Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. I'm Stephen, Carol and
Speaker 1: vis Is Here's Why, where we take one news story
Speaker 1: and explain it in just a few minutes with our
Speaker 1: experts here at Bloomberg. There have been several surprises in
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's choices for key roles in his administration, but
Speaker 1: his nominee to lead the Health Department that's been particularly controversial.
Speaker 2: He's a very long anti vaccine activist. He is a
Speaker 2: science denihilist, and he's a conspiracy theorist. This is not
Speaker 2: the kind of person you want to head health agencies.
Speaker 2: I mean, he has said that no vaccine is a
Speaker 2: benefit is tremendous power over all Americans' day to day lives.
Speaker 3: He wants to make people healthy.
Speaker 4: It's driven him pretty wild over the last number of years,
Speaker 4: and today I nominated him for I guess if you
Speaker 4: like health, then if you like people that live a
Speaker 4: long time, it's the most important position.
Speaker 3: RFK Junior Bobby Robert F.
Speaker 1: Kennedy Junior has been vocal in his opposition to vaccines,
Speaker 1: notably during the COVID nineteen pandemic. He was widely condemned
Speaker 1: for calling the shots a crime against humanity. If he's confirmed.
Speaker 1: His position of influence on US health policy comes at
Speaker 1: a time when anti vaccine sentiment has already undermined progress
Speaker 1: in tackling diseases such as measles. Cases jumped by twenty
Speaker 1: percent last year, exposing the gaps in vaccine coverage for
Speaker 1: a preventable illness. So here's why vaccine hesitancy is a
Speaker 1: growing problem. Sam Fazali, director of research at Bloomberg Intelligence,
Speaker 1: joins me now for more. Sam, this idea of being
Speaker 1: opposed to vaccines or skeptical or hesitant about them isn't new,
Speaker 1: But how far can we trace the sort of philosophy back.
Speaker 5: Generally vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine questions, as we all know, have
Speaker 5: been around like any other medicine, really as soon as
Speaker 5: something is available. Right now, we have obcent drugs and
Speaker 5: lots of people are questioning about O weekitly drugs. So
Speaker 5: any new product, any new technology that comes along, there
Speaker 5: are skeptics. And sometimes that's very useful because it pushes
Speaker 5: you to think it harder to make sure you have
Speaker 5: the data and the science backing the risk benefit ratio,
Speaker 5: and that is the critical element of any intervention.
Speaker 3: Than we do in our lives risk benefit ratio.
Speaker 1: So is there any concept that this sentiment is on
Speaker 1: the rise of what effect can we think that it
Speaker 1: has in terms of public health?
Speaker 5: There is evidence that the view of particularly parents with
Speaker 5: regards to childhood vaccinations in terms of negativity is rising.
Speaker 5: If you think back, we had that zudo scientific paper
Speaker 5: that was published quite a long time ago suggesting that certain.
Speaker 3: Vaccines lead to autism.
Speaker 5: Was of course that the study was flawed, that statistics
Speaker 5: were flawed, the analysis was flawed, and that's been proven
Speaker 5: over and over again. So but there is a tendency
Speaker 5: and there seems to be an increasing attitude you toward
Speaker 5: I don't want to expose my child to whatever it
Speaker 5: is that people think that they're doing negative for their kids,
Speaker 5: which of course is as far as I'm concerned, super dangerous.
Speaker 3: I've got some stats for your measles that we can
Speaker 3: talk about.
Speaker 1: Well, let's because that's one of the ones that the
Speaker 1: WHL has particularly been warning about. U.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the data twenty twenty four is still we're in
Speaker 3: it right.
Speaker 5: Twenty twenty three, there was a twenty percent increase in
Speaker 5: the cases of measles. Now, remembering vaccines don't prevent infections.
Speaker 5: Vaccines prevent disease, and I think that's one of the
Speaker 5: things that perhaps people got a bit confused about.
Speaker 3: During COVID.
Speaker 5: You get your vaccinations and a few months later you
Speaker 5: still get COVID infection. But why did that happen? I
Speaker 5: think perhaps we didn't communicate very well. So let's say, measles,
Speaker 5: this infection, twenty percent increase could be a statistical fluke,
Speaker 5: but let's see, well how twenty twenty four turns out.
Speaker 5: But there's definitely a trend toward increases. And we've heard
Speaker 5: stories around the UK where there are outbreaks and there
Speaker 5: have been some cases. But let me just say, before
Speaker 5: the vaccine came through, two point six million people a
Speaker 5: year were.
Speaker 3: Dying nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 5: Imagine how what their your world population was that time
Speaker 5: now much larger, And so far last year or this year,
Speaker 5: we've only had one hundred and seven thousand deaths only.
Speaker 5: I mean, you know that's obviously a single death is bad.
Speaker 5: But so this is something where vaccines really stand out
Speaker 5: in medical treatments.
Speaker 1: For people who are hesitant or unsure about vaccines, how
Speaker 1: much trust can we have on the process that leads
Speaker 1: to their approval. This was part of the conversation around
Speaker 1: COVID as well. It appeared that the process moved much
Speaker 1: quicker in that case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, don't forget COVID. We were in a pandemic.
Speaker 5: Let's say I'm not saying you well, let's say mpox
Speaker 5: becomes the new small box, right, what are we going
Speaker 5: to do. We have to get vaccinations at as fast
Speaker 5: as possible to prevent the ultimate millions of deaths that
Speaker 5: will occur.
Speaker 3: That is a very specific period. So COVID was a
Speaker 3: very special situation.
Speaker 5: People should not assume that vaccines used to take years
Speaker 5: to get.
Speaker 3: To market previously and they continue to be the case. Now,
Speaker 3: that was a special period.
Speaker 5: Vaccines go through significant rigor because by definition, you're giving
Speaker 5: something a medical intervation to a hell healthy person, So
Speaker 5: you need to be absolutely sure as much as humanly
Speaker 5: possible of its safety.
Speaker 1: What can be done then to counteract the sentiment if
Speaker 1: we can place more emphasis on the rigor of these
Speaker 1: approval systems for vaccines to trust people they're safe. There
Speaker 1: is there more mastering that we can do to ensure
Speaker 1: people know and can trust in vaccines.
Speaker 5: I think good high quality scientific messaging that that is acceptable,
Speaker 5: understandable by people, not bamboozling them with strange terminology and data,
Speaker 5: and really just highlighting the sorts of stats that are
Speaker 5: just given. Nineteen sixty three, two point six million deaths
Speaker 5: last year, one hundred and seven thousand from measos. These
Speaker 5: are facts that people need to know. It's not that
Speaker 5: MESOS virus has disappeared. The virus has always stay with
Speaker 5: us in some form or another. So that's the question.
Speaker 3: I mean, we have got rid of one which was
Speaker 3: small box. But this is what people need to understand.
Speaker 5: Let's give them more information and be ready there to
Speaker 5: coolly converse with folks with other skeptical.
Speaker 1: How much influence could someone in charge of the Health
Speaker 1: and Human Services Department in the United States have on
Speaker 1: vaccine uptake if the messaging is coming from a different
Speaker 1: point of.
Speaker 5: View, significant significant, So I mean, you know, even if
Speaker 5: the ADA approves a vaccine, I think the head of
Speaker 5: the HS can have an influence on it actually being
Speaker 5: able to launch, actually being able to use. This is
Speaker 5: a very powerful position, and I'm hoping given that Doroth K.
Speaker 5: Junior has some very good views about food additives, the
Speaker 5: types of food that are consumed that logic will prevail
Speaker 5: over mythology if it's the best phrase of can news.
Speaker 1: Part of your day job is researching pharmaceutical companies. I
Speaker 1: wonder how they approach this issue of hesitancy around uptake
Speaker 1: of vaccines.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Look, farmer companies are there to make a profit. They're
Speaker 5: there to get their product to market faster and keeping
Speaker 5: on the market for longest. The agencies, the FDA, the
Speaker 5: European Agency for Medical Regulation and Approvals it so they
Speaker 5: are there to gatekeep I'm not saying farmer companies do
Speaker 5: bad things, but there is a significant barrier between a
Speaker 5: company who's incentivized to get his products to market, which
Speaker 5: in a majority of the times they do with good conscience.
Speaker 5: There is a barrier, there's a significant filter with the public,
Speaker 5: and that's what these.
Speaker 3: Agencies are for.
Speaker 5: That is where we hope that the HHS and the
Speaker 5: new administration that's coming into the US doesn't undermine that ability. Yes,
Speaker 5: remove red tape, but don't undermine the critical nature of
Speaker 5: their work, which is safety.
Speaker 1: Thanks to Sam Fazzali, director of research at Bloomberg Intelligence,
Speaker 1: for more explanations like this one from our team of
Speaker 1: twenty seven hundred journalists and analysts around the world. Search
Speaker 1: for quick take on the Bloomberg website or Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: I'm Stephen Carroll. This is here's why. I'll be back
Speaker 1: next week with more. Thanks for listening.