One of the major root problems is the decline in trust in those kinds of basic traditional vaccines that are vital to the health of children, and also some vaccines that are vital to the health of adults. And so the Trump administration policy, as far as I understand it, is, and as far as I’ve advocated, is to take actions to address that distrust. That’s the core philosophical underpinning for the actions that we’ve taken. And now there’s a tremendous amount of controversy within the public health community about how to restore that trust. And let me just characterize it in two basic camps. One camp says, well, the problem is misinformation. You have a lot of people going around saying crazy things about vaccines, and we just need to suppress them from having their way and their say. The other camp, which I’m much closer to, is that we actually have to take actions that demonstrate the kind of epistemic humility we were talking about before in the context of trying to show people the evidence — for instance, the measles vaccines, if the parents are listening, I would very, very strongly recommend that you have your child vaccinated with the measles vaccines, the polio vaccines, the D.P.T., all these childhood vaccines that are on. Now, recently we took an action of distinguishing vaccines on the childhood schedules that are common all through the rest of the world, from vaccines on the childhood schedule are not common all through the rest of the world. The idea, then, is to instill confidence that the set of — it’s a narrower set of vaccines that are focused on — but the set of vaccines that are tremendously important to the health of our kids. I want the uptake of those vaccines to go up. It’s a different approach than the traditional public health approach, which is to say you’re wrong, go away. But some people are wrong. Yes. I mean, I don’t think, I don’t find the language of misinformation helpful. I do think there are people who misinform people, but in my experience, and I’ve had a lot of it in the weird, the weird zones of beliefs about health in America, people who have wild ideas or paranoid ideas tend to be very, very sincere about them. And so I agree with you. There’s a lot to be said for trying to engage with sincere people. At the same time, there are a bunch of ideas abut vaccines that are just false. And it seems to me that part of what the Trump administration has done is bring inside its tent in terms of appointments and people whose ideas, I would say, are probably just wrong. And I don’t know if you would agree with that, but it seems like there’s — it seems like there’s a risk, an obvious risk there. Can I just can I just point out so I would agree with that. But it’s not unique to the Trump administration. Tremendous parts of public health, people inside the tent in public health during the Biden administration were deeply wrong about so many things in public health, related directly to public health. So it’s normal. But no one in the Biden administration started out and said, I think this person is wrong, but nonetheless, I want to bring them into the conversation and give them a platform. They were wrong, but they didn’t know it. Do I think that some of those people are wrong? Yeah, I mean, I do, but that’s normal. I normally think a lot of people in science are wrong, in public health are wrong. So that’s not unique. I think the issue is, and what’s different in the Trump administration is that we are allowing a wider range of public debate over these issues than public health is in the United States is traditionally comfortable with. That’s the crucial difference. Do you think, though, that there is a danger that for every person who may feel more trust in this and may be more likely to get at least some vaccines for their kids, there’s someone else who just feels profoundly validated in their vaccine skepticism and says, look, even the government of the United States is open to my ideas about vaccines. And those ideas are false and are leading to collapsing vaccine rates. Like, isn’t that a risk? It is. It certainly is a risk, Ross, but the risk the other direction is that we just keep going with the “Well, trust me, I’m right. I’m like a high public health official in the U.S. government. And so therefore you should just do what I say.” That approach, I think, has already failed. Isn’t there a middle ground where you say we have been too highhanded, too sweeping, we have gotten things wrong, but nonetheless, it is our job to tell you straightforwardly what we think and not just present a kind of ongoing debate. I think I’m trying to do that, Ross. Maybe, maybe. I don’t know if you agree that I’ve succeeded, but that is that’s my goal also. I think the, the way I would characterize the vaccine policy, is exactly that. So for instance, I’ve very, very clearly and straightforwardly said and recommended that parents vaccinate their kids for M.M.R., for polio, for D.P.T., diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus. I very clearly and cleanly said that I think that the evidence is strong that you should do that, really, for the vast majority of kids, probably all kids. So you heard me say that? Yeah. 00:05:24.617 —> 00:05:26.200 Do I think that 6-month-old kids should get the Covid vaccine? Most kids, I think the answer is no. And yet the C.D.C., up until relatively recently, was recommending that kids as young as 6 months old get the Covid vaccine. There’s room for nuance. There’s room for humility. And that is part — it’s exactly what we’re trying to bring in now. But there is also this is — as I look at the secretary of health and human services and hopefully someday I can interview him, you don’t have to speak for him, but he has obviously a long history of casting doubt on lots of different vaccines. And the enthusiastic case that you just made for different vaccines, it just doesn’t seem like one he’s comfortable making. He’s comfortable saying something positive about some vaccines, but he’s not a salesman for vaccines. I think we had enough of salesmen. I actually have tremendous respect for Bobby. And, I don’t always necessarily agree with him substantively, but he listens to me. And he tells me his points of view. He points me to papers. And I learn from those papers. It’s hard to — the caricature of him I’ve seen in the press is just totally unfair. Like, I’ve seen him change his mind when I’ve sent papers to him or given him evidence or reasoning. And I think that if I had the choice between someone like the former head of H.H.S., who was not a doctor either, and was much more in the salesman mode, politician salesman mode, or Bobby. I think Bobby will ultimately be better for American public health, or else I wouldn’t have accepted this job.
