DR. PAUL OFFIT: QUOTE MACHINE FOR HIRE
Compiled By Generation Rescue, June 2008
1) Mr. Offit is the mainstream media’s favorite quote machine in the vaccine-autism debate. In fact, he is more than often the only quote in every article on the topic and seems to have immediate access to the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Wall Street Journal.
2) A Google search of “Paul Offit & Vaccines” reveals 47,800 separate hits.
1) In testimony before Congress on April 6, 2000, Mr. Offit stated, “In addition, I have been in collaboration with Merck and Co. on the development of a rotavirus vaccine since 1992.”
2) In speaking to a journalist, Mr. Offit stated, “I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that."
3) In the New England Journal of Medicine, it was stated at the end of an article by Dr. Offit, “Dr. Offit reports being a co-inventor and co-holder of a patent on the rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq, from which he and his institution receive royalties, as well as serving on a scientific advisory board for Merck.”
4) The Committee on Government Reform of the U.S. Congress reported that “Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and received a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development. Also, he acts as a consultant to Merck.”
1) In August 2000, the Committee on Government Reform of the US Congress issued a highly critical document called Conflict of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making. Dr. Offit was reprimanded by Congress and his actions were a primary focus of the report.
2) The report focused on the introduction of the Rotavirus vaccine called Rotashield in the late 1990s. The report stated, “A little more than one year after the “RotaShield” rotavirus vaccine was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration as a safe and effective vaccine, it was removed from the market due to adverse events. More than 100 cases of severe bowel obstruction, or intussusception, were reported in children who had received the vaccine.”
3) The report singled Dr. Offit out for questionable voting as a member of the Advisory Committee (“ACIP”) affiliated with CDC that adds new vaccines to the vaccine schedule. The report stated, “Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, he voted yes three times, including voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program. Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP’s rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use.”
Death & Damage From Paul Offit’s Rotavirus Vaccine
1) In 2006, Dr. Offit’s vaccine, Rotateq, was added to the CDC’s recommended schedule.
2) In May 2008, it was reported that, “Later in 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were 117 confirmed cases of intussusception among recipients of Rotateq between March 2006 and June 2007.” This is more cases of bowel obstruction than the vaccine the FDA recalled from the market, Rotashield.
Also, in 2008 it was reported that, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an update to the product label for Merck & Co.’s Rotateq vaccine to include the report of a death of a recipient due to an intestinal obstruction.”
There should be a test given to all newborns to see if they have a mitochondrial disorders before any vaccine.
Posted by: Sizzix machine | July 15, 2010 at 10:35 AM
I read about the proposed vaccine law in New York at the same place I found out what ADHD drugs like Ritalin can do to your child (besides kill him):
So now they want to *force* everyone to vaccinate, with every single vaccine invented (which all just happen to contain known poisons), often 8 and 10 at a time, then they can't wait to get your brain-damaged kid on some more untested medications that will stunt their growth even further, including the growth, it appears, of their already damaged brain!
But we "desperate" parents who want to heal our children with healthy food and nutritional supplements, and who politely request that we all put less poison into our children to begin with--well, we're the "crazies."
We need to just "accept" things.
Ah, tonight it's just a little too much for me.
Posted by: Terri Lewis | May 31, 2008 at 10:49 PM
That mandatory vaccination bill is like a perverse counterattack by pharma. I rememeber reading some honcho doctor spouuting off about forcing vaccinations if there was some danger of a drop in vaccination rate. Well, that was no empty threat, was it? Not just flu, not just MMR, but every single one. I though pharma execs were souless before, but now I don't know if they are even of the living.
Posted by: doodle | May 31, 2008 at 09:00 PM
I hope you are able to add to this reference. It should be made into a webpage with Offit in the title, meta statments and first line of text. Others should link to it so that it comes up #1 or #2 on the list and even google-added.
my only hope is that the rest of media start questioning his ties and backgrounds before letting him shill under their noses.
"but its a gentle intussusception"
Posted by: Keith | May 31, 2008 at 07:47 PM
There should be a test given to all infants to see if they have a mitochondrial disorders before any vaccinations.
Did you see the proposed vaccine law in the NY State Assemby? http://autism-prevention.blogspot.com/search/label/Insane%20NY%20Bill%20Makes%20All%20Federal%20Vaccines%20Mandatory
Posted by: Les | May 31, 2008 at 02:59 PM
"Mr. Offit is the mainstream media’s favorite quote machine in the vaccine-autism debate."
"In speaking to a journalist, Mr. Offit stated, “I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that.""
I was under the obvious impression that if you have an obvious conflict of interest, i.e., you are vociferously promoting the product you are peddling, you should have the moral obligation to gracefully withdraw from making comments about it. In the event that you refuse to recognize that moral obligation and are brazen enough to disregard the norms of propriety, it should be the responsibility of the publication quoting you to mention that conflict so that the public at large understands your motivation behind promoting the product, namely profit.
The ethical and moral yardstick of this individual leaves much to be desired.
Posted by: Morally defunct | May 31, 2008 at 12:09 AM