 That Community Matters here on Think Tech at the 12 noon block on a given Tuesday. I'm Jay Fidel and that's Craig Wagner. He's a lawyer. He's going to talk about something approximate to what he talked about before, namely anti-vaxxers. Welcome to the show, Craig. Well, thanks for having me, Jay. So, yeah, let's review. I mean, what is an anti-vaxxer anyway? And what was the context in which you discussed it last time? Well, yeah, that was about three years ago. And I think that I'm glad you raised that, because at the time I came on and gave what I felt was a relatively impassioned plea for parents and those that had called themselves or put themselves in the camp of anti-vaxxers to reconsider the decision not to vaccinate their kids with, among other things, the MMR vaccine and such. In a large part, because of what I was seeing was a misinformation campaign, I had pointed out that the MMR vaccine and a lot of the other standard vaccines had been used for many years, were very well tested. And still you had these, the star power of celebrities like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey and others coming out, pointing back to pseudoscience from a guy, Andrew Wakefield, who claimed that there was a link between that and autism. That was debunked. I mean, Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license. I mean, all of these things were out there and yet the rumors persisted. And I felt that as a husband of a pediatrician and with so many in the medical field in my family, this was something that I felt relatively strongly about and certainly we vaccinated our two boys and feel that this kind of information was not getting out the way it could and I wanted to be a part of helping to set that straight. But it teaches us something. And not only about medicine and about vaccinations, it teaches us about people who provide misinformation, disinformation and use social media. Because not only do they reach an audience, maybe a gullible audience at a given point in time, an audience looking for looking for distortions and conspiracy theories and that sort of thing, an audience that wants to have a different view than common sense. And those systems find people. And what I find most interesting, I was seeing this play out in the Trump world, is not only do people accept that, but even when it's debunked, they continue to accept it. I find this a flaw in our world, actually. But what you would describe in connection with measles is happening again. It's really surprising in the time of COVID. So can you talk about the emergence of an anti-vaccination mentality in today's time of COVID? Well, I mean, I can try to. I mean, let me start with saying, first of all, I am not a doctor. I mean, I'm a doctor in the way that Dr. Pepper is a doctor. So you may never be left alone on that one. I have new medical training. I have no basis other than my interest in the subject and my desire to help try to debunk some of the misinformation that has been spread at times regarding vaccination. And as we talked about, in particular, my interest at the time three years ago was our standardized testing, I mean, our standardized vaccinations for our kids. We're in a different world now with COVID-19. And I think that only in the last week or so, the National Health Institute came out with a study saying that it looked like a third of Americans might not even accept and get themselves and their kids in such vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccination, even if it were readily available at a low cost. And that sort of surprised a lot of people. But it doesn't necessarily surprise me. And you'd want to point at that and say, these are all anti-vaxxers. And it's not that they're just that these are anti-vaxxers and we can lump them in the same group of the people that were listening to Jenny McCarthy or other celebrities and trying to find links to, you know, potential side effects and such that weren't there. It's that we're dealing with something right now that's happening in real time. And, you know, the concern, of course, is always going to be misinformation. But we're concerned about misinformation now on both sides. I mean, there is a true legitimate concern, I believe, that all of us are rushing to a vaccine. We need that, okay, for a lot of reasons. But I mean, even the name of the operation, it's Operation Warp Speed. I mean, we're trying to do this as absolutely fast as possible. And to go in and do that, you know, from a medical standpoint and to get through the three levels of FDA testing takes time. I mean, usually it's taking years. So there is a concern that this rush and the need and the political pressure and everything else that's going into this result in insufficient testing. And we could end up with, could we end up with a cure that's worse than the disease or that at least side effects that over time we discover that are as bad or worse than the disease. So this leads a big question is when they emerge now, the new anti-vaxxers, the COVID anti-vaxxers, are they talking about an incomplete, you know, a premature vaccine? That's what troubles them? Or is it beyond that? Is it that and other things? Any idea what drives them? Well, you know, I don't necessarily have my figure on the pulse of that other than to say that, you know, based on articles and other things that I've been seeing, and I expect that others are seeing, you sort of have a number of different groups. And perhaps it's even a, you know, a gradient. But we do have some that are out there that are just rabid anti-vaccination as a matter of political stance and such. And that as a result, they're, they're spreading, or at least some of them are spreading misinformation. I mean, things like all the, you know, the vaccinations that are being developed are using monkey brains, or this is all a CIA plot for mind control. And, you know, you shouldn't take it because of that. I mean, this is just simple misinformation. It's just not true. And so, you know, spreading lies or misinformation like that as a method of fear mongering is not a good platform for discussion of what I think are maybe some legitimate concerns about how we're going to deal with vaccinations as they come out, and how comfortable we are that they are safe. I think, you know, a lot of this, forgive me for crossing into politics for a minute. A lot of this comes from credibility issues with the government. You know, for example, you know, Trump has been giving us misinformation and disinformation about this for his own political purposes since it started. And, you know, when he says warp speed, you know, it's interesting because that really appeals to somebody who has no idea about the science. It appeals to somebody who is interested in speed beyond accuracy. And it is a dog whistle for people who want to rush into things. At the same time, you know, I get a mixed message from him. I'm not sure what he wants to do. And I think there's a lot of people out there who take that real seriously. They're not sure what he wants to do. I mean, the other day, he was talking about herd mentality, otherwise known as herd immunity. So which way are we going here? And I think that kind of confusion that this administration has put on it by not respecting the science, by not allowing the scientists to, you know, make the decisions and make the public statements creates the kind of confusion that is fertile ground for anti-vaxxers to move in with conspiracy theories and adopt outlandish positions. I couldn't agree with you more. I think that that is, you know, that's working against science in a sense. And we really need to let the science run this and not turn it into a political tool either for, you know, the current administration or whatever is going to come. I think that one of the concerns I have, anytime you're talking about a vaccination and the testing and what it's going through, you're really looking at two different things. One is to determine, is it effective? Is it actually going to vaccinate people and protect against the disease? And how effective is that? And the second part is, is it, are there other side effects? Are there other things that we are not seeing that as a result of that, we're going to end up with a cure for the disease, but a whole other problem? For example, I mean, you take vaccination and we find out a year from now that it destroys your liver. I'm not saying it's going to destroy your liver. I have no evidence of that whatsoever. So don't read that into this. But what I'm saying is that anytime that we're putting medication in our body for the purposes of vaccinating against things, there are potential side effects. Let me go a step further. We are all walking laboratories these days because we take a lot of other drugs. Forget about vaccine for a moment. We take tons of drugs. You fill your hand with all the pills you take and then your hand is heavy with all those pills, the older you get. And we don't know whether another pill, one more pill or a vaccine, will interact with the cocktail, the combination of all the pills you're otherwise taking because we're on warp speed. We haven't checked it out. I just wanted to add that. I think you make a good point, which is that just because we've developed it, we've determined that in testing in humans that are not taking other medications, we have not found any types of interactions that would cause serious side effects. It doesn't mean that those on other medications or those with other conditions could not find those bad side effects or other things exacerbated as a result of taking the vaccination. And that's one of the reasons that typically the testing period for new vaccinations and new drugs is as long as it is. And so when vaccinations or new drugs come out, they come out with all kinds of recommendations and advice to doctors in terms of what to be looking for and what you shouldn't be mixing it with. And the concern is that things are going to happen so fast here that we're just going to be rushing to vaccinate everybody without sufficient checking into that and without sufficient advice and such to both doctors and patients that the potential for that, those kind of side effects and those kind of problems is increased. Yeah. Well, you start out with me right now, a snapshot. We have a certain substantial percentage of people that would say on a survey, they're reluctant to take the vaccine for whatever vaccine for whatever reason. And they're going to resist it. They're going to say, look, I don't go to the shopping center. I wear a mask every day. I'm very careful. And I'm going to be careful about the vaccine. That's not an unreasonable position to take because they don't really cotton to warp speed. So they're resisting. Then of course, there's a kind of go for the conspiracy theories and they're little nutcakes. They're all their own reasons, but they're also going to be resistant. Okay, full stop right there. Then we begin the vaccine, which may not have been fully trialed. And then of course, there's something in the newspaper or on MSNBC or even Fox News that says, somebody just died from some, may I use the term, preexisting condition. Okay. And the interaction between the vaccine and the condition or whatever it was, you know, it's attributable to something untested in the vaccine. Okay. And this is on front page or better yet, this is on social media. And it gets out there and the message is, if you weren't worried before, it's time to get worried now. So instead of having, I forget what you said, a third of the people concerned and maybe a little paranoid about vaccines, the way it is or appears to be now, if that happens and it may very well happen, it's a raw meat news story. We may find that that goes up to 50%, 60%. Who knows where that goes. And everybody is terrified of taking the vaccine. Now you got a real problem. I, absolutely. And that's a given. Anytime that you're talking about introducing a new medication or vaccination or others into the market, you're going to deal with the issue of what I'm referring to as outliers, which are people that just because of their physical makeup or, you know, their body or whatever, they don't react to the way that everyone else does or the majority of people do to what's being put in their body. And it could be a severe as death, it could be other organ failure, it could be any manner of other affliction. And I guess the challenge and the problem with that is that that creates some significant fear. And it's going to happen. I mean, if you're going to introduce this and start trying to vaccinate millions of people or hundreds of thousands and then millions of people, some people are not going to handle that well, just like some people are allergic to peanuts. And some people are have other allergies and other things that that's going to be one that is always going to be, you know, scaring people. And you're going to see the news catch on to that and social media catch on to that and point to that. And it's going to, it's going to raise the same anti-vaccination concerns and fears and voices that we see for vaccinations that have been around for a very long time have been well tested and have been demonstrated not to have much in the way of side effects. But there's always going to be the outliers. Yeah, but I see happening in that event, which is a fair possibility really, is we have a crisis, another bigger crisis of confidence in the Rose Garden, you know, where the president, whoever it may be is trying to allay these fears and concerns and, you know, query whether people are going to accept that. It's a credibility issue. The other thing is that, you know, you really can't have an effective epidemiological reaction to a vaccine unless you vaccinate X percent of the population. I don't know what that might be, but it's up to 60, 70 percent. Only that way can you have kind of the mirror image reflection of herd immunity. In other words, there's so few people left to get infected that the thing is suppressed. And that's public health. That's epidemiology. Well, if nobody is taking it, because they're all terrified, we don't achieve that. And then the pandemic goes on longer. And you may be able to protect yourself, even assuming it's an effective vaccine, but the population in general is at greater risk than it should be. Well, you're absolutely right. And that is the mirror of it. That is herd immunity. And herd immunity is different depending on the vaccine and the disease. And so the amount of, you know, the number of people or the percentage of our population that would need to actually take the vaccine and be immune. Now, they may also be immune because they already had it. So we have that group as well. But you're absolutely correct that the issue is going to be, do we get to a point where the COVID-19 can't get a foothold because there's sufficient immunity, either by vaccination or by those that have had it so that, you know, one person got it just doesn't spread. And that's going to be a significant number. And where do the people do not take it? I believe you will not reach the herd immunity, at least not for a very long time, because those people that aren't taking it will eventually possibly get it. And then they'll be immune because of that. And by the way, herd immunity and herd mentality are two completely different things. Thank you for that. You ought to send a short email to the White House to try never mind. So the other thing, the other thing that strikes me is that, you know, it's not just one vaccine out there. You know, this government is, you know, appealing to encouraging funding multiple vaccine, you know, pharma companies to do multiple approaches on it, simply not all the same. And I'm just a point of logic. If they're not all the same, some will be better than others. If they're not all the same, one will be the best one you want to take. And somebody's going to have to get up in the Rose Garden or from the task force, if there still is a task force, and tell us which one. And the problem is that that advice could be politicized, weaponized even, that advice could be wrong. And instead of taking the right one, we take a lesser one because of political reasons, or greed, you know, or dividends, the shareholder kind of reasons, or relations with public official reasons. And the CDC has already lost the bloom on its Rose. So who do you believe? Which one do you take? And furthermore, to add one more thing, is that there are research companies, pharma companies, developing vaccines in China. We haven't heard much about that because we've been busy criticizing them. And in Europe, Trump tried to acquire a pharma company in Europe who was working on a vaccine. He offered them a billion dollars. I'm not sure if that was your money or mine. He offered them a billion dollars to sell their intellectual property and sell their scientists into the United States. And they said, no, Angela Merkel said, no, we're going to do it ourselves. But the point is, there's lots of valuable research going on overseas. And the news I read tells me that there is not the ideal level of collaboration going, because we've nationalized the effort. Well, if that happens, let me throw this at you, if that happens, we're not only going to have a bunch of vaccines here, some of which will be better than others, we're going to have a bunch of vaccines globally, some of which will be better than others. And if you follow the nationalistic approach on this, we won't be able to get the one from Germany. We won't be able to get the one from China. So we're going to have a sort of a subset of vaccines that may not even be the best right here. And then the risk that I was talking about before, the risk that it doesn't work and everybody loses confidence and, you know, and we turn into a bunch of a nation of anti-vaxxers, if you will, you know, is a higher risk. Meanwhile, Europe and Asia do better. How about that for a creepy possibility, Craig? Well, that that is a creepy possibility. I think there are a number of concerns there. And not the least of which is the fact that you're developing a vaccine, getting through the testing, finishing level three and having confidence that we've created a vaccine that is both effective and is not going to be a cure worse than the disease, is a challenge in and of itself. Taking the next step, and that is to take this vaccine then and mass produce it and then mass distribute it to have it available and to have it available at a cost that the populace can afford, particularly at this time, is a whole other challenge. And the the temptation is going to be to do that with the first one we can get and get it out on the market. And if once that happens, that's sort of by default becomes the vaccine for it. It's going to be very hard to get others out there. And and then how do you, I mean, how does the regular, you know, Joe American, Jane American make any kind of distinction between these different vaccines and their effectiveness? And you're correct. It could be political. It could be financial. You know, it could be almost nationalistic. And, you know, we have different testing through the FDA and other requirements here than they have in Europe and that they have in China and in other other countries. And, you know, the fear is going to be, you know, if one appears to be better coming from Europe, are we comfortable that that is has been thoroughly vetted, particularly with respect to not just its ability to vaccinate against COVID-19, but also with respect to potential side effects and interactions. So there are a lot of issues that come up with this. And I don't have any answers for those. You know, not that I would, but I think that these are the kind of issues that science and our scientists, our epidemiologists and others need to be very frank and and and in discussing with the American public. And we need to get it out of the the political discourse that that just is not helping. Yeah, God, I have a I have a vision of bootleg vaccine coming from Europe, you know, the United States government, the, you know, customs, the custom service doesn't want to let it in for obviously political reasons, not medical reasons. And but they pretend it's medical reasons. We can't get it. And then there are people who sell it to you for big bucks, because, you know, it is found to be effective in Europe. Anyway, passing that, the big question here is, what does the individual do? What do you do for your family? I mean, you want to save them want to save all the people around you. And money is actually no object. You don't want them sick. You don't want them spreading it among themselves or others close to them. So what what do we do at this point? Because I think soon enough, some maybe half baked vaccine will be on the market. What does the individual do to get to take the right one to, you know, have the benefit of it? Well, you know, that's a fair question. And, and one that I don't have a perfect answer for on a personal level. I'm going to be looking at the science. I'm going to be looking at what, you know, Dr. Fauci and others. I'm going to look at the FDA. I'm going to look at the CDC. I'm going to look at others and say, if they're standing behind it, then I am going to be, you know, prepared for myself and my family to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as an effort not just to help protect us, but to help protect our community. But is there a risk in that? And, you know, the hard part for me to say is, you know, given my impassioned plea previously about vaccinations, it would almost seem contradictory. But in this case, I think that there are reasons why people would have hesitancy and concerns. And that's fair. But, you know, at some point, we're going to have to trust that our scientists are doing the best that they can and that we need to move. And so I think that's where I fall out on it. But it does worry me. I was finding a takeaway from this discussion. It would be, you know, you really have to be careful who you trust. A given president would stand in the Rose Garden and it has been shown that in this administration, he's not the guy you want to trust. Another president would be more trustworthy, I think. And CDC has to rebuild its reputation before I'm going to trust them. And at the end of the day, as you said, just as you said, Craig, you got to follow it. You got to follow the science. And I have one last question for you. So do you take it on day one? Or do you take it 60, 90 days after it comes out? When do you take it? Well, I think once it becomes available, I'm going to have to believe that the testing has been completed. I don't believe 60 or 90 days is going to tell us very much about side effects or other things that have already been determined and examined within the context of the testing. I'm more concerned, you know, the long term effects. And, you know, you're going to be waiting years before you're going to really know that. Yeah. Craig, very valuable conversation. A whole new look at things I would say, this issue has not been discussed in the public conversation. And I really appreciate your coming down. And although you're not up to the standard of Dr. Pepper, I never thought Dr. Pepper knew much about this anyway. So as far as I'm concerned, you made valuable contributions today to the public conversation on the issue. Thank you so much. Well, thank you for having me. Aloha.