Sawbones: Medical Update: Vaccines

Sawbones is a show about medical history, and nothing the hosts say should be taken as medical advice or opinion.

It's for fun.

Can't you just have fun for an hour and not try to diagnose your mystery boil?

We think you've earned it.

Just sit back, relax, and enjoy a moment of distraction from that weird growth.

You're worth it.

All right, tomorrow meetings about some books.

One, two, one, two, three, four.

We came across a pharmacy with its windows blasted out.

Pushed on through the broken glass and had ourselves a lucky round.

The medicines, the medicines, the escalat macabre

Hello, everybody, and welcome to Sawbones, American Tour of Misguided Medicine.

I'm your co-host, Justin McElroy.

And I'm Sidney McElroy.

And Sid, it'll come as no surprise to any of our listeners that it's been a busy time in here in the States.

Here in the States?

Here in the States.

I bet it's probably been busy.

That's true.

That's true.

That's not an exclusionary thing.

It could be busy other places, But things have been on the political front changing quite a bit here on

the state side.

It has.

And I will say on a personal note,

it has been very busy here, which is why we weren't with you last week.

Can I blame you for being out of the way?

It's out of town and Labor Day.

It's both.

Yeah, it was Justin and Labor Day's fault.

And both of our kids got sick at the same time and had to come home from school early.

That's true.

That was a rough one.

Yeah.

I think.

The important thing we can all agree on is that it was not my fault.

It was not your fault.

Yeah, that I was in no way to blame.

We are all agreed that you are not to blame.

I was ready.

I had an episode ready to go.

Yep.

Yep.

Not your fault.

Not my fault.

But we did want to kind of update.

So I tend to stay pretty plugged in to healthcare news because, you know,

doctor.

I'm a doctor.

And a problem.

And you know what?

You're listening to Sawbones, so you may, you may also.

But there's a lot coming at us fast right now, I think, in terms of science and medicine and specifically specifically vaccine,

law, coverage, recommendations, things are shifting very quickly.

And so I think it's worth, I think that's part of what we do here is talk about that.

Because what is concerning to me, if you are listening to this show, you probably know that vaccines are safe and effective.

And you probably already, I don't want to say believe, because it's not a belief, it's a fact.

You probably already know that and use that to guide your decisions.

Sure.

But I think that it is worth addressing some of

the

misuse, the abuse of science and research that I'm seeing in the conversation around vaccines right now.

Because I think no matter how much you know something,

If you are an open-minded person, and especially if you're a scientist, then you recognize that things change, that we do see changes, right?

I mean, medical recommendations have changed so dramatically in the years that I've been practicing.

There are definitely things that I was told were one way in medical school that we then had, you know, further studies and understanding, and we critiqued our knowledge of and came back to a different conclusion at some point.

So, part of science is being open to the idea that things can change.

And so, if you start hearing the, you know, Secretary of Health and Human Services, RFK Jr., if you start hearing him

cite studies that contradict the things that you thought you knew or the things that maybe we talk about on this show,

I think it is very valid if you stop and go, now, wait a minute, is that right?

Or at least wonder, where did that come from?

Where is this?

Right.

Where are we getting that?

Yeah.

And so I think it's important to, as misinformation is thrown at you, make sure that we combat that.

Right.

Because the truth is that nothing that has been said recently by RFK Jr.

or any of his

cadre of vaccine skeptics, as they would call themselves, I would say they are

spreaders of disinformation and misinformation that endangers public health.

That's even more,

yeah, that's more firm than me.

Yes.

But nothing that they have said, no studies that they have cited have changed the fundamental truth that vaccines are safe and effective, that vaccine mandates are important.

And they're not just, I would not just say that they are good public health policy, they're ethically necessary.

Yes.

I agree.

And there is nothing, and even as he cites studies, and you're going to hear a lot more of this, because you are going to have people that he has appointed to the Advisory Council on Immunization Practices.

They are going to have letters after their name that indicate that they have degrees in things, MDs and PhDs.

They are going to sound like people you are supposed to trust and believe about science policy.

And they're going to cite studies that sound like studies that sound like research.

And so I think it's important that we are prepared to critique that.

Right.

You know?

So first of all, RFK was asked to come testify before the Senate because

because of everything that's going on at the CDC.

I mean, and even

the president himself said that the CDC is being, I believe he said, ripped apart,

shredded, torn apart, something to that effect.

Nothing good.

Nothing good.

And the reason I think that the main impetus for this is that the guidelines on the new COVID vaccine, the next booster that is supposed to be available to you now, that has been FDA approved,

but the Council on Immunization Practices is not going to meet about it till September 19th, I believe.

So perhaps that's why, at least least I know in this area, there's nowhere I can get it.

I couldn't get it right now.

The controversy is that the new guidelines suggest that only people who are 65 and older or are at increased risk for severe disease should be getting

a recommended, that's the wording, are recommended to get the COVID vaccine.

Okay, what does that mean?

There's two ways to answer that question.

What that means from their standpoint, when we say recommended, that means from a scientific medical standpoint, that means we think this is the patient population that will benefit the most

and whose benefits will outweigh risks of getting this vaccine.

If it isn't recommended,

and we're not saying, I mean, and saying like not recommended for or just not making a comment on.

So like everybody under 65 who doesn't have a risk factor.

What that means is that for those people, we don't have enough evidence to say if the benefits outweigh the risks.

So we're not going to recommend it for you.

That's what that means from a medical standpoint.

Now, I am not saying that that is right.

I am not saying that is true, but that is what those recommendations are supposed to make you believe

as a person in the public.

What it means from a more practical standpoint is the concerning part because we all know that RFK Jr.

is an anti-vaxxer.

We know that the CDC has been gutted in many ways.

And a lot of people who try to follow scientific method and practice good evidence-based science to arrive at the recommendations, a lot of those people have been fired, have left, have been pushed out.

We know that.

We know that the entire Council on Immunization Practices was fired and replaced with a bunch of conspiracy theorists and skeptics.

And we've gone over all the people who are on that.

So for you to say, well, I don't believe these recommendations because I know they're coming from people with ill intent.

And so I'm going to do my own thing,

that'd be fine, right?

So, and that, that's RFK's point.

You can still get it.

I didn't recommend it for you, but if you really want it, you can still get it.

Yeah, except.

Except.

Except.

Insurance companies don't have to cover vaccines that aren't recommended.

This has been a struggle.

I think a good example of this was the HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

So when Gardasil was first introduced, the guideline said said it's recommended up to age 27.

And also, it was only for women.

It was only initially, you know, for assigned female at birth and up to 27.

And the reason was,

one,

they were trying to target who was most likely to get cervical cancer.

So they were trying to target people with cervixes and not people who might also carry and spread the disease to people with cervixes, just people who had them.

And then two, people who were unlikely to have been exposed to HPV at that point.

So what they're saying is most people by the age of 27, if they were going to get exposed to the virus, probably have.

They're also kind of guessing that like you've probably had sex by then.

That's sort of intrinsic to this data.

So if you were a 28-year-old with a cervix who had never had any kind of sexual activity, who has never had sexual intercourse, the likelihood that you've been exposed is pretty low.

And so you would be a good candidate for the vaccine.

But because it it wasn't recommended for you, it wasn't going to get paid for.

And the cardasil vaccine, when it was first introduced, was really expensive.

So this was already like an issue, right?

And now they've expanded recommendations and that's changed over time.

But it really illustrates why that recommendation can impact your accessibility to a vaccine.

I could give it to a 28-year-old back then, but they would have had to pay, I believe at the time, it was like $350.

So if we are saying that you can only get the COVID vaccine if you are 65 or older or have a risk factor for severe disease, everybody else could have to pay out of pocket for it.

So, that's one accessibility issue.

And I'm not sure the exact cost of this new vaccine, but I know Elizabeth Warren referenced it in the Senate committee that it was probably around 200 bucks.

So, if you,

for a lot of people, you may as well say it doesn't exist.

Right.

If you have to pay $200 for every member of your family who doesn't qualify to get the vaccine to get it, the average American family cannot afford that.

So, So it is not accessible.

That is exactly why they convened this Senate panel is because this is going to dramatically increase the number of people who contract COVID because fewer people can get the vaccine.

And so then we are going to see more severe complications of COVID and we are likely to see more COVID deaths as a result.

Now, I will say,

so that we're not just providing information that freaks you out,

I would encourage you to visit the CDC website and look at what is on there that they list, that the CDC currently lists as risk factors for severe disease.

It is more than maybe you would assume, and there may be something on there that does apply to you.

And so, if you are someone who is concerned, I want to get the COVID vaccine, but I'm afraid I don't fall into that category,

you should check out the list because there's stuff that I think we would kind of assume, like if you have any kind of chronic lung disease, if you have asthma, if you have any diabetes, heart disease, things like that, those sort of chronic illnesses, those you may assume.

But there are also a lot of things on there that you might not assume.

So if you check the list, there are, again, some pretty obvious things like cancer or kidney disease, liver disease, lung disease, all those things that you may have guessed.

There are also, if you have any sort of dementia, Parkinson's is a risk factor.

There are a list of different types.

It's interesting because they also include people with certain types of disabilities.

So cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, Down syndrome, ADHD is listed on there.

Sickle cell, HIV, heart disease.

And there are also

people

who have more sedentary lifestyles.

How do they word it?

It's like low physical activity.

Whoa, did you see my, did you hear my ears perk up just then?

Sid, I hear sedentary lifestyle.

I'm like, hello, maybe I just found my way in.

Finally, it's all paying off.

Sitting bad for my health?

Hmm.

Doesn't sound like it.

Sounds like Papa's going to get himself a free COVID vaccine from the couch.

There are a lot of mental health conditions are listed, mood disorders.

Oh, I'm about to get a double free.

Yes, physical inactivity.

Mood disorders.

Mood disorders,

physical inactivity,

your BMI.

And I understand BMI.

There are so many criticisms we could level at Body Mass Index as a way of dictating any sort of health concerns.

But for this purpose, based on your BMI, you may be eligible for a COVID vaccine.

So,

there are a lot of

pregnant people are high risk.

So, that would qualify you for a COVID vaccine.

And ACOG, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, still does recommend that.

And smoking.

So, there's lots of.

Now, hold on.

Maybe a bridge too far to pick up smoking for this, but listen.

Whatever it takes.

concern for me personally is that you have just one concern.

Well, I mean, for my, like, as I was thinking for myself.

For Sydney, the person.

I'm using myself as an example here.

So I am under 65.

And not to overshare, but other than the fact that I probably could get more physical activity, right?

Like, probably, probably, honestly.

Other than that, I don't qualify for the COVID vaccine.

You had a one about mood.

Wasn't there one about mood?

I don't have any.

I could have sworn there was one about mood.

I don't have anything diagnosed, Justin.

So

you can, you have diagnosed me.

You don't have to, Justin.

Diagnose.

No, I got you.

I got you.

But I had this concern for myself because even if I wasn't a healthcare worker, I would want to get the COVID vaccine.

But I also am a healthcare worker and I know I am going to be exposed to COVID this season.

I guarantee I will be.

I work in a shelter for people experiencing homelessness.

Mask use is very rare.

A lot of people don't have regular access to health care services.

So when they are sick, they are not getting tested anywhere else, but in my office with me.

And

we are also all in one big communal shelter all the time.

So I am going to be exposed to COVID.

I want to get the booster.

Right.

I am not eligible.

So I will say that this is something that I think check this list, see if any of this stuff applies to you.

Hopefully, their insurance companies will decide to cover it anyway, but then we're hoping for the goodwill of insurance companies.

Yeah, right.

In that case.

But when RFK Jr.

makes a claim that the vaccine is still accessible to all who want it,

that's a lie.

It's a lie unless everyone who wants it has $200.

It's a barrier, right?

Like accessible.

is a barrier, just like illegal is a barrier.

You know what I mean?

Like it's the same way with when we talk about like drugs, like the fact that the fact that they are against the law is a barrier, but they're still accessible, right?

These are still accessible

in the sense that anything else is, but the barriers are what you have to look at.

And this is a huge barrier.

Like, it might as well, especially since the people that are not, it's this, this thing where, like, the people who are not

eligible to

get the price reduced to free are the people people who physically are statistically in the least amount of danger and are therefore least incentivized.

So like you're asking people not just to like pay it, but pay it because it helps other people to reduce the spread of COVID.

Exactly.

And there is the fear that...

Which is the reason we subsidize it in the first place, you friggin' dolts.

To remove as many barriers as possible because

it's not just for your personal health.

This is an issue of public health.

That's the thing about public health.

Public health, and this is something that I think sometimes freaks people out.

The idea of public health, we are concerned for the idea of the public.

It's not about you, the individual.

So we remove all the barriers we possibly can to incentivize people to go get the vaccine.

Yes, it's good for the people, the individual who gets it.

Of course, there is that benefit too, but it's for the broader good as well.

That's why we do it.

He fundamentally, I mean, he doesn't understand science or medicine, so it's not shocking that he also doesn't understand the concept of public health, but he's the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and he fundamentally does not understand public health.

And his defense of all this is that we've never proven the vaccine was safe and effective in people under 65 who don't have a risk factor for severe disease.

And these are lies.

He also says that we didn't test the vaccines in healthy individuals.

Well, hello.

I'm a member of a vaccine trial Justin and I both participated in, and I participated in it as a healthy, quote unquote, healthy individual who did not qualify for any of the vaccines under the current guidelines, who went and got the vaccine.

So, I mean, yes, we did.

We tested it in a broad swath of the population.

All of the vaccines were.

We have tons of science to say that they are safe and effective in this broad generalization of the public.

And again, he couldn't even tell you how many people died of COVID in America.

This is on the CDC website.

It's like 1.2 million people died of COVID so far.

And he can't, I mean, he is, he's misrepresenting that data, and it's on the CDC website.

He could have looked at it.

Maybe he doesn't believe the stuff on the CDC website, which, I mean, I'm fair.

Well, he says he doesn't.

I mean, he says that the CDC has been misguiding the public and confusing people, and that we the CDC was responsible for the worst public health guidance during the COVID pandemic.

It's why we had a disproportionate number of deaths in the U.S.

and that masks never worked.

I mean, he's still on that.

Hey, here's what I'll say.

Back in January, I bet you thought you couldn't get through a week of this.

But look, you're already through eight months.

Good on you.

Cranking it.

There we go.

You're doing it.

You're doing it.

I mean, I'm talking about everybody, not just you.

Everybody.

I want to unravel some more of the stuff that's happening around vaccines because

the COVID vaccine is not the only concerning thing to pay attention to.

But before we do that, we do have to go to the billing department real quick.

Let's go.

Medicines, the medicines that escalate my cop for the mouth.

You know, we've been doing my brother, my brother, me for 15 years.

And

maybe you stopped listening for a while.

Maybe you never listened.

And you're probably assuming three white guys talking for 15 years, I know where this has ended up.

But no.

No, you would be wrong.

We're as shocked as you are that we have not fallen into some sort of horrific scandal or just turned into a big crypto thing.

Yeah, you don't even really know how crypto works.

The only NFTs I'm into are naughty, funny things, which is what we talk about on my brother, my brother, and me.

We serve it up every Monday for you if you're listening.

And if not, we just leave it out back and goes rotten.

So check it out on Maximum Fun or wherever you get your podcasts.

All right, we're over 70 episodes into our show.

Let's learn everything.

So let's do a quick progress check.

Have we learned about quantum physics?

Yes, episode 59.

We haven't learned about the history of gossip yet, have we?

Yes, we have.

Same episode, actually.

Have we talked to Tom Scott about his love of roller coasters?

Episode 64.

So how close are we to learning everything?

Bad news, we still haven't learned everything yet.

Oh, we're ruined!

No, no, no, it's good news as well.

There is still a lot to learn.

Woo!

I'm Dr.

Ella Hubber.

I'm regular Tom Long.

I'm Caroline Roper, And on Let's Learn Everything, we learn about science and a bit of everything else too.

And although we haven't learned everything yet, I've got a pretty good feeling about this next episode.

Join us every other Thursday on Maximum Fun.

What else is happening out there, Sid?

What else is moving in and shaking?

So, aside from the COVID vaccine, which I think that the reason this is getting a lot of attention is also a political reason.

If you remember,

it was Trump's administration who was responsible for Operation Warp Speed, which delivered the COVID vaccine in a very shortened period of time.

Not that we cut any corners, as we've talked about extensively on the show.

The vaccine was safe and effective.

This technology had existed for over a decade.

We just had to plug in the new virus.

I mean, that's a great thing about mRNA platforms.

You have the technology ready to go, and all you need is the new threat.

to introduce to it so that you know what kind of vaccine to make.

Revolutionary science used it to save, I don't know, what's the estimate?

20 million lives or something so far is the estimate, what we've saved with the COVID vaccine.

So, revolutionary, fantastic science.

And there are many people who think Trump should get a Nobel Prize for it.

I am not one of those people, but there are many people who do.

And so, I think that this is getting a lot of political attention as well, because

they're trying to create a wedge between RFK and Trump because he is criticizing Trump's,

maybe the only accomplishment that I would say, yes, I agree with this.

This, the COVID vaccine is good.

A lot of us would say, like, yeah, I mean, he did the vaccine.

The vaccine's great.

Like, the vaccine is good.

We all agree on that one.

Nothing else.

And so they're trying to drive a wedge.

That's why this is getting so much attention.

Like, maybe they'll fire him.

And I will say there was a letter written to the presidential administration saying from 20 different medical organizations saying, please fire him.

He's an idiot.

He's going to destroy this country.

He's going to kill all of our kids.

Please fire him.

I don't know if, I just don't know if I'm trying to right-size this whole thing in my head, right?

Because sometimes I understand the sky is falling mentality, and I do get that.

I try to look at the places where like there are still normalcy because I think it's important to track.

the changes and be aware of the changes and look at the changes.

I will be interested to see if

I feel like

we're starting to see some like rubber meets the road moments with some of this stuff where it's like, do you have the frigging

fortitude's not the right word, but like,

how hard on this are you willing?

Do you have the, you know, how far on this are you willing to take it?

Because there's a lot of people who know they're acting with ill intent.

There's a lot of people who know that this is a bunch of nonsense.

And now we are seeing the practical ramifications of it.

And it will be interesting to see as like more alignment if there is a stomach to like really,

you know, go through with this stuff or, you know, what where we're at.

I think if you, if you watch the Senate hearings, which I've watched quite a bit of it, I didn't watch the entire thing, but I've watched quite a bit.

It was not just Democrats who were questioning and I would attacking might be a strong word from the Republican senators, but very forcibly refuting what RFK was saying.

There were Republican senators who are saying, this is wrong.

This is like settled science.

We do not need to reinvestigate autism and vaccines.

This is coming from Republicans as well.

So this isn't just a partisan issue at this point.

I do think you're going to start to see, I mean, heck, I said it this morning.

Jim Justice

is who is our representative, if you can believe it still here in West Virginia, Jim Justice.

We have two, so he can be your representative, but I'll take

the other.

No, never mind.

You want to take Capito?

Yeah.

No, but he said today he made a comment about how

important vaccines are.

I mean, today.

Jim Justice knows how important vaccines are.

Do you know who that is?

That's Baby Dog, though.

That's Baby Dog saying

the crown jewel in my administration as the first dog of West Virginia was Do It for Baby Dog, the vaccine campaign that we detailed here on Sawbone.

So maybe he's looking at,

you know,

baby dog doesn't have a lot of great years left.

We pray he has more than Jim, but you know, you never know.

And he doesn't know if this next COVID strain is going to be aimed at dogs.

Maybe.

No, actually, I saw a huge sign when we were in Atlanta.

Actually, you know, it's fascinating.

I saw a big, I'm going to tell you this.

I saw a big billboard in Atlanta in the year of our Lord 2025 that said, dogs do not spread COVID.

Good.

Right.

Not the doggos.

Not the dogs.

Thank you.

So

the other issue that the senators had with, I mean, I think they have many,

has to do with autism and vaccines.

Vaccines do not cause autism.

I don't know how many times I should say that as we discuss this, just to like.

A lot of people say that.

And I

a lot of people, smart ones i will say too that it you know i see such good journalism around this these days like anytime and i see this both on tv and as i'm reading news articles like fact-checking rfk i for fun

you see a lot of of journalists point out very quickly

there is no

study, there is no research that shows a link between vaccines and autism.

Right.

None.

And we have studied this.

So every time RFK says we haven't looked at it, that's just a lie.

I don't know how else to characterize it.

Yes, we've yes, we've looked at it.

He's just lying because there's no one above him to say you're lying.

I mean, that's it, right?

I mean, that's pretty much it.

He referenced a study during the Senate hearing

that basically what he said was the CDC published data that showed there was no link between the MMR, the measles, months, rubella vaccine, and autism.

And then there was one scientist who teased something out of the data and pulled a study out and said, no, look, actually, it increases the rate of autism, specifically in black boys, children who were tested in this study.

And that this study was suppressed by the CDC.

And now he's got this data.

And so he references this, I mean, this dramatic story of like the CDC withholding data from the public, specifically to target, you know, black children.

And the study that he's referencing, if you go back, I mean, first of all, it was retracted and discredited because

the

methodological, like the way that it was put together, the way the data was collected, the way that it was analyzed, the lack of excluding for confounders other variables that might have altered it.

The study was done terribly.

It meant nothing.

It was a bad study and it was retracted.

And it should never have been published in a journal.

But the fact is, as we've talked about on the show, there are a lot of journals out there that are,

they have their own agenda.

Right.

And so if you look at like who RFK trusts, Dr.

Mawson, Dr.

Anthony Mawson, who is

a vaccine critic,

published a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

In one group, it was homeschooled children.

And he's done multiple studies.

And these are the ones that Kennedy is most frequently citing.

Mawson also wrote a book.

He's made a big career off of being a doctor who doesn't trust vaccines.

Which there's money in it, you know,

if you're willing to trade your credibility and soul away.

Well, at very short-term gain, my friend.

You follow the money.

He established the Chalfont Research Institute.

It's a charity that operates out of his home.

It received contributions of $150,000 from the National Vaccine Information Center, which is a group whose mission, it's an anti-vax group.

He's also connected, he's had study funded by Generation Rescue, which is a nonprofit that Jenny McCarthy is associated with.

If you remember, Jenny McCarthy of Singled Out Fame.

I don't know what else.

Devastating.

I'll just go on.

No, you don't need to say anything else.

He hates vaccines.

Former Miss Jim Carrey.

Former Miss the Mask.

Anyway.

Former Miss Cable Guy.

So he said, This is who he's citing his studies from.

The journal that published the study was Science, Public Health, Policy, and the Law.

It says it's peer-reviewed, but

the

people that are associated, the journal's editor-in-chief

is a longtime ally of mr kennedy's who describes himself as in a year-long years-long fight across 20 states for vaccine exemptions so it's an anti-vax journal is my yeah all right

against them just follow the money and if you look at like these organizations like the children's health defense which Kennedy has been a lawyer for before and he is very much associated with, and this is an anti-vax group who spreads disinformation about vaccines.

If you look on their board, they have people who sell supplements to try to fix the vaccine injuries that you have.

It's funny, it's funny.

Like spike detox supplements.

They're going to get that spike protein out of you, the evil spike protein from COVID that all the vaccines.

So anyway, you just follow the money.

So

these studies are deeply flawed.

The thing about data

is that collecting it is part of the battle and you have to know how to collect it appropriately, right?

You have to know how to get the right answers from the right study population with the right diversity among it, right?

Depending on what you're looking at.

And then you have to know what to do with the data.

You have to know how to tease out all the stuff that's going to lead you to other conclusions.

If you don't know what you're doing, you can come to the wrong conclusion, right?

And if you want a specific answer, you can probably make it happen.

It is interesting that

it is a big issue with AI, actually, because AI, you would think, would be very good at data analysis, but it's actually very bad.

I was reading in an entertainment study about the entertainment industry, and they have all this data

from focus groups.

You would think that you would be able to program into the thing, like, here's the movies that were popular last year.

Here's how tastes are evolving.

Calculate for us what the next big hit will be, right?

But looking at data and synthesizing data is something that the AI routines are really bad at, which to me shows you how much like art

is is a part of that, is a part of data synthesis, how much of that is like storytelling through data.

Right.

No, you're exactly right.

And that's, it's so important to understand that because like this study, this is a great example.

So if we compare kids who are not vaccinated and kids who are vaccinated, and then how do we, okay, if we're going to do this without going house to house, kid to kid.

So we collect data

from a medical record to see, is there a diagnosis code for autism spectrum disorder on this child?

That's how we're going to decide if they have autism or not.

So because we need to know, did they get vaccinated and do they have autism?

If you're not going to ask that question, you're going to look for the diagnosis code in an electronic medical record.

Okay, so in order for that diagnosis code to have been put in there, the child would have had to be be taken to a doctor, evaluated by them, and then diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

Now, typically, this is not something we do in one appointment, right?

You wouldn't go to a walk-in clinic and walk out with a diagnosis of ASD.

That would be inappropriate, right?

Like, this is something that we take time and we collect information, and

we have certain screening tools.

Like, there are things we do.

Well, would you guess that a child who is completely unvaccinated, whose guardians have made that choice to

not have them vaccinated, do you think there's a chance that maybe they haven't had as much contact

with physicians as a child who's received every single one of their childhood vaccines?

Yeah.

Don't you think that's possible?

So don't you think the likelihood that they would have been sitting in a doctor's office enough times to have that diagnosis made and recorded in their medical record, don't you think that likelihood would be less?

less?

Yeah.

But they didn't control for how many times the kid was taken to a doctor.

If you never take your kid to a doctor or any other sort of healthcare professional, yeah, they're not going to get diagnosed with ASD or anything else because you didn't take them to a doctor.

But none of that was controlled for in the study.

But the problem is most people,

like if you didn't go to medical school or to, you know, pharmacy school or to nursing school or to any of the science-based healthcare tracks, right?

If you didn't go have an education in any of that, if you're not an epidemiologist, you wouldn't know to tease that out of the data.

And so when someone says to you, the CDC suppressed a study that showed that the MMR vaccine causes autism in black boys,

you might believe it.

You may, and that, and especially if we talk about marginalized communities, a population like in the U.S., the black community, who historically have been lied lied to, abused, mistreated, you know, systematically oppressed by our medical, by our healthcare system, who already have historical basis to be skeptical about

institutions, you know, doctors, the CDC, all the NIH, the federal government, all of it.

And then you present them with that,

that.

you might be inclined to believe it's true or to at least question or to at least wonder, should I get my child vaccinated then?

Yeah.

And that is the problem: is RFK has been doing this so long.

He knows, he knows how.

He's wrong.

He's lying.

He's, I mean, I assume he's lying.

I don't know if he, I don't know what he believes.

I don't know if he knows.

Who knows?

We can't see the contents of somebody's heart.

You can only judge by their actions.

And his actions are

truly, truly despicable.

They're dangerous.

It's malicious.

These

children are going to be harmed by this.

But I think it's important important that we're all well-versed in these tactics because they're going to use bad science and it's not going to look like bad science on the surface.

It is bad science, but we're going to need to be smart about understanding why it's bad science because you can't just say, well, that's a lie, because

they're going to hold up the study and they're going to say, well, it was a double-blinded placebo-controlled.

Why don't you want placebo-controlled?

That's what they're going to say about vaccines.

Why don't you want placebo-controlled?

Because it's unethical if we have a vaccine that saves lives, to not give it to half of the study population is, I mean, we don't do that.

We don't do those studies because they're unethical.

Sid, it occurs, you and I have talked a lot about feelings of helplessness, I think,

in recent, in recent months and

sort of combating that and trying to stay

You know, I think that it is unrealistic maybe to say like positive or optimistic or hopeful or whatever.

I don't know how helpful that is to anybody, but I

do think that it is important to not be overwhelmed to paralysis, I think.

So, how have you been sort of like processing what's been happening?

How are you like contextualizing it for yourself?

What's been your mindset?

Um,

well, I will say a couple of things that have given me, I don't,

hope may be too big a word, but I'll use it, hope.

One, as I mentioned previously,

the pushback on this sort of

total misinformation, especially when it comes to vaccines, is bipartisan.

It is not just Democrats versus Republicans, because right now, if that's the battle, the Republicans are going to win.

It's not.

It is a bipartisan effort to trust evidence-based science and push back against these lies.

So that's a hopeful point.

It's also a good note to remember if you have a representative that does not agree with you politically, there still may be a daylight for you to call and make those, you know, make your voice heard to that representative that could be swayed on this.

Because I don't, I think that you, you've got to look for those sorts of individual battles at this point.

And I think that it's important to remember that

as people are seeing these, like the measles outbreaks in real time, and unfortunately, I feel like we're going to see a lot more of these, not just measles, but other preventable childhood illnesses in Florida soon.

Amplifying those stories, I think, is helpful.

It is.

And I think it's, I mean, unfortunately, part of the problem, part of why we have so much pushback on vaccines is that I have never seen a child with diphtheria.

Thank goodness.

It's, I didn't, my kids were not in an iron lung, you know?

Yeah.

And

so I think as we have like, as we're, as we're starting to see that stuff return, you are going to hear more public outcry.

And you are going to have people who maybe agree with RFK politically who will not stand for this, you know, for childhood illness and death, unnecessary preventable childhood illness and death, which is what we're going to see.

So I think that's one thing.

I think the other thing is

all of the major medical organizations are continuing to put out their good, evidence-based, scientific medical advice.

So you can go to AMA, AAFP, AAP,

the ACOG.

The American College of Obseas and Gynecology are always such,

I can't say bad A's.

How about that?

I can't say that.

I can't say that A word.

They're cool.

They're always out there fighting.

And I'm, you know, I'm family practice.

We're part of the AAFP.

We tend to be a little more chill.

I know, but like we're all, we're all united on this.

If you read all of our statements, if you go to those websites, if you go to those medical organizations, Infectious Disease Society of America, you can find good, solid information on what vaccines you should get, what the risks and benefits are, who should get them.

That information is still widely available.

You don't have to go to the CDC for everything.

And right now, I don't know that I would recommend that as your primary source of medical information.

I think the important thing is that if you look at those organizations that are continuing to fight, even though it does feel so imbalanced in power, like at the very least, you're keeping them fighting and they can't fight if you're fighting everyone all at once it's a lot harder than you know if no one's fighting back so i think that like continuing to remember that even a fight is a use of their resources and is keeping them occupied from doing some other heinous crap like every every little bit i think is is helpful and the and those of us who work in healthcare this is really uh and i i'm gonna speak to physicians because I'm a physician, so I feel like I have the right to.

We tend to be, as a collective, really wimpy about this stuff.

We don't stand up and speak out.

We're exhausted.

I know.

I know we're burnt out.

I know we're overworked and

constantly living in fear of, you know, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and getting sued and all of the stuff that comes with practicing healthcare in the U.S.

that sucks.

I know.

I totally get it.

But this is where we have to fight back.

This is where we have to stand up and say, absolutely not.

I will not accept this.

I know better than RFK Jr.

I know better.

And you do too, my colleagues in medicine.

You know better.

It feels to me, if you're a physician and you have any sort of public platform or you just know people in your day-to-day life that you speak to,

it feels like

you are duty bound to be speaking up about this.

Like you, you, you need to let your voice be part of the conversation, I think, because the more voices that are speaking reason and logic, like I feel like the onus is on you to speak up a little bit.

And you can do that in your practice with your patients.

I mean, that's the thing.

Like, at least I know my patients, I think, like and trust me.

I think they do.

And I can continue to give them good, solid advice based on evidence-based medicine that

I believe a lot of them will hear more loudly than these false voices in Washington right now.

Right.

Thank you so much for listening to our podcast.

We appreciate you.

I wanted to mention, we haven't mentioned in a little bit, immunize.org is an

group that we've worked with a lot that has a ton of great information about

immunization.

And we, you know, you support them through several of the merch purchases on our website.

So that's, we're all working together here on this thing.

McElroymerch.com is that website if you want to check out some stuff there.

Thank to the taxpayers for use.

Their song Medicines is the intro and outro of our program.

And thanks to you for listening.

That's going to do it for us.

Until next time, my name is Justin McElroy.

I'm Sidney McRoy.

And as always, don't drill a hole in your hand.

Maximum Fun, a worker-owned network of artist-owned shows, supported directly by you.