The FDA Commissioner on Vaccines and Public Trust

The Trump administration is making a lot of changes to public health policy, particularly under the head of health and human services, Robert F.

Kennedy, Jr.

One of the most contentious areas is around vaccines.

This summer, Kennedy fired all of the CDC's vaccine advisory panel and has taken heat for what critics say undermines confidence in the system.

And two weeks ago, the White House fired the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reportedly because of disagreements around vaccine approval.

One of the government officials in charge of approving vaccines and who reports into Kennedy's department is Dr.

Marty McCary, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

And this summer, McCary's FDA decided to narrow the number of people who are supposed to get this year's COVID booster, approving it only for people over the age of 65 or with adverse health conditions.

This week, we sat down with Dr.

Marty McCary to talk about about how he sees the FDA's role in this moment of vaccine politics and how health officials can rebuild trust at a time when trust in public health policy is at historic lows.

Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power.

I'm Ryan Knutson.

It's Tuesday, September 9th.

Coming up on the show, Dr.

Marty McCary on the FDA, Vaccines, and Trust in Public Health.

This episode is brought to you by Indeed.

When your fridge stops working, you don't sit around waiting for all your food to spoil.

You find a solution.

So why wait to hire the people your company desperately needs?

Use Indeed Sponsored Jobs to find great talent fast.

It moves your job post to the top of the page, so it's the first thing relevant candidates see when they start searching.

And it truly does make a difference.

Sponsored jobs receive 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs, according to Indeed data.

Plus, with sponsored jobs, there are no monthly subscriptions or long-term contracts.

You're only paying for results.

There's no need to wait any longer.

Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed.

Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit.

To get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com/slash journal.

That's indeed.com/slash journal right now.

And support the show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast.

Indeed.com/slash slash journal.

Terms and conditions apply.

Hiring, Indeed is all you need.

This episode is brought to you by AARP.

They have reskilling courses and career tools to help your income live as long as you do.

The younger you are, the more you need AARP.

Learn more at aarp.org slash skills.

Commissioner Marty McCary, thanks so much for coming back to the podcast.

Great to be with you, Ryan.

So I'm going to talk a lot about vaccines and vaccine policy.

We're heading into the fall flu season,

and there have been a lot of changes under the Trump administration so far.

Can you just first of all, for listeners, lay out just what the role the FDA plays in vaccine policy in the United States?

Yeah, first of all, vaccines save lives, and any death from a vaccine-preventable illness is a tragedy.

The FDA's role is that of a regulator.

So we don't recommend a vaccine.

We don't engage in the practice of medicine, but we do have a job, a charge by Congress in the statute that says that we have to ensure that the claims that vaccine makers are making are in line with the data that they submit to us.

So that's our job.

You don't recommend vaccines, but you do approve them.

And then a decision that the FDA made earlier this year effectively not to approve the COVID booster for the broader population.

Instead, you only approved it for people who are older than 65 or have

adverse health conditions.

Why did you make that decision?

That's right.

So, we adopted a risk-stratified approach.

Dr.

Prasad and I outlined this framework in the New England Journal of Medicine back in May.

And we wanted the world to know that we're moving to a risk-stratified approach.

What does that mean, a risk-stratified approach?

It means that the potential need and clinical benefit of the vaccine in somebody at high risk is different from a young, healthy, 12-year-old girl.

So does a young six-year-old boy in America need another 70 COVID shots in his average lifespan?

Or

can we make a move towards the model that Europe has embraced?

In France, you have to be 80 or high risk to get the vaccine.

In the UK, it's 75.

The entire world has moved to a risk-stratified approach.

And I think that's generally where most people are in the U.S.

Why is that something that the FDA, because you're talking about approval from sort of a safety perspective?

The Centers for Disease Control, the CDC, they are the ones that make recommendations about should people be taking this or not.

So why do you feel that it's the FDA's role in saying it's not something that you can approve for a different age group?

So we have this

charge where we get applications and we have to decide whether or not to approve the updated vaccine that is tailored to the circulating strain at the time.

In that the circulating strain hasn't really changed much over the last year and a half.

But we had applications for a new generation of vaccines, and we decided to approve it for high-risk individuals because we think that's where the preponderance of evidence lives.

And we are getting back to gold standard science, which means if a company wants an approval for a COVID booster in a young, healthy individual, we'd like to see a clinical trial.

It's been four years since we've had a clinical trial, so we're getting back to our gold standard system at the FDA, and that is we're going to approve based on data.

Not only is that a problem.

You you don't think the FDA's the FDA has been doing that previously?

No, they were rubber stamping COVID boosters every year and we're on a path to do that in perpetuity.

And there was a general theory, it was a hypothesis in the medical community that everybody should get it every single year.

Well, I think people have moved on and recognized, as the rest of the world has, that the

risk to benefit profile is different based on your age.

And in fact, I think that was one of the great errors of COVID.

It should have been recognized earlier.

The risk of the COVID virus in a young, healthy teenager is 10,000-fold different than the risk in an older individual with a comorbid condition.

There were internal memos that FDA staff scientists thought that there should be a broader approval for the wider public for the COVID booster.

Help me understand why you decided to disregard those.

It was mixed.

I mean, it was mixed.

I mean, you're going to hear different things.

There were a lot of scientists that we consult inside.

And so it was mixed.

Look, we have to do what we think is right.

On one hand, there is a group in America that thinks we should ban all COVID vaccines in perpetuity, that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans that claim vaccine injury.

And then there's another extreme of people that may want to take a COVID booster every three months.

But so we are doing what we think may not be popular, but we think is where the data leads us most.

And that is a risk-stratified approach.

And by the way, it's available for anybody who wants it, but it is only indicated for those where we think there's a preponderance of evidence.

And the companies have agreed to go back and do a clinical trial.

So, what would you like, what would you need to see in the data in order to change your view on this and say that, yeah, the booster is something that should be recommended every year?

We've been pretty flexible with the clinical endpoints of the trial in designing them with the studies, with the companies.

And we're saying the study just has to show that the vaccine is providing a clinical benefit.

And you define for us what clinical benefit could mean.

It could mean a positive test, could mean hospitalization, sickness, death.

And so there's a number of clinical endpoints.

These clinical trials are not the perfect evaluation of safety.

We have to look at big data.

We have to listen to individuals.

We have a reporting database at the FDA called VARES, where if an individual feels that they've been injured by the vaccine, they will report it.

We have started our own investigation looking, starting with children where

they have died died from the COVID vaccine per the self-report.

So, people that have reported into the system, my child died, I believe it's because of the vaccine.

That's right.

So, we are investigating because a self-report is not any

reliable data where you can make inferences on rates.

So, we are going back and doing an investigation.

We're calling the families, talking to the doctors, reviewing the autopsies.

And I think Americans have a right to that information.

How many healthy young teenagers or children have died from the COVID vaccine?

When do you expect to have the results of that investigation?

Hopefully in the coming weeks, we're doing this the right way.

We've got doctors conducting this investigation.

Some of these families had been contacted in the past, but there was no conclusion or a conclusion where we're getting more information around.

I think that this is the type of information that I think parents want to know.

So one of the things that your boss, Robert F.

Kennedy Jr., at the head of health and human services, has been taking a lot of heat for this summer is his decision to fire everybody on the advisory committee on immunization practices.

This is a group at the CDC.

Obviously, I know that's not your agency,

but what do you think of that decision?

Well, first of all, I think if you were to grade the ACIP committee over the COVID years,

I would give them a failing grade.

I don't think they did a very good job because they were monolithic in their thinking.

And this is what happens.

Like-minded people attract other like-minded people to the committee.

Now there's a diverse committee.

You have a diverse group of ideas, including some very highly respected individuals.

There are a lot of medical groups that have been highly critical of this decision.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said that the move stokes distrust in life-saving vaccines.

Are these groups wrong?

How do you take that criticism?

I think more opinions are better.

I think if somebody has an idea you don't like, we need more ideas, not to censor ideas.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has made some massive mistakes over the years, igniting the peanut allergy epidemic with a dogma that kids should avoid peanut butter till they're three years of age.

I mean, that was a 15-year disaster that ignited the modern day peanut.

It was based on dogma.

And so they have a history that's very mixed.

But look, I think we should have a diverse group of ideas.

And if they have an opinion, they're entitled to it.

So ASIP,

the vaccine advisory policy, the CDC, they're meeting next week.

They're going to be voting on the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, chickenpox, hepatitis B, RSV.

Do you see any changes to the recommendations coming?

Oh, look, there's an incredible value to childhood vaccines in that vaccine schedule.

But if a parent wants to make a modification where they get the hepatitis B shot at age 10 or 12 as a personal decision for their child instead of at birth and then two more shots before age two.

They're not a heretic.

And I think this sort of absolutism where

physicians engage in the most dangerous thing you can engage in in public health, and that is to insist that somebody comply with a recommendation, even though the evidence doesn't support it, that leads to distrust.

The reality is hepatitis B is a sexually transmitted infection.

And

it's fine to get it before somebody is sexually active.

The idea that you have to give it at birth is medical dogma.

So amid all this, you know, this

season of trust and distrust in the medical health establishment, states are starting to splinter off into their own health coalitions.

You've got Oregon, Washington, California joining.

There's a bunch of states in the Northeast that are basically saying we can't trust the CDC anymore for its recommendations.

We're forming our own.

What do you think this means for public health?

Well, look, you're seeing some folks backlash against against the medical establishment.

Trust in public health is down in a JAMA study from 71%

before the pandemic to 40%

last year.

That's a study in JAMA, a 31-point drop in public health trust.

We made some catastrophic mistakes in winning over public trust during the pandemic.

And I think we're seeing some repercussions of that.

What do you think of Florida's decision to try and end all vaccine mandates for children in schools?

Look, personally, not a decision I would have made if I were a Florida policymaker.

I didn't did not advise them on it, but if I had, I would have advised against it.

But you are seeing a sort of post-COVID era now where there's general distrust.

So, I mean, that is one of the schools of thought in public health policy, which is that there should be a unified message across governments and health organizations so that people have clear guidance as to what they should and shouldn't be doing.

If there is now a bunch of different voices out there, a bunch of different opinions, how can Americans make sense of what they should and shouldn't do?

Well, look, it's nice when everybody agrees, but the reality is the scientific process itself is a discussion of different ideas.

And to say that we can't have that discussion because somebody could interpret the discussion around vaccines as potentially leading to vaccine hesitancy, and therefore we have to censor those individuals is the dark period we just came out of over the last four years.

And the reason why I think many people don't trust public health

if we don't have a healthy debate, we may not get at the truth.

And I'm not one to say we cannot allow

other experts to weigh in on something because somebody could hear it and then make a decision.

We have to have that discussion.

Look, the medical field got the demonization of natural saturated fat as a cause of heart disease wrong for 50 years.

American Academy of Pediatrics got peanut allergies wrong for 15 years.

The medical establishment and all the leadership of the big organizations got opioids are non-addictive wrong for 20 years.

We have got to have a healthy scientific discourse.

So I do believe in that.

Well, I mean, do you feel like vaccines have become too politicized?

Yes.

Yeah.

Look, we need to be able to talk about the

grade of the data to support.

each individual vaccine and the timing of those vaccines.

And I think if we're more honest with

the public, I think we'd win more trust.

For example, some pediatricians say, here are the vaccines that are recommended.

I'll tell you right off the bat, here are the ones that I think are really critical, the hepatitis B one, the timing, for example, can be delayed until later in childhood.

And they're willing to work with individuals that might have concerns about some of the vaccines.

And ultimately, they get to a good place.

And then there's other people that say, look, here's the schedule, take it or leave it.

And if you don't accept it, you're going to get kicked out of our pediatrics practice.

Those are two radically different approaches and i think you win more bees with honey than fire i think we need to be more listen more to parents after the break commissioner mccary on the fda's plans to crack down on pharmaceutical advertising

this message is brought to you by apple card Each Apple product, like the iPhone, is thoughtfully designed by skilled designers.

The titanium Apple Card is no different.

It's laser-etched, has no numbers, and it earns you daily cash on everything you buy, including 3% back on everything at Apple.

Apply for Apple Card on your iPhone in minutes.

Subject to credit approval, Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Ranch.

Terms and more at AppleCard.com.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game?

Well, with the name Your Price Tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills.

Try it at progressive.com.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Price and coverage match limited by state law.

Not available in all states.

I want to ask you about

the way that you talk about vaccines and the messaging.

You've said a lot in this, in our conversation today that vaccines save lives.

But you've also, you know, you talked about how you know friends who've lost loved ones from the mRNA COVID vaccine.

And you said on CNN the other day that

we do know at the FDA that there are children who have died from the COVID vaccine.

What are you trying to accomplish by calling attention to those anecdotes?

Well,

people want to know the real data on COVID in young, healthy individuals.

So this sort of media environment where you're not allowed to speak about COVID complications, we now know that the Biden administration directly reached out to Facebook and other media outlets saying, take down true stories of vaccine complications from social media.

And so this idea that you cannot talk about the actual data, we're trying to get to the real data.

I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

I mean, I certainly want to see the data.

It seems to be very important, but we don't have data yet.

We're getting the data.

Right.

So that is part of our investigation.

But talking about it, talking about that we know that children have died, it's a

big difference.

If there are five children who've died or 20,000, that's a huge, the risk profile there is obviously hugely different.

But do you think that

that might make people more fearful of the COVID vaccine and vaccines generally?

You know, I do not believe in the notion that we cannot have scientific discourse because somebody could interpret it a certain way.

And that's the era that we just live through.

So ask, you know, a

person who is...

you know, insisting that the COVID vaccine is 100% safe in young males, ask them what the risk of myocarditis is.

It's not an unknown anymore.

We have good studies.

It's one in 2,600.

What is myocarditis?

Oh, it's inflammation of the heart.

And

it's usually mild, but there have been deaths from it, including some of the deaths that we have identified in our investigation.

And by the way, if the risk-benefit ratio significantly favors getting the COVID vaccine and the young healthy individual, those advocates for that situation should welcome the data because then we'll have clarity about the next 100 years.

So are you...

Do you feel like the FDA is going to be able to get that data under your term?

We're doing our best.

And so we're doing our own investigation of the deaths reported to the FDA through VAERS.

Now, it is a

fraction of the number of deaths typically out there.

And also that's a self-reporting system.

And there have been reports of people who may be opposed to vaccines putting in false reports, which I believe is a crime.

But that's right.

That's why we're investigating.

That's why we're calling the doctors, the families, reviewing the autopsies.

This should not be an opinion.

This should not be a political opinion.

We should have good data to drive the decision-making.

It seems like you're laying out sort of like a different vision for public policy in that like

in one that is saying the American people are smart, sophisticated, and if you try to obfuscate anything, it's just going to make them skeptical and distrustful.

You studied

public health policy back in college.

Is that something like, when did you develop this view that things should sort of be done differently?

Well, science has always been an open discourse.

It has always been a presentation of different ideas among experts.

It has always been listening to individuals, including patients.

Only in the last recent era did you see this intense censorship of ideas.

I want to ask you about Tylenol.

The Wall Street Journal had a story last week about how the Department of Health and Human Services plans to release a report saying that taking Tylenol during pregnancy could be one possible cause of autism, among others.

The makers of Tylenol said they don't believe there's a causal link, but

the FDA obviously approves medicines.

Where does the FDA stand on that?

Well, first of all, that report on autism is not yet written.

There are discussions, and so you may have seen a recent Harvard study that reviewed the literature on Tylenol and autism.

So that is data that we are reviewing.

And so we don't want to make any premature conclusions about that.

But Tylenol is not the central point of the autism report.

We have to look at every single thing out there.

And that's the beauty of the report.

We're doing a comprehensive review.

And I think you're going to see some very interesting findings.

Like what?

Well, again, it's not yet written, but look, this is a problem that no one has really tackled in a comprehensive way.

Autism.

Autism.

Until now, in a completely comprehensive way.

So what would you say right now to pregnant women when they have pain?

What should they take?

Well, look, I'm a regulator.

I'm going to stand by our labels, but we are

reviewing data.

We're reviewing data on an ongoing basis.

Some of the studies were just recently conducted, so we're actively reviewing them.

So could the FDA make a change in its recommendations?

Well, I don't want to get ahead of any announcement, but we always have to be willing to show humility and say new data has come in, and therefore we may need to evolve our position based on new data.

You've also got some news coming out about stepping up enforcement on direct-to-consumer marketing for medicines.

Tell me about what the FDA is planning to do here.

Well, first of all, we want companies to be able to advertise their products and we're not banning direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads.

But many of these ads are misleading and the FDA has had a lax approach over recent decades.

It's one of the reasons why these pharmaceutical ads went from being rare to extremely common today.

I mean, you watch a TV program, it's basically nonstop people singing and dancing with a pharmaceutical product.

So, we are finally taking action on our regulation that is our law at the FDA that says ads cannot create a misleading impression.

And it's not just on television, it's paid social media influencers, it's online pharmacies, as we saw in the Super Bowl,

last Super Bowl.

And so, we are going to enforce this regulation.

Enforcement letters used to be 100 plus a year back when pharmaceutical ads were rare.

Over the last couple of years, it's dwindled down.

It was one letter in 2023.

Only one letter.

One letter.

And last year, it was zero.

So we are sending out 100 letters this week so that companies know we are taking this regulation very seriously.

And we're also changing a regulation to close a loophole that says you can just put the side effects on some other website or something.

And we're going to be tough on this.

This is something

where we are an outlier country.

We're one of two countries in the developed world that even allow pharmaceutical ads.

And companies spend, drug companies spend 20 to 25% of their budgets on marketing and ads.

I'd like them to spend that money on lowering drug prices for everyday Americans.

There's a lot more to talk about there, but I think we're out of time.

Dr.

Martin McCary, thanks so much for joining us.

Great to be with you, Ryan.

Really appreciate it.

My pleasure.

That's all for today, Tuesday, September 9th.

The journal is a co-production of Spotify and and the Wall Street Journal.

Special thanks to Liz Esley White.

Thanks for listening.

See you tomorrow.