Letter to the Editor
Response to Frazier and Tarescavage’s vaccine requirement column
Oct 5, 2021
We are writing in response to Professors Frazier and Tarescavage’s recent opinion piece in The Carroll News opposing a vaccination requirement for JCU students, faculty and staff. Their piece is a political tract that uses a veneer of science in an attempt to lend their arguments credibility; it has nothing to do with public health. It contains numerous overstatements, claims lacking context, distortions, irrelevant information and outright disinformation. We discuss a few examples of these flawed claims here:
Claim: “COVID-19 vaccines are associated with small but notable risks of side effects that are relevant considerations for younger people.” This statement completely lacks context, such as the risks of COVID-19 to infected younger individuals AND to those to whom they may transmit it, as well as the benefits of the vaccine for younger people. In fact, the authors of the JAMA study they cited explicitly state, “Despite the risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination, the benefits of vaccination likely outweigh risks in children and adolescents. It is estimated that COVID-19 vaccination in males aged 12 to 29 years can prevent 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 intensive care unit admissions and six deaths compared with 39 to 47 expected myocarditis cases.” Other studies reach the same conclusion, that “The benefits of vaccination significantly exceed possible risks” and that “Despite rare cases of myocarditis, the benefit-risk assessment for COVID-19 vaccination shows a favorable balance for all age and sex groups; therefore, COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for everyone ≥12 years of age.”
Claim: “The long-term side effects of the vaccine are not known, which led the FDA to conditionally approve the Pfizer vaccine.” The second part of this claim is patently false and is clearly disinformation. The FDA does not even have a category of conditional approval. The Pfizer vaccine IS fully approved by the FDA; technically Pfizer was granted a “license” to manufacture, distribute and market the vaccine (The FDA approval process is described here). As the FDA does with many biologics (like vaccines) and small molecule drugs to ensure safety of those using these products, Pfizer’s license also included several post-marketing requirements and commitments (PRMs and PRCs), often called Phase 4 trials. PRMs and PRCs are so common that an FDA database lists 359 ongoing post-marketing requirement and commitment studies for approved drugs and biologics as of Oct. 3 (database here).
Claims: “There is emerging documentation showing that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded gain of function research in Wuhan, China in 2014.” And, “A lab-leak theory is now under serious consideration by the scientific community and government officials.” These claims are completely irrelevant to the question of having a vaccination mandate at JCU. Furthermore, the “lab-leak theory” is anything but—there is no evidence whatsoever to support it, so it is simply speculation at this point. In fact, the cited article from Nature explicitly states, “People have made a number of arguments for a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2 that are currently conjecture.” In addition, two recently published in-depth reviews on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 conclude that the most likely origin of the virus is a natural one. Regardless of a final determination of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, its origin has nothing whatsoever to do with whether JCU should require vaccinations to assist in keeping community transmission rates low and students, faculty and staff safer.
Claim: “Those who had COVID-19 have substantially greater immunity to COVID-19 than those who were vaccinated.” This is an overstatement. The authors cite a news article that refers to an unpublished study from Israel that, like all studies, has limitations. In contrast, a different published study presents data supporting the opposite conclusion. The fact is that so far there are few published scientific studies on differences in immunity between vaccinated and previously infected individuals, so this is an area of active research. No single research study is ever definitive, especially studies on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 given that we are less than two years into the pandemic with much still to learn about immunity against this virus.
Claim: “The parasite-stress model of authoritarianism details how pathogens (e.g., infectious diseases like COVID-19) produce authoritarian behaviors that promote obedience at the cost of personal freedoms.” This is a total distortion of the cited paper by Murray, et al., 2013. In fact, Murray, et al. make the opposite conclusion, closing their paper by noting “If indeed parasite stress has unique causal implications for authoritarian governance, then disease-eradication programs may not only have direct consequences for human health, they may also have indirect consequences for individual rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms. (Thornhill and colleagues noted that the democratic transitions in North America and Europe were preceded by dramatic reductions in the prevalence of infectious disease.) There may also be implications for reduced levels of xenophobia and other prejudices that are linked to authoritarian attitudes, and for increased levels of creativity, innovation, and open-mindedness more generally.” It is precisely public health interventions like vaccines that provide social stability for all and that enhance “individual rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms,” including freedom from unnecessary illness and death.
These are but a few examples of the misstatements and distortions in the piece from Professors Frazier and Tarescavage. While we believe it is possible to make a reasonable case against vaccination mandates (see for example, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner), Professors Frazier and Tarescavage have done no such thing. Their irresponsible and misleading opinion piece puts at risk the lives and health of JCU community members, as well as all who interact with our community. The most effective way for us to be together safely in-person is through vaccination. As a community committed to contributing to the public good, we have a shared responsibility to do our part to keep each other safe. We must not let anyone’s flawed arguments distract us from this goal.
Jim Lissemore is Professor of Biology and Co-coordinator of the Program in Population and Public Health at John Carroll University. Medora W. Barnes is Associate Professor of Sociology and Co-coordinator of the Program in Population and Public Health at John Carroll University
Anthony Tarescavage, PhD and Tom Frazier, PhD • Oct 5, 2021 at 6:36 pm
Response by Thomas Frazier, PhD and Anthony Tarescavage, PhD (Vaccinated Psychology Faculty)
When rebuttals occur among scientists, it is customary that the authors who are being rebutted obtain a copy of the rebuttal beforehand and get the opportunity to craft a response to that rebuttal. The response is customarily published alongside the rebuttal. We were not offered this opportunity, but in the spirit of scientific discussion we are responding in these comments and have begun writing a formal response for potential publication in the Carroll News.
We begin by reiterating what we stated at the outset of our column being rebutted by Lissemore and Barnes: “COVID-19 is a very serious public health risk…at this point a simple cost-benefit analysis would indicate that getting the vaccine is probably a very good idea for many people.”
In response to Lissemore and Barnes rebuttal, their thesis is that our column was “a political tract that uses a veneer of science in an attempt to lend their arguments credibility; it has nothing to do with public health.” The hyperbolic and alarmist language they use here and elsewhere seriously undermines their rebuttal’s credibility, particularly because, as we describe next, their five rebuttals to our claims lack substance.
Claim 1 (on short-term side effects): Our point remains that myocarditis secondary to vaccination is a reasonable consideration for young, healthy people as the evidence suggest it is a short-term side effect of vaccination, the long-term risk of myocarditis is unknown, and young healthy people are also at very low risk of morbidity or mortality from COVID-19. The data presented by Lissemore and Barnes on benefits of vaccination are not specific to young AND healthy people. Most major problems secondary to COVID-19 are likely to occur among individuals with underlying medical comorbidities.
Claim 2 (on long-term side effects): This is a weak semantic argument. We agree there is no approval category called “conditional approval.” Our point, which was clearly articulated, was that the FDA ordered Pfizer to conduct additional studies on the risk of myocarditis. Thus, approval is conditional on Pfizer agreeing to conduct these studies. It is not uncommon that long-term risks, including risk not identified in short-term studies, are identified and that these risks alter future labeling, including how the intervention is administered to sub-populations that are at lower risk from the medical condition (e.g., healthy young people and COVID-19).
Claim 3 (on lab-leak theory): This is a straw-man argument. As we plainly described, the lab-leak theory being under consideration is relevant because as early as four months ago this opinion was censored on social media, and distrust in government institutions and the media is a legitimate reason for vaccine hesitancy. Forcing people with these legitimate concerns to get vaccinated will only increase vaccine hesitancy. Better to address their concerns.
Claim 4 (on natural immunity): The referenced study from Israel has not completed the peer-review process because it was finished in late-August, thus most would consider it “unpublished,” but it includes data from about 800,000 people. The CDC study referenced as the counterpoint to this study has about 800 people. However, we are glad that Lissemore and Barnes are acknowledging that the literature is not yet settled on this. In order to compel someone to undergo a medical treatment against their will, it is necessary (but not sufficient) to have clear scientific evidence to support such a position. Given that we all now acknowledge the that consensus on the benefits of vaccination over and above natural immunity has not been demonstrated, we encourage Lissemore and Barnes to join us in calling for an exemption to the JCU mandate for those with natural immunity.
Claim 5 (on parasite-stress hypothesis): The data on the parasite-stress model of authoritarianism are as follows: The relationship between the incidence of infectious diseases with an individual’s authoritarian attitudes is as strong an association as one will ever see in the social sciences. To put it in context, it’s stronger than the relationship between SAT scores and college GPA. Our interpretation of the data, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, is that authoritarianism is likely a major driving factor when institutions compel people to get vaccinated without scientific evidence to support such a position.
To conclude, the burden of proof rests with people pushing vaccine mandates. Lissemore and Barnes have yet to provide adequate scientific evidence to support a blanket vaccine mandate at JCU. They acknowledge the lack of scientific consensus on natural immunity, which means a mandate is not indicated for individuals from this population (estimated to be at least 1/3 of Americans). Their response continues to ignore that there is inadequate scientific justification for mandating vaccination in healthy, young people.