject, this new series is primarily intended for those who are absolutely convinced of the goodness of vaccination. If after reading my book you still remain convinced, then after reading this new series you will have to admit either that vaccines are not safe, or — at the very least — that there is no real evidence of their safety. Provided, of course, that you are intellectually honest.

There are thousands of studies that supposedly "prove" vaccine safety. How should we select the strongest ones? Unlike my opponents, I will not waste time analyzing obviously weak studies — that would be intellectually dishonest. I will focus on the strongest pro-vaccine studies and arguments — and break them down. But where can we find those studies? CDC and WHO almost never cite actual research — they simply declare that vaccines are safe and effective, usually without offering any proof. Therefore, we will turn to Paul Offit, the world’s leading vaccine advocate, and his book "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All", which is most often recommended by vaccine supporters.

Paul Offit is a pediatrician, professor of vaccinology, one of the developers of the rotavirus vaccine, a member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, author of several books about vaccines, and co-author of Vaccines: Expert Consult, a key reference book for vaccinologists. If anyone is capable of selecting the most convincing studies in defense of vaccination, it would be Paul Offit.

Offit’s influence on the pro-vaccine discourse is hard to overstate. He is the source or popularizer of many widely cited ideas and arguments around vaccines and vaccine skepticism. It was Offit who either coined or helped spread concepts like:
"An infant can safely receive 100,000 vaccines at once,"
"Anti-vaxxers rely on herd immunity,"
"Vaccines are victims of their own success,"
"Seizures after vaccination are actually due to Dravet syndrome, which would have manifested anyway,"
"Tragedy of the commons,"
"The science is settled,"
and many more.

There is simply no one else of Offit's stature today in the English-speaking world. Now that Offit appears less frequently in the media — partly because of his critical stance toward repeated COVID boosters — it’s clear that no one can really replace him. Gregory Poland, editor-in-chief of the journal Vaccine, suffered vaccine-related adverse effects himself (he developed tinnitus after a COVID shot) and has fallen out of media favor. Peter Hotez lacks charisma altogether. Moreover, having a daughter with autism does not help build a "safe vaccine" image. Even though he wrote a book titled Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel's Autism, not everyone finds that easy to believe. As for others, they simply lack both Offit's depth of knowledge and his ability to generate original ideas.

Offit has participated in countless interviews. His books have had a major impact both on public opinion and on physicians.
Pharmaceutical company Merck even purchased 20,000 copies of one of his books and distributed them to pediatricians.

"Deadly Choices" is structured as a rebuttal to anti-vaccine arguments. Instead of simply presenting the research proving the safety and effectiveness of each vaccine, about 80% of the book is devoted to describing statements made by well-known vaccine critics. Offit then briefly dismisses these statements by referencing a study — without explaining why that study is stronger or of higher quality. He doesn't really describe the studies he cites. He simply states that "science has proven" that such-and-such vaccine does not cause such-and-such disease, and moves on. For someone who sincerely wants to understand whether vaccines are truly safe and effective, about 95% of Offit's book is just noise, largely irrelevant to the real question.

Ironically, in advertising, this approach is called the "inoculation technique" Instead of arguing the merits of your own product, you present the opposing side’s arguments — and then refute them, thus "inoculating" your audience against competitors’ messages.

And to his credit, Offit uses this technique very effectively. Many people who have read his book, when confronted with studies showing vaccine risks, simply dismiss them. They are convinced that those studies must be low-quality, and that somewhere there must be better, more credible studies disproving them — even if they have never seen those studies themselves. If someone as authoritative and knowledgeable as Paul Offit believes those better studies exist, then surely they must exist — or so they assume.

In this new series, I will break down every study that Offit cites as proof of vaccine safety — and show that none of them actually prove what he claims. I’ll demonstrate that the design of most of these studies makes it impossible for them to truly prove what they are supposed to prove. I'll also show that, quite often, the studies Offit cites actually provide evidence against vaccine safety. I won't leave a single stone unturned when it comes to Offit’s arguments.

I promise — this will be a fascinating journey. If you’re not very familiar with vaccine science, this series might completely shake your worldview. But even if you are already quite knowledgeable, you will still learn a lot of new things. In any case, I highly recommend you read my first series or the book beforehand, since I won’t be repeating the core concepts explained there.

If the first series showed that there are countless studies proving vaccines are not as safe as we’re told — studies that are simply being ignored — this second series will show that the studies used to support vaccine safety are, in fact, deeply flawed. By approaching the issue from the opposite direction, we’ll arrive at the same conclusion.

Eight years ago, when I first started writing about vaccines, I wasn’t fully sure where I stood. Today, after reading thousands of studies and speaking with thousands of people, I am firmly convinced. At the same time, just like before, I remain fully open to constructive criticism. If you believe I’m wrong about something, and you can present a convincing argument backed by evidence, I will seriously reconsider my position.

Accepting the truth can be incredibly painful. Acknowledging that, unknowingly, you might have harmed your child is a crushing realization. But bitter truth is still better than sweet lies. Facing the truth gives you the power to help your child. Once you understand the cause of a condition, it becomes much easier to treat it. Many parents have managed to help their children recover from autism and other neurological disorders — conditions that are officially considered incurable. But the first step is recognizing what caused the damage in the first place. Yes, sometimes full recovery may no longer be possible. But some level of improvement is always within reach.

Paul Offit’s book contains 587 footnotes. At first glance, that sounds like an impressive number. But on closer inspection, the picture changes. Many of these footnotes are not unique — meaning that if he cites the same source two or three times, each mention counts as a separate footnote. Moreover, most of Offit's sources are not scientific studies. He primarily cites media articles, books, websites, personal interviews, and court cases. Even among the footnotes referencing scientific studies, not all actually support his arguments. Offit frequently cites studies that either highlight vaccine risks or are simply irrelevant — studies he mentions while explaining various topics, but which do not actually prove vaccine safety.

Offit's book is organized into 11 chapters. After analyzing all his sources, here's what we find:
Media references: 156 footnotes, 123 unique sources
Book references: 168 footnotes, 28 unique books (for example, he cites his own book in 35 footnotes)
Court case references: 56 footnotes, 32 unique cases
Personal interviews conducted by Offit: 21 footnotes, 9 unique interviews
Scientific studies: 186 footnotes
Since some footnotes include more than one study, in total, Offit's book references 195 individual scientific studies.

So, out of 587 total footnotes, we are left with 186 that reference scientific studies. Of these, only 65 are cited as evidence of vaccine safety or efficacy. These will be carefully analyzed in the upcoming parts of this series. Another 31 footnotes refer to studies that actually highlight vaccine risks — studies that Offit attempts to rebut. The remaining 90 footnotes cite studies unrelated to the question of vaccine safety or efficacy.