Dr. Paul Offit

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes. So now you're at month eight, month nine. So the concern was that natural interception occurred well before there ever was a rotavirus vaccine. It primarily is around five, six, seven. You start to see it peak then.

So the fear was, I was actually on this committee, is that the fear was is that you would give a vaccine at a time when interception was becoming more common so that people would make that association. That was why. Though you're right, yeah, that's why.

So the fear was, I was actually on this committee, is that the fear was is that you would give a vaccine at a time when interception was becoming more common so that people would make that association. That was why. Though you're right, yeah, that's why.

So the fear was, I was actually on this committee, is that the fear was is that you would give a vaccine at a time when interception was becoming more common so that people would make that association. That was why. Though you're right, yeah, that's why.

But you were still five to ten times more likely to die of rotavirus in this country, where 60 children die of rotavirus, than ever from the rotavirus vaccine. So I tried to make a case for RotaShield. I mean, the vaccine we developed at CHOP was RotaTech. But that we shouldn't kill it here because the benefits still outweigh the risks.

But you were still five to ten times more likely to die of rotavirus in this country, where 60 children die of rotavirus, than ever from the rotavirus vaccine. So I tried to make a case for RotaShield. I mean, the vaccine we developed at CHOP was RotaTech. But that we shouldn't kill it here because the benefits still outweigh the risks.

But you were still five to ten times more likely to die of rotavirus in this country, where 60 children die of rotavirus, than ever from the rotavirus vaccine. So I tried to make a case for RotaShield. I mean, the vaccine we developed at CHOP was RotaTech. But that we shouldn't kill it here because the benefits still outweigh the risks.

But that vaccine was sacrificed because we didn't vote to separate MMR into its proponent parts, and we pushed back very hard on thimerosal as a problem. We did. And so it looked like we didn't care. So here, by basically taking RotaShield off the market, it looked like we cared. And what ended up happening was, here's a virus that kills 2,000 children a day in the world.

But that vaccine was sacrificed because we didn't vote to separate MMR into its proponent parts, and we pushed back very hard on thimerosal as a problem. We did. And so it looked like we didn't care. So here, by basically taking RotaShield off the market, it looked like we cared. And what ended up happening was, here's a virus that kills 2,000 children a day in the world.

But that vaccine was sacrificed because we didn't vote to separate MMR into its proponent parts, and we pushed back very hard on thimerosal as a problem. We did. And so it looked like we didn't care. So here, by basically taking RotaShield off the market, it looked like we cared. And what ended up happening was, here's a virus that kills 2,000 children a day in the world.

that it was seven years until the next vaccine came out. And four months later, the World Health Organization wanted to still keep this vaccine alive, wrote a show, because 2,000 children die a day. And I went to that meeting in Geneva in 2000, and country after country stood up.

that it was seven years until the next vaccine came out. And four months later, the World Health Organization wanted to still keep this vaccine alive, wrote a show, because 2,000 children die a day. And I went to that meeting in Geneva in 2000, and country after country stood up.

that it was seven years until the next vaccine came out. And four months later, the World Health Organization wanted to still keep this vaccine alive, wrote a show, because 2,000 children die a day. And I went to that meeting in Geneva in 2000, and country after country stood up.

Countries like, you know, Southeast Asia or South America said, look, if it's not safe for America's children, it's not safe for our children. even though the benefit-risk ratio was very different in countries where you'd have 2,000 children dying, you know, a day from this virus.

Countries like, you know, Southeast Asia or South America said, look, if it's not safe for America's children, it's not safe for our children. even though the benefit-risk ratio was very different in countries where you'd have 2,000 children dying, you know, a day from this virus.

Countries like, you know, Southeast Asia or South America said, look, if it's not safe for America's children, it's not safe for our children. even though the benefit-risk ratio was very different in countries where you'd have 2,000 children dying, you know, a day from this virus.

And I just felt that we sacrificed RotaShield and thus, I mean, 2,000 children dying a day for seven years until that next vaccine came out was an example of us trying to look like we cared and did more harm, far more harm than good.

And I just felt that we sacrificed RotaShield and thus, I mean, 2,000 children dying a day for seven years until that next vaccine came out was an example of us trying to look like we cared and did more harm, far more harm than good.

And I just felt that we sacrificed RotaShield and thus, I mean, 2,000 children dying a day for seven years until that next vaccine came out was an example of us trying to look like we cared and did more harm, far more harm than good.

Okay. Yeah. The other thing I think that was hard in all this was understanding risk or relative risk because that's what it was. I mean, that vaccine was a cause of interception, but it was rare probably. What was interesting about that when the dust settled on this whole thing was that there were high-use states and low-use states. This was late 90s, 1998 to 1999. There were states that used...