Covid Update - Paul Offit - CNN False Claims
Segment #700
Big Pharm’;s Go To expert to push both their Covid vaccine and other interests has been caught making false claims. Offit refused to comment
EXCLUSIVE: Internal documents show Paul Offit made false claims on CNN
Newly obtained emails contradict key claims made by the high-profile vaccine commentator.
Dec 09, 2025
Dr Paul Offit live on CNN on Dec. 5 as ACIP votes on the universal hep B birth dose.
When Paul Offit appeared on CNN last Friday to discuss the CDC’s contentious hepatitis B meeting, he spoke with the certainty that has made him one of legacy media’s go-to commentators on vaccines.
ClaimOne:
Offit told viewers he had not been invited to speak at the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) meeting that was unfolding in Atlanta that very day.
That claim was false.
CDC officials had contacted him repeatedly — via emails, phone calls and a speaker-request form — inviting him to present at the upcoming meeting.
Offit acknowledged receiving a request, but then told the audience he was not invited to attend.
From there, the misinformation only escalated.
Offit’s false account of the ACIP invitation
Offit began by correcting the anchor’s introduction. She noted that he had been invited to present at ACIP and had declined. He promptly replied:
“I actually wasn’t invited to present at today’s meeting. I was invited back in October to come speak about vaccines to this group.”
The host sought clarity:
“So just to be clear, you were invited back in October to speak, and you declined that.”
Offit replied:
“It was a vague recommendation to come speak to us… The way that it was framed today that I was asked to come speak today about this subject, that’s not true.”
But emails obtained exclusively by MD Reports tell a different story.
On 23 October, a CDC official emailed Offit with the subject line “Speaker Invitation – ACIP meeting.” The message was explicit: “I am reaching out to invite you as a speaker to an upcoming ACIP meeting and would appreciate the opportunity to connect…”
When that email bounced, the CDC re-sent it to Offit’s University of Pennsylvania address— the one his own institution had confirmed as correct. A CDC staffer also phoned him and left a voicemail.
Offit did not respond.
The CDC then emailed him at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) address as well. And to eliminate any doubt, they also submitted a speaker-request form through CHOP’s booking portal. The system automatically confirmed receipt.
There is nothing “vague” about any of this.
Nor was there ambiguity about which meeting the CDC meant. Between October and December, ACIP had only one meeting scheduled — the same one CNN was covering live.
Offit, a former ACIP member, knows exactly how the committee operates. He knows how invitations are issued and what they refer to. Yet on television, he claimed the outreach was unrelated.
The internal documents contradict him. He was invited. He was contacted multiple times. He declined to engage — then told the public the invitation was “not true.”
Moments later, he described ACIP as a “clown show,” an “anti-vaccine advisory committee” that “puts children in harm’s way,” before launching into claims about hepatitis B that bore no resemblance to the evidence.
Claim Two: Hepatitis B
He warned viewers that “millions” of Americans were silently carrying hepatitis B, claimed that “50% of people in this country” were chronically infected without knowing it, and suggested newborns were at risk through everyday contact with nannies, daycare workers and family members.
None of those claims were true.
But the CNN host did not challenge him. No fact-checker intervened. And once again, a highly amplified “expert” delivered a series of false statements that left the public with a distorted picture of the facts.
Offit uses modelling data to rewrite history
Offit told CNN that before universal infant vaccination, “30,000 children under the age of 10” contracted hepatitis B each year.
But no such epidemic ever occurred.
Childhood hepatitis B in the United States was consistently rare, largely confined to small immigrant communities from high-prevalence regions. In almost all instances, paediatric infection occurred through perinatal transmission.
Although Offit did not cite a source, his “30,000” figure appears to come from modelling work — specifically Armstrong (2001) — which did not actually count real cases.
Instead, the model tried to estimate infections by combining small serosurveys with assumptions about maternal infection, household transmission and demographics.
It extrapolated from only a handful of data points, and when those assumptions are corrected, the estimates become insignificant.
Put simply, these were speculative reconstructions, not surveillance data.
CDC data presented to ACIP last week make this clear.
The national surveillance system (NNDSS) shows acute hepatitis B cases in children under 10 were extremely low — around 400 per year — before the universal birth dose was introduced.
Offit’s claim of “30,000 children under 10” infected annually is not grounded in evidence. It is a significant overstatement based on flawed modelling, not surveillance data.
Offit claims “50% of Americans have chronic hep B ”
Offit first said that “50% of people with chronic hepatitis B don’t know they have it,” a statement fairly consistent with underdiagnosis among chronic carriers.
But minutes later he escalated to this:
“50% of people in this country have chronic hepatitis B and don’t know it.”
If true, that would mean 165 million Americans are chronically infected — an impossibility. The real figure is about 0.3% of the US population - with even lower rates (0.14%) among US-born adults.
Offit exaggerated the real number by several hundred-fold.
He then urged viewers to imagine an infant being held by “your nanny… somebody at daycare… a friend or family member” as a potential source of infection — a narrative that bears no resemblance to actual risk.
Chronic hepatitis B in the U.S. is overwhelmingly concentrated among first-generation immigrants from high-prevalence countries, not childcare workers or the general population.
For infants born to hepatitis-B-negative mothers, the risk of infection through routine social contact is extraordinarily low.
The myth of casual-contact transmission
Offit leaned heavily on the idea of “horizontal transmission,” suggesting children contract hepatitis B from casual household interactions — sharing toothbrushes, towels, or simply being held by an infected adult.
The evidence does not support this either.
Hepatitis B is not transmitted through casual contact. While HBV DNA can appear in saliva, real-world transmission requires blood-to-blood or sexual exposure— not the everyday interactions Offit invoked.
The CDC website is explicit: hepatitis B is not spread by sharing eating utensils, breastfeeding, hugging, kissing, holding hands, coughing, or sneezing.
Decades of household-transmission studies show infections in children outside childbirth are exceedingly rare.
When they do occur, they typically trace back to a chronically infected household member with high viral load or shared blood-exposure items such as razors.
A 2020 FOIA request confirmed there has been no documented case of hepatitis B transmission in U.S. school settings at any level.
Yet, on CNN, Offit invoked the spectre of infection through ordinary contact to heighten public fear and justify universal newborn vaccination. Because if every human interaction is a potential risk, then vaccination becomes the only defence.
Offit goes silent Knowing that Data and the Experts would Confront Him at ACIP
Likle other pro vaccine “experts” Offit does not have the confidence in his argument to go public in an open debate. It would be a bit like a public deposition which he would also avoid from the likes of Mr. Siri.
Dr Offit was offered the opportunity to clarify his remarks. He did not respond.
That silence contrasts sharply with the certainty he brings to national television, where his claims are delivered without scrutiny and his financial ties to vaccine manufacturers are almost never mentioned.
Offit is not an impartial commentator. He earned millions from the sale of his stake in Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq, and has long been aligned with the pharmaceutical industry whose products he routinely defends.
Yet major outlets such as CNN continue to present him as a neutral authority. His interviews are friendly, uncritical, and stripped of context. Viewers are not told about his conflicts of interest.
His statements are taken at face value. And when they are inaccurate — as they were in the CNN segment — they go uncorrected.
Public health relies on trust, honesty and transparency. When influential experts make false claims, and networks fail to scrutinise them, the public is misled.
Offit declined the opportunity to clarify his statements. The record now speaks for itself.
Offit History of False Claims
It is obscene that Paul Offit under the Biden adminsitration has enjoyed the similar status as that of Fauci.. totally unassailable. That has changed and Offit knowing the facts are not on his side will not engage or debate. Offit like Fauci is a fraud
The Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson got Dr. Peter McCullough's reaction to a statement made by vaccine promoter Dr. Paul Offit who said he has reservations about mRNA in himself because of myocarditis. McCullough said the COVID-19 vaccines are not safe for any age or gender group and as early as 2022, the World Council for Health, a physician-led, evidence-based, consensus driven organization called for all COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the market--not safe for human use. Courtesy Emerald Robinson October 3, 2023.
Overview of Dr. Paul Offit's Career and ControversiesDr. Paul A. Offit is a prominent pediatrician, vaccine researcher, and advocate based at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), where he directs the Vaccine Education Center. He co-invented the RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine (licensed in 2006), holds a named chair funded by Merck (the manufacturer), and has served on FDA and CDC advisory committees. Offit is a vocal defender of vaccines, authoring books like Autism's False Prophets (2008), which critiques anti-vaccine misinformation, particularly the debunked link between vaccines and autism. His work has earned him awards, including election to the American Philosophical Society in 2023, but it has also drawn intense criticism from vaccine skeptics, who accuse him of conflicts of interest, exaggeration, and factual inaccuracies.Offit has alledgedly faced death threats and harassment for his pro-vaccine stance, which aligns with scientific consensus under the Biden Administration from bodies like the CDC, WHO, and major journals: vaccines are safe, effective, and do not cause autism (supported by over 40 studies involving millions of children). However, critics, including figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Calley Means, label him a "super spreader of misinformation" due to alleged pharma ties (e.g., royalties from RotaTeq estimated in the millions) and specific claims they deem false. Below, I outline key allegations of "false medical claims," drawing from a broad range of sources (scientific reviews, media reports, and critiques) to represent stakeholders. Most mainstream scientific sources defend Offit, viewing attacks as part of anti-vaccine activism, while skeptic sources substantiate claims with documents or historical data.Key Allegations of False or Misleading ClaimsCritics argue Offit's statements prioritize industry interests over evidence. Here's a chronological summary of prominent examples, with context from both sides:
2002–2005 (Vaccine Capacity in Infants) - Infants' immune systems can theoretically handle "10,000 vaccines at once" (from a 2002 paper co-authored by Offit in Pediatrics). Critics call this hyperbolic and fear-mongering, implying unlimited vaccine safety without evidence. Anti-vaccine groups (e.g., Children's Health Defense) cite it as proof of recklessness; Offit later clarified it was theoretical (based on B-cell response limits), not literal. No direct harm linked, but used to question his credibility. Offit explained it illustrates immune resilience (infants encounter trillions of antigens daily via environment); the figure was "conservative" per his email response to a critic. Scientific consensus: Multiple vaccines are safe; no overload risk.
2008–2010 (Reporting Conflicts to CBS News) In a 2011 Orange County Register op-ed, Offit claimed he fully disclosed his Merck ties (RotaTeq royalties) to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson when asked. Accused of lying about transparency; internal emails showed he withheld details. Attkisson's 2015 report and FOIA emails revealed Offit provided no specifics despite requests; the paper issued a correction calling his statements "unsubstantiated and/or false." Offit maintains he disclosed broadly but not in writing; critics see this as evasion. No formal ethics violation found.
2014–2015 (Hepatitis B Vaccine Safety) On CNN (2014), Offit said the CDC's 2014 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) vote on newborn Hep B vaccination was "unanimous," with no safety concerns raised. Internal ACIP documents contradict this, showing dissent and discussions on risks (e.g., aluminum exposure). Newly obtained emails (via FOIA, reported Dec. 2025) confirm at least one committee member raised safety issues, making the "unanimous" claim false. Journalist Maryanne Demasi highlighted this as obfuscation to downplay debates. Offit later clarified on Substack (2025) that while not unanimous, consensus favored benefits; Hep B vaccine prevents ~90% of infections, with rare side effects (e.g., anaphylaxis in 1/1.1 million doses). CDC data supports routine newborn dosing to protect high-risk groups.
2021 (COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendations) Advised boosters for young adults despite knowing data showed low risk for healthy youth; admitted in a 2022 interview he privately opposed broad mandates but followed CDC "script." Accused of lying about risks to push uptake, ignoring myocarditis signals (known by April 2021 per FOIAs). Naomi Wolf cited WH-CDC emails showing Offit helped craft messaging to downplay clots/myocarditis; Jimmy Dore highlighted his admission of overriding personal judgment for policy. VAERS data (unverified) showed post-vax cardiac events. Offit testified (2022) that benefits (preventing severe COVID) outweighed rare myocarditis (1/10,000–1/100,000 in young males, mostly mild); 2021 data showed vaccines saved millions of lives. He called critics "anti-science."
2023–2025 (General Vaccine Efficacy/Hygiene Role) Claimed vaccines alone drove disease declines (e.g., measles deaths from 300/year pre-vaccine); downplayed sanitation/hygiene. Historical data shows major drops (e.g., 90% for measles) pre-vaccine due to public health improvements. Xlear Inc. and Jeremy Hammond cited CDC graphs showing declines from 1900–1960 via sanitation; Offit's omission called "demonstrably false." Offit acknowledges hygiene's role but emphasizes vaccines' final eradication push (e.g., measles cases fell 99% post-vaccine); WHO credits vaccines for 154 million lives saved (2024–2030 projection).
2025 (FDA Ouster and Conflicts) Defended ACIP decisions amid RFK Jr.'s influence; critics tied his Sept. 2025 VRBPAC removal to "cracks in orthodoxy." Accused of approving "recalled" vaccines causing organ failure while on boards. Calley Means (CNN, Feb. 2025) claimed Offit approved faulty vaccines as a "company position" holder; NewsTarget alleged $1.5M Merck funding biased him. RotaTeq was never recalled. Offit resigned voluntarily; Means' claims debunked (e.g., no "organ failure" recall; ACIP service predated royalties). He called RFK Jr.'s CDC changes (Nov. 2025) "bogus," citing 24 studies disproving vaccine-autism links.
Legacy Media Censorship Favoring Offit
You think Big Pharm doesn’t still have the clout to censor media platforms such as YouTuibe, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox etc. Thinka gain. There are anumber of respected experts that disagree with Offit and Big Pharm. Try to find it outside of independant platforms like Substack, Joe Rodan, Megyn Kelly and others. That reality should tell you all you need to know about Big Pharm, The Dems, and legacy media.
OverviewPaul Offit, MD, is a prominent pediatrician, vaccine researcher, and co-inventor of the RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine. He serves as the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and has been a vocal advocate for vaccination, often criticizing anti-vaccine misinformation. His work has earned him widespread respect in mainstream medical circles, including endorsements from organizations like the American Medical Association and collaborations with experts like Peter Hotez, MD, PhD. However, Offit has faced significant opposition from vaccine skeptics, critics, and some medical professionals who accuse him of conflicts of interest, downplaying vaccine risks, and promoting industry agendas. These critics often label him a "pharma shill" due to royalties from his vaccine invention (estimated at $6–10 million) and his roles on FDA and CDC advisory committees.While most opposition comes from non-mainstream or anti-vaccine voices, there are instances of criticism from credentialed medical professionals. Below, I summarize key examples, focusing on those with medical credentials. Note: "Respected" is subjective; I've prioritized critics with verifiable medical backgrounds (e.g., MDs) who have published or spoken publicly. Broader anti-vaccine activists (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer) are noted but not emphasized, as they lack medical degrees.Key Medical Professionals Criticizing Paul OffitThese individuals have publicly challenged Offit's positions on vaccines, often citing safety concerns, industry ties, or policy decisions. I've included their credentials, specific criticisms, and context.
Robert Malone, MD Physician, mRNA technology pioneer (contributed to mRNA vaccine research), former professor of pathology. Accuses Offit of ignoring COVID-19 vaccine risks (e.g., myocarditis) and promoting boosters without sufficient human data, calling his FDA votes "reckless." Has debated vaccine policies publicly and criticized Offit's "mice data" rationale for boosters as inadequate for billions of people. Multiple X posts and interviews (e.g., 2022–2023); co-authored papers on mRNA risks. Malone has testified before U.S. Senate on vaccine safety.
Steven E. Lucking, MD Board-certified pediatric critical care physician; editor of Pediatric Critical Care: Text & Study Guide. Labels Offit an "unethical disgrace" for alleged conflicts of interest, lying about natural immunity, and ignoring clinician reports of post-vaccine sudden deaths in adolescents. Claims Offit lacks experience treating vaccine complications. Recent X posts (Dec 2025); references 2021 clinician letters to Offit warning of risks.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH Cardiologist; former professor of medicine; author on COVID-19 treatments. Criticizes Offit for downplaying COVID vaccine side effects (e.g., cardiac issues) and supporting mandates despite evidence of harm. Calls Offit's booster endorsements "dangerous" and driven by pharma influence. Podcasts, Substack articles, and Senate testimony (2022–2025); published in journals like American Journal of Medicine.
Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH Oncologist, professor of epidemiology at UCSF; author of Ending Medical Reversal. Challenges Offit's "sensational claims" on vaccine safety without evidence, accusing him of overconfidence in settled science. Recently criticized Offit for dismissing alternative views on COVID boosters. X posts and Apple News interviews (Dec 2025); Prasad's book critiques over-medicalization, including vaccines.
James Miller, MD Board-certified trauma surgeon; now in functional/integrative medicine. Calls Offit "disingenuous" for lacking "actual science" and relying on "pharma-backed tropes." Claims Offit loses debates to medical freedom advocates and has set back medicine "for decades." X posts (Dec 2025); references debates on vaccine schedules.
Broader Patterns of Criticism
Conflicts of Interest Allegations: A common thread is Offit's financial ties. A 2011 CBS News investigation highlighted his $182 million royalty sale from RotaTeq (Merck) while advising on vaccines, questioning his independence. Critics like Lucking and McCullough argue this biases his FDA/CDC roles. Offit counters that he discloses ties and donates proceeds to education.
COVID-Specific Backlash: During the pandemic, Offit supported initial vaccines but opposed widespread boosters for low-risk groups (e.g., his 2023 NEJM article calling for ending mass COVID vaccination). This drew fire from skeptics (e.g., X users like , a PhD immunologist, who mocked his FDA "no" vote on boosters as inconsistent) and some doctors like Malone, who saw it as too little, too late.
Vaccine Schedule and Mandates: Recent events (e.g., Dec 2025 ACIP changes under RFK Jr.) amplified criticism. Offit decried the panel's decision to end newborn hepatitis B shots as "condemning hundreds of children to a shorter life," but critics like Miller accused him of hypocrisy for past support of aggressive schedules.
Debate Refusals: Anti-vaccine groups (e.g., Children's Health Defense) and doctors like Lucking claim Offit avoids debates, blocking them on X. Offit has participated in forums but declines ones he views as platforms for misinformation.
Counterpoints and Mainstream SupportOffit's defenders, including Hotez and AMA leaders, argue criticisms stem from misinformation. He's received death threats and been called a "biostitute" by activists. In 2025, amid RFK Jr.'s HHS role, Offit warned of eroding trust but emphasized evidence-based policy. No major medical body (e.g., AAP, CDC) has formally opposed him; instead, 45+ organizations backed prior vaccine guidelines he helped shape.For deeper dives, sources include peer-reviewed critiques (e.g., Prasad's work) and public records. If this isn't what you meant by "offitt" (e.g., if it's a different term), clarify for more tailored info.