The CDC deceives parents into vaccinating their children, including by relying on the bald-faced lie that they could safely get 10,000 vaccines at once.
Given the number of vaccines children receive today, many parents are naturally concerned whether their child may be getting too many, or too many at one time. But instead of taking their legitimate concern seriously, public health officials and the mainstream corporate media just insult their intelligence and straight up lie to them in order to manipulate them into compliance.
Among the criminally irresponsible lies that parents are being told is that the safety of children receiving today’s vaccine regimen has been scientifically demonstrated—and even that babies could theoretically receive 10,000 vaccines safely at once.
The Unproven Safety of the CDC’s Childhood Vaccine Schedule
In 1953, the CDC recommended 16 doses of 4 vaccines by age six. By 1983, the childhood schedule had expanded to include 23 doses of 7 vaccines by age six. Since 2013, the CDC has recommended 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age six. This has naturally led many parents to wonder whether getting too many vaccines, or too many at once, might be potentially harmful to their child.
To reassure concerned parents, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states on its website that “Getting multiple vaccines at the same time has been shown to be safe.”
“Scientific data”, the CDC continues, “shows that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child.” (Bold emphasis added.)
It is not difficult to imagine how a concerned parent, after reading this information, might breathe a sigh of relief, having come to the understanding that no vaccines are added to the CDC’s schedule until randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials have been conducted to determine the safety of children getting that vaccine along with every other vaccine on the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule.
That, at least, is how most parents would likely interpret what the CDC is saying.
And it’s not an unreasonable interpretation, given the CDC’s wording. It is apparently the conclusion that the CDC wants anyone reading those statements to draw.
Evidently relying on the CDC for information, it’s certainly the interpretation that the Washington Post relays to concerned parents in similarly reassuring them that “No new immunization is added to the schedule until it has been evaluated both alone and when given with the other current immunizations.” (Emphasis added.)
The problem with the Post’s statement is that it’s a lie.
I contacted the Washington Post to inform that article’s author and the editors that their statement is false and to request a correction. While the burden of proof was on them to produce any such studies support their claim, to save them the trouble of searching for studies that don’t exist, I provided them with quotations from sources in the medical literature stating explicitly that no such studies have been done. I quoted from a 2013 report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), for example, stating that “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.” (Bold emphasis added.)
After several attempts, I finally reached the author of that Post article, Lena H. Sun, by phone. She acknowledged that the editorial board had received my letter of correction and that it was under review.
She also explicitly acknowledged having been made aware of the IOM report and what it had to say about it.
Despite knowing the truth, to this day, both she and the Post editorial board have refused to issue a correction to their readers, and the article still continues to blatantly lie to parents in order to persuade them to obediently line up and get their children vaccinated.
This is because vaccination has become a religion.
Lena H. Sun and the Post editorial board are simply faithful adherents to the vaccine religion. So they choose to believe their own falsehood rather than accept the truth stated plainly by the IOM.
They choose to continue lying to parents rather than to acknowledge the reality that the safety of the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule has not been scientifically demonstrated.
After all, to acknowledge that particular truth would be to commit the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion.
If you look at the CDC’s statements more closely, you’ll see that it’s not actually saying what Lena H. Sun and the Washington Post editors apparently believe it’s saying strictly on faith.
The people at the CDC responsible for communicating this reassurance to concerned parents much more cleverly worded their statements, in a way that would lead parents—as well as lazy, unthinking mainstream journalists—to the desired conclusion, without actually coming out and directly making the false claim that no vaccine is added to their schedule until studied for safety when given in combination with every other.
Look again at the CDC’s wording: “A number” of studies have been done on “various combinations” of vaccines, and every new vaccine “has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended” (emphasis added).
When the CDC says “along with” in that statement, it doesn’t meant “in combination with”; it just means “in addition to”. All that the CDC is really saying here is that, prior to being added to the CDC’s schedule, all vaccines undergo clinical trials to study their safety when administered individually; and there are also some studies testing the safety of administering “several” vaccines at once.
The CDC does not mean that “No new immunization is added to the schedule until it has been evaluated both alone and when given with the other current immunizations.”
That’s just what it wants people to believe, evidently. This explains why, when mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post make such false statements about vaccine safety, the CDC makes absolutely no effort to correct the record so as to prevent the general public from becoming misinformed.
It is only information, whether incorrect or accurate, that would lead people to avoid vaccination that the CDC concerns itself with combating. So long as the misinformation results in higher vaccination rates, the CDC is fine with it.
To further illustrate how the CDC deliberately deceives the public in this regard, on an FAQ page for its “Parents Guide to Childhood Immunizations”, the CDC offers the following (emphasis added):
Q: Can’t so many vaccines overwhelm a child’s immune system?
A: We may not know exactly how many germs a baby’s immune system can handle at one time, but it is considerably more than they will ever get from vaccines. After all, this is the immune system’s job. From the day a baby is born, her immune system has to deal with the thousands of germs she is exposed to as part of daily life. As one doctor put it, “Worrying about too many vaccines is like worrying about a thimble of water getting you wet when you are swimming in an ocean.”
The CDC doesn’t provide any sources, but a simple Google search reveals that the quote is taken from an article published on the website Quackwatch.org that in turn cites a paper published in Pediatrics in January 2002 to support its argument that infants could theoretically handle getting 10,000 vaccines at once.
The lead author of that paper was Paul Offit, MD, who argued, on the basis of certain assumptions, that every infant has “the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time”.
Why the “10,000 Vaccines at Once” Claim Is a Bald-Faced Lie
It’s certainly no surprise that the CDC would rely on Paul Offit as a source for information about vaccine safety. After all, from 1998 to 2003, he sat on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). During that time, he voted three times in favor of the rotavirus vaccine, including the decision to add this vaccine to the Vaccines For Children program. All the while, Offit was also being paid by the pharmaceutical corporation Merck to develop a rotavirus vaccine, and when he later sold his share in the patent of that vaccine, he profited several million dollars.
Offit also happens to be a regular go-to “expert” on vaccines for the mainstream media.
His 2002 Pediatrics paper was written specifically to address parents’ concerns about children getting too many vaccines, or too many at once. It was titled “Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?” In arriving at his conclusion that infants could receive 10,000 vaccines at once, he assumed that each vaccine would contain 100 antigens, arguing that his estimate is “conservative” because “most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens”. The Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, for example, he claimed, contains jut “1 antigen”.
But that is an incredibly audacious lie.
The CDC defines an antigen as a foreign substance in the body that is capable of causing disease, the presence of which triggers an immune response. When Paul Offit claimed in his paper that HepB contains just “1 antigen”, he was deceptively redefining the word “antigen” to mean only the antigen in the vaccine that is derived from the virus or bacteria that causes the disease that the vaccine is intended to prevent. Specifically, he was referring to a protein referred to as hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAG). It is true that this protein is the only antigen from the hepatitis B virus used in the manufacture of the HepB vaccine.
However, it is emphatically not the only antigen in the vaccine.
In proclaiming otherwise, Offit and his coauthors were completely ignoring the existence of any and all other antigenic ingredients in vaccines.
Among other antigens, the HepB vaccine also contains aluminum. In fact, although aluminum is a known neurotoxin, this antigen is included in the vaccine precisely because it causes an increased immune response. This kind of ingredient is known as an “adjuvant”, the purpose of which, as the CDC also informs us, is “to increase the body’s immune response to a vaccine”, i.e., to increase the level of antibodies produced in response to vaccination so that an amount considered “protective” can be obtained—which is required to obtain licensure by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Offit argued that “infants actually encounter fewer antigens in vaccines today than they did 40 or 100 years ago”. For example, the smallpox vaccine contained about 200 proteins of the target antigen, whereas the 11 vaccine routinely recommended in 2002 contained a combined total of “fewer than 130 proteins”.
This is deceptive, however, because it completely ignores the fact that, whereas the smallpox vaccine contained no adjuvant, vaccine manufacturers today are able to use fewer target disease antigens today than in previous generations of vaccines in large part because of the use of adjuvants in many vaccines, typically aluminum. Without the adjuvant, these vaccines would not stimulate the blood concentration of antibodies required to get their products to market.
Note, furthermore, that although this paper was written to assure parents that children can safely receive a great many vaccines, Offit’s hypothesis was actually strictly limited to the question of whether an infant’s immune system would respond to the antigenic challenge of 10,000 vaccines at once.
If you read carefully, you’ll see that Offit and his coauthors actually did not even inquire whether it would be safe to do this: they wrote about “the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond“; they did not write about “the estimated number of vaccines which a child could safely receive”.
Of course, parents aren’t concerned about whether their child’s immune could respond to many vaccines at once—they are concerned about whether their child’s immune response to too many vaccines at once could be harmful.
To starkly illustrate the implications of asking the wrong question, notice that Offit and his coauthors completely ignored the question of whether it would be safe for an infant to receive the amount of aluminum they would be exposed to if receiving 10,000 vaccines.
Some quick math gives us a pretty good indication of the answer.
With respect to aluminum, the federal government has established the safety limit for vaccines at a maximum of 1,250 micrograms. The Hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms. So, if a child was to receive 10,000 doses of HepB at once, they would be injected with 2,500,000 micrograms of neurotoxic aluminum.
This is the same Paul Offit who has, in the op-ed pages of the New York Times, accused parents of child abuse for not vaccinating their children. Yet injecting these same children with 2,000 times the government’s own safety limit for aluminum exposure would not be child abuse, by Paul Offit’s demented reasoning—which rises to a level of blatant, deliberate deception that is characteristic of psychopathy.
And this is precisely the same fallacious and demented reasoning that the CDC relies upon to dismiss parents’ concerns about their child receiving too many vaccines.
Now look again at the careful wording and limited scope of the CDC’s answer to parents’ question about the safety of their child receiving so many vaccines:
From the day a baby is born, her immune system has to deal with the thousands of germs she is exposed to as part of daily life. As one doctor put it, “Worrying about too many vaccines is like worrying about a thimble of water getting you wet when you are swimming in an ocean.”
Notice that the CDC’s answer considers only the infants’ exposure to “germs” from vaccines—that is, only the viral or bacterial antigenic components. The CDC, like Paul Offit, willfully and deliberately ignores the fact—of which they are perfectly well aware—that these are not the only antigens in vaccines.
Aluminum and numerous other ingredients contained in vaccines, like the neurotoxic ethylmercury in multi-dose vials of influenza vaccines, are not “germs”.
We are not already “swimming” in them—or we’d be dead.
And parents’ concern that receiving too many vaccines at once might harm their child is not only perfectly legitimate, but scientifically validated.
That’s a truth that the CDC just doesn’t want you to know; hence the willful deception, which the mainstream media and other high priests of the vaccine religion are all too willing to amplify in order to manipulate people into compliance with public vaccine policy.
To stay updated with Jeremy R. Hammond’s writings exposing how the public is being lied to by the government and mainstream media about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, click here to sign up for his newsletter and get his free downloadable report “5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process”.
To support his truly independent journalism on this critically important issue, click here to support his mission with a financial contribution.
This critique is devastating. Unfortunately most of the public will never know until some outrageous tragedy occurs that can no longer be ignored.
Until??? We have an autism dilemma already. 1 in 45 children in the USA alone. 19 countries that compensate for harm and 176 countries doing nothing.
1:45 on the spectrum according to the last ADDM survey. In order to prove an increase, that number needs to be compared to an earlier survey with similar methods.
Aren’t you the guy who said the autism “rate’ in Denmark is 3:10,000? One more example of an AV who can never admit he was wrong.
3:10,000 was stated in something I read. Its Denmark ONLY. 1:45 is USA. I hope I’ve helped you understand.
Actually is was Poland, and there’s never been a country-wide survey of autism in Poland. There’s never been a country wide survey in the US, either. Or England, of any country larger than a WalMart parking lot.
Something you read. I want to try that, too.
I read somewhere that Merck hires people to pose as anti-vaxers online in order to paint all anti-vaxers as incoherent and shrll. It’s the internet only. I hope I’ve helped you understand.
No not helpful unless one is trying to be quite ignorant. So why don’t countries want to know or reveal autism numbers? Gee that’s a hard question.
For the same reason when NBC or Fox or Reuters wants to know how many Americans will vote for Trump, they don’t call every fucking person in the phone book. It’s called sampling. The very first autism study was done in one part of the UK (Camberwell) in the early 1960s. The second survey was in Wisconsin. It’s not necessary to survey the whole country, and since it’s more expensive to do it that way, researchers stick with one region. Remember the South Korean study that showed 1:40 or so? That was in one city.
The CDC’s ADDM survey only counts 11 communities:
“The percentage of children identified with ASD varied widely among the
11 communities in this report, although five of them reported similar
estimates of 1.3 percent to 1.4 percent. The highest prevalence estimate
of 2.9 percent came from a community in New Jersey.”‘
In Poland only two regions were studied because, I’m guessing, Poland in more uniform in services offered and level of health care. That’s not the case in the US, where each state has its own health care system, educational apparatus, etc. New Jersey shows a higher prevalence because New Jersey has one of the best support systems for autistic children in the country so more kids are being diagnosed. Diagnoses follow services.
My daughter received an autism diagnosis from her school in sixth grade because it made speech services available. She doesn’t meet the criteria for a medical diagnosis, but she was one of the 1:50 or so regardless. Three years later the diagnosis was dropped, not because she was cured but because the diagnosis was no longer necessary for services.
Counting autism is a pain in the ass, and the harder you look the more you find. That wasn’t the case 40 years ago, when only the most severe cases received a diagnosis. In the last ADDM survey, the CDC researchers combed through teachers’ notes looking for phrases like “Doesn’t play well with other children” or “prefers to be alone.” In the 2012 and 2014 surveys (IIRC), one in five children identified with an ASD was either misdiagnosed or had no label at all before the CDC came knocking. In the last survey, that percentage fell below 2%.
Any question is hard if you don’t know how to find an answer.
So how about it, Dadd? Are you going to do what educated people do and admit you were wrong about the thing you may or may not have read about autism in Poland? Or are you just going to stay busted?
Busted for what, having a discussion on a forum? Guilty as charged. Can we settle out of court so I don’t face a prison sentence? So how can I be wrong about Poland after you describe the systems used are inadequate and speculative? That supports me, thank you VERY much.
Thank you for showing us the real face of vaccine denialism.
What is “vaccine denialism”?
Busted for repeated numbers divorced from reality that you claim to have read somewhere but you don’t remember where. Isn’t that what you accuse others of doing?
Like I said: incoherent, ill-informed, and many times dishonest. Thanks for representing the anti-vaccine movement, where all ideas are equally valid.
Now you’ve gone and exposed yourself as a conspiracy nutter. What else do you know about the Anti-Vaccine Cult?
And how do these people sleep. At night? I’d like to research how many of the liars allow their own offspring to recieve this? Also, if a child is coming down with a cold but it hasn’t been determined yet .. These vaccines are potentially high risk for a disaster. What’s the point anyway? Why would anyone take a chance and inject this preceouse, perfect and healthy baby to such a unfathenable risk. There’s no reason. Frickn jerks shoukd be hung for pufting these preceouse souls in the middle of a war zone. SHAME ON ALL OF THEM. Shoot them up, win a dose compreble to that baby’s size. Guaranteed they wouldn’t take it and these bastages have already built their immune system while that baby hasn’t got a lick to fightoff sometjing so powerful.
It is not a lie, bald faced or otherwise. Dr. Offit used math to arrive at his number. By “vaccines” he was referring to the antigens in 10,000 vaccines, not 10,000 needle sticks and 50 gallons of saline solution. His analysis was published in a peer reviewed journal. If you know better, then you need to likewise do the math and publish in a medical journal, perhaps the same one that published Offit.
Before commenting on the article, please first read it.
I’ve read it twice now. Once before commenting, and once afterward to see what I missed.
What did I miss?
I’ve been following the anti-vaccine movement, writing about it, engaging with AVs, for nearly 15 years. I’ve met Paul Offit, and he explained to me, over lunch, what he meant by his 10,000 vaccines at once comment.
Your interpretation is simplistic. Before commenting further, please read something besides Generation Rescue press releases.
There is a difference between a baby encountering germs naturally, through touch and through her digestive system, than intravenously. The body is adapted to this, and the baby has natural protections. However, shooting multiple toxins into the bloodstream is a completely different avenue, which bypasses protections and deposits said toxins in every organ and tissue that blood traverses. Paul Offit is a lying idiot.
No vaccine is injected “into the bloodstream”. Vaccines are injected IM for a reason.
Are you TRYING to be OFFIT like? Where do vaccine ingredients travel to in order to perform their miracles?
Do I get to make up my own definitions, too?
There is a reason some injections are IM, and others are IV. They are not the same.
correct.
Whoa check out tom’s reply.
That response was to this statement from ANB.
“There is a reason some injections are IM, and others are IV. They are not the same”
As if I didn’t know that. But your reply was flat and uninspiring.
So the vaccine NEVER enters the bloodstream EVER
The whole vaccine? Nope.
Nice try being honest. Hard for you isn’t it?
No there isn’t. You clearly know nothing of basic biology, much less anything about immunology.
Are you copy / pasting your reply now?
might as well.
Is that why germs never enter the body through a scraped knee or a bee sting? Please go on believing that, and sharing your wisdom with every media outlet in the country. One of you is worth ten of me.
facepalm
ANB2017 will now deflect
Clearly, you’ve read the title. But I see no evidence from your comments that you have actually read the article. If there is something I wrote that you think is factually incorrect or doesn’t logically follow, you are welcome to identify specifically what it is. If you persist but fail to, you will be banned for trolling.
Simplistic is all Jeremy can handle.
I challenge you to identify even a single factual or logical error on my part in the article.
Your claim that an adjuvant is an antigen just for starters.
It is instructive that you say this, yet still have not identified any factual or logical error on my part in the article.
I have read it too and it is jock full of nonsense.
Example: “Among other antigens, the HepB vaccine also contains aluminum.”
Aluminum is not an antigen, because it does not trigger an immunologic reaction.
“Aluminum is not an antigen, because it does not trigger an immunologic reaction.”
Really Dr clown?
So where is your evidence?
You obviously didn’t read very carefully. As explained in the article, the fact that it stimulate an immune response is the whole purpose of an adjuvant. (Hint: aluminum is used as an adjuvant in vaccines.)
“Antigen” is not a synonym for “adjuvant”. Offit said a child can handle the antigens in 10,000 vaccines, not the adjuvants in 10,000 vaccines. Again, a common sense reading say he’s not suggesting a child can handle 5 grams of aluminum salts injected into a tiny arm.
Here’s a good explanation of how each works:
“An important step in the induction of an immune response to vaccines is the internalization of antigens by antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells (DCs). Many current vaccines are formulated with antigens adsorbed to an aluminum-containing adjuvant. Following injection of the vaccine the antigens may either elute or stay adsorbed to the adjuvant surface. Antigens, which elute from the adjuvant surface, are internalized by dendritic cells through macropinocytosis while those that remain adsorbed are internalized with the adjuvant particle by phagocytosis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15694511
I understand what you are trying to do by suggesting otherwise, but the fact is Offit was responding to concerns, much expressed in the media at the time, that the killed and attenuated germs in vaccines somehow overwhelm a child’s immune system. His research and math show otherwise. To call his conclusion a bald-faced lie, a phrase you use quite often, is misleading and not founded in reality.
And yet it remains true that, by definition, aluminum adjuvant is an antigen. Here it is again spelled out for you:
1) Once again, the CDC defines an antigen as a foreign substance in the body that is capable of causing disease, the presence of which triggers an immune response.
2) Aluminum adjuvant is a foreign substance in the body that is capable of causing disease, the presence of which triggers an immune response.
You have worn out my patience with your trolling behavior.
they try everyone’s patience.
So Thomas, if you want a discussion about poor grammar and spelling, here’s an example. You meant to say “chock-full,” but you being a clown, Jock is more appropriate… hahaha.
Basically it was supposition. Its not the only thing that comes out of his mouth.
No, it was understanding of immunology, another topic that you know absolutely nothing about.
Nor you by the sounds of it. If prOffit is talking hypothetically as stated, he’s just making assumptions
Yes, a sound assumption based on mathematical calculations. Thanks for playing.
Supply these calculations then. The ones he actually used.
Do you want me to read them to you, too?
“Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 to 1011 different antibody specificities. But this prediction is limited by the number of circulating B cells and
the likely redundancy of antibodies generated by an individual.
“A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide),39 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 103 B-cells per mL,39 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 103 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody (therefore, vaccine-epitope-specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 103 epitopes), and 5) approximately 107 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood,39 then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine).”
Wow. All that just to speculate.
Yes, speculation is so much easier when we only know what we want to know.
Makes little sense. But then….
If it ends in -ology, Dadd is lost.
Media complicity is the heart of the matter, one of the primary witnesses the FDA used to “debunk” claims of injury recanted his testimony, other than a single program not a single acknowledgement. See here
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-vaccination-debate
this is against a backdrop of media-corporate duplicity regarding any issues affecting the drug companies.Other than C-Span and the program above, a total blackout on any coverage of the book China RX explaining the outsourcing of US pharma drug production to China. This goes for those “safe” vaccines too; there is no labeling requirement.
Nor will the corporates cover the linkage between the Prozac-like drugs and violence see SSRIstories both .org and .net.
Likely explanation is the sheer weight of money due to advertising expenditures on TV. See if you can watch for an hour and not be shown an ad for drugs. Something allowed in only one other nation than the US (New Zealand).
https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1378/rr-0
Just going to leave this here for all the nincompoops or rather pro-vaxxers. Please understand what are you commenting on before you spew absolute nonsense to the public. Over and out.
=====================
Paul Offit
“the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time”.
“Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines,” says Dr. Offit. “A baby’s body is bombarded with immunologic challenges – from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean.”
=====================
Now we are told that this statement was meant to be qualified to really only relate to the specific antigens (for which there is still a logic fail, since it assumes all antigens are immediately neutralized simply by comparative numbers, not by any scientific study. Nobody will ever test this claim because it could easily be life-threatening, or deadly.),
And we are told the claim does not include the far more potentially debilitating adjuvants., like aluminum.
Talk about moving goal posts..
=====================
Feb, 2009
Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market
Author – Mark Blaxill
https://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/voting-himself-rich-cdc-vaccine-adviser-made-29-million-or-more-after-using-role-to-create-market.html
“Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) took home a fortune of at least $29 million as part of a $182 million sale by CHOP of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine to Royalty Pharma in April of last year, according to an investigation by Age of Autism. Based on an analysis of current CHOP administrative policies, the amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million.”
Can we say .. conflict of interest.
======================
Steven Avery
https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568