Finding the Common Ground with Anyone — Using Vaccines as an Example

Let’s set the stage.

Statistically speaking, 95% of us fall within 2 standard deviations of most 'controversial' debates like vaccines. For the sake of this chat on vaccines, that leaves:

• 2.5% who believe all vaccines are bad or dangerous

• 2.5% who believe vaccines should never be questioned

Then there's the rest of us.

I ask you, as you read this, and take note of each question and keep your score on what you answer for yourself honestly: what part(s) of the vaccine debate can you agree on?

I will share some of the core 'controversies' and the core 'arguments' behind each concern. Remember: few are going to agree on all subsets, but notice how far you can find common ground in appreciating each concern that the media likens to as: 'the other side'.

1. Informed Consent Is the True Issue
Most people, even those labeled “anti-vaxxers," still want vaccines to exist, provided, and given. The heart of this debate is Informed Consent—a cornerstone of medicine. This means communicating risks and benefits so that parents or individuals can make informed decisions without feeling pressured or coerced. The strongest concern is that vaccines haven’t been adequately studied to allow for valid informed consent. The reason for this is simple. In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) transferred the liability for vaccine manufacturing to the federal government. The result was the inception of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which adds a $0.75 excise tax on each dose of vaccine to cover the program. To date, nearly $5 billion in compensation has been awarded to individuals who experienced adverse effects from vaccines.

Question 1: Do you believe you should be given informed consent and choice to take a particular vaccine or not, or for your child? YES or NO

2. Measles Was Already Declining
By the 1960s, measles deaths had dropped 90%—before the vaccine was introduced. This is likely due to better sanitation and nutrition. The vaccine helped push that even further to 96%. The debate is not that vaccines lower infectious diseases. The discussion is to the order that manufacturers would like you to believe it plays in lowering certain diseases. Those who ask for more studies are also simply inquiring about other steps we could take to reduce our reliance on and perhaps mitigate the risks associated with vaccines. They are not arguing against vaccines themselves.

Question 2: Do you think that vaccine manufacturers should be set to the same high scrutiny of study design as any other pharmaceutical? YES or NO

3. Lack of Placebo-Controlled Trials
Vaccines aren’t tested against inert placebos like sugar pills; they’re usually compared to older vaccines. That means there’s no long-term (10–15 years) vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study to evaluate outcomes honestly. We don’t know the complete long-term picture. The argument once again is not against vaccines, but how much do we know about their long-term impacts?

Question 3: Do you think this is a valid concern that vaccines need double-blind randomized clinical trials against a placebo to understand their impact and risk fully? YES or NO

4. Newborn Vaccines: The Question of Timing
Within days of birth, babies may receive RSV vaccine (seasonal), Hepatitis B, and Vitamin K. Critics ask: Why give Hep B—a virus spread by sex or IV drug use—to newborns, especially when moms are already screened during pregnancy? Supporters argue that it prevents rare vertical transmission and has reduced the prevalence of Hep B in the population. But the argument? It’s about timing and relevance, not anti-vaccine sentiment, of too many vaccines given early in a baby's life. Average number of shots given to a baby in their first year of life in 1972 was 5. Today, the average number of shots given in the first year of life is 20.

Question 4: Is it reasonable to question the number of vaccines given in the first year of life and its possible impact on a developing immune system? YES or NO

5. The Expanding Vaccine Schedule
In 2025, children will be vaccinated against 16 diseases, receiving up to 35 injections by the time they are 6 years old, compared to 10 in 1972.

This raises questions like why is there a rise in certain diseases in kids under age 18 from 1972 to today:

a. Asthma incidence: 2-fold rise
b. Food sensitivities: 3-5 fold rise
c. Autoimmune diseases: 2-5 fold rise

Science has seemingly disproved that vaccines cause autism, so let's put this one aside. But all of these diseases are rooted in immune dysfunction. So the question becomes: Is today's accelerated vaccine schedule overactivating the immune system—especially when children are now exposed to far more environmental toxins, processed foods, and sedentary lifestyles than they were in 1972? Most critics aren’t rejecting the original 6 diseases or even some added ones—they’re asking about the timing and volume of shots in such vulnerable age groups. Again, we have zero studies to know either way.

Question 5: Should there be studies examining differing childhood vaccine schedules, which even vary from country to country? YES or NO


6. Thimerosal: An Old Concern - Still Worth Mentioning
Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, was removed from most vaccines between 1999–2001 due to public concern. It’s still in some multi-dose flu shots. Studies show that ethylmercury (in thimerosal) is processed differently than the more toxic methylmercury found in fish. Still, it accumulates in specific tissues, such as the kidneys (with a half-life of 44 days), and has shown potential mitochondrial effects in laboratory settings. Bottom line: It was removed for a reason, and public questioning played a role in that decision.


Question 6: Appreciating that this is no longer an issue for the most part, do you agree that this added preservative was a valid concern at that time? YES or NO

7. Adjuvants: The Immune System’s Alarm Clock
Vaccines contain adjuvants—ingredients that “wake up” the immune system to respond more strongly. While adjuvants reduce the number of shots needed, critics wonder if this overstimulation of the immune system may contribute to the rise in certain disease trends.

Common Adjuvants Today:

• Aluminum salts – in Hep A, Hep B, DTaP, etc. (used since 1930s)

• AS01 – in Shingrix and RSV vaccines (contains a detoxified bacterial lipid + a plant compound)

• MF59 – squalene-based, used in flu vaccines for seniors

• CpG 1018 – a synthetic DNA mimic to boost immune response

• Matrix-M – from tree bark, used in Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

All are designed to help your immune system better remember the virus.

Question 7: Is it plausible that adjuvants are not the cause but rather another added element like food chemicals, dyes, pesticides, hormones, microplastics, sedentary lifestyles, etc., contributing to the multitude of immune activators contributing to long-term immune imbalance in our youth? YES or NO

Summary:

Out of the above 7 questions, how many did you respond "Yes" to? (Please reply to this newsletter and send me your score so I can compare it to all others and will share it in the next newsletter).

Hopefully, this helps you see the real divide isn't between "pro" and "anti"—it's much more nuanced. I suspect there will be a lot more common ground in the middle.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people asked reasonable questions and were dismissed even censored. Some of them ended up being right. If science discourages questions, it’s no longer science.



RFK Jr. - An Example of a Controversial Vaccine FIgure

RFK Jr is an environmental lawyer who fought hard to lower mercury in fish long before his current position. Did this make RFK Jr. anti-fish?

I get why he is labeled “anti-vaxxer” due to his historically shifting positions on vaccines. However, when you listen to him or others deemed 'pro' or 'anti-vaxxers,' most still squarely sit in the 95% if you seek the common ground. The majority of those requesting more vaccine data, safety, and better research are not seeking to eliminate vaccines; they are simply setting a higher standard than we are currently meeting based on the fact that vaccine manufacturers have not been held to the same standards since the NCVIA Act 0f 1986. Remember: the media wants us all to divide into two simplistic camps, but human beliefs are more nuanced than that.

So- I ask - are you a 2.5%er or a 95%er?

You are the CEO of you.
Asking questions doesn't make you radical—it makes you curious, thoughtful, and, in time, more informed. Let’s keep 'controversial' conversations rooted in facts and humility and be open to any question with the intention first to seek common ground with others.

I know this is not easy, but it's not about the other person; it's about how well we regulate our own emotions. Our mental and emotional health ultimately begins and ends with sovereignty over our own emotions.

If you enjoy my newsletters, please support me by sharing this link with your loved ones: https://tinyurl.com/BIOFITMED

If you’ve been my patient and would like to share your experience, please feel free to leave a review here.


Be BioFIT- Be Educated, Not Influenced.
Grateful to be your physician guide.

Kevin Hoffarth MD, IFMCP
BioFIT Medicine