James Lyons-Weiler PhD Responds to Dr. Peter Hotez on Popular Rationalism Substack
Note: Below, we have excerpted an important Substack article from James Lyons-Weiler, PhD's Popular Rationalism about Dr. Peter Hotez. Dr. Hotez is well known to us. He has an adult daughter with autism named Rachel. And he is a vaccine researcher. I can't say we'd share a cocktail if we bumped into each other at a party. Not even a Suffering Bastard. We invite you to pop over to and subscribe to Dr. Lyons'Weiler's Substack. His depth of science knowledge as it pertains to the pressing issues of the day is critically important and needs a wide distribution. You can learn more at IPAK Knowledge. Thank you.
###
Lyons-Weiler Responds to Hotez
By James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
The vaccine activists who conducted and promoted science-like activities to hide vaccine risk are acting as though we don't know about the fraud.
Hotez believes that telling the world that there will be four years of “anti-vaccine activism” is an effective Public Health message. In reality, Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s appointment will mean an end to narrative enforced “science-like activities” and a return to bona fide science. We’re planning four years or more of objective science conducted on vaccines. And we are planning prosecutions for fraud, misuse of federal research funding, all of it. As long as he continues to attempt to gaslight with these tropes, we will not be able to take him, or people who act like him, seriously.
Mischaracterizing Vaccine Risk Awareness
In It Won’t End with COVID: Countering the Next Phase of American Antivaccine Activism 2025–29, published this week in PLOS One, Peter Hotez begins by framing all vaccine skepticism as an ideological phenomenon, driven by political partisanship and disinformation campaigns. This reductive view is not only misleading but also entirely counterproductive. It ignores the legitimate, evidence-based concerns raised by a massive number of individuals and groups, many of whom describe themselves as vaccine risk-aware. By dismissing these concerns as “antivaccine activism” or “hesitancy,” Hotez fails to address the complexity and diversity of the movement. There is a spectrum of positions in the community he casts as “antivaccine”, but he seeks to alienate and minimize those who have sought dialogue and reform rather than confrontation. He seems to be succeeding at increasing the risk of alienating himself from the future of science.
The Problem with Oversimplification
Hotez’s use of terms like vaccine hesitancy and antivaccine is both scientifically imprecise and rhetorically polarizing. These terms suggest that individuals questioning vaccine policies are either indecisive or fundamentally opposed to vaccination, ignoring the nuanced positions many hold. For instance, vaccine hesitancy implies that individuals are simply delaying vaccination due to uncertainty, whereas antivaccine paints them as ideological opponents to all immunizations. Neither term captures the concerns of those actively examining vaccine safety, efficacy, and ethical issues.
The failure to differentiate between legitimate critique and ideological opposition has significant consequences. It is an attempt to delegitimize the voices of scientists, medical professionals, and informed citizens who challenge the status quo based on data and firsthand experiences. It also discourages public health personnel from engaging with these voices constructively, perpetuating a cycle of mistrust.
The Diversity of Vaccine Risk Awareness
The vaccine risk awareness movement is far from a monolithic group of ideological nutjobs. It encompasses a broad spectrum of individuals and motivations, united by a shared concern for safety, transparency, and ethical medical practices. Among them are:
- Parents who, after observing adverse events in their children post-vaccination, seek greater accountability and assurance of safety in the vaccination process. Some of these parents then reject vaccines outright, other do not. But all are demanding answers to why adverse events occur and how they can be prevented because, as they have said, they would not anyone to have experience what they had to endure. The deserve to be treated with utmost respect.
- Researchers, Scientists and Doctors who have found and have highlighted methodological flaws in vaccine safety studies, such as the lack of true placebos, short follow-up periods, and conflicts of interest. Their critiques are rooted in scientific rigor and a commitment to improving public health outcomes. Many merely want to promote objectivity in science, and they have found that the vaccine risk aware public agrees, entirely, that fraud, not science, lies at the base of the issues of what is known about vaccines.
- Advocates for Medical Ethics and Human Rights who oppose coercive mandates that undermine the principle of informed consent. These individuals emphasize the importance of personal autonomy and the right to make medical decisions free from undue pressure or societal shaming.
- Concerned Citizens who question the integrity of public health institutions after observing inconsistencies, omissions, or manipulations in the communication of vaccine safety and efficacy.
This diversity of perspectives underscores the need for a more inclusive and nuanced approach to addressing vaccine-related concerns. Labeling all critiques as "antivaccine" not only oversimplifies the issue but also alienates people who might otherwise support vaccination if their questions and concerns were addressed transparently.
Hotez’s Missed Opportunity for Constructive Engagement
By failing to recognize the legitimacy of vaccine risk awareness, Hotez has missed an important opportunity to engage constructively with the future leaders of science in America. Instead of fostering dialogue, his approach perpetuates an "us versus them" mentality, further polarizing public health discourse. The polarizing tools - such as characterizing vaccine risk awareness as something that only exists on the “far right” - has nearly torn our society in two. Constructive engagement will require acknowledging the validity and value of certain critiques and working collaboratively to address them. For example:
- Addressing parental concerns about adverse events by improving post-market surveillance systems and ensuring that these systems capture a broader spectrum of potential risks (e.g., making reporting vaccine injuries mandatory with penalties to doctors who fail to report; studies using whole-outcome awareness).
- Responding to scientific critiques by conducting independent, transparent studies with robust methodologies that include true placebo groups and long-term follow-up.
- Upholding the principle of informed consent by ending coercive mandates and providing clear, unbiased information about vaccine risks and benefits.
- Being forthright on the realities of quantifiable risk; end biased messaging and stop burying vaccine injury risk under the unquantified euphemism of “rare”. READ MORE HERE.
Hotez is a master propagandist....he's not simply mistaken, no, he KNOWS he's wrong....but he's PAID$ to spread his distortions & mis-characterizations....in other words, he's a PhRMA SHILL....
Posted by: Bill Bradford | January 21, 2025 at 09:35 PM