We should also conduct randomized placebo-controlled vaccine trials, as RFK has advocated.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who claimed that the mass infection of unvaccinated people under 60 would end the pandemic in 3-6 months, recently penned an article titled The Cure for Vaccine Skepticism in which he said:
The only way to restore public trust in vaccination – which has taken a big hit since the lies attending the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine – is to put a well-known vaccine skeptic in charge of the vaccine research agenda. The ideal person for this is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
Dr. Kulldorff added that “there are real, unanswered vaccine safety questions” and plagiarizing an old anti-vaxx trope, he said:
We should also conduct randomized placebo-controlled vaccine trials, as RFK has advocated. Since we have herd immunity for many diseases, such as measles, trials can be ethically conducted by randomizing the age of vaccination to, for example, one versus three years old, while spreading the trial over a large geographical area so that the unvaccinated are not all living close to each other.
I previously discussed the absurd belief that giving power to RFK Jr., the man behind Vaxxed III: Authorized to Kill, was “the only way to restore public trust in vaccination”, as well as the dangers of credentialed doctors falsely claiming that vaccines have not already been thoroughly and properly researched, including multiple randomized placebo-controlled vaccine trials (RCTs). However, Dr. Kulldorff’s suggestion that we perform an RCT of routine vaccines deserves further reflection.
First, could this study be done, or is it another example of An Impossible, Unethical Study of Dubious Value That’s Not Meant to be Taken Seriously, a phenomenon in which misinformation doctors spread mistrust about the pediatric COVID vaccine by claiming only an RCT of hundreds of thousands or a million children for every variant could show its value?
Anti-vaxxers and those of us who understand science don’t agree on much, but none of us would enroll our children a trial where there’s a 50% chance they’d get a placebo or a vaccine. Furthermore, no ethical doctor would work on this trial, and no IRB would approve it. So yes, Dr. Kulldorff’s suggested RCT is just another pathetic example of An Impossible, Unethical Study of Dubious Value That’s Not Meant to be Taken Seriously. If he wants to prove me wrong, he can write up a detailed research proposal instead of spouting off in opinion pieces.
However, in a fantasy universe where RFK Jr. conducted an honest RCT of routine vaccines, what would happen? In Dr. Kulldorff’s imagination, it would generate pristine data that would permanently end a debate that has been raging since before Edward Jenner. If RFK Jr.’s RCT showed that vaccines are safe and effective, Dr. Kulldorff claims anti-vaxxers would accept the results and say “You know what, we’ve been wrong the whole time. Sorry for all the drama.”
In reality, anti-vaxxers already reject RCTs showing vaccines are safe and effective. If RFK Jr. led such an RCT, anti-vaxxers would reject it too and claim that RFK Jr. had also been corrupted by “the public health and pharma establishments”, as Dr. Kulldorff put it. Showing studies to anti-vaxxers does not change their mind.
However, the truly repellent part of Dr. Kulldorff’s proposal is that he wants to leave countless children unprotected against measles, polio, and diphtheria to see if they turn out OK. Dr. Kulldorff said he was “confident that most vaccines will continue to be found safe and effective,” leaving the door open for doubt. However, we already know they are safe and effective. Most vaccines have been around for many decades, billions of people have received them, and almost no topic in medicine has been investigated more thoroughly. The anti-vaccine movement is not fueled by a lack of data, but rather by distrust– the exact sort of distrust Dr. Kulldorff encourages every day, including his suggestion that we don’t really know if vaccines are safe and effective.
We also know that vaccine-preventable diseases injure and kill children. Obviously, we have “have herd immunity for many diseases,” only because of vaccines., and if enough children receive placebos, these diseases would return. Dr. Kulldorff claims this can be magically avoided by “spreading the trial over a large geographical area”. He think researchers will be able to perfectly calibrate the study so that nothing gets out of hand. However, Dr. Kulldorff should be aware that people travel and he should read articles such as Measles Spread to at Least 3 Other States After Trips to Florida. When parents doubt vaccines, measles will return and viruses will go viral. I am certain an RCT would again show vaccines are safe and effective, but the price of this “knowledge” would be sick children.
There’s a sordid and tragic history of withholding effective treatments as part of research.
Moreover, disease outbreaks affect the entire community. No vaccine is perfect, and babies don’t arrive with immunity. Invariably Dr. Kulldorff’s RCT would harm someone who didn’t consent to it. There’s also a sordid and tragic history of research being done without informed consent. No serious doctor would suggest repeating such unethical experimentation.
The MMR vaccine is very effective at preventing measles. It does not cause autism.
Dr. Kulldorff knows all this of course. He’s not as simpleminded as he pretends to be. In an earlier article titled Study Designs for the Safety Evaluation of Different Childhood Immunization Schedules he said:
It would be unethical to do a randomized trial where children in one arm are completely unvaccinated, since the scientist will then knowingly put some of the children at increased risk for vaccine-preventable diseases, some of which may result in death…
If vaccination in one arm is delayed for a much longer time period or not given at all, it may reduce herd immunity. This may put children that are not participating in the study at increased risk for the disease, and this can be especially serious for immune-compromised children for which a vaccination is contraindicated.
He also said this on social media just 2 years ago. There’s no way he’d say this now, even though nothing has changed changes about measles or the MMR since 2022.
So what has changed in the past two years. Why is Dr. Kulldorff, who knows vaccines are safe and effective, calling for an anti-vaxx crank to lead An Impossible, Unethical Study of Dubious Value That’s Not Meant to be Taken Seriously?
First, RFK Jr. poised to seize great political power. So are some of Dr. Kulldorff’s close associates. Therefore, Dr. Kulldorff must demonstrate loyally to RFK Jr. To remain part of his in-group, Dr. Kulldorff has chosen to play a character, unaware of basic things. Like Dr. Vinay Prasad who faked ignorance about RFK Jr.’s role in Samoa, Dr. Kulldorff is now pretending to be unaware of the innumerable problems, both practical and ethical, with an RCT of routine vaccines. It’s just an act. If Trump had nominated someone beside RFK Jr., Dr. Kulldorff would be praising that person instead. But Trump chose RFK Jr. and so Dr. Kulldorff portrays him as the “only way” to solve vaccine hesitancy.
Second, he’s calling for an impossible RCT precisely because he knows it’s impossible. Everyone knows there’s a 0% chance of it actually happening. It’s purely a gimmick to make RFK Jr. palatable to the public and blame others for its inevitable failure. In a few years when this RCT isn’t done and measles returns, Dr. Kulldorff won’t fault RFK Jr. Rather, he will again blame “the public health and pharma establishments”. Dr. Kulldorff will say “RFK Jr. wanted to do these wonderful RCTs that would have reassured skeptical parents, but the establishment stood in his way.” Just watch.
As with COVID, Dr. Kulldorff’s sole goal is to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This time, he has all vaccines in his sight, and he doesn’t care who gets hurt in the process. This is what happens when laptop-class doctors, sheltered from the consequences of their words, treat children’s health as a parlor game to advance their political objectives.
