A former CDC vaccine adviser has words for RFK Jr.

Last month, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired an influential committee of vaccine advisers to the CDC. What that decision could mean for vaccines and America’s public health.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

Dr. Helen Y. Chu, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington. She was one of the 17 ACIP members fired in June.

Part I

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: On June 9th, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a significant change to the nation's system of public health. Quote: Today we are taking a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices or ACIP.

He wrote in the Wall Street Journal quote, we are retiring the 17 current members of the committee. End quote. For more than 60 years the ACIP statutory mandate has been to provide the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommendations on the use of vaccines. Those recommendations are critical to the annual schedule of childhood vaccinations created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Now, Secretary Kennedy has a well-known track record opposing childhood vaccines. In a 2022 Health Podcast, he encouraged people to approach parents and tell them not to vaccinate their children.

RFK Jr.: If you're one of 10 people that goes up to a guy, a man or a woman who's carrying a baby and says, don't vaccinate that baby.

When they hear that from 10 people, it'll make an impression on them.

CHAKRABARTI: During his Senate confirmation hearings this past January, Kennedy disputed the scientific consensus around vaccine safety. Here's one moment between Kennedy and committee chair and physician Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana.

BILL CASSIDY: Will you reassure mothers unequivocally and without qualification that the Measles and Hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism?

RFK Jr.: Senator, I am not going into the agency with any --

CASSIDY: Because the data is there.

RFK Jr.: If the data is there, I will absolutely do that.

CASSIDY: Now, there is the data, just because I used to do Hepatitis B as I've said, I know the data's there.

RFK Jr.: Then I will be the first person. If you show me data, I will be the first person to assure the American people to take, that they need to take those vaccines.

CASSIDY: Now, what concerns me is that you've cast out on some of these vaccines recently, like last few years. But the data, and I can quote some of it. The data has been there for a long time.

I've been out of the game. I've been in Congress for 16 years and this data was in large measure generated before I came to Congress.

CHAKRABARTI: As Secretary, Kennedy has continued to vow to overhaul childhood vaccinations as part of his Make America Healthy Again campaign. And central to that he says, is cleaning up alleged conflicts of interest that members of federal vaccine advisory panels may have. In his June Wall Street Journal op-ed, the secretary alleged, quote:

The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine. To make matters worse, the group that informs ACIP meets behind closed doors violating the legal and ethical principle of transparency, crucial to maintaining public trust.

End quote. Now, Kennedy has made this allegation multiple times and he cited various congressional investigations as proof of his claims. He did it once again, just yesterday on the Chris Cuomo show on NewsNation.

RFK Jr.: That panel has been under attack for 20 years. In 2002, Congress investigated the panel and found that 97% of the people who are sit on it have conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry.

CHAKRABARTI: In fact, HHS Inspector General reports do not claim that 97% of ACIP panel members have proven conflicts of interest with the, quote, pharmaceutical industry. In 2007, another IG report found that 97% of special government employees at CDC had submitted financial disclosure forms with at least one omission on the document.

The Inspector General then analyzed those omissions and found a lesser number. 58% of special advisors had potential conflicts of interest, but of that group, the vast majority of conflicts, almost 90%, arose because they were working at organizations that were either contractors with or received grants from the CDC itself, not big pharma.

Now, those should have still been reported according to the Office of Inspector General. Accurate readings of congressional investigations are not stopping Secretary Kennedy from doubling down. Just days after his Wall Street Journal piece, he went on Fox News.

RFK Jr.: In 2002, the Government Oversight Committee held hearings about ACIP that lasted almost a year, and they issued a scathing report about the institutionalized conflicts of interest and corruption.

One of the examples they gave was that four out of the five members who voted to recommend the rotavirus vaccine to this schedule had a direct financial interest in that vaccine. One of those individuals voted to add it to the schedule. And then he subsequently sold his vaccine. He owned and developed this.

A guy called Dr. Paul Offit sold his share his patent on the vaccine for $186 million. So he said he won the lottery because of his vote.

CHAKRABARTI: Dr. Paul Offit is a long-term member of an FDA Vaccine Advisory Panel, and a former member of a similar panel at CDC. He went on social media the same day that the secretary made those claims about him and took the unusual step of issuing this strongly worded rejection.

PAUL OFFIT: I was a voting member on the CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee between 1998 and 2003. The vaccine on which I was a patent holder didn't come up for a vote until 2006, so I'd been off the committee for at least three years, so there was no conflict of interest. Second Secretary Kennedy said that I made $186 million from selling out my patent, but because our work was done at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, they owned the patent.

So that is simply not true. I would ask Secretary Kennedy to do his job, focus on the things that will make America healthy again, rather than by dividing us and vilifying people unnecessarily and without the facts. Americans deserve at least that.

CHAKRABARTI: Dr. Paul Offit joins us now. He's the director of the Vaccine Education Center and a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

And as you heard, he served on the CDCs ACIP from 1998 to 2003, and he's currently a member of the Food and Drug Administration's vaccine and related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Dr. Offit, welcome back to On Point.

PAUL OFFIT: Thank you.

CHAKRABARTI: So tell me why you took that step of making that very public statement rejecting Secretary Kennedy's claims about you.

OFFIT: He's been making that claim for 20 years, really starting in 2005. And he often makes that claim at national conferences and et cetera. Now what he's doing is he's making the claim on Joe Rogan's show, on Martha MacCallum's show on Fox, on Tucker Carlson's show.

But the difference between now and then is he's Secretary of Health and Human Services. He has a platform. Before that he was just an anti-vaccine activist shouting from the sidelines. Now he's an anti-vaccine propagandist making policy, and at some point he's going to have to realize I'm not his problem.

His problem is the science that has consistently shown that he's wrong.

CHAKRABARTI: A little bit later in the show, I want to talk with you about the new members of the CDC advisory panel that the secretary has appointed and what that might mean for the approval of vaccines in this country. But I think it's worth spending quite a bit of time, Dr. Offit, on this question of conflict of interest and how to understand how those things are vetted both at FDA and CDC. Because like millions and millions of people have heard the secretary make this claim now. So can you take me back through the process that you went through in order to check that CDC went through with you to check if you had any conflict of interest before joining the advisory panel?

OFFIT: So the point is to have an advisory panel that has an expertise in virology or immunology or epidemiology or statistics or public health. People who interact with patients and see vaccine preventable diseases, counsel patients about vaccine preventable diseases. That's the goal, to have that expertise.

Now, some of those people may be sought out by the pharmaceutical industry for their expertise. So they may, for example, be doing clinical trials on a vaccine, or they may serve on a data safety monitoring board. Now, if that's true, you have to declare that you're doing that. And the minute you make that declaration you cannot vote obviously on any product on which you're involved.

Even as, say, doing research on that product, you also can't vote on any product made by that company. So I think the system works well, has worked well. He continues to say that there's conflicts of interest, but there really aren't conflicts of interest. I know of no one who has ever voted on a product from which they specifically were doing work.

Never. I think it's never happened. So he makes it up.

CHAKRABARTI: There have been other various claims about how much money you may or may not have made upon the approval of the Rotavirus vaccine that you helped develop. Can you say now whether or not, the lack of conflict of interest in this case is now well established, I appreciate that, but can you say if you did make money off the approval of the vaccine.

OFFIT: Yes, but not from the company. Although I was, with my two co-inventors, a co-patent holder on that vaccine, I did the work at Children's Hospital Philadelphia. Therefore, I was the intellectual property of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Therefore, they owned the patent. And so they chose to sell out that patent and then they could have given me nothing.

They were under obligation to give me and my two co-inventors nothing. They did compensate us to some extent, but certainly not nearly to the extent that RFK Jr.'s claiming.

CHAKRABARTI: So can you say with confidence though that CDC and FDA do an adequate job in making sure that there are no concurrent conflicts of interest with any of the advisory panel members?

OFFIT: Yes, I think RFK Jr. should actually watch one of those meetings, either the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee or the CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee. And what you'll see is you'll see people who are working very hard to try and get it right. And if there's even a remote conflict, say you're on a data safety monitoring board, you make that statement and you don't vote there. Now, see, there's always gonna be, at some level, this kind of overlap because you want experts. My expertise when I was asked to come onto the panel in 1998 was rotavirus. I'd been studying rotavirus for 20 years. I was one of the nation's experts on rotavirus specific immune responses and rotavirus virology, and so they wanted that expertise.

Now, I was at the same time, a co-patent holder on a vaccine that wasn't a vaccine yet. I came onto the Committee in 1998. That didn't become a vaccine until 2006, but nonetheless, I was not able to vote on anything that Merck made because we were working with Merck on that vaccine. Although I was never funded by Merck, my funding always came through the National Institutes of Health.

Part II

CHAKRABARTI: Dr. Offit, I would like to stick with this rotavirus example just for a few more minutes. Because I believe it gives us a very concrete way of understanding how CDC goes about approving vaccines for the childhood vaccination schedule and maybe even gives us insight into how FDA goes about approving, giving final approval for vaccines in terms of use in the United States.

I want you to know that I did some research over the past few days into what various groups who are opposed to childhood vaccinations have been saying about both of these panels. And I stumbled upon a 2009 report from a group called Age of Autism where they go through in detail their analysis of you, the rotavirus vaccines and how they got approved.

And I will say it's actually very accurate, but at some of the conclusions from the accurate data that they have that I wanted to ask you about. For example, they say from 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP and they accurately identify that the rotavirus vaccine that you worked on was not considered during that time, so you did not vote on that.

But they'd say before and during his ACIP term, Offit was involved in rotavirus vaccine development activities, the value of which ACIP influenced. So it's the mere sort of presence of your expertise on the panel at that time that they hint could lead, have led to this like establishment of a market for a vaccine that made big pharma very rich.

How do you respond to that?

OFFIT: So there was a vaccine that was made by Wyeth that was submitted for review to the FDA. So the minute that happens, and usually it takes about 10 months for the FDA to review that and then either license it or not, they know that they should form a working group that has an expertise in that virus.

That's why I was asked to come onto the committee. I was asked to come onto the committee in October 1998 because I had an expertise in Rotavirus, and that's good. Because what you wanted in that discussion that led up to ultimately the recommendation to use that vaccine, the RotaShield vaccine.

You want people who can tell you about the immunology, can tell you about the virology. That's good. Now, as it turns out, I came onto the committee in October of 1998, that vote on the RotaShield vaccine had already happened. So I had no influence then on the vote for that vaccine. So they get that wrong too.

But what must they think of me? Why did I choose to work and understand Rotavirus for 26 years? I did it because Rotavirus caused 70,000 children to be hospitalized in this country every year, because it caused fever, vomiting, and diarrhea. Those children would be hospitalized with dehydration, and it's the biggest killer of infants and young children in the world, causing about 500,000 deaths a year.

That's why I did it. I saw a child die of rotavirus when I was at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh. That's why I do what I do. That's why we pretty much all do what we do. Do people really think that you become a basic scientist to try and understand rotavirus virology or immunology so that you can make money?

Do people actually believe that?

CHAKRABARTI: I guess they do, which is why we keep hearing this accusation against you. But what I'm trying to get to is, even in this age of autism report that has accurate dates, there's nothing that they write about, that they state in the report which doesn't comport to what we know of the dates that you joined ACIP, the dates that certain votes were taken.

It's like nothing is inaccurate here. But it gets to a deeper concern I think that a lot of people who are vaccine skeptical have, and because they say, for example, Offit recused himself from the vote, right? The vote about one of the rotavirus vaccines, although he participated in the discussion.

Now again, as you said, having experts in a particular disease are the kind of people that prior to recent years, we wanted to have participate in the discussion, right? But here we have this strain of belief in the United States, which is exemplified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who said we shouldn't even have people like you participating in some of those discussions.

What do you make of that?

First of all, it's inaccurate to say that I recused myself from the vote on the RotaShield vaccine, which was not our vaccine, but a vaccine that was developed years before ours, because I wasn't on the committee when that vote happened. That vote happened in June of 1998.

I didn't come onto the committee until October of 1998. Secondly, you know why--

CHAKRABARTI: They were talking about ACIP vote to rescind the recommendation for RotaShield, which I believe happened in October of '99. That's the vote that they're referring to.

OFFIT: No. So the vote to approve that vaccine was in June of 1998.

CHAKRABARTI: I know. And then did it, was it rescinded a year later?

OFFIT: Yeah. So then a year later it was rescinded. I recused myself from that because I wasn't sure, because technically I didn't have to recuse myself from that vote because I had no association with Wyeth Laboratories, which made that vaccine.

But I asked the executive secretary at the time, what did he think? He said it's probably better for you just to recuse yourself from the vote, because if you voted, say, to keep that vaccine on the market, people would just say you're doing that because you're trying to pave the way for your vaccine, and if you vote against it, people will say you're doing that just because you want to pave the way for your vaccine.

So there was no way the anti-vaccine people would ever accept that kind of vote. So I just recused myself from that vote. My expertise on rotavirus enabled me to inform the committee about things they didn't necessarily know about. I'd spent almost 20 years studying rotavirus, immunology, and virology.

That was a value to that discussion.

CHAKRABARTI: So that's actually what I was asking about. And to be clear, the vote that they said you recused yourself from was the 1999 vote, which is accurate. But that's what I'm saying. It's like they have all of this accurate information, but the conclusion is that you shouldn't even be participating in discussions where you have an area of expertise.

And that's what I wanna know if you have, do you have concerns about that? That where we have come in terms of many people and now the Secretary of Health and Human Services saying, we don't actually necessarily want subject matter expertise. People, subject matter experts on these vaccine advisory panels, even when they do not have conflicts of interest.

That's what the conclusion that I gather from this age of autism report, for example.

OFFIT: So why can't you have it both ways? Why can't you afford the public the best possible advice by having experts in the field, while at the same time protecting the votes from people who at least might financially benefit.

Why can't the public have the advice, same access to expertise that the pharmaceutical companies have. When the pharmaceutical companies want to make a vaccine, they go to the experts. When the CDC then wants to recommend a vaccine, why not also go to the experts, but make sure that you have systems in place that protect against at least perceived financial conflicts of interest.

CHAKRABARTI: Ideally you can, but it, but I'm hearing you say that, is that not the system we have in place now that it does protect against financial conflicts of interest while allowing people with subject area expertise to advise the government?

OFFIT: Yes. That's what we have right now, and we've had it when I was on there, and we've had it for decades, I think, since the mid 1960s when the ACIP was formed.

CHAKRABARTI: Yeah. I'm asking you these questions in a bullheaded way, mostly because I'm just trying to lay out clearly why people should trust the advisory panel, because we are at a period of historic low trust on this. What could you say, what would you say to people right now so that like when CDC issues its next schedule for childhood vaccines, we don't have even more Americans saying, I don't trust these guys.

OFFIT: Here's what I would say, exactly what problem are we trying to fix? The ACIP was formed in the mid 1960s. Since then, they have recommended a measles vaccine that has virtually eliminated the 48,000 hospitalizations and 500 deaths every year for measles, we have a mumps vaccine that has virtually eliminated the most common cause of acquired deafness.

We have a rubella or German measles vaccine that has completely eliminated the 20,000 cases of congenital birth defects every year that were caused by that virus. We have a human papillomavirus vaccine that has decreased the instance of cervical cancer by now more than 60%. We have a rotavirus vaccine that has eliminated the 70,000 hospitalizations every year in this country and also saved 165,000 lives a year in the developing world.

We have a Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, which has virtually eliminated the 25,000 cases of meningitis and bloodstream infections and pneumonia caused by that bacteria every year. The pneumococcal vaccine has dramatically reduced the instance of meningitis and sepsis as well and pneumonia.

So what problem exactly is it we're trying to fix?

CHAKRABARTI: I mean I'm not, this is not my personal belief, but what advocates who are concerned about vaccines say the problem they're trying to fix is getting a better understanding about the rocketing rates of autism in this country or other forms of vaccine injury.

That is what their areas of concerns are. You're not writing those off, are you?

OFFIT: Of course not. Look, for example, in the late 1990s, Andrew Wakefield a British gastroenterological surgeon put forward a paper which was ultimately retracted, claiming that eight children who received the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine developed signs and symptoms of autism within a month of receiving that vaccine.

Now, that wasn't a study, it was just a case series, and so nonetheless, the academic community, the public health community, the medical community and scientific community responded and subsequently have done 24 separate studies looking at children who did or didn't receive that vaccine in seven different countries, on three different continents, involving tens of millions of dollars and thousands of children.

And every one of those 24 studies has shown that MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism. And Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. continues to say it does. And then in the around 1999, 2000, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote a book, Thimerosal, an ethylmercury containing preservative that was in vaccines given to children, Let the Science Speak, in which in his book, the science didn't speak at all.

And so what ended up happening, what ended up happening was thimerosal, this ethylmercury containing preservative, which was safe, was taken out of vaccines basically. And by the year 2000, at that time, the instance of autism in this country was one in 150 Today. 25 years later, it's one in 32. So after taking thimerosal out of vaccines, the instance of autism increased again, study after study showed that you were at no greater risk of neurodevelopmental problems if you got a Thimerosal containing vaccine or if you didn't.

The problem with RFK Jr. and anti-vaccine activists is they don't believe those studies. They think that there's a vast international conspiracy run by the pharmaceutical industry where they have the government and advisory committees under their thumb, and they're wrong.

There isn't a conspiracy.

CHAKRABARTI: Dr. Offit, I hope you don't mind me saying this, but in listening to the passion that you're bringing to this conversation today, you sound very much like a man who's at the end of his rope in terms of presenting endless facts, right? Endless studies, endless evidence of how vaccines have changed for the better, human health, and still having to battle against the fact that we have a vaccine denier as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. You sound like you're beyond frustrated.

OFFIT: Yes. And the reason is I'm trained as a pediatrician. I chose pediatrics because I wanted to help children. I see them as vulnerable. I was in a polio ward when I was five years of age, and maybe it's just this chronic treatment of myself.

The scars of your childhood become the passions of your adulthood. But it's so hard for me to watch children getting hospitalized and coming to the ICU and occasionally dying of vaccine preventable diseases, that there's so much in medicine we don't know. There's so much we can't do. This we know. And watching people reject the science that puts our children in harm's way is really hard to watch. And that RFK Jr. has now ascended to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and is making policy. He is a zealot. He's a man on a mission. He wants to destroy vaccine manufacturing in this country.

He does and he says that. He says, I think vaccination has simply eliminated infectious disease at the cost of causing chronic diseases. And he believes, as he said, that God has put him on earth to basically eliminate chronic diseases. And one way he's going to do that is to make vaccines less available, less affordable, and more feared.

Yes, it is very upsetting to me because I see children suffering this, and there's just nothing worse than that.

CHAKRABARTI: There have been multiple studies done about whether or not there are conflicts of interest on these various vaccine panels. Another one just recently came from Science Insider and they found that there was basically no conflict of interest. That 13, they looked at 13 physician members of the ACIP and they found minimal industry payments in recent years.

And for all but one member, those payments came before their terms on the panels even started. So that's just like another piece of data here. But let me turn now to listening to someone who actually has direct influence on this. Because to get back to where we began, the Secretary of Health and Human Services in June said, we are retiring the current 17 members of the advisory committee for immunization practices. What do you make of that decision? Dr. Offit?

OFFIT: Yeah. The problem with those 17 members who have an expertise in virology and immunology and vaccinology and microbiology, is that they're going to give RFK Jr. the kind of information he doesn't want, which is science-based information, which is accurate information.

So all he can do is fire them, which is what he did, and replace them with people who will give him the kind of information he does want. He's replaced them with seven people, at least six of whom are clearly anti-vaccine. You have two of them who have essentially served for him in the past as expert witness and suing pharmaceutical companies.

You have one who's a member of the National Vaccine Information Center, which is an anti-vaccine group. You have another who has published papers about the mRNA vaccine that were clearly wrong. This is his crowd now. He's got what he wants. He's got people who like him are science averse and anti-vaccine.

And you saw that at the last meeting when they voted against thimerosal containing flu vaccine, and they did it by having an anti-vaccine activist present at that meeting. Her talk was never reviewed by subject matter experts. It was inaccurate. And then 5-0, 6 voting members voted to basically eliminate thimerosal containing flu vaccines, which were perfectly safe.

So now he's got what he wants. Now he's got his ducks all in a row. He's got an anti-vaccine advisory committee for immunization practice. He's able to get anti-vaccine activists to present at that committee and heaven help us as to what's about to happen over the next few years.

CHAKRABARTI: Let's put some names to these. So some of those new appointees are Vicky Pebsworth, who is, she's listed as a board member for the National Vaccine Information Center. As you said, she's also a regional director for the National Association of Catholic Nurses. There's Dr. Robert Malone, a former mRNA researcher who also, he actually advanced a lot of conspiracy theories during the height of the COVID pandemic, including claiming that millions of Americans were hypnotized into taking COVID vaccines. Then there's Abram Wagner of the University of Michigan. He actually investigates vaccination programs. He says he is, oh, actually, sorry, he was quoted by the Associated Press. Forgive me.

But another one is Martin Kulldorff, who's actually a well-known biostatistician and epidemiologist co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which offered a different path when it came to lockdowns during COVID.

Part III

CHAKRABARTI: We're speaking with Dr. Offit because just in the past month or so, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. fired the 17 members of the CDC's Vaccine Advisory Panel and replace them with new members.

Many of whom, or at least several of whom are known vaccine skeptics or have spread conspiracy theories about vaccines. Now, one of the members who was fired back in June is Dr. Helen Chu. She's a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington.

HELEN CHU:  I received the news the same time that everyone else did.

I was in an ACIP meeting at the time that I found out, and we've received the information through the Wall Street Journal article that was publicized.

CHAKRABARTI: That's the Wall Street Journal article I quoted at the top of the show published on June 9th where Secretary Kennedy announced the firing. Dr. Chu had served as a member of the ACIP since last April.

CHU: There was no sign that this was going to happen, and the surprise was, I think the speed at which the dismissal of the members happened.

CHAKRABARTI: Now, as we've mentioned, the CDC's Vaccine Advisory panel has been providing evidence-based guidance on vaccines to CDC since 1964. Dr. Chu explained to us how that guidance then informs the nation's vaccine recommendations.

CHU: The way that the ACIP works is that it is an independent panel of experts that takes time and effort to assemble, and then all the data is presented. We have long discussions about this, and we make a decision about whether or not we give it to everyone or to certain people. Ultimately, what it does ensure is that by the time the vaccine is recommended for use, it is given in the safest way possible to benefit than most people possible.

In the past several months, there was a circumventing of the normal process by which the vaccine recommendations were being made, and most notably, this was the decision to delay the ACIP meeting in the spring and the decision around the COVID-19 vaccines to remove pregnant persons and healthy children from the recommendation. That decision was made without input from the CDC and was a directive directly from the HHS director.

It is difficult to know what to do with the policy decisions that are being made now because they're not transparent. So normally the process is a discussion of the data. This is publicly viewed. Not that many people watch this kind of deliberation, but it is transparent and we have discussions about what the best step is.

And then once we have the discussions, we take a vote. The one that I worked on, which is RSV vaccine for adults. At the beginning, there were these discussions about first of all, what is the right age group to give it to? Do we give it to everyone who's over 65? Do we restrict it to people who are slightly older or who have risk conditions?

What is the risk of getting this vaccine? There were some initial safety signals that we saw with something called the Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which is an inflammation of the nerves. There were hints that you are seeing more cases of GBS after these RSV vaccines, and so really you have to have this very deliberate discussion about what is the risk of getting this vaccine versus what is the benefit of this vaccine in the specific population that you want to give it to.

All of that deliberation, it may have happened. It's just that we don't know how it happened because it happened behind closed doors. As we move forward, particularly in the next several years, we think about, who do we turn to for a vaccine recommendation in the United States? Who do parents ask and where do providers look?

Right now, I think the states and the professional organizations are continuing to make science-based vaccine recommendations. I don't know what's happening federally, but what I can tell you is what has happened in the last several months is not the way that we used to do things.

CHAKRABARTI: That's Dr. Helen Chu, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington and one of the 17 members of the CDC'S Vaccine Advisory panel that were fired by Secretary Kennedy last month. Dr. Paul Offit. Secretary Kennedy says, oh, these decisions were made behind closed doors in the past.

Now, Dr. Helen Chu is saying actually, she believes that he's the one who's closed the door on the public's access to information in terms of how vaccine advice is given in the federal government. Can the public or was the public able to get clear information on the decision-making process in the past, do you think?

OFFIT: Yes, the ACIP meetings, just like the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. You typically can live stream them and watch those discussions happen in public. On the other hand, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. got up on that one-minute video on X and said, we, meaning HHS, is no longer going to recommend the COVID vaccine for healthy young children.

We are no longer going to recommend the vaccine for healthy pregnant women. He made that decision unilaterally behind closed doors. He said he was going to usher in an era of radical transparency; the only era he's ushered in is a radical era. We are the only country in this world that does not consider pregnancy via high-risk category for severe COVID.

And the CDC has recently seen data that over the past year, thousands of children were hospitalized with COVID. That about one in five were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 150 children died of COVID, many less than four. Of course, that vaccine is of value, but so he doesn't explain why he makes that decision.

He makes it unilaterally. He always says the opposite of what he means. Also, he has said that he's going to show the conflicts of interest statements of the current seven members on the ACIP, and he never has, because they're loaded with conflicts of interest. He just in order to weaken trust, he says, look, you can't trust these people, trust me.

And then he proceeds to do things that are completely untrustworthy.

CHAKRABARTI: I'm trying to still get to the bottom of how now Secretary Kennedy was able to become or was able to capitalize on what is genuinely years of growing distrust in vaccines. Like that's the issue.

It's not Kennedy himself. Now it is, because he's secretary. But beforehand it wasn't just him himself, it was the fact that he was really keying off of an increasing number of Americans distrust of vaccinations. And to that point, I just want to play something from Kennedy's confirmation hearings again, which happened in January of this year.

And it's a moment from Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and here it is.

RAND PAUL: You have distrust from people at home. Why they don't believe anything you say they don't believe governed at all is you're telling my kid to take a hepatitis B vaccine when he is one day old. You get it through drug use and sexually transmitted.

That's how you get Hepatitis B. But you're telling me my kid has to take it at one day old. You're not, that's not science. And so every person with a bit of common sense, even people who don't resist vaccines, I vaccinated all my kids. I believe vaccines are one of the modern miracles beyond all pale. The speckled monster.

A great book about the introduction of the smallpox vaccine in 1720. Into our country, all miracles. But I'm not a one size fits all. It's not all or nothing. I chose to wait on my Hepatitis B vaccine and we did it when they went to school. Does that make me an awful person? Does that make me an anti-vaxxer?

Because I questioned the government dictate whether I do it, and I'm not speaking for anybody else. I'm only speaking for myself. But for goodness sakes, let's have an honest debate about these things.

CHAKRABARTI: Dr. Offit, I'm wondering if you could respond to that. Can we, did you, do you think there was an honest debate or sort of enough understanding of people's questions before 2025?

And is that even possible now?

OFFIT: So the ACIP discussed the Hepatitis B vaccine as a routine recommendation for newborns in the early 1990s. It became a routine recommendation in 1991. At the time, every year in the United States, there were 18,000 children, less than 10 years of age, who would get Hepatitis B.

Half of them would get it passing through a birth canal from a mother who was infected with Hepatitis B. The other half, and remember, these are children less than 10, would get it from relatively casual contact. With someone who had chronic Hepatitis B virus and didn't know it. Like sharing toothbrushes, sharing washcloths, the kiss from Uncle Bob.

So his notion, Rand Paul's notion that the only way you could get Hepatitis B is by intravenous drug use or sexual promiscuity is just wrong. So he doesn't know the data. What's more upsetting about that is he's an MD, he's an ophthalmologist. If he's gonna make that kind of statement with his platform as a U.S. Senator, he should at least get the facts right.

CHAKRABARTI: I guess what I'm wondering is what do you think is at stake now, regarding vaccinations, regarding childhood disease in this country. We've already seen a reduction in vaccination rates. Just your thoughts on what could happen next.

OFFIT: I think you're already seeing it happening. We have a measles outbreak in this country that is bigger than anything we've seen in 33 years.

We've had two little girls in West Texas die from measles. That's the first child death in this country since 2003. You've had at least 260 children die from influenza this year. That's more than anything we've seen since 2009. You have a handful of children who've died of whooping cough, but something you said earlier is right.

I do think that we have lost trust. I think especially those first two years of the COVID Pandemic, when in the first year we didn't have anything. So we shuttered schools, closed businesses, restricted travel, masks, quarantined, social distance and that was done in somewhat of a dictatorial way.

And we certainly closed schools for way too long. And we shuttered businesses for way too long. I think the following year, when we had a vaccine, say by January of 2021, you couldn't go anywhere without your vaccine card. You couldn't go to your favorite bar or restaurant or sporting event, place of worship, you may lose your job. And again, I think we could have done a much better job of explaining what this vaccine can and can't do. It was going to decrease transmission but not eliminate it. It was going to protect against mild to moderate disease, but not for long.

The goal was to protect against severe disease. It was to keep you out of the hospital, out of the ICU, out of the morgue. And I don't think we did a great job of explaining that, and I don't think we did a great job of including the public in those decisions. And with that, we lost a lot of trust. And with that you get people like Robert F.

Kennedy Jr. who was hired mainly because he has disdain for the agencies that he now heads.

CHAKRABARTI: We've just got about a minute left to go Dr. Offit. And again, I'm just like seeking what maybe some of the deeper causes here. And I just wonder, is it possible that the American public in general actually has a higher tolerance for preventable deaths than the public health establishment of this country. And that's one of the reasons why vaccine skepticism rises. That's one of the reasons why, Secretary Kennedy is now secretary of HHS, that the zero deaths standard that the public health world wants is not the same standard that the people of the United States actually are willing to live by.

I guess we're about to find out. As these outbreaks are becoming more and more prevalent, we'll find out just what the American public is willing to take. I certainly get a lot of calls and emails from people who are now worried. Should they get their measles vaccine earlier?

Should they, because they're worried that they're about to lose vaccines for their children. And I worry, I have two beautiful little grandchildren and I worry for their future. I really am sad that it's come to that. I'm sad that we have lost the trust, but we have to do everything we can gain do to gain it back because I think the health and wellbeing of our children is at stake.

Dr. Paul Offit is Director of the Vaccine Education Center and a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. He's a current member of the FDA's vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Dr. Offit, thank you so much for coming back on the show.

Thank you.

CHAKRABARTI: Finally, today we say a fond farewell to on point producer Jon Chang.

We tried to hold onto his pant legs to keep him here, but Jon is headed out for a new life and new adventures in the Pacific Northwest. And honestly, Jon, I cannot blame you. It is gorgeous there. Jon is a remarkable human being. Hardworking, diligent, creative, eager to learn, and always. Always growing.

He's the force behind what we unofficially call On Point's human condition beat. If you've heard a conversation here that helped you better understand what it means to be human, Jon almost certainly produced it. He's brought you shows from how music changes the brain to the personal stories of election officials working under threat in the 2024 election.

That second one, by the way, won a national award, but if you really want to understand Jon's impact on this show, I think it's best to hear what his colleagues, the entire On Point staff really thinks.

(MONTAGE)

Jon, the best thing about working with you is that there is no topic that you can't take on and find revealing insights in your prep and research. That is thanks to your unfailing intellectual curiosity.

So thoughtful in his work, and as a teammate, and I will miss his gentle spirit in all that we do.

Jon, the best part about working with you is your unflappability.

Jon, the best thing about working with you is your chillness.

I've never once seen you show even a glimpse of being nervous while working under the pressures of this show.

Working on a live show can be stressful, but you handle it like a pro.

Unbelievable positivity in the face of many challenges. You always tackle things with a smile.

Jon, the best thing about working with you is your kindness. I work remotely, so we've never even worked in the same office together. But even just Slacking with you, talking with you on the phone, your kindness just shines through. Even though we work 3,000 miles apart.

You're one of the nicest people I have ever met, and you are never too busy to answer my question or the question that a guest has. We're really gonna miss you.

Jon, the best thing about working with you is you. You're a wonderful personality.

Jon, the best thing about working with you is how you make me wanna be a better human.

CHAKRABARTI: I'll add one more thing, Jon. To me, the best thing about working with you is that you are one of the finest examples I have ever witnessed of a man who follows his faith down a path of decency, humanity, and service.

You have graced us with your example. An English preacher from way back in the 17th century once said, if there be any truer measure of a man, then by what he does. It must be by what he gives. Thank you, Jon, for giving us so much. We know you have so much more yet to give, and we'll miss you.

The first draft of this transcript was created by Descript, an AI transcription tool. An On Point producer then thoroughly reviewed, corrected, and reformatted the transcript before publication. The use of this AI tool creates the capacity to provide these transcripts.