Interview: Paul Offit, M.D.

Nurseworks, ASN, RN · Apr 18, 2014

Paul Offit? Seriously? :roflmao: Maybe I should trot out some Jenny McCarthy or Wakefield interviews for the sake of unbiased credibility? :rolleyes:

allnurses Guide · Apr 18, 2014

Paul Offit? Seriously? Maybe I should trot out some Jenny McCarthy or Wakefield interviews for the sake of unbiased credibility?

Yeah, it is awful to have a highly educated credible person that utilizes peer-reviewed scientific research to support the use of most vaccines (by the way he advocated against two different vaccines d/t proven safety concerns). Paul Offit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who would you like to see as a credible resource in your vast educational experience to debate the pros and cons of vaccines?

Nurseworks, ASN, RN · Apr 18, 2014

Yeah, it is awful to have a highly educated credible person that utilizes peer-reviewed scientific research to support the use of most vaccines (by the way he advocated against two different vaccines d/t proven safety concerns). Paul Offit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who would you like to see as a credible resource in your vast educational experience to debate the pros and cons of vaccines?

While he certainly is educated, I find it curious that you feel he's a credible source given his massive conflict of interest as a vaccine inventor. Scratch that, an unbiased, credible source. Clearly you are passionate about this subject (as am I), so surely you know his warts just as well as his accomplishments. If I'm wrong in that assumption, take the time to read up on his influence on the committee he recused himself of just prior to their voting on his vaccine. I know it won't change your views, but at least it will show me you truly are open to honest dialogue, not dogmatic pablum.

My "vast educational experience" would preclude me from holding up Wikipedia and Paul Offit as unbiased resources just as it would that of whale.to. Your holding up Offit as a pro on the subject of vaccines is fine, but to put forth that he gives a balanced, unbiased view based in science is just disingenuous.

toomuchbaloney · Apr 18, 2014

While he certainly is educated, I find it curious that you feel he's a credible source given his massive conflict of interest as a vaccine inventor. Scratch that, an unbiased, credible source. Clearly you are passionate about this subject (as am I), so surely you know his warts just as well as his accomplishments. If I'm wrong in that assumption, take the time to read up on his influence on the committee he recused himself of just prior to their voting on his vaccine. I know it won't change your views, but at least it will show me you truly are open to honest dialogue, not dogmatic pablum.
My "vast educational experience" would preclude me from holding up Wikipedia and Paul Offit as unbiased resources just as it would that of whale.to. Your holding up Offit as a pro on the subject of vaccines is fine, but to put forth that he gives a balanced, unbiased view based in science is just disingenuous.

You didn't answer the question; who would you accept as a credible resource on the topic?

Nurseworks, ASN, RN · Apr 18, 2014

You didn't answer the question; who would you accept as a credible resource on the topic?

Really haven't given it much thought. Do you have a suggestion? Do you feel that a biased source can be credible?

allnurses Guide · Apr 18, 2014

While he certainly is educated, I find it curious that you feel he's a credible source given his massive conflict of interest as a vaccine inventor. Scratch that, an unbiased, credible source. Clearly you are passionate about this subject (as am I), so surely you know his warts just as well as his accomplishments. If I'm wrong in that assumption, take the time to read up on his influence on the committee he recused himself of just prior to their voting on his vaccine. I know it won't change your views, but at least it will show me you truly are open to honest dialogue, not dogmatic pablum.
My "vast educational experience" would preclude me from holding up Wikipedia and Paul Offit as unbiased resources just as it would that of whale.to. Your holding up Offit as a pro on the subject of vaccines is fine, but to put forth that he gives a balanced, unbiased view based in science is just disingenuous.

Paul Offit utilizes peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support his statements on vaccines. He helped develop a new and safer rotavirus vaccine and he also did not support the use of revamping the small vaccine program. I think that says a lot for the person right there if you know anything about those two vaccines.

Your bias against vaccines shows along with your inability to show any peer-reviewed scientific evidence that would support not being vaccinated.

I consider health care professionals and/or wannabe healthcare professionals that are against routine vaccinations a public health threat that should be barred from providing patient care. I have no qualms about saying this and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in support of this.

Had you bothered to look at one of my many links including wikipedia they all come peer-reviewed scientific research references.

Nurseworks, ASN, RN · Apr 18, 2014

Paul Offit utilizes peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support his statements on vaccines.

No, he doesn't. He routinely parrots dogmatic stances and is prone to hyperbole. If you're as well-read on the subject as you seem to be, you'll privately acknowledge what I am referring to and leave it at that, saving us both this nonsense of one-upmanship.

He helped develop a new and safer rotavirus vaccine and he also did not support the use of revamping the small vaccine program. I think that says a lot for the person right there if you know anything about those two vaccines.

Again, how that his vaccine came to be adopted to the schedule would give anyone pause. Your choice to overlook it as it lines up with your ideology is telling and therefore dictates the course of the conversation.

Your bias against vaccines shows along with your inability to show any peer-reviewed scientific evidence that would support not being vaccinated.

As I intimated above, it does not appear that you are interested in science, only ideology. As such, I see no reason to pour through PubMed in an effort to somehow appeal to your intellect. Yours is an argument rooted in dogma, so I see no reason to not respond in kind.

I consider health care professionals and/or wannabe healthcare professionals that are against routine vaccinations a public health threat that should be barred from providing patient care. I have no qualms about saying this and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in support of this.

I consider those who purport to be people of science that speak in absolutes to be dangerous. I consider those that do so in a healthcare setting to be particularly so, especially when they do so in the interest of furthering an ideology instead of what may be best for an individual patient.

Incidentally, I received my flu shot and my children are up to date on all their vaccines as well. Does that mean I'm allowed to provide patient care? Or is my critical (note, not oppositional) view frowned upon as well?

Had you bothered to look at one of my many links including wikipedia they all come peer-reviewed scientific research references.

I've seen some of the links before. It doesn't change the fact that you feel that Offit is somehow a good example of an unbiased, credible source on the subject. It's largely akin to accepting climate change data from fossil fuel companies. That you can't acknowledge that on some level is disappointing.

toomuchbaloney · Apr 18, 2014

Really haven't given it much thought. Do you have a suggestion? Do you feel that a biased source can be credible?

You must use some resources that you believe are credible to develop and inform your professional and personal opinions on the subject. Do you mind sharing them?

allnurses Guide · Apr 19, 2014

No, he doesn't. He routinely parrots dogmatic stances and is prone to hyperbole. If you're as well-read on the subject as you seem to be, you'll privately acknowledge what I am referring to and leave it at that, saving us both this nonsense of one-upmanship.
Again, how that his vaccine came to be adopted to the schedule would give anyone pause. Your choice to overlook it as it lines up with your ideology is telling and therefore dictates the course of the conversation.
As I intimated above, it does not appear that you are interested in science, only ideology. As such, I see no reason to pour through PubMed in an effort to somehow appeal to your intellect. Yours is an argument rooted in dogma, so I see no reason to not respond in kind.
I consider those who purport to be people of science that speak in absolutes to be dangerous. I consider those that do so in a healthcare setting to be particularly so, especially when they do so in the interest of furthering an ideology instead of what may be best for an individual patient.
Incidentally, I received my flu shot and my children are up to date on all their vaccines as well. Does that mean I'm allowed to provide patient care? Or is my critical (note, not oppositional) view frowned upon as well?
I've seen some of the links before. It doesn't change the fact that you feel that Offit is somehow a good example of an unbiased, credible source on the subject. It's largely akin to accepting climate change data from fossil fuel companies. That you can't acknowledge that on some level is disappointing.

Again, can you provide any peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your views that vaccines are unsafe?

I am a fan of Paul Offit and IMHO his biases are consistent with peer-reviewed scientific evidence, so does that really make him biased or just a realist.

When you can kill a patient by your inactions (i.e. not being properly vaccinated) I don't consider that being zealous or dangerous I consider that practicing nonmaleficence. Vaccines are the most studied medication available, and I don't think there is a need to alter the current recommendations based on ignorance of scientific literature.

Nurseworks, ASN, RN · Apr 19, 2014

You must use some resources that you believe are credible to develop and inform your professional and personal opinions on the subject. Do you mind sharing them?

Generally I read what's available to me on PubMed and the like, usually in response to what I hear reported in a media outlet. I try to apply critical thinking from there on in and leave my personal opinions at the proverbial door, but sometimes that isn't easy. That said, it would take quite a bit if convincing for me to trust the word of a person who has become richer than I can ever dream of becoming on just how great their product is without doing some research of my own. Is that not prudent?

Again, can you provide any peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your views that vaccines are unsafe?
I am a fan of Paul Offit and IMHO his biases are consistent with peer-reviewed scientific evidence, so does that really make him biased or just a realist.
When you can kill a patient by your inactions (i.e. not being properly vaccinated) I don't consider that being zealous or dangerous I consider that practicing nonmaleficence. Vaccines are the most studied medication available, and I don't think there is a need to alter the current recommendations based on ignorance of scientific literature.

My views? Please tell me where my views have said that I feel vaccines are unsafe? Did you not see that both I and my children are fully vaccinated? Do you think I am so sort of soft-head that does as he is told without making informed decisions about not only my healthcare, but those of my children? No, you simply have your mind made up that I'm one of your "anti-vaxxer" enemies that means to do in the vaccination program. Well, let me clue you in; my kids are not only fully vaccinated, but developmentally delayed, so how's that sit with your impression of me and "my views"?

You know what I consider zealous? Defending a position known to be incorrect because it's ideologically palatable. Offit's biased and you choose to ignore that, there's no escaping that fact.

allnurses Guide · Apr 19, 2014

Generally I read what's available to me on PubMed and the like, usually in response to what I hear reported in a media outlet. I try to apply critical thinking from there on in and leave my personal opinions at the proverbial door, but sometimes that isn't easy. That said, it would take quite a bit if convincing for me to trust the word of a person who has become richer than I can ever dream of becoming on just how great their product is without doing some research of my own. Is that not prudent?
My views? Please tell me where my views have said that I feel vaccines are unsafe? Did you not see that both I and my children are fully vaccinated? Do you think I am so sort of soft-head that does as he is told without making informed decisions about not only my healthcare, but those of my children? No, you simply have your mind made up that I'm one of your "anti-vaxxer" enemies that means to do in the vaccination program. Well, let me clue you in; my kids are not only fully vaccinated, but developmentally delayed, so how's that sit with your impression of me and "my views"?
You know what I consider zealous? Defending a position known to be incorrect because it's ideologically palatable. Offit's biased and you choose to ignore that, there's no escaping that fact.

A rough guesstimate that I saw on one website put Offit's wealth at 13-35million, and really who cares. When is the last time you or any one of us has spent a couple of decades developing and patenting a new safer medication? Do you work for free, because I sure don't.

This hardly is any proof that the vaccine he helped produce is unsafe and since all vaccines used in the United States go through constant phase IV studies that are mostly funded through government grants it further highlights the safety of vaccines in general.

I think your other posts on the other threads in this forum clearly suggest that you think vaccines are unsafe.