(applause)
>> Thank you.
(applause)
(applause)
Great.
(chuckling)
Thank you very
much, Jeff.
Anyway, I want to tell you I'm
going to violate Speaking 101
right away, and I'll be walking
in front of the projector
to make sure that
you're awake over there
and coming back
and forth.
So, excuse me--
and I'm a walker.
I've managed to do that
chewing gum and walking thing,
so I do walk
around here.
But I want to thank all of
you for coming tonight,
because this is a really
interesting topic.
Some of you have heard me speak
previously on nature of science,
science education,
evolution,
or a variety of
other topics,
and tonight's topic kind of
folds into that group of topics
quite nicely.
'Cause we live,
without a doubt,
in the most
scientifically-oriented
and achieved
and technologically-oriented
society
we have ever lived in,
the planet has ever seen,
and we live
in the country
that, without a doubt, is the
most scientifically advanced
and technologically
advanced.
So, with that said, then, why do
we still have these challenges
and opportunities when it
comes to science education?
Why do we still have
the evolution deniers?
Why do we still have the
climate change deniers?
And now, why do we have
kind of the trifecta
with the vaccine deniers?
And that's the question,
is, "Why is this?"
So, initially, our
knee-jerk reaction is,
"Well, it has to
be the same people.
"Because, clearly, if they
don't accept evolution,
"they clearly don't
accept climate change,
"and they clearly can't be
vaccinating their kids."
Or so you might
think, right?
That's the thesis we're
going to look at tonight.
Is this, in fact, the same
group of individuals?
Are they drinking
the same punch?
Is it the same kind of,
you know, ideas and experience
that brings them
to this conclusion?
And you might be
kind of surprised
about what we
find here tonight,
because this is a
bit of a paradox
as to why we are
where we are today.
So, what we're
going to do tonight
is we're going to take a
look here at, first of all,
the anti-vaccination
movement.
Where are we now?
What are we facing?
What do we see happening
in the United States?
What do we see
happening in Michigan?
What do we see happening
in Kent County?
Then, we're going it take a look
at an introduction to science,
Immunology 101, as
close as we can get it,
as tightly as
we can get it,
so we can understand
the value of a vaccine,
the value of
a vaccination.
And then, we're going
to take a look
at the anti-vaccination
movement.
How did we get to
where we are today?
Are there some events
happening in society
that maybe has taken us
to where we are today
and the public attitudes
towards the vaccination
of children
and adults?
And then, we will finish with
why vaccinations matter.
Should we care
about this?
The answer is gonna
be, I'm hoping, "yes,"
as we leave tonight.
(chuckling)
So, the question is,
"Where are we now?"
I have to apologize
for this picture,
but I thought...
(audience laughing)
oh, that is just too
sweet to leave out.
I'll wrap the entire
presentation around that picture
if I have to, okay?
(laughing)
It just gives you so
many concerns there.
So, the question is,
"Where are we now?"
How did we get to where we
are in the United States?
Well, in each state, all of our
states allow in K-12 education,
pre-kindergarten
education,
some type of exemption
to vaccinations.
And what are those allowable
reasons from state to state?
One of which is a
medical exemption...
that your student--
your child--
doesn't have to
have a vaccination
if there's a
medical reason not to.
I think we're
all on that page.
We get it.
Because it's possible
to have a child, an adult,
that is immune-suppressed,
that actually just by
giving them the vaccination
could cause them greater harm
or (indistinct) of it.
So, I don't think anybody's
going to contest that.
It's a wise
medical decision.
How about allergies
to a vaccine?
Some vaccines--
flu vaccine, for instance,
is usually incubated
in chicken eggs.
What if you have an allergy
to chicken egg albumin?
There is an
issue there.
So, we understand.
Certainly, those children,
those adults,
may not be great candidates for
at least some of their vaccines.
Another reason you can have an
exemption in Michigan schools,
and this is true across
the United States,
for almost all
the states--
you can have a
religious exemption,
saying that, "It's against
my faith to have vaccination."
And all states allow this except
Mississippi and West Virginia,
which is interesting that
Mississippi and West Virginia
haven't had a measles outbreak
since the early 1990s.
(dramatically)
Could there be a
cause and effect?
(audience laughing)
Okay?
I throw that out for
your early consideration
this evening, okay?
You can also have
a philosophical
or a personal
belief waiver.
Twenty states offer
this as of 9/14.
And guess what?
Mississippi and West Virginia
don't allow this.
Who would have ever thought
in their wildest dreams
that we would be looking to
West Virginia and Mississippi
for modeling our
science policy?
But here we are, okay,
ahead of the pack there.
So, you have these three
options here to say that,
"I don't care to have
my child vaccinated."
So, who can opt out?
Here's kind of a little
snapshot nationally.
If we look at whatever color
that is-- salmon color--
the darker of the
two beiges there,
these states allow
philosophical waivers.
If we look at the states
in blue, which, look,
is Mississippi and
West Virginia,
you can only have
medical waivers.
You can't have
philosophical waivers.
You can't have
religious waivers.
And so, we look
at those states
that are in that
lighter color gray--
no philosophical waivers,
okay, only medical waivers,
no religious waivers.
So, let's take a look
here at the rate
of non-medical vaccine
exemptions by state.
So, as you can see on our scale
in the upper left-hand side,
the darker the color,
the greater percentage
of the population has a
non-medical vaccine waiver,
so this would be philosophical,
religious exemption.
And we can see if we look
at Michigan, unfortunately,
it's one of the
darker states, okay?
(audience laughing)
Sad moment for Michigan, okay?
So, in fact,
Michigan has the third
lowest pre-kindergarten
vaccination rate
in the US as
of last year.
If you want to look
at it the other way,
47 other states are ahead
of us on this scale, okay,
including Louisiana,
including Texas,
including Alabama
and Georgia, okay?
States that had bills to make
exemptions easier or harder.
If we go back and look
from 2009 to 2012,
the most recent
data available,
during that time period,
there were 36 bills introduced
in 18 different states
to change the manner
which you can get one of
these non-medical exemptions,
and in 31 of these cases--
31 of the 36--
they're designed to make it
easier than it currently is.
The good news is
none of those passed,
which is really kind
of surprising... okay?
So, how hard is it to get
a vaccine in your state?
So, take a look
at where we are.
Take a look at
where you've lived
in the past, and
just kind of look.
It's a hodgepodge,
isn't it?
There's no obvious trend where
the East Coast is different
from the West Coast,
that the Midwest is
different from the South.
It's a checkerboard here
of rhyme and reason
of these different
statutes.
So, you look at this
kind of broad data
and say, "Oh,
there's got to be--
"there has to be
a theme here."
Look at the West Coast--
look at the western states.
You know, they're
all about the same.
Look at the southeast.
They're all
about the same.
Well, it gets kind
of messy after that.
Let's take a look at
a Michigan update,
because, in that previous
slide, we saw that Michigan
is rated as
medium, okay?
What do you need to get a
non-medical waiver in Michigan?
You need a healthcare
professional's signature.
The definition of a
"healthcare professional"
is all over
the board.
Don't confuse that with
"physician," for a second.
Okay, but we have
an update here.
As of January 1st this year,
the law has changed.
Michigan parents still
have the right to refuse
to have their
children vaccinated
by the required vaccinations
by the state,
but, as of
January 1st,
they now have to be "educated,"
quote unquote,
by a "local health worker,"
quote unquote, about vaccines
and the diseases vaccines
are intended to prevent,
but that's better
than where we were.
I mean, it's certainly a step
in the right direction.
Also, the parents have to
sign what is now, in Michigan,
we are referring to as a
"universal state form"
that includes a statement of
acknowledgment by the parent
that they understand
that failing to have
their children vaccinated
could result in their
harm-- the children--
as well as harm
to others.
So, this is going
the right direction,
so maybe we can get rid of
that sad face in Michigan.
I said "maybe."
Hang loose, okay?
(laughing)
So, let's take a look at
those state by state.
So, the data we
have up here--
I recognize, back in the cheap
seats, you can't read this,
so I'm going to walk
you through this here.
On the left-hand side
here, we have our states.
Whole bunch of data here we're
not going to worry about.
What we're concerned about are
these non-medical exemptions.
The row that I've
highlighted in red
represents the number of
religious exemptions
plus the philosophical
exemptions,
if the state
allow them,
and then the
total exemptions,
and then the percentage of
the students in that state.
So, if we take a look, there
really aren't any heavy-hitters
in this first chart
till we get down here.
Idaho and Illinois--
5.5% percent of the students
have a non-medical waiver.
4.8% of the-- in
Illinois have that.
That's a sizeable percentage, as
we'll see here in a little bit.
Then, we come over here and we
take a look at the same chart,
same distribution, just a
continuation of the states,
and if you look at
the first one there...
Michigan, okay--
we're at 5.3%.
So, 5.3% of
our students
currently have a
non-medical exemption.
You get down now to Oregon,
we're down to 6.4%.
We have a few
states left here.
Vermont being the biggie
right here at 5.7%.
So, if you haven't been tapping
your foot and following that,
what does this
all mean?
It means that the highest
non-medical exemption rates
in the US-- the top five--
Michigan is number four.
What's that call for?
Okay, so we're in
the top four there.
So, 5.3%.
And again, you can say,
"Well, these are tiny numbers."
Okay, so let's see if
they're significant or not.
So, how about waiver
rights by county?
The darker the red or burgundy,
whatever color this is,
the higher the non-medical
waiver rate.
So, we look at
Houghton County up here.
That's pretty
significant.
Cheboygan, Emmet,
and Leelanau.
So, these are the
big leaders right here,
as far as medical exempt--
excuse me,
non-medical exemptions.
Let's take
a look here.
If we looked at it by every
single county, if we look--
and again, I'll
read these to you
because I know it's hard
to see where you are.
If we look over
here at Houghton--
in 2013-'14,
it was 15.4%.
It's gone up
to 17.5%.
If we look over here
at Lapeer County,
which is right over here--
here's Lapeer County--
Lapeer County-- pretty
much stable, 12%.
In 2013-'14,
12.3%.
Leelanau, which is right
up here, look at this.
Leelanau went from
19.5% to 12.4%.
Interesting, okay?
Kind of interesting.
So, still
incredibly high,
but at least moving in
the right direction.
We look over here,
we see Roscommon.
Roscommon is
right up here.
Roscommon--
look at this--
we went from 2.7%
to 12.2% in one year.
What's in the water?
Okay?
(audience laughing)
So, I mean, how do we
have this dramatic change?
The green arrows deserve
a happy face, okay?
Cheboygan-- oh, look it--
18.5% down to 8%.
So, something's happening
in Cheboygan County.
It's because I was up
there last year lecturing
and not-- yeah.
(audience laughing)
Okay-- and over here
in Midland--
Midland is right
over here.
Midland-- look at this--
we've gone from 12.1%
down to 5.5%.
That's the home
of Dow Chemical,
you know, so-- and you
look up here, Leelanau,
of course the home of
Traverse City, etcetera.
So, it's really kind
of interesting.
Again, what we
don't see here
is any obvious
geographical distribution
or what appears to be
any rhyme nor reason
to the high non-medical
vaccination exemption rates
versus the low rates.
So, with that in mind, let's
put that to rest for a second.
So, we can see that,
nationally, state-wide,
we have some challenges
and opportunities
because we're not seeing
this groundswell of people
saying, "Vaccinations--
good idea, I want to do it."
So, before we
go any further,
let's do a little
Immunology 101 here.
Take you back
to biology.
When I see here a lot of
my students here tonight--
and thanks for coming-- going,
"We've seen this lecture.
"Can we just
move on?"
This will be the
"Reader's Digest"
cliff notes version
of those, okay?
(audience chuckling)
So, when we take the human body,
we divide it into,
depending on how
you're counting,
9, 10, 11,
12 body systems,
and it's really-- that's
an artificial division.
It's really just
one body system,
but our little human brains
can't wrap around
doing it all at once,
so we divide it
into 9, 10, 11,
12 body systems.
And so, the body system that
usually refer to right now
is the immune system.
Do you see immune system
listed anywhere up there?
No, because the immune system
is really one of the functions
of the lymphatic system, so
it's one of the job assignments
of lymphatic system.
So, lymphatic system is the
one that's responsible here
for our immunity, for a lot
of our resistance to disease,
our response
to pathogens.
Pathogens-- we're just
going to refer to
as "the bad guys," right--
these can be what?
These could
be bacteria.
They could be viruses--
they could be fungus.
They could be
nematodes.
They could be-- you know,
let's just take a look--
not at nematodes--
let's deal with microbes.
Let's talk about viruses,
bacteria, fungus,
and also a weird group of
proteins called "prions."
How does our body respond to
invading pathogens and bad guys?
We're going to divide this
into two broad categories,
something called
"nonspecific defenses"
and something called
"specific defenses,"
which is where we
want to go tonight.
It's number 2 that we're
really concerned about.
So, we're going to
talk about number 1,
but that's just immunoloty--
immunology foreplay--
just to get you warmed up for
the good stuff here at number 2.
Okay?
So, what's a
nonspecific defense?
A nonspecific defense--
as the name implies--
is a response that our
body has to a pathogen
regardless of the actual
type of pathogen.
Here's the analogy
I would draw.
Okay, it's 3 o'clock
in the morning.
The bedroom
window opens,
and somebody crawls
into your bedroom.
Is your first concern to
interview this person
for their previous
criminal history?
(audience laughing)
Okay?
"Are you a first-time felon
or a second-time?
"Do you prefer a machete
or a hatchet or a gun
"for the murder you're
about to commit?"
You don't matter, right,
because your response
should be the same no
matter what, right,
to dial 911 or
lock and load--
whatever your particular
M.O. is, okay?
(audience laughing)
But it's going to be the
same no matter what, right?
It doesn't matter
who's crawling through.
It's-- your response
is nonspecific
to the person
crawling through.
If it was Sasquatch, if
it was a zombie, you'd--
well, zombies have
special requirements, I know,
but, you know, the response
is pretty much
going to be
the same.
And so, our body has a lot of
these nonspecific responses.
Whether it's bacteria,
species A, B, C, D, Z--
it doesn't matter--
the response is the same.
If it's a virus, the
response is the same.
It doesn't matter because
the body's going to respond
the same way.
For instance,
fever.
Fevers are miraculous--
uh, "miraculous," careful.
(audience laughing)
Okay, it's a wonderful response
to invading pathogens,
and it doesn't matter--
the fever response
is the same, again,
whether in most cases it's
any species of bacteria,
or whether it's a fungus,
whether it's a protist.
A lot of the responses
will be the same.
Fever is a
nonspecific response,
as is the case
with inflammation.
Inflammation has
a lot of benefits.
One of the things
inflammation does,
it keeps that
pathogen in the area.
You circle the wagons until the
cowboys in their white hats--
the white blood cells--
arrive,
and so, it's a great way of
keeping pathogens localized.
That's going to
happen regardless of
what the pathogen is.
The integument-- another
nonspecific defense.
If you want to get a
little grossed out--
because I haven't grossed you
out, I haven't done my job--
this is the
human skin.
So, these are your-- it looks
like elephant hide, doesn't it?
Okay, those are your
squamous cells.
Little closer over here,
these are cocci bacteria.
Here's an individual
skin cell.
Look at that.
This is what we commonly refer
to now as a "microbiome."
Living on you
right now
you have over a hundred
species of bacteria.
What do you want
to do about that?
Get a better class
of friends.
Don't sit next to him.
(audience laughing)
Okay, so it's there--
it's fine-- it's benign.
In fact, they don't do us any
harm in 99% of the cases,
but your skin--
your integument--
when it's intact,
nonspecific defense.
Keeps fungus out.
Keeps the
bacteria out.
Keeps the
viruses out, okay?
And this is also
going to be the case
with another nonspecific
defense, which are proteins.
We produce all kinds of
protective proteins.
Some of you have heard
about maybe, for instance,
"interferons" before?
Or "defensins"?
And these are groups of
proteins that also work
in a nonspecific manner to
challenge proteins, even to--
excuse me, to
challenge pathogens,
as well as, for instance,
viruses coming into our body.
Miscellaneous chemicals.
How about
your stomach?
Do you have any idea
what you ingested today,
especially if you went
out to a restaurant?
Think about all the nasties
that wound up in your stomach.
The good news is they go
kerplunk into the acid--
and it's the acid--
the hydrochloric acid
in your stomach,
that hovers
around 2.0.
It's nasty stuff.
Very few things
make it past.
Doesn't matter
what goes kerplunk.
It's toast, okay?
How about salt?
See the sweaty shirt right
here, the salt on there?
You know when you exercise,
lick your skin,
lick somebody else's skin
that's exercised--
make sure you
know them first--
and then you'll
taste all the salt
that happens to
be in there.
Tears.
Your tears have special
enzymes called lysozymes
to prevent bacteria
and other organisms
from living in
the conjunctiva.
It's a nonspecific defense.
Mucus membranes.
Do you know your head has
three big old cavities in it,
and those big old cavities
are supposed to support--
not your brain-- three other
cavities for mucus membranes.
You produce all kinds
of mucus-- what?
It's like a magic carpet
ride for pathogens
down into the digestive tract
where it goes kerplunk again.
These are nonspecific
defenses.
Phagocytosis.
Phagocytosis occurs
by white blood cells.
White blood cells are kind
of like biological Pac-Men.
They come up to pathogens,
and they gobble them up,
as you see happening
over here.
Let me describe--
we'll come back to that
picture in a second.
What's a phagocyte?
It's a white blood cell
that participates
in this Pac-Man-like behavior,
the phagocytosis.
Some of you biologists in
here know about neutrophils,
macrophages, mast cells,
eosinophils, basophils.
So, what they do is
really kind of cool.
If we go back and
take a look here,
when I had biology
100 years ago
we had stone tablets, and we
had black and white drawings
of what we thought
was happening.
Our students now have
color photographs
of it actually happening--
it's so cool!
And we were right about
virtually everything.
Okay.
(audience laughing)
So-- but if we take a look
over here, look at this.
Here's-- here's a cell right
here-- a white blood cell.
The green guys
are bacteria.
These little
structures coming out,
it's kind of
like Spiderman.
These are part
of the cytoplasm.
The analogy is--
for my students,
it's kind of like you're
sitting as a white blood cell.
Bacteria comes back.
Schh!
Schh, schh!
And then, you pull them in,
and you phagocytize 'em.
You engulf your membrane
and you destroy them.
And that's what you see
happening over here
on the right.
So, this is another
nonspecific defense,
because it's going
to happen the same
regardless of what the
pathogen happens to be.
But the reason we
are here tonight
is to not just talk about
nonspecific defenses.
We want to talk about
this guy right here,
called a
"specific defense."
A specific defense, commonly
referred to as "immunity,"
is a defense that
our body mounts
directed against
a specific antigen.
"Okay, I didn't bring
my biology book.
"Ooh, what's antigen?"
An antigen are structures that
come off the membrane of a cell.
A lot of us come out
of high school biology
thinking that cells are
like ping pong balls,
they're all kind of
smooth on the surface.
Nothing can be further
from the truth.
The surface membrane
on cells
looks like two
porcupines in heat.
There's all kinds of stuff
coming off the surface there.
It's kind of like the New York
skyline with antennas and stuff
coming off there.
And you can kind of see,
you know, a graphic depiction
of what this
might look like.
And these antigens that come
off do all kinds of stuff.
It allows cells to
communicate with each other.
It allows certain
molecules to dock.
They could be made
out of carbohydrates.
They could be made
out of lipids.
They can be made of lipo-- all
kinds of molecular combinations,
but they're really important,
because some of these antigens
are there to say,
"Hey, I belong here."
These antigens can be what
we call "self-antigens."
Self-antigens are
saying, "You know what?
"I belong here."
It's kind of like if you work
at a high security place,
you know,
a business.
You have a little
badge, okay?
And let's say you are at
a maximum security place,
and then nobody's
allowed in there
'cause you're working
on government contracts.
The security force has orders
that if you don't match
your security badge,
they shoot you.
Don't forget
your badge
going to work, okay?
(audience chuckling)
So, every time you go
past the security guard,
they check your badge.
They check your face--
"You're good to go."
If they don't
match, boom.
This is the
security badge.
There are antigens on every
single cell in your body
that say,
"I'm mammal, I'm human,
"I'm Sarah, and
I'm Sarah's ovary cell."
It's that specific.
What happens if
you're a uterine cell
and you wind up in the
ovary part of town?
Bad things, okay?
We have ovarian cysts
that begin to form.
So, not only are
these antigens
specific for
"I belong in this body"
but "where I
belong IN the body."
So, if these antigens
are discovered
by the security guards--
the white blood cells--
to not be from your
body, guess what?
We mount
an attack.
So, you have to have
the self-antigens,
and every single cell
in your body has these,
should have them.
What happens if they're carrying
the wrong security badge
or the security badge got
coffee spilled on it?
This is how we get into
autoimmune disorders
where we mistakenly
determine that our cells
that belong
in our body
aren't supposed
to be there.
Type 1 diabetes,
rheumatoid arthritis,
Sjogren's, lupus--
the list goes on.
And so, these are kind of
mistakes of the system.
What's a
non-self antigen?
The guys that don't belong
there, that I just described.
We sometimes call these
"foreign antigens."
This is an issue, isn't it,
when we talk about organ
and tissue
transplants?
Because if we take
Sarah's kidney out
and put it into
John's body,
while John is
still on the table,
before we've
sewn John up,
John's body has recognized,
"This isn't my body--
"this isn't my kidney,"
and John's body
will start immune response
to try to destroy it,
because it has
non-self antigens.
So, what do we
do about that?
Immunosuppressant drugs.
You probably know them as
"anti-rejection drugs"
and then some other things
that can be done.
So, it's these non-self antigens
that stimulate the response
of our immune response.
So, here's what we're
going to talk about.
We just talked about
specific defenses
and non-specific
defenses.
The specific defenses,
we see here.
Remember, it
requires an antigen.
What kind of antigen
to stimulate this?
Self or non-self?
>> (indistinct speaking).
>> Non-self.
We always say, "Give them the
sense of accomplishment."
Self or non-self?
>> (all) Non-self.
>> Non-self-- did that hurt?
I don't ask for much--
let's try this again.
Self or non-self?
>> (all) Non-self.
>> Non-self.
See, now don't we feel better
about our accomplishment?
Okay, so here, we have
some non-self antigens.
They wind up in the body,
and then they are detected.
One of two things can
happen in specific defense.
That activates some
of our phagocytes
or some of
our T cells
to destroy these invading
cells-- you know, virus--
in some manner.
Another option, the one
that we're concerned
about here tonight,
is we come down here,
and we get what's called
"antibody-mediated immunity."
The goal here is these
special cells called "B cells."
They're going
to produce what?
Antibodies.
What are antibodies?
Antibodies
are proteins.
They're not cells.
They're proteins.
Why do we care?
They do
magic stuff.
We're not going to talk about
what antibodies do tonight.
As I tell my students, we're
going to talk about antibodies
for several weeks, and
we're going to say
what they do is magic!
(audience laughing)
We will talk about
the magic later on.
The magic tonight is these
antibodies are capable
of destroying invading
pathogens or viruses
that have, what,
non-self antigens.
So, the goal of
vaccinations,
the goal of what we're
talking about tonight
is to convince these
little guys right here--
these B cells-- to
produce antibodies,
and then things are
going well for us.
So, let's take a look at what
happens once we convince
these B cells to
produce antibodies.
Two things can happen--
or two events can happen.
Something called a
"primary immune response."
Primary immune response is
when we begin this activation
of antibodies for
the very first time
that we've seen
that pathogen, okay?
So, if we've never had
that exact pathogen,
that species
of bacteria,
that type of virus
in our body before,
the body goes,
"What's this?
"We're being invaded."
But our body's
not very smart.
It kind of sits around and goes,
"What do you think we should do?
"I mean, we're
being invaded."
"Well, I don't know, let's
see how they behave."
"Let's go ahead
and wait."
"It doesn't look like they're
be behaving very well."
"What should we do?"
"We can have another
meeting tomorrow
"and decide tomorrow
what we should do."
And this goes
on and on
because this whole
reaction is governed
by lower-level
management,
things called "plasma"
and "helper T cells."
These plasma and helper
T cells eventually,
when things aren't going well,
say, "You know what?
"Maybe we should do some
antibody production."
It just takes
five to ten days.
It takes five
to ten days.
Five days for you
twenty-somethings.
Grandma...
maybe ten days.
Meanwhile, things aren't going
well for us in the body.
Now, it doesn't mean these
pathogens are unchallenged.
There are, remember,
nonspecific defenses
to try and
challenge these.
But we don't
want that.
We don't want
the reserve force.
We want the main
fighting forces to come.
So, these antibodies could
take five to ten days,
and these antibodies-- because
they're just proteins--
they're not alive--
they can last months,
sometimes years.
We used to think they
lasted our whole life.
That was such a wonderful time
back then when we believed that.
So, this is a primary
immune response.
First time we ever encounter
that specific one.
So, I tell my students,
"Let's assume you go out
"and you lick the
water fountain," okay?
Because it's
your behavior.
You like to lick
water fountains.
So, you get a drink, and you
lick the water fountain.
This is the first time you've
licked that water fountain.
You've got a whole
host of microbes
you've never
had before.
Boom-- you're slamming into
a primary immune response.
Five to ten days later,
you might stop vomiting.
(audience laughing)
Okay, so...
what happens with the
secondary immune response?
This is when we have a response
after our repeat exposure
to the exact
same pathogen.
So, for some reason,
a week-and-a-half later,
you're feeling better.
You get another drink,
and you say, "Oh, mi amor...
"it's been a week
since I've licked you,"
so you lick the
water fountain again, okay?
That's the same
water fountain.
It's the same guys
growing on there,
so, boom-- you get infected
with the exact same pathogen
you did before.
Now, we say it's a
secondary immune response.
What does
that mean?
When we had our first response,
those cells that were involved
in that first response weren't
all consumed in the response.
Some of them
survived.
They live on as what we call,
what, "memory B and T cells."
Think of it this way-- here's
a good military analogy,
is that when we
look at, you know,
Iraq part 1,
the prequel,
after Iraq part 1,
the prequel,
we had a lot of military
personnel that came back,
and we strongly encouraged
them to go into the reserves,
and a lot
of them did.
When we had Iraq part 2,
the sequel, okay,
was there a benefit of having
those same military personnel
come back?
They've already engaged
the enemy before.
They know what the
enemy looked like.
They're familiar with
the tactics of the enemy,
and they were successful
in their first fight,
and they were not destroyed in
the first fight with the enemy.
Isn't this a group
we want to have back?
That's what the
memory B and T cells are.
They were involved in the first
war with the invading pathogen.
They've survived.
They've
remembered.
Do they need to wait
five to ten days
to know that this
is a bad invasion?
No.
So, it turns out in a
secondary immune response,
you're producing antibodies
in one to two days.
Doesn't that beat
the bejeebers
out of that whole
week-and-a-half thing?
Sure-- okay?
But here's something else
more important than that.
Not only do we get antibodies
in one to two days,
versus five to ten,
the antibodies are produced
in phenomenal numbers.
It's kind of like, you know,
"We remembered what happened
"when you invaded
us last time.
"We're not going
to do this again."
Take a look
at this.
It's science-- we have
to have a data table.
We've had
one already.
We must have
a graph, okay?
It's in our DNA.
Let's get them out of the way,
and we'll go to the pictures
of the puppies
pretty soon.
(audience laughing)
Okay?
So, what we have here on the--
on the Y-axis over here,
we have the antibody
concentration in our plasma,
in our blood.
The X-axis down here,
or the horizontal axis,
we have the passage in
time measured in weeks--
one week, two weeks,
three weeks, four weeks.
Okay?
Now, let's see if you were
paying attention, class.
In a primary
immune response,
how many days did it take
for these antibodies?
Five to...?
>> (all) Ten.
>> Ten-- in a secondary
immune response?
>> (all) One to two.
>> One to two-- okay.
So, we're going to look at--
these blue and red lines here
represent
an antibody.
This antibody here
is called IgG,
and so let's assume over
here-- here's day seven--
so, right, it's
week number one.
At day five, we lick
the water fountain, okay?
By day six and seven,
we're not doing very well.
So, it turns out--
I'm sorry, back here,
we lick the water fountain
here at day number one.
It takes us
up to day five
to where we start
producing antibodies,
and we're at about day ten
before we reach the peak.
If that's successful,
what happens?
The antibodies tend to
decrease in numbers.
We go, "Oh, yeah, I can-- I
can lick any water fountain."
Okay?
(laughing)
Then, we go back, and--
for God knows what reason--
you decide to
do it again.
It's like playing
on the freeway.
It may have worked
the first time,
not necessarily
the second time.
So, we come over here--
here's day one.
We lick the very
same water fountain.
Look what happens.
At day number one, look what
happens to the production
of antibodies.
Are we waiting
five to ten days?
No-- but look at how many
we produced over here.
Look at what we are going to
do in the secondary response.
Sweet.
There's a-- going back to
kind of the military parlance,
there's something
in military strategy
that's called the
"Powell Doctrine,"
after Colin Powell.
His strategy was, if you think
in order to win the battle,
you need 100 tanks,
send in 1,000.
If you need 50 bombers,
send in 100.
If you need 10,000 military
personnel, send in 50,000.
Make sure that you have
overwhelming response
so you kinda win
or you win?
You win.
This is what we're
experiencing over here.
We are saying,
"You know what?
"We remember last
time you were here.
"Apparently, we
didn't wipe you out,
"because here
you are again."
Your body doesn't
know you licked
the water fountain
again, okay?
For all it knows, you
weren't completely wiped out
the first time--
so, look at that.
We get a response
in one to two days
and a phenomenal amount
of antibodies produced.
So...
would you rather have a primary
or secondary immune response?
Don't make me angry.
What do we want?
>> (all) Secondary.
>> Otherwise everybody has
to lick the water fountain.
Secondary, okay?
(audience laughing)
We want to have a
secondary, okay?
How could you
trick your body
into initiating a
primary immune response?
>> Vaccines.
>> Vaccines.
Vaccinations.
Because in a vaccination, we're
going to inject into the person
something that stimulates
that first response.
The vaccine may actually
have the dead pathogen.
It may have a weakened
version of the pathogen.
It may have a portion of it,
just a little antigen.
It might have a little
section of the membrane.
It might even have just the
toxins produced by the organism.
You say, "Which
do you use?"
Uh, you hit it
on the head.
This is why we don't come up
with vaccines in 24 hours,
because it takes years of
research to figure out
what is it that triggers
the response in our body
to that pathogen.
Is it the antigen?
Is it the weakened
organism?
Is it the dead
organism?
Is it its toxins?
What is it that actually
stimulates that response?
That's what takes up a
lot of the research time.
So, by giving somebody
a vaccination--
and, by the way, the
pharmaceutical product
is called the
"vaccine," right?
The procedure is
called the "vaccination."
And what do you
gain from it?
Immunization.
Sometimes, we call the
process "immunization,"
but you become-- you
get immunity, right?
So, take the vaccine through the
process called "vaccination."
If all goes well,
you get immunity.
So, how does
this work?
Why does
this work?
Because we're tricking
our body into thinking
it's being invaded,
but is it really?
No.
Does your body
know that?
No.
It has everybody
show up to the fight.
You produce B cells.
You produce
memory cells.
You produce memory T cells,
and guess what?
You also produce
antibodies.
But all the army's
shown up to the fight,
but is there an
enemy to fight?
No.
So, you have antibodies
produced already.
Here we go.
What is the advantage
of tricking your body
into a primary
immune response?
>> (indistinct speaking).
>> Because you benefit from
a secondary immune response
if you ever
get infected.
So, think
about this.
With respect to
influenza vaccines,
we always want people
five or under,
fifty or over to
be first in line.
How come?
Because we don't want somebody,
you know, 70, 80 years old
to wait five to ten days to
produce their first antibodies.
That might not be
a good outcome.
We want them to respond with a
phenomenal amount of antibodies
in-- what--
one to two days.
And so, the advantage
of the vaccination
is to trick
that body
to get through its
primary immune response
so if the pathogen actually
does make it into our body,
inadvertently,
we're good to go.
We're armed
for bear.
Have you heard of this concept
"herd immunity" before?
Herd immunity,
in medical parlance,
we call "community immunity,"
because it's melodic,
and we always want to
show that we have rhythm,
okay, but it turns out
that nobody's really using
the community
immunity.
We have this kind of
this herd immunity.
What does it mean?
You hear people commonly
say, "You know what?
"I don't have my kids
vaccinated, and they're fine.
"They don't get
sick at all."
What should they say to all
the parents that vaccinated?
"Thank you,"
okay?
"Thank you."
Take a look
up here.
On the left-hand side,
all the blue guys right here,
all these blue guys--
these are not immunized,
and they are
still healthy.
The red guys that we see
over here-- the red guys--
these are not immunized,
and they're sick.
So, when we get a
couple sick people
in with a bunch
of non-immunized,
guess what is going to
happen to that pathogen?
It's going to move through
the population, isn't it?
And a great deal
of the population's
going to become sick,
as indicated by red.
This is what happened in
unimmunized populations.
A couple people
come in,
and the whole population
could possibly get sick.
Look down here.
The yellow guys right here--
the yellow guys are healthy,
and they're
vaccinated.
So, what happens now if we
have a sick person in red
who comes into
that population?
We're still going to spread
to a lot of the blue people
like we did up here,
who are unvaccinated.
They are going to
become sick now,
but those that were
vaccinated, do not get sick.
Over here on the left, what
happens when the majority
of the population in yellow
is vaccinated?
Now, we have some in blue
that are unvaccinated,
and then we have the
pathogen introduced.
Is the population
going to get sick?
Probably not.
How come?
Because those that
are unimmunized--
excuse me, the
blue guys right here,
those that are
unimmunized and healthy
benefit from what?
All of those in the herd
that are immunized,
that are vaccinated.
This concept first came
with cattle ranchers.
Cattle ranchers who
may have thousands
or tens of thousands
of head
spread over maybe tens or
hundreds of thousands of acres
ask the question, "Do I
need to go out and capture
"every single
head of stock
"and vaccinate them all to
ensure the safety of my herd?"
And they figured out--
my god, almost 30 years ago--
for most diseases, no, you need
to vaccinated maybe 80%, 85%
of the herd, and those others
that aren't vaccinated,
in most cases,
will gain benefit.
So, when we see a population
of humans, for instance,
where the vast majority--
whoa-- where the vast majority--
you want to see
that now, don't you?
(audience laughing)
Just wait-- there's more.
We'll be there
in a minute, okay?
So, when you see this, these
little blue guys right here
are the people who say,
"My kids aren't vaccinated,
"and they are
perfectly healthy."
They should be saying
thank you to what?
All of the yellow
vaccinated people.
You say, "Well, what's
the magic number?
"How many
do we need?
"90% of the herd has
to be vaccinated-- 80%?"
It depends.
We come over here.
There's something that
we look at that's called--
it's called
"R nought."
It's-- R nought is the basic
reproduction ratio or number.
What does
that mean?
The R nought value is the
average number of cases
in an uninfected population that
one infected person generates
over the course of
the infectious period
of that pathogen in an
otherwise uninfected population,
which is to say, "How
infectious is that disease?"
So, are all diseases
equally threatening?
No.
Some have a higher
propensity
for moving through
the population,
and that's what this R nought
number is right here.
So, if we take a look up here
at some different types
of value of mumps, the
R nought value is 4 to 7.
Which one is more dangerous
when it goes into a population,
mumps or measles?
Measles.
Look at the
R nought number.
It's 18.
Down here, if R
is less than 1,
the infection will die
out in the population.
It's not
virulent enough.
It's not potent enough to make
it through the population.
If it's
more than 1,
the infection will
be able to persist
and spread in
the population.
Take a look at
that number now.
That's pretty
significant, isn't it?
So, you say, "Okay,
so what's the threshold
"for herd immunity?"
For the mumps, because
of its R nought value,
if we could get 75% to 86%
of the population vaccinated,
we're good.
We have herd immunity.
Look down
here, though.
Pertussis, whooping cough--
higher threshold, right?
So, it's a little--
you can see they are all
in the 80% to
90% category.
Now, we start looking at
portions of population.
If 10%, 12%, 14%
have exemptions,
do we now start to see
that those small numbers,
even 5%, 10%,
could be a concern?
because if we
have 8%, 9%, 10%
of the students that
aren't vaccinated,
we're starting to
lose our what?
Herd immunity, our
community immunity.
(chuckling to himself)
I'll just leave it
there for a minute.
Yes, yes--
it's Photoshopped!
Send me no e-mails.
I took no infant
on the carpeting
and threw syringes at it.
(audience laughing)
So, how did we get
here, you know?
Why are we where
we are today?
Well, let's
take a look.
Question is-- and you know
the answer to this, probably,
because you're a
learned group--
is there a disconnect between
science and the public?
(audience laughing)
Okay?
So, what we have here-- this is
from the Pew Research Center.
They surveyed members
of the American Academy
for the Advancement
of Science.
So, these are the eggheads
in science-- the big players,
the PhDs-- and said, "Okay, what
do you think about a variety
"of these
different items?"
And I'll read these
to you because the font's
a little
fuzzy here.
The first one
right here says,
"Is it safe to eat
genetically modified food?"
Scientists said-- 88% of
them said, "You betcha."
Okay, "Give me a
two-headed chicken.
"I'm good with that,"
okay?
US adults, 37%--
Look at the difference!
51% gap.
Okay, that's a
current topic.
We get that.
Okay--
the second one--
"Are you in favor in use
of animals in research?"
Scientists, 89%,
public, 47%.
Pretty big gap.
"Safe to eat foods
grown with pesticides?"
"Humans have evolved
over time."
This is where
we're going, okay?
Scientists, 98%.
Gee, that's kind of opposite
of what we hear, isn't it?
"Most sciences don't
accept evolution.
"They're just
afraid to say so."
Well, they apparently
weren't surveyed here.
Okay, and then look
at the public, 65%.
A 33% gap
right here.
Look at this one.
"Childhood vaccines, such as
measles, mumps, and rubella--
"MMR-- should
be required."
86% and 68%,
only an 18% gap.
Whoa.
So, maybe the people who
don't accept evolution
aren't the same people
who don't accept vaccines.
The number's a little
confusing there, initially.
Look down here.
How about
climate change?
"Climate change is mostly
due to human activity."
37-point gap
right here.
Whoa.
We can see that that's
even more significant
than the evolution gap.
We have fewer people accepting
the science of climate change
than accept
evolutionary theory.
How did we
get here?
How many know
this guy?
Yeah, Andrew Wakefield--
he's being, of course,
demonized right now as being
the person who's to blame
for the measles
deaths right now.
Andrew Wakefield and 12
of his closest friends
published a paper
in 1998 in "The Lancet."
"The Lancet" is the,
by most standards,
the most prestigious medical
journal published in the UK.
And in this article-- and it's
a complex article, actually--
he suggested there was
a link between vaccinations,
especially vaccinations
that are piggyback.
Like when you
get the MMR,
it's three vaccinations
at once, isn't it?
So, his suggestion
was that somehow--
still to be
determined--
that compromised your immunity
and somehow allowed you
to get diseases that
otherwise you wouldn't get.
He's actually a
gastroenterologist,
so he had an interesting
spin on that.
And so, he also
said that, you know,
there is also mercury, of
course, that was contained in--
as a preservative of many
vaccines at the time,
that be it the mercury or
be it the vaccinations,
that this-- without a doubt--
must cause the increase
we are seeing
in what disease?
In autism--
in autism.
Is there an increase in
autism in the United States?
Without a doubt, unequivocally--
there's no doubt about it.
Do we have a
reason for it yet?
No, we do not.
As I've spoken about
before to this group,
is that, in science,
we try to first of all
establish correlation.
If there's correlation,
then we look for causation.
The example--
we've seen that,
without a doubt,
you know, crime in Mexico has
been increasing dramatically
as the sale of iPhones
has increased in the US.
(audience laughing)
You can chart 'em.
They are parallel, okay?
So, does the sale
of iPhones in the US
have anything to do with the
increase of crime in Mexico?
I'm guessing "no."
We could do a study, if
you could get the grant.
I'm thinking "no."
But is there an apparent
correlation between the two?
Sure, and that's what
science needs first.
Then, we say, "Can
we have causation?
"Can we demonstrate
cause and effect?"
And so, the initial
question here was,
"Could there
be correlation
"between the increase in
vaccinations and autism?"
Yeah, there was
a correlation.
But was there
causation?
No.
His paper suggested--
didn't "suggest"--
SAID that there was,
he and his other 12 authors.
And this is what became the
poster paper, if you will,
for the anti-vaccination
movement.
And this, remember,
is back in 1998.
It became quite obvious
that the data was falsified,
and since that time, 10 of
the 13 authors have rescinded--
retracted
their findings.
It took "The Lancet"
until, what, 2010--
do the math,
12 years--
to say, "We got
taken on this,"
and it's embarrassing for
those of us in science,
because these papers are
supposed to be peer-reviewed
to the Nth degree.
This one slipped
through the crack.
It's a "tuck your tail,
hang your head"
for the body
of science.
So, what was
the outcome here?
There's absolutely no doubt,
unequivocally, that his paper
was fraudulent and the fact
that it was determined
by the British
Board of Medicine,
his medical license has
been permanently revoked.
But, yeah, it
doesn't matter.
He was out there in the
lecture circuit so long
that we had all kinds
of damage done.
Autism Speaks is one
of the four national
autism research
advocacy groups.
This is their
position statement--
the entire position
statement--
on vaccinations from their
website from a week ago.
"Over the last two decades,
extensive research has asked
"whether there is any link
between childhood vaccinations
"and autism.
"The results of this
research are clear--
"Vaccines do not
cause autism.
"We urge that all children
be fully vaccinated."
This is the national advocacy
group for autism research.
We've put this
one to bed.
We know for sure that
there is no relationship
between autism
and vaccines.
But we still have people out
there who are insisting
that that
is the case.
This does a
disservice to science
because we need to be
concentrating in other areas.
Autism is still a really
prevalent condition.
We still don't know
what's going on.
We need to move on.
This is what
science does.
We have demonstrated
there is no causation
between vaccinations
and autism.
Boom.
Now, we move on and look at
another possible influence.
How much do you
love this picture?
Notice the sores.
Okay?
(all laughing)
Okay.
So-- and then, we have
brochures like this.
This one of my colleagues at the
college gave me, and she said,
"Hey, I hear you're
interested in giving a
talk on vaccinations.
"Look what I just brought back
from my chiropractor's office."
So, at the top here, we have--
by the time a child-- whoa.
"By the time a child
is six months old,
"they are injected with
at least 62 vaccines."
That would
be a lot.
At 18 months,
87.
At six years,
at least 101.
We will come
back to that
in just a second, okay?
(audience laughing)
But I want to get you
to point number 2 here
on their 18-point list.
"To protect my children
from vaccines,
"I will not get
them vaccinated
"because it's the vaccinated
children who have autism,
"asthma, allergies,
skin disorders,
"immune system disorders,
neurological disorders,
"ADD, ADDH, other
behavioral disorders,
"meningitis, dyslexia,
hearing and vision problems,
"and these conditions are
rare or never encountered
"in unvaccinated
children," okay?
"Other conditions linked
to vaccination
"include pervasive
developmental disorder,
"Asperger's syndrome,
eczema--"
>> Eczema?!
(audience laughing)
>> Explains it--
okay?
"Encephalitis, Guillain-Barre
syndrome, convulsions,"
and it goes on for
three paragraphs
but finishes with "unvaccinated
children don't get these."
Absolute nonsense.
So, it goes on-- but these
things are out there
in your local, whatever,
chiropractor,
you know, herbal
doctor's office,
and people read these
things, and you think,
"Wow, you know, these
posters, these handouts--
"it must be true,"
and it goes, including
the one I love down here,
which is, "There is no proof
that the polio vaccine
"decreased polio."
(audience laughing)
If it's printed,
it must be true.
And it is printed
on clay paper.
It's a very nice brochure,
and these are available
at the website,
by the way, okay?
And so, let's go back to the
original statement here.
"By the time a child
is six months old,
"they are injected with
at least 62 vaccines."
That's a lot.
When all else fails,
check the data.
So, I went to
the CDC website,
because that's what
they're claiming, right,
"according to CDC"?
So, here's
the chart.
So, at birth, they're supposed
to have the first injection
of hep B.
Within one to two months,
the second injection.
And from six to eighteen,
the third injection,
so that's one,
two, three.
At two months,
the RV injection.
At four months--
so, let's count.
One, two, three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, nine, ten,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, whoops, 19, 20--
and you go through here,
and then, for influenza,
they have to get twelve
because it's twice for them.
So, if you do the
math, and you think,
"Wow, is that
really 101?"
Well, if we take a look we
find out that, no, it is not.
That's 19 vaccinations
at six months, not 62.
It's 27 vaccinations
in 18 months, not 87.
And it's 38 vaccinations
at six years, not a 101.
But people read this
and go, "That's amazing,"
getting back to the baby that
had all the little needles
in it, okay?
So, when all else fails,
of course, we want to do--
we want to take
a look at the data.
And we find out that 10 diseases
are presented-- are prevented
with 38 vaccinations.
That's pretty
impressive, okay?
Is there a relationship
between the acceptance
of global warming, evolution,
and vaccinations?
So, you think, "It's got to
be the same group, right?
"It's the same cracker
barrel here," okay?
So, let's take
a look.
Global warming.
So, "Is it
human-caused?"
50% of the population surveyed
here said, "Yeah," okay?
"Is it naturally caused?"
Eh, 20%
(chuckling)
"Is there no warming at all?"
30%.
(audience laughing)
Put that head
in the sand, okay?
So, over here,
human evolution.
50% said, "I believe
in evolution."
Okay?
And then, another 50-ish
percent said, "I disbelieve."
Now, let's come over here
and compare this to this.
This question is, "The health
benefits of obtaining
"generally recommended
childhood vaccinations
"outweigh the
health risk."
In other words, "It's a good
thing to get vaccinations."
Look at this.
Those who said the global
warming is human-caused--
only 50% said that--
but 80% said that
vaccinations are good.
So, the disbelief in
evolution doesn't correlate
to a disbelief in the
benefit of vaccinations.
Okay?
We take a look
over here.
Those that said that global
warming is naturally caused
had an 82% belief that
vaccinations are good.
Those that said
there's no warming...
(laughing)
still understood--
75% of them-- that
vaccinations are good.
Look down here--
human evolution.
The 50% here that said that
evolution, over here,
didn't occur--
look at this--
75% of them said
vaccinations are good.
So, the question is,
"Is there a relationship
"between the acceptance of
global warming, evolution,
"and vaccinations
as valid science?"
And the answer
is what?
No, there is not.
Is there a relationship
between religiosity,
science comprehension, and
approval of vaccinations?
Take a look here.
Again, sorry about
the small font.
On the left-hand side here, we
have, "There's solid evidence
"of global warming.
"Human beings,
as we know them,
"developed from earlier
sources of animals.
"There are benefits
to vaccination."
Look at this.
Here we have low religiosity
and low science comprehension.
50% of them said,
"Yeah, I'm good
"that there is solid
evidence of global warming."
That same group over
here said-- 75% of them--
"Human beings evolved
from earlier forms."
But look at that.
About another 75%--
the same group here--
said, "I'm okay
with vaccinations."
So even though they--
let's go down here.
Low religiosity, high
science comprehension.
75% said, "Yup, there's solid
evidence for global warming."
Look at over here.
So, low religiosity, high
science comprehension.
Look at this.
Really high over here on the
fact that humans evolved.
But look at over here--
still high over here.
What's the point?
Come down here.
High religiosity, low
science comprehension.
Look at that--
25%.
Look over here.
You see what
this is showing?
The fact that you have low
beliefs in global warming
as being
true science,
or evolution, in no way
affects your acceptance
of vaccinations.
Counterintuitive.
So, when we say it's the same
group, is it the same group?
Apparently
not, okay?
How about this?
You know,
let's go here.
Do people believe that getting
a vaccine increases the risk
of getting
that disease?
Do you think this is why people
are not getting vaccinations?
Well, take a look.
Okay?
The question was asked,
"Children who receive
"generally recommended
childhood vaccinations
"have a higher risk
of developing autism,
"developing diabetes,
developing cancer."
Look at that.
In all cases,
what did they say?
"No, that's
not true."
So, are people not
getting vaccinations
because they think they're
going to get the disease?
Clearly not.
Okay?
That's not the case.
"Do people have a
negative view of parents
"that do not vaccinate
their children?"
So, the question was,
"I would have a negative--"
or statement-- "I would have
a negative view of parents
"who decided not to have
their children vaccinated."
Look at that.
About 70% of the people
asked-- "Yeah, that's true.
"I think that if you don't
vaccinate your children,
"I'm going to think
negatively of you."
So, are people not
getting vaccinated
because they're worried about
what people are going to think?
Apparently not.
That's not the
case, either.
I'm sorry, that
is the case, rather,
that people do have
a negative view.
Take a look
at this.
"Is there a relationship
between political views
"and views on
vaccinations?"
Here, we have extremely
high risk, low risk.
Here we have very
liberal, strong Democrat,
liberal Democrat,
moderate independent...
we used to have those.
(audience laughing)
Conservative
Republican,
and then very conservative
strong Republican.
The question is, "Do
you think there's a risk
"to legalizing
marijuana?"
Look at this-- the very
liberal Democrats said,
"Pass the roach," okay?
(audience laughing)
Over here-- I'm sorry about
that for all of you under 12
in the group, okay?
Over here, the very conservative
strong Republicans said,
"Yeah, that's
an issue."
Look at gun
ownership.
Democrats, liberals, said,
"We don't want to do that."
Republicans said,
"Lock and load," okay?
Over here, for global warming,
the liberal Democrats said,
"That's an extremely
dangerous situation."
Conservative Republicans
said, "Not a problem.
"I have to buy fewer
jackets," okay?
(audience laughing)
Look at childhood vaccines.
Pretty constant
across all groups.
We can't blame it
on the "insert here
"your favorite
whipping post,"
because it's pretty consistent
across here, isn't it?
Is there a relationship
between political views
and views on
vaccinations?
This one got a
little further.
We won't go
through this one.
This breaks it down into
every conceivable category.
We have conservative
Republican white male,
conservative Republican
white female,
liberal Democrat white
male-- you name it--
but it shows
that over here,
that here are their
different views
on these different
subjects-- look over here.
They're all on the same page
on "Are vaccinations good?"
Ouch.
As we say in science, "Another
perfectly good hypothesis
"torpedoed by
the data," okay?
What's going on?
(audience laughing)
So, then, what's
the reason
for the anti-vaccination
movement then?
Clearly it's not
political ideology.
It's not male,
it's not female.
It's not black,
it's not white,
it's not Hispanic.
All those classic
demographic pigeon holes
aren't working
very well here.
So, could it be just plain
old lack of knowledge
of this aspect
of science?
My suggestion...
might be "yes,"
or is it a question
of "it's my paradigm
"and I'm sticking to it"?
The graph I showed you that's--
looked at science comprehension
and the beliefs in
vaccinations, etcetera,
was based upon the National
Science Foundation indicators,
but they chose
11 of them
out of the almost
300 that are there.
So, they chose 11.
So, is that a
good measurement?
Uh, probably not.
I would suggest that maybe
what we're looking at here
is this is an
aspect of science
that people just
don't know about.
So, when they're given a
brochure that's nice and shiny
like the one
I showed you,
they're more likely
to accept that.
And also, it's my paradigm,
and I'm sticking to it, right?
We-- everybody in this
room has our paradigms
that have worked for
us to this point.
We're very resistant
to change them.
I've cited-- some you know--
a friend of mine who--
who as a-- who was
a Calvin professor
for many, many years,
and he told me once--
he says,
"You know, Greg,"
he says, "It's really difficult
to change somebody's view,
"somebody's paradigm,
"when they have arrived
at that paradigm
"illogically in
the first place."
So, his full statement was,
"Greg, you can't use logic
"to change
somebody's mind
"when they arrived
at their position
"illogically in the
first place," right?
We've all tried to do it.
So, sometimes, you know,
whether it's evolution-denying,
whether it's climate
change-denying,
whether it's
vaccine-denying,
there's nothing
you're going to do
that's going to
change their paradigm
if they arrived at that
illogically in the first place.
If they received
the brochure
from the chiropractor's
office first,
you're second fiddle,
possibly, at that point.
So, why does
it matter?
Why do vaccinations
matter?
It seems amazing that, in 2015,
that came out of my mouth, okay?
Why are we having
this conversation?
Let's check our watch for
which century we're in.
Children with
vaccine exemptions
may be up to
22 times more likely--
so those students that
are granted an exception
for vaccination
in school
may be up to 22 times more
likely to contract measles
in an outbreak than those
children who are vaccinated.
This is from the "Journal of the
American Medical Association"
published way
back in 2000.
Why should I
vaccinate my kids?
Take a look at these numbers
from the early 1960s.
Vaccination hit
its crescendo
and its big push
in the early '60s.
So, in the-- prior to 1960, we
had 400 to 500 deaths per year.
From what, okay?
From-- from, if we can see
here-- where are we right here?
Preventable diseases--
vaccine preventable diseases.
So, here, this is just measles--
400 to 500 deaths per year,
48,000 hospitalizations,
4,000 have encephalitis,
which is swelling of the brain.
Now that we have this
groundswell of vaccinations,
look where we
are now, okay?
Look at these
low numbers.
2001-'02--
oh-oh, oh-oh!
Look at that, 603 for measles
by the end of last year,
and it's still
growing.
Could there be an
inverse relationship
between vaccinations rates
and an increase here of measles?
Immunization rates around the
world continue to increase.
Look at this-- this is from
World Health Organization.
We look at diptheria-- 84%
of the world population.
That's astounding.
That includes the back
villages of Chad, okay?
So, I mean, you
think about this.
You know, polio, 84%.
Measles, 84%.
Hepatitis B, 81%.
Pneumococcal pneumonia
is a new vaccine,
so we're still
down at 25%.
Same thing with
the rotavirus.
It's down at 14%.
Worldwide, everybody's
on this page.
Here we are, again,
in the US...
somewhere in the
table of contents.
What is the leading
cause of death
for those less
than 44 years old?
What is it,
group?
So, if you are
44 or under,
according to the Centers
For Disease Control,
what's your greatest
probability of death?
>> Car accidents.
>> Accidents.
All accidents.
You don't have to worry
about any diseases--
the big ones--
if you're under 44.
We recognize there's a
huge footnote there, okay?
The most common.
There are a lot of
diseases we die of,
but the most common is
going to be accidents.
What was the leading cause
of death for those under 44
prior to vaccines?
>> (indistinct speaking).
>> Disease.
Communicable disease.
I like to tell
my students,
go to one of the
historical cemeteries
that we have here in Michigan--
and we have no shortage.
Go to one of the
historical cemeteries
and take a look at
the age of the people
that are
buried there.
You will see at least half
of the cemetery are children
who were buried before
their 12th birthday,
because your chance
of making it past 12
was very,
very remote.
As parents, do we worry
about our children dying
of communicable diseases
before they're 44?
No.
So, you think,
"Why is that?"
Well, take a look at what
vaccinations have done.
Influenza.
Influenza occurs globally
with an annual attack rate
estimated between
5% to 10% in adults,
three to five times that rate
in children, 20% to 30%.
Worldwide, these annual
epidemics of influenza--
the common flu, right--
take 3 to 5 million cases
of severe illness,
and about a quarter
of a million
to half a million deaths
occur each year.
What about measles?
Measles remain one of the
leading causes of death
among young children.
Estimated before vaccination--
2.6 million deaths per year.
This is prior
to 1980.
Measles vaccinations resulted
in a 75% drop in measle deaths
between 2000
and 2013.
Prevented an estimated
15.6 million deaths,
contrary to
the brochure.
Okay?
In 2013, there were 145,000
measle deaths globally,
about 400 deaths per day,
16 deaths per hour,
mostly children
under the age five,
and that's
with vaccines.
We need to get more
people vaccinated.
Hepatitis B.
Estimated 240 million people
are chronically inflected--
infected, which is too bad,
because there's a vaccine.
Approximately 780,000 people
die per year of Hepatitis B.
The vaccine against B--
Hepatitis B--
has been available
since 1982.
Look at that number--
it's 95% effective.
In developing
a vaccine,
we will wet our collective
immunological pants
if we can get efficacy rate
effectiveness of 80% to 85%.
That's the "died and gone to
heaven" for the flu vaccine.
This is at 95%, and some people
still aren't getting it.
I guess Hepatitis is fun.
(audience laughing)
What about the
risk of vaccines?
People say, "Well,
you know, you can get--
"something bad
can happen."
Of course something
bad can help.
When you get
your tonsils out,
when you get your wisdom teeth
out, when you cross the street.
It's all a number's
game, isn't it, okay?
We think nothing twice about
going and getting X surgeries--
X, Y, Z.
Take a look
at this.
Out of the more than 100 million
immunizations given per year,
in just the
United States,
the federal government's vaccine
injury compensation program
receives an average of
1,200 claims, complaints.
They pay out 284
claims per year.
That's 1
in 352,000.
Let's assume that they should
have paid out twice as much,
if you want,
or three times,
which is basically
an admission of guilt
that this vaccine
caused this malady.
National Weather Service says
you have a 1 in 12,000 chance
of getting hit
by lightning.
You have a 1 in 352,000 chance
of having a bad effect
from a vaccine that causes
permanent disability
or death.
It's a number's
game, isn't it?
In closing here-- close to
closing-- this website here,
Harvard Law,
Bill of Health,
this gentleman
right here--
a lot of people wouldn't
call a gentleman anymore,
because, boy, did
he stir the pot.
He's a bioethicist.
He posted this blog site, which
is an unmoderated blog site,
until his post.
They had to close it down
because his server crashed.
Okay?
He said, "Should there
will be liability
"for failure
to vaccinate?"
This is-- these
are his words,
replete with all of
the grammatical errors.
"I think there should
be a right to decide
"not to vaccinate
your child."
I think most of us would
agree with that-- okay?
"But we have been
far too lenient
"in putting up with
this consequences
"of that
lousy choice.
"If your kid gets the measles
and makes my kid sick--
"it can happen, since vaccines
are not 100% effective--
"or my newborn
baby dies--
"newborns can't benefit
from vaccines--
"or my wife miscarries-- fetuses
are especially at high risk--
"then shouldn't I be able to sue
you for the harm you have done?
"If you know the
dangers of measles
"or, for that matter,
whooping cough or mumps
"and you still choose
to put others at risk,
"should you be exempt from the
consequences of that choice?
"I can choose not
to drink alcohol,
"but if I run you over,
it's my responsibility.
"I'm liable.
"I pay.
"I can choose not to shovel
my snow from my walk,
"but if you fall,
I pay.
"Why should failing to vaccinate
your children or yourself
"be any different?"
You can see why it caused a
little bit of comment there.
And I'm not going
down that road.
It's food for thought
for you there, okay?
But I want to give you a
quote here, in closing.
Unknown person--
see the silhouette?
"In 1736," this person said,
"I lost one of my sons,
"a fine boy of four years old,
by the smallpox,
"taken in the
common way,"
which means "caught
through the population."
Because we were
experimenting with vaccines
in the early 1700s,
even for smallpox.
We would compress the pustules
of people who had smallpox,
take the
exudate out,
and then give that to a healthy
person, hoping for the best.
Okay?
(audience laughing)
Sometimes,
it worked.
A lot of times,
it didn't.
Then, we recognized that you
could get the same from a cow,
or a steer, and give
that to a human,
and it usually
wouldn't cause death.
But we were playing with
vaccines in the early 1700s.
So, what this person means
is that "my son got this
"in the normal manner,
not from pus
"harvested from
our neighbors."
"I long regretted
bitterly,
"and still regret that I
had not given it to him
"by inoculation," which
was available in 1736.
"This I mention for sake of
parents who omit that operation
"on the supposition that they
should never forgive themselves
"if a child died under it,"
by having a vaccination.
"My example showing that
the regret may be the same
"either way, and that,
therefore, the safer route"--
the vaccination--
"should be chosen."
This is Ben Franklin.
He wrote this passage 50 years
after the death of his son.
For the rest of his life,
he could not come to fact
with the fact that his son's
death could have been prevented.
The year following
his son's death,
he actually produced
a little pamphlet
on how to provide
smallpox vaccinations.
It's an incontrovertible
scientific fact that...
the earth
is not flat,
pigs do not fly,
vaccines do not
cause autism,
and that vaccines
have saved
and continue to save
many millions of lives.
Thank you very
much for listening.
(applause)
