Why Won't America's Top Vaccine Experts Defend Their Own Science?

Paul Offit & Peter Hotez were offered the opportunity of a lifetime- to refute skeptics of vaccine science in front of the committee making recommendations (& the public). So why did they decline?

Aaron Siri was invited to address ACIP last week. And according to ACIP secretary Mina Zadeh, so were vaccine industry experts Paul Offit and Peter Hotez.

Siri showed up. Offit and Hotez did not.

That’s the summary. But it’s not the whole story.

ACIP - the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - is the body that sets vaccine recommendations for every American child. Last week, they reconsidered the hepatitis B birth dose - objectively a minor policy change,- but one that many people, including Offit and Hotez - were extremely upset about.

Siri, an attorney who has spent years representing vaccine-injured families, delivered a 90-minute presentation questioning the evidentiary basis for the childhood vaccine schedule.

The cornerstone of his arguments were:

1. Most vaccines on the schedule have not been tested for safety against an inert placebo making safety claims unreliable.

2. Trial sizes for vaccines have been under-powered or inadequate (not big enough) to determine safety with confidence.

3. Follow-up periods are too short to catch developmental effects during critical stages of infancy and childhood.

Most people after hearing these concerns understandably want to know more. And you certainly don’t need a PhD to start furrowing your brow and asking more questions.

But of course, the media, predictably, melted down at his inclusion.

Anti-vaxxer. Dangerous. Unprecedented. Children will die.

But what they didn’t seem to focus on was that Paul Offit and Peter Hotez — the two most prominent defenders of the vaccine schedule — were formally invited to present alongside Siri.

In the same room. With equal time. And they skipped.

They were given the chance to eviscerate Siri’s arguments, expose his errors and 'save the children’ they claim to care about.

But they chose not to engage.

Here’s how it played out.

Well, ACIP voted that day.

8-3 to roll back the hepatitis B birth dose recommendation that had been in place for years.

Offit and Hotez knew the vote wasn’t ‘scheduled for next month.’ Or postponed ‘until further review.’

Everyone knew it was scheduled for THAT day.

And even with that knowledge they chose to rage to a TV audience while the actual decision happened without their input.

It was weird.

They avoided the room where it mattered. The room where votes were cast.

Whatever you think of the outcome (or of the original question for that matter), the result was the opposite of what Offit and Hotez claimed to want.

They said children would die. And then they let it happen without showing up to the fight.

But why?

The Story of Two Men Too Principled to Attend

Let’s chat really quickly about Paul Offit.

Here’s Google’s summary:

“Dr. Paul Offit is a renowned pediatrician, virologist, and vaccine expert. He served on the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee (VRBPAC) for years but was removed in September 2025, known for co-inventing the RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine and advocating for vaccines. He directs the Vaccine Education Center at CHOP and teaches at UPenn.”

I’d add that he is also a former ACIP committee member and spends so much time on CNN that I often forget he doesn’t work there too (but I guess… maybe he does?).

Notably RotaShield the precursor to Offit’s RotaTeq was added to the childhood vaccination schedule prior to being yanked from the market because it was actually injuring and killing a subset of babies by causing this thing called intussusception.

Intussusception is a sort of ‘telescoping’ of the intestines that causes bowel obstructions and sometimes death.

That disaster cleared the field for Offit’s own vaccine, RotaTeq, which was in development at the time RotaShield was originally approved.

We can assume Offit is clearly aware of this history.

So what are we to think when a man who intimately understands that vaccines are not inherently all ‘safe and effective’ drugs, and have, in fact, at times been proven to cause serious harms - even deaths, refuses to show up to defend the science behind the childhood vaccine schedule in the room where votes are cast and instead goes to the media to issue talking points...?

I’m not sure what to think exactly. But I have more questions than answers.

Now, Peter Hotez.

Hotez wrote books about vaccines. He calls vaccine skeptics “anti-science aggressors.” He fashions himself a warrior for truth in a post-truth world.

In 2023, notably Joe Rogan offered Hotez $100,000 — eventually bid up to over $2 million for charity — to debate RFK Jr. on his podcast.

Hotez refused that too.

Fleeing debate doesn’t appear to be an exception for these men. It’s a consistent strategy.

The Excuses (Such As They Are)

Hotez told the AP he declined because, “ACIP appears to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence-based medicine.”

Offit told STAT: “I don’t want to legitimize what I think is an illegitimate process. I don’t want to be part of a process that gives bad advice, that’s putting children in harm’s way.”

But here’s what that looks like to an outsider.

• They’re happy to “legitimize” friendly media outlets — networks that take millions in pharma advertising and couldn’t challenge them if they tried.

• The venue is “illegitimate” when it’s comprised of their peers, and someone might just ask them a question.

And just in case you may have seen an argument about how perhaps they’re just prioritizing ‘reach,’ note that a cable news hit might get 500,000 viewers on a REALLY good night, but Rogan — who Hotez refused — gets 10-15 million views per episode.

The ‘reaching the masses’ excuse doesn’t hold up either. It collapses the moment you do basic math.

It’s not about that and I’m not sure it ever was.

The Common Sense Test

You don’t need a science degree to see what’s happening here. You just need some common sense and logic.

If someone tells you your house is on fire, then refuses to show you the smoke - you’re allowed to ask questions.

If a doctor says an intervention will save your life, then refuses to explain how it works or let you examine the evidence - you’re allowed to be skeptical.

If the nation’s most prominent vaccine defenders say children will die without their guidance, then skip the one meeting where they could have actually prevented those deaths - you’re allowed to wonder why.

This is a prosecutor who calls the defendant a murderer, then refuses to show up to trial because he doesn’t like the judge.

If you have the evidence, you show up.

Period.

Pick Your Explanation

I’m not here to tell you what’s in Offit’s or Hotez’s heads.

Maybe they’re cowards. Maybe they’re arrogant. Maybe they calculated that a strategic retreat was smarter than a public loss. Maybe they have something to hide.

Pick whichever explanation you find most plausible.

But every single one of them is pathetic if you actually believe the alternative is dead children.

“I don’t want to legitimize the process.”

Seriously?

Is that what YOU would say if you thought kids were dying? Of course not.

You would crawl through broken glass and bang on tables.

You would do anything and everything you could to stop the carnage.

You would show up and freaking try.

I know I sure would.

Here’s What Bothers Me Most

When someone asks “were the trials long enough to detect developmental effects?” — that’s not ‘spreading vaccine hesitancy.’ It’s just due diligence. It’s good science.

Or when Mark Cuban asks a respected scientist speaking against mandates how many kids she’s comfortable ‘allowing to die’ in the spirit of medical freedom — that’s a legitimate question too.

Both questions deserve answers. Both questioners deserve engagement.

And that’s part of what ACIP is there for. But until recently only one flavor of inquiry has been allowed.

And the public has noticed.

ACIP should be a room where serious people ask serious questions like “where is the safety data,” and “how many children will die without this?” and then hash it out in front of, and with, the people making decisions.

THAT IS SCIENCE.

Offit and Hotez refused to perform science. They refused to be in that room.

And it seems like they don’t want inquiry.

They just want compliance.

Look at what actually happened.

Aaron Siri walked into that room knowing many despise him. He presented his case despite Senator Bill Cassidy tweeting false accusations against him and launching attacks.

He put his arguments on the record, subject to challenge, in front of the people who would vote that very same day because he believes this is a fight worth having.

Offit and Hotez sat in TV studios, talking to hosts who couldn’t push back if their lives depended on it, complaining that the process was “illegitimate” - while that process reached a conclusion without them.

One side showed up. The other side hid. And that tells you everything you need to know.

What This Means for You

I’ve spent years entrenched in medicine and policy.

I’ve watched this playbook before - experts who demand trust while refusing scrutiny, who invoke ‘children’s lives’ but won’t defend their positions under pressure.

Here’s what I’ve learned: when powerful people refuse to answer questions in the room that matters, they’re telling you something.

The refusal to engage IS the message.

Science is about asking questions.

And these guys appear to be incompetent, arrogant or afraid of the answers.

But I guess time will tell.

P.S. If this resonated, share it. People should be armed with the data that allows them to make decisions for themselves and for their families.