Dr. Paul Offit

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...

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...

a lot of roto-shield and then states that didn't. So the answer to the question, was the incidence of interception greater in the high-risk states than the low-risk states, which you would have assumed was true, but it wasn't. And the reason is, is that rotavirus, natural infection, also was a rare cause of interception. So it was basically a wash.

a lot of roto-shield and then states that didn't. So the answer to the question, was the incidence of interception greater in the high-risk states than the low-risk states, which you would have assumed was true, but it wasn't. And the reason is, is that rotavirus, natural infection, also was a rare cause of interception. So it was basically a wash.

a lot of roto-shield and then states that didn't. So the answer to the question, was the incidence of interception greater in the high-risk states than the low-risk states, which you would have assumed was true, but it wasn't. And the reason is, is that rotavirus, natural infection, also was a rare cause of interception. So it was basically a wash.

And now that we have much more data on this, it was a wash. because the vaccine both caused and prevented an inception at roughly the same rate. So it was sort of the same thing.

And now that we have much more data on this, it was a wash. because the vaccine both caused and prevented an inception at roughly the same rate. So it was sort of the same thing.

And now that we have much more data on this, it was a wash. because the vaccine both caused and prevented an inception at roughly the same rate. So it was sort of the same thing.

So basically you took this off the market and deprived not only this country's children, but the world's children of something that was highly, I mean, rotavirus, the problem with rotavirus is it's a vomiting illness, vomiting and diarrhea and fever. So you have three sources of water loss, but you vomit in that illness.

So basically you took this off the market and deprived not only this country's children, but the world's children of something that was highly, I mean, rotavirus, the problem with rotavirus is it's a vomiting illness, vomiting and diarrhea and fever. So you have three sources of water loss, but you vomit in that illness.

So basically you took this off the market and deprived not only this country's children, but the world's children of something that was highly, I mean, rotavirus, the problem with rotavirus is it's a vomiting illness, vomiting and diarrhea and fever. So you have three sources of water loss, but you vomit in that illness.

You can't rehydrate with oral rehydration therapy, which is what the World Health Organization pushed unsuccessfully. It's a rapid dehydrating illness. And there's nothing you can do other than bring the child to the hospital, give them IV fluids, which is less quickly done in the developing world, which is why the death rate was so high.

You can't rehydrate with oral rehydration therapy, which is what the World Health Organization pushed unsuccessfully. It's a rapid dehydrating illness. And there's nothing you can do other than bring the child to the hospital, give them IV fluids, which is less quickly done in the developing world, which is why the death rate was so high.

You can't rehydrate with oral rehydration therapy, which is what the World Health Organization pushed unsuccessfully. It's a rapid dehydrating illness. And there's nothing you can do other than bring the child to the hospital, give them IV fluids, which is less quickly done in the developing world, which is why the death rate was so high.

And it just was hard to watch that Geneva meeting when sort of person after person stood up and said, it's not safe for America's children, it's not safe for our children because it's a matter of risk. So now I'm on the committee, right? I'm on the ACIP. And we were charged with what is an acceptable risk? Because now you have this attributive risk of one in 10 to one in 30,000.

And it just was hard to watch that Geneva meeting when sort of person after person stood up and said, it's not safe for America's children, it's not safe for our children because it's a matter of risk. So now I'm on the committee, right? I'm on the ACIP. And we were charged with what is an acceptable risk? Because now you have this attributive risk of one in 10 to one in 30,000.

And it just was hard to watch that Geneva meeting when sort of person after person stood up and said, it's not safe for America's children, it's not safe for our children because it's a matter of risk. So now I'm on the committee, right? I'm on the ACIP. And we were charged with what is an acceptable risk? Because now you have this attributive risk of one in 10 to one in 30,000.

One in 50,000, one in 100,000, one in a million. And it's an unanswerable question because I think people, when you tell people that the risk is one in 50,000 or one in 100,000, all they hear is the one, right? So you're saying it's possible. It could be me.

One in 50,000, one in 100,000, one in a million. And it's an unanswerable question because I think people, when you tell people that the risk is one in 50,000 or one in 100,000, all they hear is the one, right? So you're saying it's possible. It could be me.

One in 50,000, one in 100,000, one in a million. And it's an unanswerable question because I think people, when you tell people that the risk is one in 50,000 or one in 100,000, all they hear is the one, right? So you're saying it's possible. It could be me.