Dr. Joseph Fraiman

If you think about it, what infection right now is out there that we need to have a rapid approval for a vaccine that we want to give to our children?

The diseases that exist, luckily medicine over the last 150 years has done an excellent job, and we no longer have terrible

infections on a massive scale that are that are killing children and of course the the concept of every child's death is a tragedy and it obviously is but to say that and then also put those children at risk of dying and then every each year having a new new generation of kids

being put at risk of dying because you didn't adequately study something that does not seem to make sense if every child's death is a tragedy and we need to get this approved as quickly as possible.

That actually is it's counter logical.

I don't, I don't know.

I don't have too much.

I know at the NIH, they, they at the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease, where he was the director, they have, I believe they have taken down, he had, he had a large photo.

There was a large photo of him at the front.

And I believe that's been taken down.

But besides that, I don't have too much information.

That's a fair point in the idea of informed consent and saying, listen, this drug does have this risk.

This is how you're going to.

But if you're willing to take that risk, that's something that we allow people to smoke cigarettes, and that offers them no benefit.

So I understand your point there.

With Vioxx, though, what they did was they didn't hide the data so much.

No, the data was in the original FDA approval, and they had an increase in heart attacks, but they compared it to naproxen, which is Aleve.

And somehow they convinced the FDA that even the reason that their group looked like it had more heart attacks is because naproxen had this heart attack protection ability, a thing that no one had ever known before.

No, this is real.

This occurred and our FDA approved Vioxx, understanding that it had more heart attacks in there.