Episode 664 Scott Adams - Join Me With Dr. Shiva Now to Talk About Vaccinations

now let's see if this works any better pom pom pom pom uh a little technical issues here Obama to go so this will be attempt number two this will be the one that matters good morning everybody thanks for waiting around appreciate you working through that technical difficulty I knew there was a problem when I saw the user account locked and it stopped stopped going so where was I I believe I was here bum bum bum bum bum bum bum yeah the theme song you don't want to miss the theme song you know you don't so get yourself ready it's time for the simultaneous it yeah you've got a moment just a moment grab your beverage you got a warning here goes here's all you need all you need is this a couple of mugger glasses time to tell us the tanker to thermos Alaska Cantina grail of vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the best part of the day the dopamine hit that makes everything else worthwhile this simultaneous hip sip go now as I said I'm going to invite dr.

Shiva to join us and he's already available I'm gonna put him right on dr.

Shiva coming at you dr.

Chiba can you hear me hear me I can hear you good morning I'm amazing and thank you so much for joining us so I'm gonna give for those few people watching this who don't already know you most of my audience already knows you but let me give you just a quick bio so dr.

Shiva has four degrees from MIT including a bachelor's in electrical engineering and computer science a dual master's degree in mechanical engineering and visual studies from MIT Media Lab rhetoric and then he also returned to MIT to complete to complete his doctoral work in systems biology within the department of biological engineering and that's where he developed Kratos self a scalable computational platform for modeling cell by Dan by dynamic integration of molecular pathways models which is awkward because I do that my spare time I didn't realize dr.

Shiva I didn't know you needed a whole company just to do develop scalable computational platforms for modeling the cell of dynamic integration by molecular pathways but but apparently you do barely you're doing it the hard way yeah just kidding so you're the CEO now yes greater self and I'm sorry it's cytosol Oh Saito Saito is like cyto means cell and solve means solving it see what I do solve yep cytosol yep okay see yto solve and that company looks for multi combinational drug opportunities or it could be the yeah it stop lying on that company yeah it's just very quickly just leading with my background Scott you know you've talked about my technology stack this is sort of the sweet spot it's the integration of computing and biology in 2003 Scott what happened was when the genome project ended we turned out it turns out human beings only have 20,000 genes we don't have a half a million the same as a worm so it's a big inflection point in biology it flipped biology on its head so we recognized that we need to move out of the nucleus and actually start understanding all the very powerful chemical reactions that take place in the cell so in 2003 the National Science Foundation put forward this grand challenge was could someone model the whole cell so think about the cell is a bag of chemical reactions we know pieces of those chemical reactions that are being you know published in the literature could you extract those and imagine building it's like reverse engineering the whole body so that's the challenge I took on I came back to MIT 2003 during 2003 to 7 Scott the approach I took was not a biology approach and not an AI computer science approach which is just fitting lines to curve I said this is an engineering systems problem biologists are essentially little knowledge engineers working in their little silos they're finding little pieces of the puzzle and and and and these puzzle pieces are diagrams you know like Little John Madden diagrams a plus B gives see like the Monday Night Football diagrams right they're called pathways and some of those pathways in 2003 were becoming predictive models so if you could interconnect those models we could technically use the computer long before we kill the animals long before we did stuff in humans to model biological mechanisms this is how we build airplanes right we don't people just don't fly airplanes and kill themselves we don't put monkeys in them we do it on the computer so that's what I did Scott it was one of my big personal goals because you know I was very interested in understanding how to do drug combinations I grew up in India watching my grandmother as a village healer do these combinations so this to me was a 40-year quest cytosol emerged out of that and then between 2012 just to you know this is not by the way an anti vaccine discussion I want to have I work with Big Pharma I work with the biggest consumer goods companies who look to me I get invited to the NIH the FDA to speak you know as a keynote speaker so you're talking to a real scientist who does this but cytosol emerged just like we do build airplanes on the computer cytosol was this enabling technology to do this on the computer so during 2007 and 12 my advisor and I at MIT Forbes do we've spent a lot of time proving this we published in like nature and sell you know the Nature Neuroscience so so cytosol is really an engine for understanding molecular mechanisms before we go to kill animals this really the Rebs risk talked about okay good for the the lay people for us could we imagine what you're doing sort of like seeing the cell as a machine and trying to figure out what the parts are so that you can predict how the machine will act on an exact state yeah so basically typically in engineering we do forward engineering I want to go build an airplane I build the parts put it together biology is quite interesting we don't know the parts nature if you believe in evolution did that over many many billions of years the individual biologists are finding parts what's called reductionism they're finding pieces I coming as a systems biologist I'm trying to connect the parts to get an understanding of how nature put this together and if we can understand how the ankle bones connected to the foot bone we now get a mechanistic understanding which means it's a very powerful platform for drug development risk so we can develop stuff faster and cheaper so we're not throwing stuff in that's what it's all about so when you talk about technologies that can I've spoken before about like the Postal Service and climate change but this is like what I do for a living you know for the last 30 40 years so you're such the perfect example of what I call a talent stack where you've combined exactly the right types of skills so that you you just have a vision that somebody who doesn't have the same combination of experiences and background in education just wouldn't see so you're combining like you said you combine anything sort of an engineer's mindset with the medical mindset to get something that's better than both so so now take us to vaccinations you said you're not an anti-vaxxer let me say from the audience I'm not anti-vaxxer because I haven't looked into it right I don't know if I looked into it I would have a different opinion but tell us let's start with what do you think the public understand about the issue of requiring vaccinations and where we are there let's start with what we get wrong yeah so I think what we get wrong and this unfortunate split that unfortunately seems to occur quote-unquote left quote unquote right anti PACs VAX has really occurred because for whatever reason we don't go at the deep deep issue and the real issue is about the scientific method okay the scientific method is about you have a hypothesis you do testing you get results from that test you have an understanding of what you've figured out and you go back and test it is a recognition we have deep respect that we don't know a lot of stuff right now when you say test you when you say test you're specifically saying double by double blind yeah well in biology and by the way it's called double-blind placebo-controlled studies and I'll explain what that is you know when we in the you've made a very important point Scott about medicine and engineering just as an aside in 2003 MIT created a department called biological engineering not biomedical because they felt as new discoveries were coming in biology we needed to take an engineer's mindset to understand biology not a device asynch biologic was a completely new Department set up from scratch so the vision of modern science whether you talk to Francis Collins at the NIH is that we need to use engineering principles to understand biology part of those engineering principles is I build something I put it out there I mean you build software if it doesn't work you listen to your customers you got to go figure it out if they even one customer upset you go figure it out but as this mindset of I put something out there I got to figure it out now when it comes to vaccines or drug development the historical process is you do some testing in a test tube and you hope because you do that hopefully you're not killing too many things then you go into an animal and you test your stuff there and you test for toxicity and efficacy in the area of medical drug dolmen there's two acts a Scott doesn't work and is it safe the Food and Drug Administration is truly concerned about safety okay not really efficacy they you know you can put something out there may not have a great effect but they want to make sure you're not killing people and by the way but so what would you say there they're certainly concerned with efficacy because as to have some yeah at least a little bit yes yes yes you know there's a whole discussion here how some stuff gets throughout but the issue is efficacies funded I mean the toxicity is a fundamental thing FDA is focused on right when it comes to vaccines let's look at the history of it you know it's fascinating because whenever you say modern medicine what's the first thing that comes to people's mind polio polio vaccine oh my god you know it's almost you can put the word modern medicine Jonas Salk and polio as the three pillars of the of the wonderful thing that that came out of modern medicine what's fascinating is when Jonas Salk was creating the polio vaccine he wrote an imploring letter saying that he was again scible blind studies okay fast okay why yeah I just found this in this in this effort to really you know I went back and actually read the original the actual the actual results of the polio you know thing and and Jonas Salk makes this imploring letter saying all we need to do is show efficacy so when you give a vaccine to someone the body will create antibodies right because you're giving an exogenous or a foreign body in the body creates antibodies and his view is as long as it creates antibodies everyone should be happy because polio is killing children you know we need to just make sure the antibodies are created he was against double-blind control studies and you can read his letter that he wrote at that time to the env is the National vaccine Institute No so well what was he B was he against them because he didn't want to wait around he wanted to get rid of polio yeah yeah it'sit's that exactly so let's give him I'm not gonna put any conspiracy theories here it's basically he was more focused on let's get this out let's save people's lives this is kids lives we got to get it out there okay come and when you so but I want to give that the original entire one of the great wins of modern medicine was polio and the man behind this Jonas Salk who's revered was was not for double-blind placebo-controlled studies after the polio vaccine was given 1954 1955 ever anyone can look this up called a cutter incident where cutter Wyeth gave a one set of the polio virus you know where you actually deactivate the polio virus Scott it wasn't fully deactivated and was given to 400,000 people and about 250 300 of those people actually got the paralysis okay Wow this was after the fact so why do I bring that up my point is Salk polio this huge victory for medicine efficacy was always the goal safety was in the background right and again not against vaccines I just want to say where the emphasis was in that line you go now to drug development separate from vaccines you know you're building out on a lipitor all these different drugs the modern process of drug development if you go to clinical trials.gov there's a huge focus on double-blind control studies you know you have to make it safe that's why you go to phase 1 phase 2 phase 3 there's this huge emphasis in the drug development on safety and in that field the biggest development there Scott has been the recognition oh my God we're creating drugs that take five billion dollars roughly one to five billion dollars 13 years and what comes out of that process has lots and lots of side effects most of those drugs were developed for a single not for you Scott Adams or me Shiva right they were developed for a statistical blob of people let's say with some cancer or some cardiovascular issue so most of those drugs coming out have side effects so that's when you watch your commercial they'll say by the way this could do this and this could do this that's why I turned off those commercials are too sad they're very sad let me let me let me jump in just for a fact check here when I was in my 20s I signed up for a drug trial so details don't matter but I I turned out to be in the placebo group yeah now was there any reason why they tested that particular meds years ago with a is't I believe it was a double-blind I only knew I was in the placebo group after they said it's obvious you're in the placebo group because it's working for everybody else they actually they actually ended the test because single-blind would be where you didn't know and the doctors did double-blind is you don't know and the doctors don't know who got what and it's just data that they get anonymized data then they have to do correlations to figure it out okay so if you knew after it definitely was a single blind and potentially a double blind okay okay all right go ahead the in in 2003 in particular the reason MIT set up the department of biological engineering is and other institutions got into this field called systems biology this is the 23rd century medicine is they recognized that drugs one size does not fit all that we need to take a personalized precision medicine approach in fact France is calling the head of the NIH in fact when Obama was there he called it future of medicine precision medicine so what that means is that we need to find the right medicine for the right person at the right time this is the future and therefore that's why people said let's start using the computer let's reduce risk so reduction of risk creating drugs that work for Scott Adams let's say you have the same disease I do you may get a different drug than I should right right medicine for the right person the right time right I'm here in Cambridge are companies in Cambridge the center of biotech all of these guys are buzzing around about right medicine for the right person at the right time so I'm giving you this background that's where we are at today so when and safety is one of the predominant things here so when we look at vaccines it's almost like vaccine like stapler man in office space no way let me let me let me pause here because you said two things I'm trying to understand together one is that people are trying to develop specific combinations of drugs for a specific person and the other is you you would want double-blind tests for drugs because they have sizes for safety but wouldn't wouldn't you have the the worst safety potentially trying to make an individual drug for a person because by definition that combination has never been tested on that exactly yeah so you bring up a great point Scott so basically there's these two so on the one hand I think we can all understand one of the goals in any engineering exercise is reduced risk so you understand what the risk was the foreign intervention you know you have bridges say hey hurricanes are affecting 1 out of 100 bridges falling down right ribs you put some technology to that the risk that more bridges are falling apart you say wait a min something's wrong here maybe this stuff we put in hurt something but it is all about risk you brought up the most one of them two pillars I want to talk about is risk every day we as human beings are making decisions on risk so there's a you have some calculation of risk before an intervention and some calculation after and then we as society collectively and actually say well do I want to move forward in that our cars but there's a personalized risk the 18 year old who has 20 duis is paying a much higher amount for his car than you or I are when it comes to drug development we are dealing with a highly complex system the human body there's so many gears in there that we don't fully understand so the current process is I give something in a test tube okay I don't see any issues if then I go to ml test day and then you have to get allowance by the FDA to go to what's called clinical testing small groups of human days want larger groups face to him big groups phase three so this is how we do it in medicine today no although and when we get to that biggest group are you saying that typically with the vaccine there's still not double double-blind the reality of this we have and in particular you know we're talking about just to be specific so we can focus it is a discussion childhood vaccines right we're talking about kids all right kids childhood vaccines there's seventy doses of childhood seventy doses a kid typically gets and the vaccines are today not really managed by the Health and Human Services in 1986 an Act was passed when Reagan was there that it basically removed liabilities very interesting away from the pharma companies and basically said that if you had vaccine injury you go to Health and Human Services and they cap the amount of liability or you could get payout I think it's two hundred fifty thousand dollars it's called a vaccine court all right in the discussions with HHS Health and Human Services they have said Oh things were placebo-controlled and the discourse has been with them that would you actually look at the vaccines so I'll give you an example there are a set of vaccines that are given to kids from one to six months of life DTaP api be happy pneumococcal polio and combination vaccines okay so if you add those up one two it's about eight vaccines okay none of them have been placebo controlled not one of them that means you split the group into two some people got saline with nothing in it injected and other people actually got the vaccine this is just facts I can put this up if you want to send it to you but now is we would you say that none of those vaccines have ever been double-blind placebo tell nope no double-blind control let me repeat that so babies receive three injections of the following vaccines DTaP HIV hepatitis B pneumococcal polio and a combination vaccine where they get a bunch of them together okay okay none of the hosts have big was even old okay none of them fact now after between six months to the second set is between six months eighteen years of life they get to one or two injections of the next set of vaccines hepatitis A MMR Bymark chickenpox combo vaccine and flu none of them had been placebo control tested none of them okay can you give me just an idea what the what the people who say that's a good system how would they defend not having double-blind placebo tests I was okay 18 months eight Americans from zero to 18 years of life hepatitis B have the hepatitis vaccine he's given to them the day that they're born Scott okay untested now when you go to 18 months and 18 years of life they get one two three injections of deep tap HPV meningitis combination and flu I'll give this to them there's only one vaccine which was double-blind controlled you know what that one was Gardasil HPV okay okay so I listed 30 vaccines that kids are given from 0 to 18 only one of them was double-blind tested it gets even so when but the interesting thing is if you actually go read the package insert and I actually went looked at the clinical study Gardasil when they did the doublet so double-blind studies you give one people the vaccine the other people get a saline placebo when they did Gardasil what they did was they give 10,000 people the actual vaccine all right if people want to write these numbers down 9,000 people got to say a brilliant placebo Scott guess what they got they got the adjuvant all of these vaccines have a a Juventud called something that carries a vaccine protocol makes it more effective in the case of gardisil it's aluminum hydro phosphate sulfate a ahs okay so some people women got the vaccine 9090 two women got the na it's called the control not a placebo control they got a control which included the adjuvant and then the third group three hundred and twenty women got the saline please bow when we say placebo we're talking about nothing in it no God no just pure saline right when they reported the results in the insert it's quite incredible and I is that they combine this oh by the way they found out two point three percent of the people had autoimmune disorders people got the vaccine and the control okay but no one in the pure sampling placebo any autoimmune disorders however when they combined the date when they reported it they said Gardasil was two point three percent and they said that full two point three percent combined the Sailing plus of control with the adjuvant group it's quickly bad science but uh but weren't they being weren't they being conservative by by lumping those two together wasn't that the more conservative way to go nothing no one should get it no God any in that group it was zero out of one got any autoimmune disorders the people of the Saline right but when you combine the troop but when you combine the true placebo with the the less pure not really see Bo that that shows you a they shows you worse results then if no know what it does is it shows that there was no difference that's why I got allowed they said this group was two and three percent this group was two point three percent and that's and again the toxicity issues is it the aluminum hydroxide which caused at two point three percent because clearly the Saline had nothing right so but it was a failing group was the Saline group big enough to be okay twenty no one in there got it the the control group which is not placebo okay it's a control group they gave something else got two point three percent of the people got autoimmune and saying with Garda so so it's a set up see on force like you came up and consider sir troop saline placebo control because right one group you see what I'm saying so just her but to summarize 30 different vaccines only one had double-blind saline placebo controlled and that one was not truly they didn't do a clear distinction between the saline and they lumped this together and they said there was no difference alright then and then on top of all that of course there's been no studies of any combinations of those things given together exactly right and and that's why you know we create a cytosol to help with this but let me go back because we you know we help major companies do combinations all these supplement companies because we can understand on the computer now going to your fundamental question what does the other side say why aren't they doing this if it's that remember I told you Jonas Salk was against doing he was he was feverishly against he said this sort of ethos came in medicine which said it's unethical not to give people something if it works let me read you from one of the the vaccine what the site says this is what their issue is it's called the ethics argument Scott now listen to me and tell me if you can see the incredible tautology here in the chicken and egg this is how it goes if there is already I'm quoting a known vaccine that is safe and effective , it is unethical to randomize children into vaccinated group which is double-blind control studies because we would be denying them the benefits of being vaccinated oh my god okay let me suppose I say this if there is already a known herb that is safe and effective like tumeric been used for India for thousands of years it is unethical to randomize people into a group not receiving the herb because we would be denying them the benefits of the herb let me give you that doesn't want to take this if there is a already known yoga posture that is safe and effective it is unethical to randomize people into a group not receiving a yoga posture because we we denying them the benefits of the yoga posture if there is already a known chiropractic manipulation that is safe and effective it is unethical to randomize people into an age group not receiving the chiropractic manipulation you see what I'm saying the last examples that the the mainstream bowtie you know steamed medical community which we all are supposed to think they are gods you know whether they're trying to make you think pass the sales yeah there yeah yeah but but they have said complementary alternative medicine tumeric spin use you got or do double-blind control studies when it comes to their vaccine listen to this if there's already known vaccine that is safe and effective how do you know it's safe and effective oh it's been used and we're getting the immune antibody response okay of the 30 vaccines none of them have been proven safe and effective they're saying by their use and this is how it goes if a new vaccine comes out that is let's say there you are Merck and you create the hepatitis vaccine okay and there's no thing for hepatitis even according to their own rule of ethics they say in that case that you should test it okay on your P so if a new vaccine comes out they're saying you should do that some of the you know what we call the probe acts people Health and Human Services says you don't even have to test it in that case the bottom vaccine safety vaccine testing I can tell you as an expert who works with all these guys it's like stapler man remember stapler man in office space it's somehow he got left there the drug give up food but he's still in the basement because we Revere Jonas Salk and polio so much that story that we have let them get away with the high strict standards of limousine double blind clippings they let me let me play devil's advocate here because I don't have anybody to represent that side so I'll do my my best job of it in the case of polio would you agree that Jonas Salk has been proven right if we just limited it to that case that the moral and risk management based on what they knew at the time that he made the right call because he probably prevented more people from getting polio than if they'd waited say for however long it took to take the test would you say and before i extend the argument would you say that's true even though he didn't know he was making the right call we can look at it in hindsight and say yeah that was probably the right call even though we prefer he had been that done a double-blind experiment would you agree with that or no yes so Scott what I would agree with is the following it's a very important question I went and read the original night duty before paper they gave them up singing pattern I've symptoms of polio okay and there's some question about this what was polio before 1954 and what was polio after 1954 but I would let's give Jonas Salk for his work he did great work we reduced polio let's give that however my point is that safety was not at the forefront of that and also what were the marker what is the threshold we're collateral damage is okay 1% 2% what's that number that you say we have victory okay now let me ask you this is what the issue is what is it we are willing to agree is safe and that safety discourse needs to occur vaccines but now wait yeah yeah I'm sorry now what when you're looking at something like polio the odds of getting polio yeah that's that's a that's a pretty bad bad situation let's say the odds of getting one of the lesser you know mumps or measles they can still kill people but most people are gonna recover you know I have those things as a child so wouldn't you take a completely different risk management approach to how how risky it is before you let people have it you have to separate those right exactly in fact in that video that I you know put up there I entire issue use these two words risk management this entire thing is about engineering risk management you brought up measles why was the measles vaccine created someone decided prior to the measles vaccine creation one out of a hundred people I went out of a hundred thousand people at the CDC post-talk studies and I went to the CDC site about one out of a hundred thousands of people were getting what's called subacute sclerosing pan and stuff lightest simple thing brain inflammation deadly brain inflammation one out of a hundred thousand so that risk point oo 1% Scott we someone decide who's decided decided oh that's too high therefore we need the measles vaccine got it right because of the bad risk management the number we consider one out of a hundred thousand we said it's too high and the measles vaccine and what do you say wouldn't you say based on what you've said already that we would never be able to tell if if we had created more safety than problems because we didn't do the kind of testing that would have surfaced that so so so would you would you summarize to say at least on let's just say measles because it's easy would it be a safe summary to say that we don't actually know if we're hurting or helping more exactly we don't know what the baseline is we don't know where the goalpost is you want you hit it on a nail so recently in a German study so the the 0.001 percent risk of getting sspe which is brain inflammation was a motivation to create the measles vaccine between 2014 and a I'm gonna that number people said a German study said one out of 1,700 which means now it's 0.05 6% okay so let's even give that higher number okay so again the reason for measles vaccine is justified that people without vaccinations have a risk of 0.05 6% or 0.001 percent of getting this horrible brain inflammation right now check this out this is why the mothers are so upset this is where this is coming from and III didn't understand Santa like this is when I had the epiphanies got again after vaccinations people are getting what's called autism defined by it's it's scientifically designed by a particular marker called the HM gb1 inflammatory marker which comes out in what's called autism spectrum disorder okay it's an actual biological marker which is associated with neural inflammation the same neural inflammation similar to SSP wait hold on hold on are you telling me that the to be on the autism spectrum that's not genetic there's a lifestyle component well know what you know it's a marker which could remember we've as a spectrum genetic non-genetic but there is a inflammatory marker which is associated with neural inflammation and one out of 88 kids now have that marker okay which is one point one three six percent although a marker they were born with or they acquired we don't know we don't know how that marker is well remembered remember this is an inflammatory marker it's a protein okay okay so that could it's a it's it's something that's being upregulated okay this is why we need to understand the molecular mechanisms it's not a genetic marker it's a protein marker okay which means it's coming out as the result of its set of biomolecular reactions it's being upregulated that mechanistic understanding we need to understand which had not been it's something I would want to look into but because of that one out of eighty eight which now is one point one three six percent so if you compare one point one thirty six percent versus 0.05 six percent that is nearly 200 times more brain inflammation among kids or a thousand times more okay but but the quote but the cause the causes not established though we're not saying the cause exactly I agree with you it's the bridge example one out of 100 bridges are falling down before after hurricane we put in billions of hours to rework some to fault I can't say it was what I did we would as engineers would say hey man let's go look at this we got to understand this we would at least not have an arrogant attitude we would say we need to understand this phenomena logically mechanistically what's going on and I think this is some crux of the issue the scientific method engineering basic analysis even what Trump pulled those what is it when the three Boeing's fell out what did he do he grounded them even if you have one failure in engineering you don't say oh that's a statistical risk an engineering systems approach says when you have a problem or when you're selling a piece of software even if one customer complains you go look at it because that bug can affect other people right if they're using that particular feature so we don't fundamentally have an engineering approach in medicine we have a Jonas Salk approach of Public Health telling medical doctors what's right and the medical doctors execute protocols are basically executing recipe Scott in this case do this this this it is not a in some ways a humble approach to recognizing hey I'm seeing this difference the reason I did measles was because it was point oh five six percent 1% of brain inflammation now I'm seeing a higher incidence mothers are bringing this up so do we just say they're crackpots or we say hey I'm gonna listen to this let me unravel this and understand the mechanistic tuning but but isn't the problem that basically all the kids get the shots now so if there were some other completely unrelated reason that this marker was was being seen let's say you know somebody suggested for example the fact that Microsoft exists and it attracts people to a place and those people get married it's actually attracting people who might have let's say a latent I don't know if this is the right medical word but you know Layton autism that isn't expressed really in any way but when two of them get married there's more odds is it there isn't it possible there's more autism and everybody's getting the measles so that that's that's just a correlation that's not really yeah that's what I'm saying so so that's what I'm trying to say you know correlation does not mean causation but what you do in epidemiological work when you see signal it's called they do this in pharmacovigilance when you see some signal you are you want to go investigate that with an understanding of understanding causality and I think this is a crux of it so if you look at this there is some signal in the society and I you know 1 out of 88 these people have the same brain inflammation the neuro inflammation as similar to why we gave me Zoe's vaccine and mothers are breaking this up and there's a sense they're not being listened to so that's and in that backdrop we we do have the legitimate issue of the fact among those 30 vaccines only one was given a little blind Saline placebo Kunal study and on top of it the good and on top of it science is moving to personalized precision medicine we should be understanding mechanisms we want to understand this and the question is why isn't the vaccine research community embracing this because the drug development company is so there's there's a yeah there's a question being asked continuously in the comments here if I could jump in just are you done with that point yes okay they're asking to comment on aluminum apparently they're some alleged problems with aluminum as an ingredient in the shots cancellous about that yeah so there's been a number of people this has been a big debate you know I was one of the things that we've been involved in is looking at Alzheimer's you know in inside us all we've been modeling all the pathways and we work with some of the establishment scientists some among them when you bring up the aluminum issue they go oh that's nonsense you know aluminum does not cause any issues among another group of researchers there is they present data that aluminum crosses a blood-brain barrier and it has effects in affecting neurovascular diseases of all different kinds and then and there's a link between the aluminum and also the microbiome it got okay so this is what's going on in the example like that's why the guard is a liquid Burton because they hit it and this is why people Russian scientifically you know I'm frankly a little bit miffed because you didn't do a pure vaccine placebo you shoved in the aluminum's of aluminum was in fact causing something it has noise right you've shoved in the noise to the controller so I have not looked at it but there is a you type in aluminum and you know and stuff out there there's this thesis that aluminum affects it we just finished an NIH study which were funded on looking at green teas use in modulating the immune system we're gonna be adding aluminum to that and seeing how aluminum affects green tea because there's a theory that in China people have green tea with heavy metals in it right so I'm gonna be exploring that in the next six months cup but I can tell you I don't want to make unscientific comments here because I don't want to get into this anti back slack saying I can definitively say that we are not applying real risk management safety unbiased risk management standards period and this is the real issue so dr.

Shiva if if the law allowed you to do anything you wanted and this domain in terms of your own children and you and your your small child is offered the shots just as they're given or you could say uh I for my own personal risk management based on everything I know because I've really looked into this I'm going to adjust what we're doing from the standard and how would you adjust it to feel comfortable with your own child understanding that this is not advice for anybody else's child yeah I mean from my standpoint when you look at the body it's a very very complex system we don't understand this engineering system and so it really comes down to my relationship with my physician which is it's supposed to be a interaction between the physician and the parent in this case and the child it should be this this this thing that emerges out of that discussion some children if they come from a history of immunocompromised families right a lot of autoimmune disorders you would take a very different approach than if you came from a family which didn't have those issues and you're saying you know what I'm here I came from India I saw all sorts of disease and I don't want to see that two very different approaches in fact the Institute of Medicine I have a lot of respect for them this is the National Academy of Medicine in 2011 they put out their report called the adverse effects of vaccine this is like the most conservative groups got in their report at the end of it they admitted there is now a causal relationship between the measles vaccine and I mean HPV and anaphylaxis MMR and joint pain so they finally admitted across studies independently that there are correlations between HPV MMR MMR and and those vaccines and other phenomenon however in their report and some people on the anti-vaccine are not going to like me for this they said there is no correlation between MMR and autism MMR and type 1 diabetes or DTaP but they end there one of the important things in their concluding paragraphs in their final report they said however there is much to learn about the human immune system autoimmunity and the effects of genetic variation all of which may influence how people respond to vaccines precision medicine so what I'm saying is in the backdrop of where we don't we do not really tested these vaccines by any scientific gold standard we have the movement towards precision medicine in that given that background it really should go down to the parent and the and the doctor having a conversation however what's happened in medicine is a doctor in many ways is made to be think that they just have to prescribe and follow a process because there's so much licensure issues if they don't do something they could be canned and people who give exemptions you know 95 doctors in California are not being questioned and they're they could have their licenses removed so then I guess what I'm trying to say I want to have a relationship with my doctor it's my child you don't have the vaccine studies I should have there should be a sense of respect freedom and choice to make this decision when you don't when you don't have data in particular how but you know the vaccination thing is different than a lot of a lot of other topics because what you do will affect me and my children so if you you know if you don't give AXA dated and even there we don't know so for example the herd immunity question so we don't have any double-blind control studies of where you gave people vaccines and you didn't give him and then did it was that it could be that the vaccine itself what they call shedded you know there's a story with the mumps vaccine right they gave the soldiers 133 soldiers they've been in quarantine I don't know if they're still out of it off the coast in in the Middle East American Navy soldiers were all given the mumps vaccine they all got mumps it's a massive massive massive outbreak so what I'm trying to say we don't know the mechanism Scott Jonas Salk polio modern medicine big that is the you know the big win and it almost seems like there is kids gloves about questioning that and we're in that we're moving in you know 23rd century medicine demands that we start looking at safety issues start applying engineering principles and this is what we should be doing doctors the old model of Marcus being the doctor comes in with his white shirt and there is some thing in the background noise that we're supposed to bow down to the doctor I don't look let me let me make my best devil's advocate argument here based on what you're saying it sounds to me that giving my they're giving kids vaccinations you know might Mike was you know one or two percent of them to have a problem but the vast majority of them would avoid problems would I not still be unsafe ER ground saying that we can tell I saw make a statement you can fact check this I believe we can tell that on average the people who got the vaccinations had better outcomes but with the understanding that there might be individuals who are worse off because of it can I make that statement that more people are better off with vaccines on the whole then there are people being injured by it I think I think I don't know if you can say the first statement scientifically Scott what we can say is there are groups of people who may be injured what we don't know is that risk number we don't know the number Scott that's what I don't know and in lieu of that it's hard to say what that number is if we had double-blind control saline studies there will not be an issue let me yeah let me reword it as a more of a business than a medical question if I'm looking at if I'm looking at a situation where I can't know the precise place I want to be so let's say precision is not an option so I could either go too far or I can go now far enough those are my only two options so in the case of vaccinations too far let's define that as where we are too far is taking taking some known substantial risk of not having double-blind placebo studies but still knowing a lot about what's going on and the other is that you understood the mark do we know enough yeah that's a great question yes and I'm saying we don't know because we don't have the risk assessment models for vaccine safety so if you take the if you tend easels which is the one that everyone brings out did giving the measles vaccine so you know I got measles in India I didn't get it you got a rash in the thing and went away I got chickenpox it went away right now there I think this is a fundamental question you're asking SOT is after you got that vaccine is the thesis that you saved that 1% of people from getting sspe right or are you saying you diminish that that adverse effect those number of people versus people who let's say vaccines never came right what was that we don't know those numbers alright let's let's so I accept your your measles your musical example is very strong because it's very by the way each of these each of these vaccines are different each of the vaccines behave in very different ways the etiology of them how the adaptive immune system responds but one question is why are we giving hepatitis B vaccine to the instant a kid is born when that is for IV drug users and people with STDs you said I'm saying right yeah questions of the 30 vaccines and the 70 different doses that are given between 0 to 18 months all right I don't have an answer to that yeah let me ask this is the dumb guy statistical question which maybe will be helpful to the audience if I were looking at the situation of let's say hypothetically I only had one choice to make the the measles vaccine the mmm or whatever it is or not so it's just yes or no and that one you've you've described a compelling argument that we have a pretty good idea that we don't know that the benefits are greater than the cost but statistically speaking if I were to lump all of the vaccines together and all the people who take all the vaccines could I say that that class the whole class take all the vaccines has better outcomes than the entire class of people who took not I don't know we can say that Scot we don't have the data right you know and the other thing here let me give you a very it's not even analogy the average 80 year old today takes 12 different drugs it's called drug drug interaction there is the ring field of saying what is going on how many drugs are we giving and what effects do those combinations have I mean 0 to 18 we're hitting someone 270 doses we don't know what those combinations have they've not been tested and nor are we using modern systems biology to model them mechanistically understand them and that is what I have a concern even is significantly scientists that I respect they're afraid to even broach this topic and I think that it's a very important aspect of the scientific discourse as it doesn't take place around vaccines because it's sort of the foundation hallmark of modern Western medicine well well dr.

Cheever this is this is amazing and helpful and very illuminating I feel like for the first time literally for the first time I feel like I have some you know layman's understanding of the situation I need to I need to wrap up because I want to add a couple of things well I got my audience here but thank you so much for for coming on here and give us your your Twitter handle for people call your handle is act VA underscore Sheva at VA B is in victory underscore sheba I don't know Scott if you know I'll be also running again as a scientist for Senate in Massachusetts coming up in 2020 and we really want to have more discourse around a lot of these veneering and science issues it's not going to be the fake Indian versus a real and it's the MIT PhD for us the techie stack which I think you nailed the first time but I think there's I think vaccines offer great opportunity Scott for modern medicine group odder medicine discourse it's a wonderful opportunity for discourse and I really appreciate you having me on Scott giving me the opportunity it's a really big public service you the very objective way that you look at issues I thank you doctor I hope we helped today and I'll talk to you stop thank you all right that was terrific he is so good at explaining stuff in a way that yeah the way you can follow even if you don't know what's going on let me talk about a few other things here while I got you the New York Times issued let's say an update not a retraction but an update so there was this book saying that Brett Kavanaugh had done some naughty things in high school and then they they quietly revised it to say that the person who is the alleged victim of this alleged act has no memory of it so in other words the victim alleged victim doesn't think it happened as far as she knows think about that that was like a major story in The New York Times and just totally made up as far as we can tell or at least that important clarification was left out a bigot deals at North Korea's invited President Trump to come over to Pyongyang am i pronouncing that right young yang I don't think I've ever said Pyongyang in public before it's the first time and that looks like a good sign to me so we'll see how that goes I'm happy when Kim and Trump are talking and you know making plans because that feels like the safest situation we've ever been in would you not say that our current situation with North Korea is by far the safest it's ever been wouldn't you say I mean it just doesn't look like he's heading in the wrong direction anymore it looks like it's fixed you know it's it will it will change forever but it looks like the dangerous parts over let's talk about Saudi Arabia and the RAM coefficient that the Houthis in Yemen took responsibility they said it was them but apparently our administration is saying well not so fast it might have been Iran or the attack may have come from Iraq which would still be Iran in terms of influence and I'm just wondering this was a tough one because everybody lies in these situations I don't think you can necessarily believe what the United States is saying about this because they're gonna say whatever gets the best effect which you'd want them to so I normally would be you know opposed my government lying to me the exception is National National Defense national interests like this so if my government is stretching a fact to put some pressure on Iran well that's okay with me yeah as long as they know what they're doing as long as there are enough people involved who who are adults who know how this stuff works I don't mind my government doing a little bit of stretching the truth if it's useful for persuasion so we don't know what's going on there who bomb to but the interesting thing is that we can't tell how how scary is it that some number of drones took out a major facility and we don't know where it came from and it came from a long ways away so in other words it's not like there were airplanes above it may just drop stuff do we said hey it was that we're plating up there some number of small flying things when a tremendous distance without detection what's up with that we're gonna need to figure out how to detect those little guys my understanding is that there is a company now and I might maybe I can have somebody else to talk about it I believe there is a company now that detects drones so they can detect incoming drones and actually automatically initiate some kind of counter of defense so we'll talk about that sounds like that's something that everybody every oil for site refinery is going to need I guess Joe Biden's gonna release his medical records I would not expect to find anything interesting in there or I'll see one we wouldn't release them all right I got to talk about the concert I went through last night and this this is gonna sound like old man yelling at the yelling at the sky but I went to the Elton John concert last night because it was local and normally I would never go to a concert because I don't like the the whole situation of the travel when the crowds and takes too long and everything so Elton John's doing his farewell tour so I was like I'll never get to see him again it's a farewell tour and you know big fans and and Christine the place of piano so it's a little extra interesting because the piano and and it said it was in the new facility in the chase center so I wanted to see the new facility anyway which is amazing the new place the Warriors are gonna play really well done so I went and we we get these somebody dropped out didn't either take it so we we got these amazing seats in the fifth row on the floor so I'm looking at Elton John like he's just on the other side of the living room it was insane to be that close to him you know with no security or anything like we're just standing there and there was Elton John right there so that part was cool now the part that I tweeted about and I complained about is that and I left this out of the tweet so here's the here's the key part I was complaining because there was a woman in the seat in front of me who stood most of the show now everybody who saw that tweet said old man don't you know it's a rock concert people stand what did you expect get off your get off your can it's for dancing you should stand below blah blah here's the part I left out the people standing weren't dancing for the most part the little video I showed you us but mostly this is what they were doing they were taking pictures of like minute after minute of the live act they were standing in front of me and blocking my view with their cameras as well as their bodies for the first 15 minutes it was just a couple of large guys who stood up in the front right in front of us and decided to film a live act now here's the thing if you're filming a live act in the first few minutes I totally get taking a little clip I did it too so certainly no complaints about somebody using their phone taking a little video clip and and almost everybody did so nearly a hundred percent of people at some point lift is different I took a clip but if you're standing in front of me with your phone up not dancing just so you can get a better picture and all you're doing is making everybody behind you not be able to see and you don't once in 15 minutes turn around to now somebody's saying yell to sit down it was like 10 people there were at least 10 people in my sort of zone in front of me who thought it was perfectly okay to stand not dance stand and become cameraman and block the entire view of the people who spent outrageous amounts of money to have those seats now here's my point yes I know I didn't have to go to the concert I get it yes I know people stand up at concerts of course I expected that yes people should stand up to enjoy it and dance in the parts that you know the parts that are called for and of course I did alright so you don't need to explain to me how standing works versus sitting you don't need to explain to me how concerts work I get that all right that's not the complaint that would all be fine if they hadn't had their phones out I think I would have been okay or if they hadn't filmed there was that there was a big guy in front of me who stood for a baby a third of the concert filming it with his phone now who the hell is gonna watch that video do you think there's one person in the world who's gonna say hey wow you got Elton John on a tiny little screen with bad sound system can I watch 15 minutes of that now nobody the guy who took the video is not going to watch it again you might watch 10 seconds of it that's why a 10-second video is a good idea might be fun to see how close you were see how good your seats were but oh my god so I found myself seething with hatred for human beings not all of them but here's my here's my bottom line if you were a person who stood up that entire time in that group and it wasn't everybody it was maybe 20% of them and you never looked behind you to see what you were doing to the people behind you the whole time and that would describe most of none of them turned around they had ruined the evening for a whole swath of people who were hating them with the same amount of white-hot hatred I had for them and I thought to myself there's no way to explain this they're just all right and let me say it to those of you so some of you are I see the criticisms coming in from this in the tweet so some of you are criticizing me for not understanding that people stand up during these rock you know these concerts yes idiots I understand people stand up yes 80s I understand I can stand up yes ideas I understand that if I stand up I can see yes idiots and that that's what people do but lots of times people were up and down in a situation where people are up and down they're not standing all the time if you've never looked behind you to see if you're blocking somebody's view you're just an all right so I'm talking to you who are watching because a lot of you said I went to the concert I stood the whole time you're an if you never look behind you to see what you're doing to the person behind you you're just an all right there isn't any way to soften that I'm sorry that you're hearing it from me for the first time if you stood the whole concert with your phone you're an if you stood up during the fun parts with everybody else you were standing you blocked my view sometimes sometimes you didn't I fight with that I'm fine with having my view blocked with somebody who was having fun and is considerate and etc all right so old man yells at this guy I know what that sounds like I did it anyway I don't care that's all for now I'll talk to you tomorrow

now let's see if this works any better

pom pom pom pom

uh a little technical issues here Obama

to go so this will be attempt number two

this will be the one that matters good

morning everybody

thanks for waiting around appreciate you

working through that technical

difficulty I knew there was a problem

when I saw the user account locked and

it stopped stopped going so where was I

I believe I was here bum bum bum bum bum

bum bum yeah the theme song you don't

want to miss the theme song you know you

don't so get yourself ready it's time

for the simultaneous it yeah you've got

a moment just a moment grab your

beverage you got a warning here goes

here's all you need all you need is this

a couple of mugger glasses time to tell

us the tanker to thermos Alaska Cantina

grail of vessel of any kind fill it with

your favorite liquid I like coffee and

join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure the best part of the day the

dopamine hit that makes everything else

worthwhile this simultaneous hip sip go

now as I said I'm going to invite dr.

Shiva to join us and he's already

available I'm gonna put him right on

dr. Shiva coming at you dr. Chiba can

you hear me hear me I can hear you

good morning I'm amazing and thank you

so much for joining us so I'm gonna give

for those few people watching this who

don't already know you most of my

audience already knows you but let me

give you just a quick bio so dr. Shiva

has four degrees from MIT including a

bachelor's in electrical engineering and

computer science a dual master's degree

in mechanical engineering and visual

studies from MIT Media Lab rhetoric and

then he also returned to MIT to complete

to complete his doctoral work in systems

biology within the department of

biological engineering and that's where

he developed Kratos self a scalable

computational platform for modeling cell

by Dan by dynamic integration of

molecular pathways models which is

awkward because I do that my spare time

I didn't realize dr. Shiva I didn't know

you needed a whole company just to do

develop scalable computational platforms

for modeling the cell of dynamic

integration by molecular pathways but

but apparently you do

barely you're doing it the hard way yeah

just kidding so you're the CEO now yes

greater self and I'm sorry

it's cytosol Oh Saito Saito is like cyto

means cell and solve means solving it

see what I do solve yep cytosol yep okay

see yto solve and that company looks for

multi combinational drug opportunities

or it could be the yeah it stop lying on

that company yeah it's just very quickly

just leading with my background Scott

you know you've talked about my

technology stack this is sort of the

sweet spot it's the integration of

computing and biology in 2003 Scott what

happened was when the genome project

ended we turned out it turns out human

beings only have 20,000 genes we don't

have a half a million the same as a worm

so it's a big inflection point in

biology it flipped biology on its head

so we recognized that we need to move

out of the nucleus

and actually start understanding all the

very powerful chemical reactions that

take place in the cell so in 2003 the

National Science Foundation put forward

this grand challenge was could someone

model the whole cell so think about the

cell is a bag of chemical reactions we

know pieces of those chemical reactions

that are being you know published in the

literature could you extract those and

imagine building it's like reverse

engineering the whole body so that's the

challenge I took on I came back to MIT

2003 during 2003 to 7 Scott the approach

I took was not a biology approach and

not an AI computer science approach

which is just fitting lines to curve I

said this is an engineering systems

problem biologists are essentially

little knowledge engineers working in

their little silos they're finding

little pieces of the puzzle and and and

and these puzzle pieces are diagrams you

know like Little John Madden diagrams a

plus B gives see like the Monday Night

Football diagrams right they're called

pathways and some of those pathways in

2003 were becoming predictive models so

if you could interconnect those models

we could technically use the computer

long before we kill the animals long

before we did stuff in humans to model

biological mechanisms this is how we

build airplanes right we don't people

just don't fly airplanes and kill

themselves

we don't put monkeys in them we do it on

the computer so that's what I did Scott

it was one of my big personal goals

because you know I was very interested

in understanding how to do drug

combinations I grew up in India watching

my grandmother as a village healer do

these combinations so this to me was a

40-year quest cytosol emerged out of

that and then between 2012 just to you

know this is not by the way an anti

vaccine discussion I want to have I work

with Big Pharma I work with the biggest

consumer goods companies who look to me

I get invited to the NIH the FDA to

speak you know as a keynote speaker so

you're talking to a real scientist who

does this but cytosol emerged just like

we do build airplanes on the computer

cytosol was this enabling technology to

do this on the computer so

during 2007 and 12 my advisor and I at

MIT

Forbes do we've spent a lot of time

proving this we published in like nature

and sell you know the Nature

Neuroscience so so cytosol is really an

engine for understanding molecular

mechanisms before we go to kill animals

this really the Rebs risk talked about

okay good for the the lay people for us

could we imagine what you're doing sort

of like seeing the cell as a machine and

trying to figure out what the parts are

so that you can predict how the machine

will act on an exact state yeah so

basically typically in engineering we do

forward engineering I want to go build

an airplane I build the parts put it

together

biology is quite interesting we don't

know the parts nature if you believe in

evolution did that over many many

billions of years the individual

biologists are finding parts what's

called reductionism they're finding

pieces I coming as a systems biologist

I'm trying to connect the parts to get

an understanding of how nature put this

together and if we can understand how

the ankle bones connected to the foot

bone we now get a mechanistic

understanding which means it's a very

powerful platform for drug development

risk so we can develop stuff faster and

cheaper so we're not throwing stuff in

that's what it's all about so when you

talk about technologies that can I've

spoken before about like the Postal

Service and climate change but this is

like what I do for a living you know for

the last 30 40 years so you're such the

perfect example of what I call a talent

stack where you've combined exactly the

right types of skills so that you you

just have a vision that somebody who

doesn't have the same combination of

experiences and background in education

just wouldn't see so you're combining

like you said you combine anything sort

of an engineer's mindset with the

medical mindset to get something that's

better than both so so now take us to

vaccinations you said you're not an

anti-vaxxer let me say from the audience

I'm not anti-vaxxer because I haven't

looked into it right I don't know if I

looked into it I would have a different

opinion but tell us let's start with

what do you think the public

understand about the issue of requiring

vaccinations and where we are there

let's start with what we get wrong yeah

so I think what we get wrong and this

unfortunate split that unfortunately

seems to occur quote-unquote left quote

unquote right anti PACs VAX has really

occurred because for whatever reason we

don't go at the deep deep issue and the

real issue is about the scientific

method

okay the scientific method is about you

have a hypothesis you do testing you get

results from that test you have an

understanding of what you've figured out

and you go back and test it is a

recognition we have deep respect that we

don't know a lot of stuff right now when

you say test you when you say test

you're specifically saying double by

double blind yeah well in biology and by

the way it's called double-blind

placebo-controlled studies and I'll

explain what that is you know when we in

the you've made a very important point

Scott about medicine and engineering

just as an aside in 2003 MIT created a

department called biological engineering

not biomedical because they felt as new

discoveries were coming in biology we

needed to take an engineer's mindset to

understand biology not a device asynch

biologic was a completely new Department

set up from scratch so the vision of

modern science whether you talk to

Francis Collins at the NIH is that we

need to use engineering principles to

understand biology part of those

engineering principles is I build

something I put it out there I mean you

build software if it doesn't work you

listen to your customers you got to go

figure it out

if they even one customer upset you go

figure it out but as this mindset of I

put something out there I got to figure

it out now when it comes to vaccines or

drug development the historical process

is you do some testing in a test tube

and you hope because you do that

hopefully you're not killing too many

things then you go into an animal and

you test your stuff there and you test

for toxicity and efficacy in the area of

medical drug dolmen there's two acts a

Scott doesn't work

and is it safe the Food and Drug

Administration is truly concerned about

safety okay not really

efficacy they you know you can put

something out there may not have a great

effect but they want to make sure you're

not killing people and by the way but so

what would you say there they're

certainly concerned with efficacy

because as to have some yeah at least a

little bit yes yes yes you know there's

a whole discussion here how some stuff

gets throughout but the issue is

efficacies funded I mean the toxicity is

a fundamental thing FDA is focused on

right when it comes to vaccines let's

look at the history of it you know it's

fascinating because whenever you say

modern medicine what's the first thing

that comes to people's mind polio polio

vaccine oh my god you know it's almost

you can put the word modern medicine

Jonas Salk and polio as the three

pillars of the of the wonderful thing

that that came out of modern medicine

what's fascinating is when Jonas Salk

was creating the polio vaccine he wrote

an imploring letter saying that he was

again scible blind studies okay fast

okay why yeah I just found this in this

in this effort to really you know I went

back and actually read the original the

actual the actual results of the polio

you know thing and and Jonas Salk makes

this imploring letter saying all we need

to do is show efficacy so when you give

a vaccine to someone the body will

create antibodies right because you're

giving an exogenous or a foreign body in

the body creates antibodies and his view

is as long as it creates antibodies

everyone should be happy because polio

is killing children you know we need to

just make sure the antibodies are

created he was against double-blind

control studies and you can read his

letter that he wrote at that time to the

env is the National vaccine Institute

No so well what was he B was he against

them because he didn't want to wait

around he wanted to get rid of polio

yeah yeah it'sit's that exactly so let's

give him I'm not gonna put any

conspiracy theories here it's basically

he was more focused on let's get this

out let's save people's lives this is

kids lives we got to get it out there

okay come and when you so but I want to

give that the original entire one of the

great wins of modern medicine was polio

and the man behind this Jonas Salk who's

revered was was not for double-blind

placebo-controlled studies after the

polio vaccine was given 1954 1955 ever

anyone can look this up called a cutter

incident where cutter Wyeth gave a one

set of the polio virus you know where

you actually deactivate the polio virus

Scott it wasn't fully deactivated and

was given to 400,000 people and about

250 300 of those people actually got the

paralysis okay Wow this was after the

fact so why do I bring that up my point

is Salk polio this huge victory for

medicine efficacy was always the goal

safety was in the background right and

again not against vaccines I just want

to say where the emphasis was in that

line you go now to drug development

separate from vaccines you know you're

building out on a lipitor all these

different drugs the modern process of

drug development if you go to clinical

trials.gov there's a huge focus on

double-blind control studies you know

you have to make it safe that's why you

go to phase 1 phase 2 phase 3 there's

this huge emphasis in the drug

development on safety and in that field

the biggest development there Scott has

been the recognition oh my God we're

creating drugs that take five billion

dollars roughly one to five billion

dollars 13 years and what comes out of

that process has lots and lots of side

effects most of those drugs were

developed for a single not for you Scott

Adams or me Shiva right they were

developed for a statistical blob of

people let's say with some cancer or

some cardiovascular issue so most of

those drugs coming out have side effects

so that's when you watch your commercial

they'll say by the way this could do

this and this could do this

that's why I turned off those

commercials are too sad

they're very sad let me let me let me

jump in just for a fact check here when

I was in my 20s I signed up for a drug

trial so details don't matter but I I

turned out to be in the placebo group

yeah now was there any reason why they

tested that particular meds years ago

with a is't I believe it was a

double-blind I only knew I was in the

placebo group after they said it's

obvious you're in the placebo group

because it's working for everybody else

they actually they actually ended the

test because single-blind would be where

you didn't know and the doctors did

double-blind is you don't know and the

doctors don't know who got what and it's

just data that they get anonymized data

then they have to do correlations to

figure it out okay

so if you knew after it definitely was a

single blind and potentially a double

blind okay okay all right go ahead

the in in 2003 in particular the reason

MIT set up the department of biological

engineering is and other institutions

got into this field called systems

biology this is the 23rd century

medicine is they recognized that drugs

one size does not fit all that we need

to take a personalized precision

medicine approach in fact France is

calling the head of the NIH in fact when

Obama was there he called it future of

medicine precision medicine so what that

means is that we need to find the right

medicine for the right person at the

right time this is the future and

therefore that's why people said let's

start using the computer let's reduce

risk so reduction of risk creating drugs

that work for Scott Adams let's say you

have the same disease I do you may get a

different drug than I should right right

medicine for the right person the right

time right I'm here in Cambridge are

companies in Cambridge the center of

biotech all of these guys are buzzing

around about right medicine for the

right person at the right time so I'm

giving you this background that's where

we are at today so when and safety is

one of the predominant things here so

when we look at vaccines it's almost

like vaccine

like stapler man in office space no way

let me let me let me pause here because

you said two things I'm trying to

understand together one is that people

are trying to develop specific

combinations of drugs for a specific

person and the other is you you would

want double-blind tests for drugs

because they have sizes for safety but

wouldn't wouldn't you have the the worst

safety potentially trying to make an

individual drug for a person because by

definition that combination has never

been tested on that exactly

yeah so you bring up a great point Scott

so basically there's these two so on the

one hand I think we can all understand

one of the goals in any engineering

exercise is reduced risk so you

understand what the risk was the foreign

intervention you know you have bridges

say hey hurricanes are affecting 1 out

of 100 bridges falling down right ribs

you put some technology to that the risk

that more bridges are falling apart you

say wait a min something's wrong here

maybe this stuff we put in hurt

something but it is all about risk you

brought up the most one of them two

pillars I want to talk about is risk

every day we as human beings are making

decisions on risk so there's a you have

some calculation of risk before an

intervention and some calculation after

and then we as society collectively and

actually say well do I want to move

forward in that our cars but there's a

personalized risk the 18 year old who

has 20 duis is paying a much higher

amount for his car than you or I are

when it comes to drug development we are

dealing with a highly complex system the

human body there's so many gears in

there that we don't fully understand so

the current process is I give something

in a test tube okay I don't see any

issues if then I go to ml test day and

then you have to get allowance by the

FDA to go to what's called clinical

testing small groups of human days want

larger groups face to him big groups

phase three so this is how we do it in

medicine today no although and when we

get to that biggest group are you saying

that typically with the vaccine

there's still not double double-blind

the reality of this we have and in

particular you know we're talking about

just to be specific so we can focus it

is a discussion childhood vaccines right

we're talking about kids all right kids

childhood vaccines there's seventy doses

of childhood seventy doses a kid

typically gets and the vaccines are

today not really managed by the Health

and Human Services in 1986 an Act was

passed when Reagan was there that it

basically removed liabilities very

interesting away from the pharma

companies and basically said that if you

had vaccine injury you go to Health and

Human Services and they cap the amount

of liability or you could get payout I

think it's two hundred fifty thousand

dollars it's called a vaccine court all

right in the discussions with HHS Health

and Human Services they have said Oh

things were placebo-controlled and the

discourse has been with them that would

you actually look at the vaccines so

I'll give you an example there are a set

of vaccines that are given to kids from

one to six months of life DTaP api be

happy

pneumococcal polio and combination

vaccines okay so if you add those up one

two it's about eight vaccines okay none

of them have been placebo controlled not

one of them that means you split the

group into two some people got saline

with nothing in it injected and other

people actually got the vaccine this is

just facts I can put this up if you want

to send it to you but now is we would

you say that none of those vaccines have

ever been double-blind placebo tell nope

no double-blind control let me repeat

that so babies receive three injections

of the following vaccines DTaP HIV

hepatitis B pneumococcal polio and a

combination vaccine where they get a

bunch of them together okay okay

none of the hosts have big was even old

okay none of them fact

now after between six months to the

second set is between six months

eighteen years of life they get to one

or two injections of the next set of

vaccines hepatitis A MMR Bymark

chickenpox combo vaccine and flu none of

them had been placebo control tested

none of them okay can you give me just

an idea what the what the people who say

that's a good system how would they

defend not having double-blind placebo

tests I was okay 18 months eight

Americans from zero to 18 years of life

hepatitis B have the hepatitis vaccine

he's given to them the day that they're

born Scott okay

untested now when you go to 18 months

and 18 years of life they get one two

three injections of deep tap HPV

meningitis combination and flu I'll give

this to them there's only one vaccine

which was double-blind controlled you

know what that one was

Gardasil HPV okay okay

so I listed 30 vaccines that kids are

given from 0 to 18 only one of them was

double-blind tested it gets even so when

but the interesting thing is if you

actually go read the package insert and

I actually went looked at the clinical

study

Gardasil when they did the doublet so

double-blind studies you give one people

the vaccine the other people get a

saline placebo when they did Gardasil

what they did was they give 10,000

people the actual vaccine

all right if people want to write these

numbers down 9,000 people got to say a

brilliant placebo Scott guess what they

got they got the adjuvant all of these

vaccines have a a Juventud called

something that carries a vaccine

protocol makes it more effective in the

case of gardisil it's aluminum hydro

phosphate sulfate a ahs okay so some

people women got the vaccine 9090 two

women got the na it's called the control

not a placebo control they got a control

which included the adjuvant and then the

third group

three hundred and twenty women got the

saline please bow when we say placebo

we're talking about nothing in it

no God no just pure saline right when

they reported the results in the insert

it's quite incredible and I is that they

combine this oh by the way they found

out two point three percent of the

people had autoimmune disorders people

got the vaccine and the control okay but

no one in the pure sampling placebo any

autoimmune disorders however when they

combined the date when they reported it

they said Gardasil was two point three

percent and they said that full two

point three percent combined the Sailing

plus of control with the adjuvant group

it's quickly bad science but uh but

weren't they being weren't they being

conservative by by lumping those two

together

wasn't that the more conservative way to

go nothing no one should get it no God

any in that group it was zero out of one

got any autoimmune disorders the people

of the Saline right but when you combine

the troop but when you combine the true

placebo with the the less pure not

really see Bo that that shows you a they

shows you worse results then if no know

what it does is it shows that there was

no difference that's why I got allowed

they said this group was two and three

percent this group was two point three

percent and that's and again the

toxicity issues is it the aluminum

hydroxide which caused at two point

three percent because clearly the Saline

had nothing right so but it was a

failing group was the Saline group big

enough to be okay twenty no one in there

got it the the control group which is

not placebo okay it's a control group

they gave something else got two point

three percent of the people got

autoimmune and saying with Garda so so

it's a set up see on force like you came

up and consider

sir troop saline placebo control because

right one group you see what I'm saying

so just her but to summarize 30

different vaccines only one had

double-blind saline placebo controlled

and that one was not truly they didn't

do a clear distinction between the

saline and they lumped this together and

they said there was no difference

alright then

and then on top of all that of course

there's been no studies of any

combinations of those things given

together exactly right and and that's

why you know we create a cytosol to help

with this but let me go back because we

you know we help major companies do

combinations all these supplement

companies because we can understand on

the computer now going to your

fundamental question what does the other

side say why aren't they doing this if

it's that remember I told you Jonas Salk

was against doing he was he was

feverishly against he said this sort of

ethos came in medicine which said it's

unethical not to give people something

if it works let me read you from one of

the the vaccine what the site says this

is what their issue is it's called the

ethics argument Scott now listen to me

and tell me if you can see the

incredible tautology here in the chicken

and egg this is how it goes if there is

already I'm quoting a known vaccine that

is safe and effective , it is unethical

to randomize children into vaccinated

group which is double-blind control

studies because we would be denying them

the benefits of being vaccinated oh my

god

okay let me suppose I say this if there

is already a known herb that is safe and

effective like tumeric been used for

India for thousands of years it is

unethical to randomize people into a

group not receiving the herb because we

would be denying them the benefits of

the herb let me give you that doesn't

want to take this if there is a already

known yoga posture that is safe and

effective it is unethical to randomize

people into a group not receiving a yoga

posture because we we denying them the

benefits of the yoga posture if there is

already a known chiropractic

manipulation that is safe and effective

it is unethical to randomize people into

an age group not receiving the

chiropractic manipulation you see what

I'm saying

the last examples that the the

mainstream bowtie you know steamed

medical community which we all are

supposed to

think they are gods you know whether

they're trying to make you think pass

the sales yeah there yeah yeah but but

they have said complementary alternative

medicine tumeric spin use you got or do

double-blind control studies when it

comes to their vaccine listen to this if

there's already known vaccine that is

safe and effective

how do you know it's safe and effective

oh it's been used and we're getting the

immune antibody response okay of the 30

vaccines none of them have been proven

safe and effective they're saying by

their use and this is how it goes if a

new vaccine comes out that is let's say

there you are Merck and you create the

hepatitis vaccine okay and there's no

thing for hepatitis even according to

their own rule of ethics they say in

that case that you should test it okay

on your P so if a new vaccine comes out

they're saying you should do that some

of the you know what we call the probe

acts people Health and Human Services

says you don't even have to test it in

that case the bottom

vaccine safety vaccine testing I can

tell you as an expert who works with all

these guys

it's like stapler man remember stapler

man in office space it's somehow he got

left there the drug give up food but

he's still in the basement because we

Revere Jonas Salk and polio so much that

story that we have let them get away

with the high strict standards of

limousine double blind clippings they

let me let me play devil's advocate here

because I don't have anybody to

represent that side so I'll do my my

best job of it in the case of polio

would you agree that Jonas Salk has been

proven right if we just limited it to

that case that the moral and risk

management based on what they knew at

the time that he made the right call

because he probably prevented more

people from getting polio than if they'd

waited say for however long it took to

take the test would you say and before i

extend the argument would you say that's

true even though he didn't know he was

making the right call we can look at it

in hindsight and say yeah that was

probably the right call even though we

prefer he had been that done a

double-blind experiment would you agree

with that or no yes so Scott what I

would agree with is the following it's a

very important question I went and read

the original night duty before paper

they gave them up singing pattern I've

symptoms of polio okay and there's some

question about this what was polio

before 1954 and what was polio after

1954 but I would let's give Jonas Salk

for his work he did great work we

reduced polio let's give that however my

point is that safety was not at the

forefront of that and also what were the

marker what is the threshold we're

collateral damage is okay 1% 2% what's

that number that you say we have victory

okay now let me ask you this is what the

issue is what is it we are willing to

agree is safe and that safety discourse

needs to occur

vaccines but now wait yeah yeah I'm

sorry now what when you're looking at

something like polio the odds of getting

polio yeah that's that's a that's a

pretty bad bad situation let's say the

odds of getting one of the lesser you

know mumps or measles they can still

kill people but most people are gonna

recover you know I have those things as

a child so wouldn't you take a

completely different risk management

approach to how how risky it is before

you let people have it you have to

separate those right exactly in fact in

that video that I you know put up there

I entire issue use these two words risk

management this entire thing is about

engineering risk management you brought

up measles

why was the measles vaccine created

someone decided prior to the measles

vaccine creation one out of a hundred

people I went out of a hundred thousand

people at the CDC post-talk studies and

I went to the CDC site about one out of

a hundred thousands of people were

getting what's called subacute

sclerosing pan and stuff lightest simple

thing brain inflammation deadly brain

inflammation one out of a hundred

thousand so that risk point oo 1% Scott

we someone decide who's decided decided

oh that's too high therefore we need the

measles vaccine got it right because of

the bad risk management the number we

consider one out of a hundred thousand

we said it's too high and the measles

vaccine and what do you say

wouldn't you say based on what you've

said already that we would never be able

to tell if if we had created more safety

than problems because we didn't do the

kind of testing that would have surfaced

that so so so would you would you

summarize to say at least on let's just

say measles because it's easy would it

be a safe summary to say that we don't

actually know if we're hurting or

helping more exactly we don't know what

the baseline is we don't know where the

goalpost is you want you hit it on a

nail so recently in a German study so

the the 0.001 percent risk of getting

sspe which is brain inflammation was a

motivation to create the measles vaccine

between 2014 and a

I'm gonna that number people said a

German study said one out of 1,700 which

means now it's 0.05 6% okay so let's

even give that higher number okay

so again the reason for measles vaccine

is justified that people without

vaccinations have a risk of 0.05 6% or

0.001 percent of getting this horrible

brain inflammation

right now check this out this is why the

mothers are so upset this is where this

is coming from and III didn't understand

Santa like this is when I had the

epiphanies got again after vaccinations

people are getting what's called autism

defined by it's it's scientifically

designed by a particular marker called

the HM gb1 inflammatory marker which

comes out in what's called autism

spectrum disorder okay it's an actual

biological marker which is associated

with neural inflammation the same neural

inflammation similar to SSP wait hold on

hold on are you telling me that the to

be on the autism spectrum that's not

genetic there's a lifestyle component

well know what you know it's a marker

which could remember we've as a spectrum

genetic non-genetic but there is a

inflammatory marker which is associated

with neural inflammation and one out of

88 kids now have that marker okay which

is one point one three six percent

although a marker they were born with or

they acquired

we don't know we don't know how that

marker is well remembered remember this

is an inflammatory marker it's a protein

okay okay so that could it's a it's it's

something that's being upregulated okay

this is why we need to understand the

molecular mechanisms it's not a genetic

marker it's a protein marker okay which

means it's coming out as the result of

its set of biomolecular reactions it's

being upregulated that mechanistic

understanding we need to understand

which had not been it's something I

would want to look into but because of

that one out of eighty eight which now

is one point one three six percent so if

you compare one point one thirty six

percent versus 0.05 six percent that is

nearly 200 times more brain inflammation

among kids or a thousand times more okay

but but the quote but the cause the

causes not established though we're not

saying the cause exactly I agree with

you it's the bridge example one out of

100 bridges are falling down before

after hurricane we put in billions of

hours to rework some to fault I can't

say it was what I did we would as

engineers would say hey man let's go

look at this we got to understand this

we would at least not have an arrogant

attitude we would say we need to

understand this phenomena logically

mechanistically what's going on and I

think this is some crux of the issue the

scientific method engineering basic

analysis even what Trump pulled those

what is it when the three Boeing's fell

out what did he do he grounded them even

if you have one failure in engineering

you don't say oh that's a statistical

risk an engineering systems approach

says when you have a problem or when

you're selling a piece of software even

if one customer complains you go look at

it because that bug can affect other

people right if they're using that

particular feature so we don't

fundamentally have an engineering

approach in medicine we have a Jonas

Salk approach of Public Health telling

medical doctors what's right and the

medical doctors execute protocols are

basically executing recipe Scott in this

case do this this this it is not a in

some ways a humble approach to

recognizing hey I'm seeing this

difference the reason I did measles was

because it was point oh five six percent

1% of brain inflammation now I'm seeing

a higher incidence mothers are bringing

this up so do we just say they're

crackpots or we say hey I'm gonna listen

to this

let me unravel this and understand the

mechanistic tuning but but isn't the

problem that basically all the kids get

the shots now so if there were some

other completely unrelated reason that

this marker was was being seen let's say

you know somebody suggested for example

the fact that Microsoft exists and it

attracts people to a place and those

people get married it's actually

attracting people who might have let's

say a latent I don't know if this is the

right medical word but you know Layton

autism that isn't expressed really in

any way but when two of them get married

there's more odds is it there isn't it

possible there's more autism and

everybody's getting the measles so that

that's that's just a correlation that's

not really yeah that's what I'm saying

so so that's what I'm trying to say you

know correlation does not mean causation

but what you do in epidemiological work

when you see signal it's called they do

this in pharmacovigilance when you see

some signal you are you want to go

investigate that with an understanding

of understanding causality and I think

this is a crux of it so if you look at

this there is some signal in the society

and I you know 1 out of 88 these people

have the same brain inflammation the

neuro inflammation as similar to why we

gave me Zoe's vaccine and mothers are

breaking this up and there's a sense

they're not being listened to so that's

and in that backdrop we we do have the

legitimate issue of the fact among those

30 vaccines only one was given a little

blind Saline placebo Kunal study and on

top of it the good and on top of it

science is moving to personalized

precision medicine we should be

understanding mechanisms we want to

understand this and the question is why

isn't the vaccine research community

embracing this because the drug

development company is

so there's there's a yeah there's a

question being asked continuously in the

comments here if I could jump in just

are you done with that point yes okay

they're asking to comment on aluminum

apparently they're some alleged problems

with aluminum as an ingredient in the

shots cancellous about that yeah so

there's been a number of people this has

been a big debate you know I was one of

the things that we've been involved in

is looking at Alzheimer's you know in

inside us all we've been modeling all

the pathways and we work with some of

the establishment scientists some among

them when you bring up the aluminum

issue they go oh that's nonsense

you know aluminum does not cause any

issues among another group of

researchers there is they present data

that aluminum crosses a blood-brain

barrier and it has effects in affecting

neurovascular diseases of all different

kinds and then and there's a link

between the aluminum and also the

microbiome it got okay so this is what's

going on in the example like that's why

the guard is a liquid Burton because

they hit it and this is why people

Russian scientifically you know I'm

frankly a little bit miffed because you

didn't do a pure vaccine placebo you

shoved in the aluminum's of aluminum was

in fact causing something it has noise

right you've shoved in the noise to the

controller so I have not looked at it

but there is a you type in aluminum and

you know and stuff out there there's

this thesis that aluminum affects it we

just finished an NIH study which were

funded on looking at green teas use in

modulating the immune system we're gonna

be adding aluminum to that and seeing

how aluminum affects green tea because

there's a theory that in China people

have green tea with heavy metals in it

right so I'm gonna be exploring that in

the next six months cup but I can tell

you I don't want to make unscientific

comments here because I don't want to

get into this anti back slack saying I

can definitively say that we are not

applying real risk management safety

unbiased risk management standards

period and this is the real issue so dr.

Shiva if if the law allowed you to do

anything you wanted

and this domain in terms of your own

children and you and your your small

child is offered the shots just as

they're given or you could say uh I for

my own personal risk management based on

everything I know because I've really

looked into this I'm going to adjust

what we're doing from the standard and

how would you adjust it to feel

comfortable with your own child

understanding that this is not advice

for anybody else's child yeah I mean

from my standpoint when you look at the

body it's a very very complex system we

don't understand this engineering system

and so it really comes down to my

relationship with my physician which is

it's supposed to be a interaction

between the physician and the parent in

this case and the child it should be

this this this thing that emerges out of

that discussion some children if they

come from a history of immunocompromised

families right a lot of autoimmune

disorders you would take a very

different approach than if you came from

a family which didn't have those issues

and you're saying you know what I'm here

I came from India I saw all sorts of

disease and I don't want to see that two

very different approaches in fact the

Institute of Medicine I have a lot of

respect for them this is the National

Academy of Medicine in 2011 they put out

their report called the adverse effects

of vaccine this is like the most

conservative groups got in their report

at the end of it they admitted there is

now a causal relationship between the

measles vaccine and I mean HPV and

anaphylaxis MMR and joint pain so they

finally admitted across studies

independently that there are

correlations between HPV MMR MMR and and

those vaccines and other phenomenon

however in their report and some people

on the anti-vaccine are not going to

like me for this they said there is no

correlation between MMR and autism MMR

and type 1 diabetes or DTaP but they end

there one of the important things in

their concluding paragraphs in their

final report they said however there is

much to learn about the human immune

system autoimmunity and the effects of

genetic variation all of which may

influence how people respond to vaccines

precision medicine so what I'm saying is

in the backdrop of where we don't we do

not really tested these vaccines by any

scientific gold standard we have the

movement towards precision medicine in

that given that background it really

should go down to the parent and the and

the doctor having a conversation however

what's happened in medicine is a doctor

in many ways is made to be think that

they just have to prescribe and follow a

process because there's so much

licensure issues if they don't do

something they could be canned and

people who give exemptions you know 95

doctors in California are not being

questioned and they're they could have

their licenses removed so then I guess

what I'm trying to say I want to have a

relationship with my doctor it's my

child you don't have the vaccine studies

I should have there should be a sense of

respect freedom and choice to make this

decision when you don't when you don't

have data in particular how but you know

the vaccination thing is different than

a lot of a lot of other topics because

what you do will affect me and my

children so if you you know if you don't

give AXA dated and even there we don't

know so for example the herd immunity

question so we don't have any

double-blind control studies of where

you gave people vaccines and you didn't

give him and then did it was that it

could be that the vaccine itself what

they call shedded you know there's a

story with the mumps vaccine right they

gave the soldiers 133 soldiers they've

been in quarantine I don't know if

they're still out of it off the coast in

in the Middle East American Navy

soldiers were all given the mumps

vaccine they all got mumps it's a

massive massive massive outbreak so what

I'm trying to say we don't know the

mechanism Scott Jonas Salk polio modern

medicine big that is the you know the

big win and it almost seems like there

is kids gloves about questioning that

and we're in that we're moving in you

know 23rd century medicine demands that

we start looking at safety issues start

applying engineering principles and this

is what we should be doing doctors the

old model of Marcus

being the doctor comes in with his white

shirt and there is some thing in the

background noise that we're supposed to

bow down to the doctor I don't look let

me let me make my best devil's advocate

argument here based on what you're

saying it sounds to me that giving my

they're giving kids vaccinations you

know might Mike was you know one or two

percent of them to have a problem but

the vast majority of them would avoid

problems would I not still be unsafe ER

ground saying that we can tell I saw

make a statement you can fact check this

I believe we can tell that on average

the people who got the vaccinations had

better outcomes but with the

understanding that there might be

individuals who are worse off because of

it can I make that statement that more

people are better off with vaccines on

the whole then there are people being

injured by it I think I think I don't

know if you can say the first statement

scientifically Scott what we can say is

there are groups of people who may be

injured what we don't know is that risk

number we don't know the number Scott

that's what I don't know and in lieu of

that it's hard to say what that number

is if we had double-blind control saline

studies there will not be an issue let

me yeah let me reword it as a more of a

business than a medical question if I'm

looking at if I'm looking at a situation

where I can't know the precise place I

want to be so let's say precision is not

an option so I could either go too far

or I can go now far enough those are my

only two options so in the case of

vaccinations too far let's define that

as where we are too far is taking taking

some known substantial risk of not

having double-blind placebo studies but

still knowing a lot about what's going

on and the other is that you understood

the mark do we know enough yeah that's a

great question yes and I'm saying we

don't know because we don't have the

risk assessment models for vaccine

safety so if you take the

if you tend easels which is the one that

everyone brings out did giving the

measles vaccine so you know I got

measles in India I didn't get it you got

a rash in the thing and went away I got

chickenpox it went away right now there

I think this is a fundamental question

you're asking SOT is after you got that

vaccine is the thesis that you saved

that 1% of people from getting sspe

right or are you saying you diminish

that that adverse effect those number of

people versus people who let's say

vaccines never came right what was that

we don't know those numbers alright

let's let's so I accept your your

measles your musical example is very

strong because it's very by the way each

of these each of these vaccines are

different each of the vaccines behave in

very different ways the etiology of them

how the adaptive immune system responds

but one question is why are we giving

hepatitis B vaccine to the instant a kid

is born when that is for IV drug users

and people with STDs you said I'm saying

right yeah questions of the 30 vaccines

and the 70 different doses that are

given between 0 to 18 months all right I

don't have an answer to that yeah let me

ask this is the dumb guy statistical

question which maybe will be helpful to

the audience if I were looking at the

situation of let's say hypothetically I

only had one choice to make the the

measles vaccine the mmm or whatever it

is or not so it's just yes or no and

that one you've you've described a

compelling argument that we have a

pretty good idea that we don't know that

the benefits are greater than the cost

but statistically speaking if I were to

lump all of the vaccines together and

all the people who take all the vaccines

could I say that that class the whole

class take all the vaccines has better

outcomes than the entire class of people

who took not

I don't know we can say that Scot we

don't have the data right you know and

the other thing here let me give you a

very it's not even analogy the average

80 year old today takes 12 different

drugs

it's called drug drug interaction there

is the ring field of saying what is

going on how many drugs are we giving

and what effects do those combinations

have I mean 0 to 18 we're hitting

someone 270 doses we don't know what

those combinations have they've not been

tested and nor are we using modern

systems biology to model them

mechanistically understand them and that

is what I have a concern even is

significantly scientists that I respect

they're afraid to even broach this topic

and I think that it's a very important

aspect of the scientific discourse as it

doesn't take place around vaccines

because it's sort of the foundation

hallmark of modern Western medicine well

well dr. Cheever this is this is amazing

and helpful and very illuminating I feel

like for the first time literally for

the first time I feel like I have some

you know layman's understanding of the

situation I need to I need to wrap up

because I want to add a couple of things

well I got my audience here but thank

you so much for for coming on here and

give us your your Twitter handle for

people call your handle is act VA

underscore Sheva at VA B is in victory

underscore sheba I don't know Scott if

you know I'll be also running again as a

scientist for Senate in Massachusetts

coming up in 2020 and we really want to

have more discourse around a lot of

these veneering and science issues it's

not going to be the fake Indian versus a

real and it's the MIT PhD for us the

techie stack which I think you nailed

the first time but I think there's I

think vaccines offer great opportunity

Scott for modern medicine group odder

medicine discourse it's a wonderful

opportunity for discourse and I really

appreciate you having me on Scott giving

me the opportunity it's a really big

public service you the very objective

way that you look at issues I thank you

doctor

I hope we helped today and I'll talk to

you stop thank you

all right that was terrific he is so

good at explaining stuff in a way that

yeah the way you can follow even if you

don't know what's going on let me talk

about a few other things here while I

got you

the New York Times issued let's say an

update not a retraction but an update so

there was this book saying that Brett

Kavanaugh had done some naughty things

in high school and then they they

quietly revised it to say that the

person who is the alleged victim of this

alleged act has no memory of it so in

other words the victim alleged victim

doesn't think it happened as far as she

knows think about that that was like a

major story in The New York Times and

just totally made up as far as we can

tell or at least that important

clarification was left out a bigot deals

at North Korea's invited President Trump

to come over to Pyongyang am i

pronouncing that right young yang I

don't think I've ever said Pyongyang in

public before it's the first time and

that looks like a good sign to me so

we'll see how that goes I'm happy when

Kim and Trump are talking and you know

making plans because that feels like the

safest situation we've ever been in

would you not say that our current

situation with North Korea is by far the

safest it's ever been

wouldn't you say I mean it just doesn't

look like he's heading in the wrong

direction anymore it looks like it's

fixed you know it's it will it will

change forever but it looks like the

dangerous parts over

let's talk about Saudi Arabia and the

RAM coefficient that the Houthis in

Yemen took responsibility they said it

was them but apparently our

administration is saying well not so

fast it might have been Iran or the

attack may have come from Iraq which

would still be Iran in terms of

influence and I'm just wondering this

was a tough one because everybody lies

in these situations I don't think you

can necessarily believe what the United

States is saying about this because

they're gonna say whatever gets the best

effect which you'd want them to so I

normally would be you know opposed my

government lying to me the exception is

National National Defense national

interests like this so if my government

is stretching a fact to put some

pressure on Iran well that's okay with

me yeah as long as they know what

they're doing as long as there are

enough people involved who who are

adults who know how this stuff works

I don't mind my government doing a

little bit of stretching the truth if

it's useful for persuasion so we don't

know what's going on there who bomb to

but the interesting thing is that we

can't tell how how scary is it that some

number of drones took out a major

facility and we don't know where it came

from and it came from a long ways away

so in other words it's not like there

were airplanes above it may just drop

stuff do we said hey it was that we're

plating up there some number of small

flying things when a tremendous distance

without detection what's up with that

we're gonna need to figure out how to

detect those little guys my

understanding is that there is a company

now and I might maybe I can have

somebody else to talk about it I believe

there is a company now that detects

drones

so they can detect incoming drones and

actually automatically initiate some

kind of counter of defense so we'll talk

about that sounds like that's something

that everybody every oil for site

refinery is going to need

I guess Joe Biden's gonna release his

medical records I would not expect to

find anything interesting in there or

I'll see one we wouldn't release them

all right I got to talk about the

concert I went through last night

and this this is gonna sound like old

man yelling at the yelling at the sky

but I went to the Elton John concert

last night because it was local and

normally I would never go to a concert

because I don't like the the whole

situation of the travel when the crowds

and takes too long and everything so

Elton John's doing his farewell tour so

I was like I'll never get to see him

again it's a farewell tour and you know

big fans and and Christine the place of

piano so it's a little extra interesting

because the piano and and it said it was

in the new facility in the chase center

so I wanted to see the new facility

anyway which is amazing the new place

the Warriors are gonna play really well

done so I went and we we get these

somebody dropped out didn't either take

it so we we got these amazing seats in

the fifth row on the floor so I'm

looking at Elton John like he's just on

the other side of the living room

it was insane to be that close to him

you know with no security or anything

like we're just standing there and there

was Elton John right there so that part

was cool now the part that I tweeted

about and I complained about is that and

I left this out of the tweet so here's

the here's the key part I was

complaining because there was a woman in

the seat in front of me who stood most

of the show now everybody who saw that

tweet said old man don't you know it's a

rock concert people stand what did you

expect

get off your get off your can it's for

dancing you should stand below blah blah

here's the part I left out

the people standing weren't dancing for

the most part the little video I showed

you us but mostly this is what they were

doing they were taking pictures of like

minute after minute of the live act they

were standing in front of me and

blocking my view with their cameras as

well as their bodies for the first 15

minutes it was just a couple of large

guys who stood up in the front right in

front of us and decided to film a live

act now here's the thing if you're

filming a live act in the first few

minutes I totally get taking a little

clip I did it too so certainly no

complaints about somebody using their

phone taking a little video clip and and

almost everybody did so nearly a hundred

percent of people at some point lift is

different I took a clip but if you're

standing in front of me with your phone

up not dancing just so you can get a

better picture and all you're doing is

making everybody behind you not be able

to see and you don't once in 15 minutes

turn around

to now somebody's saying yell to sit

down it was like 10 people there were at

least 10 people in my sort of zone in

front of me who thought it was perfectly

okay to stand not dance stand and become

cameraman and block the entire view of

the people who spent outrageous amounts

of money to have those seats now here's

my point yes I know I didn't have to go

to the concert I get it yes I know

people stand up at concerts of course I

expected that yes people should stand up

to enjoy it and dance in the parts that

you know the parts that are called for

and of course I did alright so you don't

need to explain to me how standing works

versus sitting you don't need to explain

to me how concerts work I get that all

right that's not the complaint that

would all be fine if they hadn't had

their phones out I think I would have

been okay or if they hadn't filmed there

was that there was a big guy in front of

me who stood for a baby a third of the

concert filming it with his phone now

who the hell

is gonna watch that video do you think

there's one person in the world who's

gonna say hey wow you got Elton John on

a tiny little screen with bad sound

system can I watch 15 minutes of that

now nobody the guy who took the video is

not going to watch it again you might

watch 10 seconds of it that's why a

10-second video is a good idea might be

fun to see how close you were see how

good your seats were but oh my god so I

found myself seething with hatred for

human beings not all of them but here's

my here's my bottom line if you were a

person who stood up that entire time in

that group and it wasn't everybody it

was maybe 20% of them and you never

looked behind you to see what you were

doing to the people behind you the whole

time and that would describe most of

none of them turned around they had

ruined the evening for a whole swath of

people who were hating them with the

same amount of white-hot hatred I had

for them and I thought to myself there's

no way to explain this they're just

all right

and let me say it to those of you so

some of you are

I see the criticisms coming in from this

in the tweet so some of you are

criticizing me for not understanding

that people stand up during these rock

you know these concerts yes idiots

I understand people stand up yes 80s I

understand I can stand up yes ideas I

understand that if I stand up I can see

yes idiots

and that that's what people do

but lots of times people were up and

down in a situation where people are up

and down they're not standing all the

time if you've never looked behind you

to see if you're blocking somebody's

view you're just an all right so

I'm talking to you who are watching

because a lot of you said I went to the

concert I stood the whole time you're an

if you never look behind you to

see what you're doing to the person

behind you you're just an all

right there isn't any way to soften that

I'm sorry that you're hearing it from me

for the first time if you stood the

whole concert with your phone you're an

if you stood up during the fun parts

with everybody else

you were standing you blocked my view

sometimes sometimes you didn't I fight

with that I'm fine with having my view

blocked with somebody who was having fun

and is considerate and etc all right so

old man yells at this guy I know what

that sounds like I did it anyway I don't

care that's all for now I'll talk to you

tomorrow