Speaker 1: Hi everyone, I'm Katie Kuric and this is Next Question.
Speaker 1: My company, Katie Kirk Media, wouldn't get to do all
Speaker 1: the cool things we do like bring you this podcast
Speaker 1: if it weren't for the really innovative, smart and forward
Speaker 1: thinking companies were lucky enough to partner with. One of
Speaker 1: those partners is the biopharmaceutical company Murk, And on this
Speaker 1: sponsored episode of Next Question, I'm sharing a conversation I
Speaker 1: had with Mark's executive Vice president and Chief Patient Officer,
Speaker 1: Dr Julie Gerberdeine. I got to know Dr Gerberdeine when
Speaker 1: she was head of the c d C. She really
Speaker 1: knows her stuff. We also work closely together on calling
Speaker 1: cancer awareness back in the day. As a company with
Speaker 1: a long legacy of research and infectious disease, Murk has
Speaker 1: been in the thick of the COVID crisis, mobilizing its
Speaker 1: scientific expertise to help address the pandemic. So in this conversation,
Speaker 1: Dr Gerberdine and I look at the pandemics lasting impact
Speaker 1: on public health and how we can better prepare for
Speaker 1: the next one. I wanted to ask you on a
Speaker 1: personal level, as we approach the summer of how are
Speaker 1: you feeling cautiously optimistic. Yeah, I I believe in the
Speaker 1: value of the vaccines, and I think we're going to
Speaker 1: see pockets of really high protection. But I think we're
Speaker 1: also going to see occasional hot spots. And that's the
Speaker 1: thing that scares me the most. I know that it's
Speaker 1: hard to even speculate about this, Dr gerbertine, but how
Speaker 1: concerned are you about a variant that will not be
Speaker 1: susceptible to the vaccine, Because honestly, that's what I think about,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure that's probably one of the reasons you're
Speaker 1: cautiously optimistic exactly right. You know, we have the virus
Speaker 1: and the variants versus the vaccine and vigilance, and these
Speaker 1: variants are pretty addictable surprises, but we've been seeing them
Speaker 1: emerge even before we put the virus under vaccine pressure,
Speaker 1: or we hope in the future more anti viral pressure.
Speaker 1: So given the way that this particular family of viruses operates,
Speaker 1: I think we have to be prepared for ongoing evolution,
Speaker 1: somewhat like we see ongoing evolution of the influenza viruses
Speaker 1: each year, and that means that we need to prepare
Speaker 1: ourselves for the possibility that we would need to have
Speaker 1: a two point o version of vaccine that would keep
Speaker 1: up with the changes in the virus. Of course, that
Speaker 1: will be complicated, and in order to really understand that,
Speaker 1: we have to have much better global surveillance of where
Speaker 1: the virus is and where it's going and how it's evolving.
Speaker 1: And we're not there yet, so we've got a lot
Speaker 1: of work to do. Is that preparation underway even as
Speaker 1: we speak, there are a lot of efforts underway. The
Speaker 1: scale of the monitoring of the virus variants has exploded
Speaker 1: in the last couple of months, and that's a good thing,
Speaker 1: but of course it's not reaching everywhere in the world.
Speaker 1: Even in the best of circumstances, we still have large
Speaker 1: gaps and large time delays in our ability to see
Speaker 1: what's happening. So in a situation like that, often what
Speaker 1: is done is you rely on what we call sentinel sites,
Speaker 1: so strategic places where we do intensive sampling to try
Speaker 1: to get a feeling for what's going on on a
Speaker 1: broader population basis, and that kind of surveillance is really
Speaker 1: was helping us track this virus across the world. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you sort of a dumb question but if
Speaker 1: a variant is discovered and we find that it is
Speaker 1: not susceptible to the current vaccines, how quickly can another
Speaker 1: vaccine be developed to deal with that? But you know,
Speaker 1: that's the good news about some of the vaccines that
Speaker 1: we have right now, the m R and A vaccines
Speaker 1: in particular, it's barely easy to adjust the RNA that
Speaker 1: is in them. So already both Baiser and Maderna are
Speaker 1: testing the next generation of vaccines, and I think the
Speaker 1: news is promising that we're likely to see um the
Speaker 1: ability to keep up with the coronavirus. Of course, the
Speaker 1: faster we bring it under control now in the largest
Speaker 1: number of places, the less that new vaccine will be needed,
Speaker 1: and hopefully it could be delayed. So we still want
Speaker 1: to concentrate on getting as many people as possible vaccinated
Speaker 1: right now and not undoing the good work that our
Speaker 1: vigilance up to this point has accomplished. But I you know,
Speaker 1: you can imagine a scenario between vaccines and then anti
Speaker 1: virals where we convert what has been a tragedy around
Speaker 1: the world into something that does seem more like influenza manageable.
Speaker 1: Certainly don't want to get it if we can avoid it,
Speaker 1: but nevertheless, it's not something that shuts down the economy
Speaker 1: or causes the kind of economic and humanitarian crisis that
Speaker 1: we're experiencing right now. From what you've seen so far,
Speaker 1: do you think that we'll have to get a booster
Speaker 1: every year? You know, the term booster is used in
Speaker 1: two ways. It's used first of all, for the possibility
Speaker 1: that the immunity from the vaccine might not lost last
Speaker 1: very long, so you would need a booster dose to
Speaker 1: keep your immunity as high as possible. But then there's
Speaker 1: also this issue of variants, and that would require a
Speaker 1: slightly different vaccine to be used, So both things could
Speaker 1: be be true. Right now, we don't know how long
Speaker 1: the vaccines will provide protection, even if the virus didn't
Speaker 1: change at all, simply because they're new and we haven't
Speaker 1: had a chance to follow people long enough to answer
Speaker 1: that question. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if
Speaker 1: we're going to need to see uh, what I would
Speaker 1: call two point all vaccines. We may actually get to
Speaker 1: the point where the content of the vaccine also balls,
Speaker 1: so that we will be able to create longer lasting
Speaker 1: community with a single vaccine or a broadening of the
Speaker 1: immune effect that would cover more than one variant or
Speaker 1: have the ability to be more universally protected for this
Speaker 1: family of coronavirus is. So those are the things will
Speaker 1: aim for down the road. But I think in this
Speaker 1: pandemic the best thing that's happened is science has been
Speaker 1: on our side in terms of the speed with which
Speaker 1: we were able to roll out in the vaccine and
Speaker 1: to have it have such high efficacy is nothing short
Speaker 1: of miraculous. When you heard that the vaccine was rolling
Speaker 1: out so quickly, Uh, were you astonished? And was there
Speaker 1: any part of you? Dr Gerberdine that was worried? Well
Speaker 1: before we even we're thinking about how fast would it
Speaker 1: take to get a vaccine, we're watching what really looked
Speaker 1: like very early and worrisome signs of person to person transmission.
Speaker 1: And then when you started hearing these anecdotes about perhaps
Speaker 1: asymptomatic transmission, I was extremely worried because this is almost
Speaker 1: the you know, syndrome X kind of exercise that we've
Speaker 1: so long prepared for, where you have something that's silently spread,
Speaker 1: that moves very efficiently from person to person and can
Speaker 1: cause really deadly disease. So I was extremely alarmed by
Speaker 1: this situation, and I think many of my colleagues in
Speaker 1: the public health system were equally concerned. You don't want
Speaker 1: to jump out in front of something like that and
Speaker 1: create unnecessary alarm, But at the same time, the signals
Speaker 1: were there, and having trained in this area of my
Speaker 1: whole life, I was on the alert, and I was
Speaker 1: obviously very disappointed to find out that those concerns were
Speaker 1: well founded. But what about Was there any part of
Speaker 1: you that was worried about the vaccine being produced so
Speaker 1: quickly that, um, you know, I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people were so thrilled about it, but I think simultaneously
Speaker 1: there was a lot of worry in the general public. Well, gosh,
Speaker 1: that's sort of quick, and maybe it won't work because
Speaker 1: it was developed so quickly. You know. There's a couple
Speaker 1: of things that a lot of people haven't really been
Speaker 1: I'm told, and that is that the work on this
Speaker 1: class of vaccines and this family of viruses had been
Speaker 1: going on for a long time before this particular coronavirus emerged.
Speaker 1: We've seen two other coronavirus is the Stars in two
Speaker 1: thousand and three and the Mirrors that has been percolating
Speaker 1: along in the Middle East for quite some time, so
Speaker 1: work on coronavirus vaccines have been going on in the background,
Speaker 1: and a lot of the important steps of developing a
Speaker 1: vaccine had already been accomplished. That's part of the reason
Speaker 1: why we're able to jump on this so quickly and
Speaker 1: more or less sub atitude in the specifics of this
Speaker 1: coronavirus into the platforms in the backbone of the work
Speaker 1: that had already been done. But I don't think that
Speaker 1: story was really completely told, and so people have the
Speaker 1: impression that we had nothing and then all of a
Speaker 1: sudden we had a fully formed vaccine, and that does
Speaker 1: seem very fast, and I think the emphasis on how
Speaker 1: quickly we could get people vaccinated did make people worry
Speaker 1: about the safety. Now, one of the things that I'm
Speaker 1: proud of the pharmaceutical industry for is that we stood
Speaker 1: strong with the f d A and said, we want
Speaker 1: person of all clarity on what the requirements for approval are,
Speaker 1: but also we will not take safety shortcuts. And we
Speaker 1: all step forward and signed a pledge to that effect
Speaker 1: that even though we knew how important it was to
Speaker 1: get an authorized vaccine as quickly as possible. We pledged
Speaker 1: no safety shortcuts, and we wanted to make sure that
Speaker 1: when the pandemic vaccines went through the regulatory of a
Speaker 1: process that they were subject to the same high standard
Speaker 1: that we use for all of the other vaccines that
Speaker 1: we've made. And I feel really proud of that, and
Speaker 1: that gives me a lot of confidence. It doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that there isn't a side effect or that there couldn't
Speaker 1: be a problem down the road, but we're using high
Speaker 1: standards and we're watching and reporting what we do see.
Speaker 1: Is it disconcerting that one in three Americans say they
Speaker 1: will not get vaccinated according to a recent poll. You know,
Speaker 1: vaccine hesitancy was a problem a year before this pandemic
Speaker 1: even was known. Um w h O cited Vaccine hesitancy
Speaker 1: is when the top ten health challenges in the world
Speaker 1: in two thousand and nineteen. So it's a problem in
Speaker 1: our society. Part of the problem is just broad mistrust
Speaker 1: in science. Part of the problem is mistrust in the
Speaker 1: people who are providing information and making those kinds of recommendations.
Speaker 1: And then there's a whole host of other reasons that
Speaker 1: may nothing to do with vaccines but have to do
Speaker 1: with the social context in which people make their health
Speaker 1: decisions and their trust of government or trust of the
Speaker 1: health system more broadly. So it's been a very important
Speaker 1: problem for a long time. Now you bring a pandemic
Speaker 1: into it, and then you bring forward something new and
Speaker 1: new approaches to vaccinology that people haven't been familiar with,
Speaker 1: so it's understandable that there would be some spectrum of hesitancy. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, we've been vaccine a lot of people now.
Speaker 1: I think almost two billion doses of vaccine have been
Speaker 1: administered around the world, so we know a lot more
Speaker 1: now than we did in January. I think that's helping
Speaker 1: some people feel like, Okay, you know, we've watched, we've learned, Um,
Speaker 1: I'm ready. But there still is a sizeable proportion of
Speaker 1: our population who, for whatever reason, doesn't feel that vaccine
Speaker 1: is the right decision for them. And I am worried
Speaker 1: about that because I think our hopes of herd immunity
Speaker 1: UM being achieved are dwindling if we don't get a
Speaker 1: high enough coverage of our population to really quench those
Speaker 1: last um, those last arms that aren't protected. So I
Speaker 1: really worry that we're going to have pandemic fatigue, and
Speaker 1: that as we head into a situation where it looks
Speaker 1: very promising in the short run, if we're not vigilant,
Speaker 1: and if we go too far in terms of opening up,
Speaker 1: our society will be right back where we started. We'll
Speaker 1: take a quick break, but when we come back, what
Speaker 1: exactly is herd immunity and why is it so critical?
Speaker 1: That's right after this, Why is her immunity so important?
Speaker 1: I know, and maybe you could explain it to an
Speaker 1: eighth grader what herd immunity is and what percentage of
Speaker 1: the population needs to be vaccinated and why it's so
Speaker 1: critical and in stay being off kind of an up
Speaker 1: uptick in the numbers. You know, when you think about
Speaker 1: how viruses moved, they moved from someone who has it
Speaker 1: to someone who doesn't. But if the person that you're
Speaker 1: in contact with is immune to the virus, it's a
Speaker 1: dead end for them. So the more dead ends there
Speaker 1: are in a community, the less likely it is that
Speaker 1: any infected person will be able to transmit the virus. Now,
Speaker 1: you don't have to have a hundred percent coverage in
Speaker 1: order for that to happen, but the amount that is
Speaker 1: necessary really depends on how infectious the virus is. Let's
Speaker 1: say you're dealing with measles. Measles is much more transmissible
Speaker 1: even than stars COVID two. So for measles, in order
Speaker 1: to make sure that a case of measles does not
Speaker 1: spread out into the small population of uninfected people, you
Speaker 1: have to have at least of people vaccinated, and some
Speaker 1: people would say the number needs to be much higher
Speaker 1: than that because measles is so transmissible. Um some other
Speaker 1: infectious diseases are much less transmissible, and you don't need
Speaker 1: such high coverage in order to find the dead ends
Speaker 1: because even if you came in contact with someone who
Speaker 1: wasn't immune, they still might not have a chance of
Speaker 1: getting it from you because it just isn't that easy
Speaker 1: to catch. So where we are with ours KOPE two
Speaker 1: is first of what, we don't know exactly how much
Speaker 1: population protection we need, but we know we're not there
Speaker 1: yet and that's obvious just by looking at the ongoing
Speaker 1: spread of cases. Unfortunately, that immunity, given the world we
Speaker 1: live in, can't just be one community or one state
Speaker 1: or one nation. We have to really be thinking about
Speaker 1: how do we protect the world, and that's a challenge
Speaker 1: we've never saw for before. So it's daunting, and I
Speaker 1: think we recognize that it's going to take us a
Speaker 1: long time to get there. In the US, what percentage
Speaker 1: ideally would you like to see to achieve her immunity,
Speaker 1: understanding that we're not really quite sure of the exact
Speaker 1: number yet, you know, for the United States as a whole. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm just taking a guest here. I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: knows the answer to that, but at least sev I
Speaker 1: think at least sevent And I say that knowing that
Speaker 1: even in a vaccinated population, there will still be people
Speaker 1: who are pretty vigilant. So you're kind of adding masks
Speaker 1: and other measures that some of us will be less
Speaker 1: likely to give up anytime soon, so that we'll have
Speaker 1: some surround sound of protection which also contributes to the
Speaker 1: dead end of transmission that I was talking about earlier. Um,
Speaker 1: but you know, that number could be higher than we need.
Speaker 1: It could also mean that the number needs to be
Speaker 1: much higher to really bring this under containment. And I
Speaker 1: also worry because we've seen that the stars the two
Speaker 1: virus can move into animal populations, for example, minx and
Speaker 1: ferrets other animals, so there could be a reservoir where
Speaker 1: the virus hides out away from the human population, but
Speaker 1: could spill back over again um into unprotected people, or
Speaker 1: a variant of the virus could spill back over. So
Speaker 1: I don't think we're in a position where we can
Speaker 1: think about eradicating this virus. UM. We certainly should aim
Speaker 1: to contain it, and if we're really lucky, we can
Speaker 1: eliminate it from large partial parts of the population, but
Speaker 1: lots of work to go between where we are now
Speaker 1: at that point. Some Black Americans are hesitant, as you
Speaker 1: well know, to get the vaccine. Uh. There has been
Speaker 1: a dark chapter in medical history with the Tuskegee experiment,
Speaker 1: for example, and some of the medical procedures that were
Speaker 1: tested on enslaved women. Uh and people in general. Have
Speaker 1: we done enough to reach out to the black community
Speaker 1: to allay their fears of this vaccine. No, we haven't
Speaker 1: done enough, And I'm not sure what it will take
Speaker 1: to really regain that kind of trust and medical science
Speaker 1: the government agencies that participated in that experiment so many
Speaker 1: decades ago. UM. But it's real and it's generational that
Speaker 1: mistrust is transmitted from one generation to another, but is
Speaker 1: compounded by all of the other things that create health
Speaker 1: disparities in our society and these days political disparities in
Speaker 1: our society. So UM, we have to think about that
Speaker 1: in the broader issue of health equity and social justice,
Speaker 1: because these things all work in kind of an integrated
Speaker 1: way to influence people's broad trust in their government and
Speaker 1: in their government decision makers. So I wish we could
Speaker 1: do more. I think one of the things that I
Speaker 1: believe is that it's not really about giving people more
Speaker 1: facts or figures. It's about recognizing the true feelings and
Speaker 1: perspectives they have, and it's about helping the people who
Speaker 1: they do trust be good messengers and communicators about how
Speaker 1: the decision can be made. What information is helpful, Listening
Speaker 1: to people's worries and concerns and really validating them, um,
Speaker 1: not trying to talk them out of their concerns, but
Speaker 1: rather recognizing this is their reality, and we want to
Speaker 1: be helpful. We want to give the right information, but
Speaker 1: that information is probably best coming from people that they
Speaker 1: already trust, and usually that's not the government. And to
Speaker 1: bring more people of color into the medical community so
Speaker 1: the individuals they're interfacing with, uh look more like them
Speaker 1: and can appreciate sort of where they're coming from. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that I think that's really important. One of the things
Speaker 1: that kind of behind the scenes that's happened UM in
Speaker 1: the course of the vaccine development and in my company
Speaker 1: we're working on an anti viral or stars KVI two,
Speaker 1: and that is that we are really doubling down and
Speaker 1: trying to do exactly what you said, work with the
Speaker 1: medical leaders from the communities of color, but also UM
Speaker 1: preferentially work harder to enroll and encourage people in those
Speaker 1: communities to participate in the clinical trials, but also to
Speaker 1: understand their value and the importance of broadening the diversity
Speaker 1: of what we're doing. So if you look at the
Speaker 1: statistics about who participated in the vaccine trials, it looks
Speaker 1: very different than the clinical trials that we normally conducts.
Speaker 1: I think there's been some real important learning there. Hopefully
Speaker 1: we can build on that going forward when we come
Speaker 1: back a c after covid, are we actually better protected
Speaker 1: for this coming age of pandemics that's right after this
Speaker 1: and the continuing battle Dr Gerberdine against uh COVID nineteen.
Speaker 1: NIH director Francis Collins has stressed the importance of developing
Speaker 1: new drug therapies. Dr Fauci has said this is the
Speaker 1: age of pandemics, so COVID nineteen or some iteration of
Speaker 1: it is likely to be with us for a very
Speaker 1: long time. Tell me a little bit about the work
Speaker 1: MRK is doing to address those concerns. Thank you for
Speaker 1: putting this in the long term context, Katie, because you know,
Speaker 1: I am a firm believer that this isn't a one
Speaker 1: off thing that just happened to us, this pandemic. I
Speaker 1: truly believe that we will see this happen again. Emergence
Speaker 1: is part of the cultural and global milieu that we
Speaker 1: live in. All of our travel, our connectivity with animals, urbanization,
Speaker 1: climate change, all of these things have created a cauldron
Speaker 1: where infectious diseases are going to emerge and spread much
Speaker 1: more quickly than they did a hundred years ago. So
Speaker 1: that's our reality. And if you're a part of the
Speaker 1: biopharmaceutical industry in that reality, it's part of your responsibility
Speaker 1: to figure out how are we going to adjust our
Speaker 1: portfolio in our platform so that we continue to be
Speaker 1: able to help with the most pressing human health problems
Speaker 1: that emerge. So, yes, we're all thinking about biosecurity in
Speaker 1: a very different framework. I also think that our government
Speaker 1: needs to think differently about how we approach these things.
Speaker 1: This isn't just a public health problem. This is a
Speaker 1: national security problem in every country because it creates destabilization,
Speaker 1: social rest, economic hardship. It's a it's a nightmare, and
Speaker 1: we have to be willing to plan for and invest
Speaker 1: in a very different order of magnitude and how we
Speaker 1: approach the problem. So, for example, right now, our model
Speaker 1: is trying to figure out where something has emerged, try
Speaker 1: to contain it there, and if that doesn't work, then
Speaker 1: go into all of the things that we're doing right
Speaker 1: now with vigilance and vaccines, etcetera, etcetera. What would it
Speaker 1: be like if instead of waiting until something happens and
Speaker 1: then trying to jump on it, we actually win upstream
Speaker 1: and thought about, now, how can we understand and predict
Speaker 1: where something like this will happen. We're the most likely
Speaker 1: places for a new virus to emerge, what families of
Speaker 1: viruses are most likely to emerge? Can we create with
Speaker 1: our science today much more early stage vaccines and anti
Speaker 1: virals in the freezer so that if one of these
Speaker 1: pathogens or families of pathogens do start to cause a problem,
Speaker 1: we can act faster and be really much more prepared
Speaker 1: than we were for this one. So that's really a frameshift.
Speaker 1: And we've talked about this before, We've talked about this
Speaker 1: broadly for a long period of time. I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: this pandemic is so bad that finally we will really
Speaker 1: get serious about how we invest in biosecurity. Never again
Speaker 1: should we have to deal with the kind of crisis
Speaker 1: that we have today. Do you see things moving in
Speaker 1: that direction, that kind of preparedness, because of course there's
Speaker 1: been so many people finger pointing that we were unprepared
Speaker 1: for this pandemic, and I'm curious if a you agree
Speaker 1: with that and be if you think now things will
Speaker 1: change and the infrastructure and the resources required to track
Speaker 1: these emerging viruses will be put in place. That is
Speaker 1: a really hard question, Katie. I would love to say, yes,
Speaker 1: we've learned our lesson. The conversation that I have with
Speaker 1: our senators and members of Congress really indicate to me
Speaker 1: that they're deeply concerned and they're willing to invest in
Speaker 1: the crisis resolution. But I've been here and done this before.
Speaker 1: In fact, I co chair the c S I S
Speaker 1: Commission on Global Health Security, and our report that came
Speaker 1: out before the pandemic started was entitled from Crisis to Complacency.
Speaker 1: We have to end the cycle. So when something happens,
Speaker 1: we have an emergency response, we get emergency resources, we
Speaker 1: do an after action review, we list all the things
Speaker 1: we need to do to be better prepared. But when
Speaker 1: the crisis goes away, all of that investment goes away
Speaker 1: and we go back to kind of our complacent state.
Speaker 1: So I am working as hard as I can to
Speaker 1: be an ambassador for a true UH strategic change in
Speaker 1: how we concentrate on long term biosecurity preparedness so that
Speaker 1: we can be much better prepared than we were for
Speaker 1: this for this event. Does Subiden administration seem receptive to that?
Speaker 1: You know, my reading of what I'm hearing from the
Speaker 1: President as well as from the administration officials is absolutely
Speaker 1: his advocacy for UM, the support for the vaccine program,
Speaker 1: investing heavily to try to accelerate immunization and so forth.
Speaker 1: So I think, in terms of managing where we are today,
Speaker 1: really good signals. But the hard part will be again
Speaker 1: as we move more into the economic recovery phase. Will
Speaker 1: we have the investments, Will we have support from the administration,
Speaker 1: but will we also have some bilateral, bipartisan support. UM
Speaker 1: to really recognize that we need to think about this
Speaker 1: in the same way we think about our Department of
Speaker 1: Defense budget. We invest We hope that some of these
Speaker 1: tools that we invest in we never have to use,
Speaker 1: but if we do, we have them. And in the
Speaker 1: case of biosecurity, we're not talking about warships or fighter planes.
Speaker 1: We're talking about vaccines, anti virals, in a modernized surveillance system.
Speaker 1: And I think that's certainly something that everyone could get
Speaker 1: behind if they really understood that. UM. We have to
Speaker 1: maintain the same kind of pasture on this that we
Speaker 1: do when we're thinking about our national defense. And it's
Speaker 1: not just the US. We've also learned that one country
Speaker 1: can't do this, a set of allies can't do this.
Speaker 1: We need to be much more globally engaged because we
Speaker 1: are all in this together. You. Of course, we're the
Speaker 1: head of the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control UH
Speaker 1: a while ago, and it seems like the c d
Speaker 1: C kind of had a lot of issues. I think
Speaker 1: it's safe to say, dealing with this pandemic, and I'm
Speaker 1: curious to get your view on what happened. Where do
Speaker 1: you think the c d C UH, which you once
Speaker 1: ran UH succeeded and failed when it came to dealing
Speaker 1: with this pandemic and what were the lessons learned. Let
Speaker 1: me start with some of the successes that haven't really
Speaker 1: been recognized or discussed. UM. The support that CDC has
Speaker 1: given at the state and local level is extraordinary. The
Speaker 1: number of CDC experts who have been deployed to communities
Speaker 1: to be helpful with things like communization programs and so
Speaker 1: forth behind the scenes. That that work is still going on.
Speaker 1: UM countless web postings, guidance documents, etcetera, etcetera. So a
Speaker 1: lot of really outstanding public health work is supported at
Speaker 1: the CDC, and I think they should take some pride
Speaker 1: in that. But having said that, I think there's three issues,
Speaker 1: UM that need to be looked at. When is some
Speaker 1: actual performance problems and we know that early in the pandemic,
Speaker 1: when there was problems getting reliable testing at the time
Speaker 1: when we probably really needed it the most. So I'm
Speaker 1: going too you know the why of that. But I
Speaker 1: think acknowledging that and making that a priority for correction
Speaker 1: and remediation, obviously, as I'm sure on the front burner
Speaker 1: of everyone at the agency. The second issue really has
Speaker 1: to do with the fact that the crisis and complacency
Speaker 1: cycle I mentioned earlier results in the CDC's budget for
Speaker 1: preparedness being woefully undersupported in the years when we're not
Speaker 1: in the middle of a crisis, and so they rev
Speaker 1: up in the in the outbreak situation. But you know,
Speaker 1: you can't hire people on a one time budget. You
Speaker 1: have to have sustained investment to keep people working and
Speaker 1: to really build that preparedness. So there are structural issues
Speaker 1: with the way the CDC has spunded that really have
Speaker 1: to be addressed. And then finally, I think there is politics,
Speaker 1: and I wasn't there. I don't know all the pushes
Speaker 1: and pulls on that. But from the outside looking in, UM,
Speaker 1: I know the competency of the scientists at the CDC,
Speaker 1: and I was not seeing them, I was not hearing
Speaker 1: from them, and I was listening to other people, often
Speaker 1: people with much less public health experience or public health knowledge, UM,
Speaker 1: and that scared me more than anything. So I do
Speaker 1: think that the politicalization of the science and some of
Speaker 1: the allegations that have come forward about altering documents and
Speaker 1: so on and so forth. Those are very serious issues
Speaker 1: and they need to be fully investigated and remediated if
Speaker 1: they proved to be accurate. Is there a way to
Speaker 1: prevent that from happening again in terms of who the
Speaker 1: CDC answers to and the power of say a president
Speaker 1: over it as an institution. You know, the truth is
Speaker 1: that we have been exploring, in a lot of ways, um,
Speaker 1: the traditional model of trusting that people will behave in
Speaker 1: a certain way or follow sort of a certain paradigm
Speaker 1: of engagement scientifically or otherwise. We we've just followed kind
Speaker 1: of that pattern, and what we've learned is that isn't enough.
Speaker 1: We need to have much longer guard rails and probably
Speaker 1: some structural changes um that do need to be considered.
Speaker 1: And I hope that when the after action review of
Speaker 1: this entire pandemic is accomplished, that people will get really
Speaker 1: serious about these underlying financial and structural issues. UM. We
Speaker 1: need to look at other models for how our scientific
Speaker 1: agencies operate. UM. And I'm you know, at the administration
Speaker 1: of our government is political administration. Always has been, always
Speaker 1: will be. But our science agencies also need to be
Speaker 1: able to bring truth to those settings in ways that
Speaker 1: help inform If you don't have a good science, you
Speaker 1: won't ever have good policy along those lines. It's been
Speaker 1: reassuring for me as an American citizen to see faith
Speaker 1: in science has been at least somewhat restored, because I
Speaker 1: was really worried and concerned about people who were really
Speaker 1: mistrusting science and facts and information. Are you heartened by
Speaker 1: the fact that people seem to beach fusting science more?
Speaker 1: At least it's it's on the increase that level of
Speaker 1: trust after declining honestly for quite some time. Yeah, I am.
Speaker 1: I am heartened. Um, And I think it's just, um,
Speaker 1: we're so fortunate that science has been on our side
Speaker 1: and in the context of what needed to be, not
Speaker 1: not just in terms of vaccines and immuno logics and
Speaker 1: anti virals, but also more broadly in terms of our
Speaker 1: ability to get information and share information and so forth.
Speaker 1: So that surely should help people understand the importance of
Speaker 1: having a robust biopharmaceutical industry or a robust health technology
Speaker 1: capability at the same time underpinning confidence in science is
Speaker 1: scientific literacy. And one of the things that worries me
Speaker 1: is when science is complicated, or when communicators make it
Speaker 1: seem really complicated. Um, people aren't able to follow it,
Speaker 1: and so with they get confused, or if they hear
Speaker 1: too scientists arguing with each other in a public environment,
Speaker 1: they don't know who to believe, and because it is
Speaker 1: technically fairly complicated, they just sort of resort too, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not a scientist, I can't figure this out. I'm
Speaker 1: going to listen to my peers, who usually aren't scientists,
Speaker 1: and so you end up in an echo chamber where
Speaker 1: you're listening to people who might not have the right information.
Speaker 1: And then you, you know, have to believe something, so
Speaker 1: you tend to participate in that and it becomes truth.
Speaker 1: So in the confidence in science moment that we're in,
Speaker 1: I think we're at the same time experiencing a lot
Speaker 1: of disinformation and a lot of misinformation about vaccines and
Speaker 1: the pandemic and the causes of it and so on
Speaker 1: and so forth. So it's it's sort of this unusual
Speaker 1: moment in time where we have extremes on both sides
Speaker 1: of the picture. Um. So those people like you who
Speaker 1: are really good at communicating science to non scientists. Are
Speaker 1: just so important in the context of this to really
Speaker 1: um not just site facts and figures, but to really
Speaker 1: get out there and put things into context so people
Speaker 1: can kind of step back and say, oh, yeah, that
Speaker 1: is kind of a miracle that we have these vaccines,
Speaker 1: and it is kind of a miracle that the senior
Speaker 1: citizens in the United States are seeing a dramatic decline
Speaker 1: in death from this pandemic because of those vaccines. So
Speaker 1: that's something we should not lose sight of. Do you
Speaker 1: think people's impressions of pharmaceutical companies have also changed as
Speaker 1: a result of the pandemic? And what do you think
Speaker 1: has been a shift in mindset for big companies like
Speaker 1: merk or J and J or you know a host
Speaker 1: of others that visor for example, that are working really
Speaker 1: tirelessly to try to keep Americans protected. Now we say,
Speaker 1: you know, behind the doors of Mark, this is our
Speaker 1: finest moment, because this is a situation where the whole
Speaker 1: biopharmaceutical industry and the academic scientists and governments and a
Speaker 1: lot of other people have just really collaborated in a
Speaker 1: way that didn't just happen because we're worried about the pandemic.
Speaker 1: It happened because it's consonant with our proven This is
Speaker 1: why we do what we do. We love to solve
Speaker 1: important human health problems, and we've never faced one's quite
Speaker 1: this challenging. So it really brings out the best of
Speaker 1: the innovation that the industries can create. But it also
Speaker 1: brings out the best in each one of us who
Speaker 1: really actually care deeply about what our contribution is. And
Speaker 1: I think when you kind of marry those two things together,
Speaker 1: you end up with the spirit of urgency, amazing collaboration,
Speaker 1: sharing of resources that we probably would never have considered
Speaker 1: under normal times. You know that Murk is manufacturing the
Speaker 1: vaccine that J and j invented. Um, we we didn't
Speaker 1: have to do that, but we thought it was the
Speaker 1: right thing to do. We're experts at vaccine manufacturing. Jane
Speaker 1: Jay has a lot of capability there too, but they
Speaker 1: didn't have scale. So if we could help, that was
Speaker 1: something that we could contribute. And I think that spirit
Speaker 1: has permeated our entire ecosystem. Uh, you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: easy to do that in the context of a crisis,
Speaker 1: but some of that's going to last. And I think
Speaker 1: the idea that we can actually be part of the
Speaker 1: solution instead of perceived as the problem in our health system.
Speaker 1: That's something that we can carry forward and I hope
Speaker 1: build a reframing of not just our invitation, but of
Speaker 1: the value that we can bring to people in their health.
Speaker 1: It is a it is a mission of passion, but
Speaker 1: it's also not over yet. One last question. I don't
Speaker 1: want to end this on a on a sad note,
Speaker 1: but there are a lot of people who are not
Speaker 1: getting cancer screenings or did not get cancer screenings during
Speaker 1: this period of time. Murk of course, Uh, manufacturers a
Speaker 1: number of cancer fighting drugs as well. Um, how concerned
Speaker 1: are you about people pausing they're critically important cancer screenings, um,
Speaker 1: and which may result in tens of thousands of additional
Speaker 1: cases of cancer. And what advice would you have for
Speaker 1: people listening to this? You know, I saw a statistic
Speaker 1: this morning that in between March and June and three
Speaker 1: month period, four hundred and twenty thousand people miss their
Speaker 1: expected cancer screenings. So just think about how that has
Speaker 1: been multiplied over the course of this pandemic. And we
Speaker 1: know in cancer that early diagnosis is the single most
Speaker 1: important thing you can do to save lives and make
Speaker 1: treatment much less complicated. So I predict that when we
Speaker 1: start measuring the true impact of the pandemic, yes, we
Speaker 1: will have the COVID related deaths, and maybe some unreported
Speaker 1: COVID deaths are included in that number. But we're going
Speaker 1: to see excess more stality from cancer diagnosed late um
Speaker 1: and requiring much more complicated treatment. We're going to see
Speaker 1: excess mortality down the road. We're already seeing as excess
Speaker 1: mortality from cardiovascular disease and diabetes that's poorly controlled because
Speaker 1: people aren't taking advantage of their health system during these
Speaker 1: times of social distancing and fear. UM, we're missing immunizations UM.
Speaker 1: The w h O recognizes that perhaps eighty million children
Speaker 1: around the world have had impairment of their normal childhood
Speaker 1: immunization programs. That's a tragedy waiting to happen. And I
Speaker 1: always say I think measles is the canary in the
Speaker 1: coal mine because you have to have such a high
Speaker 1: level of coverage from measles. So when you see measles,
Speaker 1: it means the immunization infrastructure has really broken down. And
Speaker 1: we know that's the case. So the medical consequences of
Speaker 1: COVID obviously are much greater than by itself, and I
Speaker 1: just cannot encourage everybody UM strongly enough to be an
Speaker 1: ambassador for returning to care, but particularly for cancer screening,
Speaker 1: for management of chronic diseases, and for immunization for people
Speaker 1: of all ages, and as an ambassador yourself. And I
Speaker 1: will never forget the current effect because I was the
Speaker 1: CDC director when you really destigmatize the importance of colonoscopy,
Speaker 1: what that meant in terms of early diagnosis of so
Speaker 1: many people who would have otherwise not known that they
Speaker 1: had cancer and could participate in early treatment. So let's
Speaker 1: all try to be ambassadors for returning to care and
Speaker 1: get back on track, UM, for our well being and
Speaker 1: our health maintenance. At the same time that we're being
Speaker 1: careful and vigilant about this virus. Well, I'm all about that,
Speaker 1: So UM, I think I want to urge everyone to
Speaker 1: please contact their doctors and if they miss cancer screenings,
Speaker 1: now is the time to schedule them, UM, and don't
Speaker 1: put it off any longer. It's perfectly safe to go
Speaker 1: there and so so critically important. Dr Julie Gerberdine, It's
Speaker 1: always such a pleasure to talk to you. I think
Speaker 1: you're a great communicator. Honestly, I think you are able
Speaker 1: to take a lot of complicated medical issues and explain
Speaker 1: them in a way that that's easily digestible and um,
Speaker 1: that's not easy to do, but I feel like you
Speaker 1: always do it. So thank you, so much, Thank you, Katie.
Speaker 1: Coming from you, that means a lot. Thank you. This
Speaker 1: episode of Next Question with Katie Kirk is brought to
Speaker 1: you by Mark as part of its partnership with Katie
Speaker 1: Kurk Media. Next Question with Katie Kirk is a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Media and Katie Kurk Media. The executive
Speaker 1: producers are Me, Katie Kuric, and Courtney Litz. The sup
Speaker 1: revising producers Lauren Hansen. Associate producers Derek Clements, Adriana Fasio,
Speaker 1: and Emily Pinto. The show is edited and mixed by
Speaker 1: Derrek Clements. For more information about today's episode, or to
Speaker 1: sign up for my morning newsletter, wake Up Call, go
Speaker 1: to Katie correct dot com. You can also find me
Speaker 1: at Katie Currect on Instagram and all my social media channels.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from I Heart Radio, visit the I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, Apple podcast or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows,