Many parents today are concerned about the number of vaccines their children are scheduled to receive under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. As a more cautious approach, some parents seek antibody titer tests — blood tests that measure a child's existing immunity to specific diseases — to potentially avoid unnecessary vaccinations.
- Paul Offit Dismisses Antibody Testing, But Ignores Valid Parental Concerns: In a CHOP video, Dr. Paul Offit argues that antibody titer tests are unreliable indicators of immunity and urges parents to follow the CDC vaccine schedule instead. However, his argument fails to address legitimate safety concerns and presumes, without evidence, that the full schedule is safe.
- Scientific Contradictions and Vaccine Licensing Exposed: Offit acknowledges that antibody levels don’t always correlate with immunity — yet this is the very measure the FDA uses to license vaccines. This contradiction reveals a major flaw in the FDA’s approval process and raises questions about the scientific validity of current vaccine policy.
- Evidence of Vaccine Failure Undermines Offit’s Position: Offit cites past measles outbreaks to justify vaccination but omits that a significant portion of cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals. Historical data show that vaccine failure — both primary and secondary — was a driving force behind adding a second measles dose to the schedule.
- Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest Raise Ethical Red Flags: Offit’s financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry — including profits from a Merck rotavirus vaccine — go undisclosed in the CHOP video. This, combined with CHOP’s industry partnerships, casts doubt on the objectivity of their messaging and underscores concerns about propaganda replacing informed consent.
Skepticism of the CDC’s vaccine schedule is warranted
In a widely circulated video, Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) argues against this approach, claiming that such tests are not reliable indicators of immunity and that parents should strictly follow the CDC schedule. But Offit's argument, critics contend, is not only flawed but misleading — and exposes deeper problems in public vaccine policy and oversight.
Offit claims that antibody titers don’t always correlate with true immunity. For example, someone may lack measurable antibodies against measles but still be immune due to the presence of memory immune cells. Conversely, people can have antibodies to rotavirus or pertussis and still be vulnerable, since those are mucosal infections and antibodies in the blood don’t necessarily predict mucosal protection. He concludes that titers are unreliable, and that vaccination is the best way to ensure immunity.
But critics say this argument commits several logical fallacies. First, it assumes that all vaccines are inherently safe and effective without addressing the lack of long-term studies on the cumulative impact of the full CDC vaccine schedule. According to a 2013 Institute of Medicine report, no comprehensive studies have evaluated the long-term safety of receiving dozens of vaccine doses by age 18. Offit also ignores legitimate concerns about ingredients like aluminum and mercury compounds (e.g., thimerosal), known neurotoxins that are still present in some vaccines.
Moreover, while Offit emphasizes that some vaccinated people lack measurable antibodies but are still immune, he avoids discussing vaccine failure — cases where vaccinated individuals contract the diseases anyway. In the 1980s and 1990s, major measles outbreaks included a large percentage of vaccinated children. This led the CDC to add a second measles shot to the schedule not because most kids needed it, but to account for primary vaccine failure in a minority. The CDC itself has acknowledged that most children who respond to the first dose don’t need the second.
Offit also dismisses antibody testing on the basis that high titers don't always equate to protection. However, critics point out that the FDA itself licenses vaccines based on their ability to provoke an antibody response — known as a "surrogate marker" for immunity — even when actual protection isn’t fully understood, as in the case of pertussis. This contradiction, critics argue, reflects a form of scientific dishonesty or even fraud.
Perhaps most concerning is Offit’s undisclosed financial conflicts of interest. He helped develop a rotavirus vaccine and profited millions from its sale through a patent held jointly with CHOP. Yet he presents himself simply as an educator from a children’s hospital, urging compliance with public policy without disclosing these connections.
In conclusion, Offit and CHOP’s message aims to discourage parents from questioning the CDC’s schedule or considering antibody tests. But the scientific, regulatory, and ethical context suggests parents have good reason to be skeptical—and to demand transparency, informed consent, and independent oversight in vaccine policymaking.
Bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on pharma shills like Paul “Pharma Puppet” Offit designing and pushing experimental and toxic injections that lead to early death, infertility, turbo cancer and Long-Vax-Syndrome.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.