I am an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, as well as a practising physician, and I firmly believe that it would be a mistake to censor Rogan under the guise of combating “misinformation”.
Rogan is not a scientist, and, like everyone else, he has his biases. But he is open-minded, sceptical, and his podcast is an important forum for debate and dialogue. It is not enough, moreover, to simply dismiss Malone and McCullough as conspiracy theorists. They are controversial and polarising figures, but they do have real credentials. Malone is a physician who has worked in molecular biology and drug development for decades, while McCullough was, until recently, an academic cardiologist and researcher.
In what follows, I attempt to assess their main claims, explaining what they get right and what they get wrong. I cannot address every point that the two of them made — both episodes are close to three hours long — but I hope that I can provide some clarity in a debate that often lacks it.
Claim: The risks of mRNA vaccination are underdiscussed and boosters should be debated
Early in his interview, Malone is critical of the scientific and media discussion of vaccine safety, noting that “no discussion of risk is allowed”. Later, he says that the pejorative label of “anti-vaxxer” is used to stifle legitimate debate over vaccines. Malone and McCullough both warn that mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer and Moderna, can cause myocarditis, especially in young men who are at low risk from the virus. Given these and other alleged risks, they warn against recommending — or requiring — boosters for the general population.
I believe they are correct in these sentiments. In April 2021, the
first reports of myocarditis were noted in Israel, with the majority of cases occurring in young men who had recently received an mRNA vaccine. Since then, the evidence for vaccine-related myocarditis has grown. We know now that
boys are more likely to be affected than girls. We know that
Moderna has higher rates than Pfizer. We know that dose two causes more myocarditis than dose one. The
precise estimate of risk is now thought to be between 1 in 3,000 to 6,000 for
males in the target range (roughly age 12 to 30), and
researchers have shown that the CDC’s method to study this underestimates myocarditis risk.
Such concerns are not limited to the fringe. Marion Gruber and Phil Krause, the former director and deputy director, respectively, at the US Food and Drug Administration,
resigned last autumn over White House pressure to green-light boosters. Paul Offit, a prominent vaccine advocate and the director of vaccine communication at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, recently
told the Atlantic that he advised his own 20-something son not to get boosted. Other nations are taking the myocarditis concern seriously, too.
Several have banned or discouraged the use of Moderna in young men. Others
advise two doses spaced further apart, and some have
held off on a second dose entirely for younger age groups.
It is perfectly valid to question the wisdom of boosters, at least in young people, though I do think they are beneficial for older and more vulnerable people. Like Malone, I have seen researchers smeared as “anti-vaxxers” for simply suggesting that myocarditis is a real safety concern, or that we don’t know the optimal duration and dosing strategy of vaccination, particularly for young and healthy people and those who have recovered from infection. Malone and Rogan are correct that the media dismisses concerns over myocarditis by claiming that most cases are “mild”, when in fact it is too early for us to
know the full effects. And I agree that this is an area of live debate that has not been adequately covered by the media.
