Vaccine safety advocate Steve Kirsch posted a video of Offit's remarks about the boosters during the expert's interview with CNBC. Offit, a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), voted against the approval of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose.
"Do the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks? I didn't see the benefits [and] I feel very strongly about my 'no' vote there. In fact, the only reason I voted no was because 'hell no' was not a choice," he said.
"It just surprised me that we were willing to go forward with this, with such scant evidence of benefit. I think the phrase that I used was 'uncomfortably scant.' You just sort of felt like the fix was in a little bit here. I felt like we were being led here with a critical lack of information."
According to Offit, the FDA based its approval of the bivalent COVID-19 boosters on data from clinical trials done on eight mice. "I don't think you should ever ask tens of billions of people to get a vaccine based on mouse data," he said.
"The reason to consult [the VRBPAC] is because when [the FDA does] that … that's open to the public. So we'll get then all the data from the two companies, which then is available to the public. By not doing that, by simply saying 'We don't need that advice'" what they're also saying is 'We're not [going to] be transparent about what we have to the American public.' And I just think that's not fair."
Offit ultimately concluded: "If you clearly have evidence of benefit, great. But if you don't clearly have any evidence of benefit, then say no."
In a piece published on his Substack, Kirsch outlined three reasons why Offit voted no on the bivalent COVID-19 booster.
"You will not find a bigger proponent of vaccine in general, and the COVID-19 vaccines specifically, in American medicine than Offit," the vaccine safety advocate wrote. "He voted 'yes' to give the COVID vaccines to all children, even babies as young as six months."
Kirsch then put down Offit's three reasons for voting against the booster.
First, he pointed out a lack of a trial to "show that there are any clinical benefits at all." Kirsch added: "Any clinical benefits must be weighed against the risks."
Second, he cited Offit's remarks during an interview with MedPage Today that the initial vaccine doses provide sufficient protection against severe COVID-19 – meaning there is no additional benefit for a booster.
"The question is: Does it matter? Because still, it looks like you're protected against severe illness – so does it really matter to get that third dose? I would argue 'no'," Offit expounded.
Third, Kirsch pointed out that the FDA "does not really want the outside committee members to actually review the scientific data. They just want them to vote yes, so it looks like outside experts reviewed the data." This third reason, incidentally, aligned with Offit's comments regarding how "the fix was in" and that he and other experts "were being led … with a critical lack of information."
"The FDA provides hundreds of pages of material just days before the meeting, giving members an inadequate amount of time to review the data before voting on it," Kirsch remarked.
"It's just another example of sham science. The [VRBPAC] panel is simply there to rubber stamp what the White House and FDA want to do. They are not there to protect the public."
Watch this video that discusses a letter from top FDA scientists warning against COVID-19 boosters.
This video is from the Information Warfare channel on Brighteon.com.