The MeidasTouch Podcast - Meidas Health, Episode 15: Dr. Demetre Daskalakis Speaks Out After CDC Resignation

Episode Date: September 3, 2025

Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the recent former head of the National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, joins Meidas Health for a powerful discussion on why he chose to resign from his post last week and what most concerns him about the future of the nation’s public health. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, Midas Mighty. Welcome to September. Really, really impressive momentum that we had here over the last 14 episodes. We just had Dr. Susan Krusty of the American Academy of Pediatrics on to talk about all things back to school and to really give evidence-based information. Remember, she said to go to Healthychildren.org if you had questions for all the parents out there, with all the confusion, if you have questions on what vaccines to get your child or if there's basic fundamental issues, that might arise when it comes to getting the flu vaccine, questions about the COVID vaccine, RSV, she went through all of that in episode 14, especially in the back half. Highly encourage you to listen to that. It's completely free. And also immunized.org, if you have questions and you're an adult or if you have a loved one that might be older, she recommended we go there to get trusted resources that are easily navigable.

So please do do that. And just as a reminder, Mivas Health is not just trying to be another podcast. We're trying to leverage the massive audience of the Midas Touch Network to provide you a space to interact and to hear from the nation's best healthcare leaders because unfortunately, a lot of them are no longer at the very top of the federal government. And so that's exactly why I'm so thrilled to have Dr. Dimitri Daskalakis here for episode 15. He is a big-time health care leader for our country. I've admired him for a very long time. I really frankly consider him somebody to just emulate in terms of impact at scale

and especially as a physician trying to do or trying to have impact at scale and trying to reach as many people as possible. Dr. Dmitri Daskalakis is the very definition of that. And so you're going to see that really shine through in our conversation. But without further ado, I really want to maximize our time here with Dr. Dmitri. We've agreed that we're just going to use first names here. So, Dimitri, thanks so much for joining Midas Health. Thanks, but that is an introduction that my mom would love. So thank you so much for that. Well, I so, you know, here we are Labor Day, quite literally Labor Day. So thank you for joining us on a holiday. Last week was quite the week for you. Wanted to see how you're, how are you

doing? I'm doing fine. I mean, I think it was quite a week. It's a whirlwind. I think going from sort of leadership in CDC to sort of trying to be a voice for, you know, raising a red flag for what's going wrong with public health in sort of a very immediate way. You know, it's been a lot. But, you know, I think I'm doing well for the most part. There's a lot of emotions, lots of feels. Is, do you feel safe?

I know, I know that you gave it really, I just thought a series of incredible interviews on broadcast TV, a resignation letter that I thought, I mean, I'm still getting sort of panged about. It really resonated. But I'm wondering, just in this environment, personal safety-wise, any issues there? Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I've been sort of in a national view before talking about some very sort of complex issues that, you know, have made some folks decide that it's appropriate to target me either in digital or other sort of media. So I think that's happening now. When I wrote that resignation letter,

I knew it was going to happen because it happened before. Do I feel safe? I mean, I'm looking over my shoulder a lot. I've got to tell you. But I think that this is the mission. I have to do it. It's, you know, it was, I decided that if I was going to resign, I could either send a letter that says I resign.

or send a letter that actually says why I resigned and then really, you know, share the details. Again, the voices from the inside are different than the voices from the outside. And there's like one moment in time when you go from the inside government to out where you're able to give a very specific point of view that could potentially affect some important change.

For our listeners who may not have tracked your career as closely as I have, although, you know, it's been, as you point out, Dimitri, a career filled with moments. in the National Spotlight in a really positive way, having incredible impact. I do want to take some time just going through your background. Sure.

What led you ultimately to this high post at the CDC, infectious disease doctor, trained in National Brigham for fellowship, multiple stints in public service. I wonder if you could take our listeners through your journey. How did you end up leading the National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases? Sure, I'll take your way back.

everybody should get their kids a doctor's kit if you want them to be a doctor because that's what made me want to be a doctor. So shout out to the doctor's kid. So all my life, I wanted to be a doctor, had no idea what that meant. My parents were immigrants. They came from Greece. My dad worked in restaurants and my mom was an executive assistant. But they really helped mentor me into a place where I was able to go to undergrad to Columbia University, where I moved there in 1991 to New York City and immediately started doing things in the HIV space. I, you know, decided to, you know, volunteer and go to high schools and talk about safer sex and all of the things. And so it became clear to me that, like, I wanted to do something that would work in HIV space. It was punctuated

by my last year at Columbia when I helped put on a large display of the AIDS Memorial quilt. I'd had friends who passed away. I, you know, used to go out in New York City and nightlife. I was a young kid in New York, I would meet people, they would disappear into Bellevue or St. Vincent's never to be heard from again. But I, you know, I did that, the memorial, the display of the AIDS Memorial quilt. And I, you know, met people who were mourning people that they lost and also people who were coming so sick. It was amazing they could walk in the door. And, like, I had this moment on college walk where I said, you know, I don't want anyone to ever have this happen again. Like, no more death and dying, no more suffering from this, whatever I can do. So that really became like my

guiding star, my North Star, to be able to sort of go into that. And then go to med school, NYU. That was great, was mentored by some great infectious disease doctors that let me see some clinical things that became very important to me in the HIV space. Did my residency of Beth Israel Deaconess, surrounded by leaders in infectious diseases. I'm going to shout out Bob Mullering, who was one of my very early mentors, who just is a legend in infectious diseases. Then I did the unthinkable, which was to leave the Beth Israel Deaconess system. So for those in Boston knows that that's high treason, not really. And I moved over to Mass General and the Brigham, where I did infectious diseases,

and again, got to work with some of like the brightest and the best scientists and clinical folks. So when that happened, I was working in a lab for a while doing basically. science immunology. Tom Frieden, another person you may know, came on my radio, because we had radios then. And the radio, he talked about there was like a case of HIV, multi-drug resistant and fast progression in New York City and a gay man. And I was like, what am I still doing here? I need to go back. So I reached out to New York City to my friend Judy Aberg, who brought me back as faculty at Bellevue. And then instantly, I started doing things that were public health things. I started doing testing in commercial sex venues for HIV. I started post-exposure

prophylaxis programs. So taking pills after an HIV exposure to prevent it. There wasn't prep. So I did surveys about prep. And so I all of a sudden was doing public health and didn't know it. I got the opportunity to get my master's of public health at Harvard after a family donated money to NYU to build a doctor's career or some doctor's career to make sure that no one died like their son. So it resonated to my moment on college walk. So I got my MPH and then my first job out of the gate was to be the head of HIV prevention for New York City. And there, you know, I got an influx of the things that you need, political will and resources, as well as really strong science, to be able to implement some really significant programming that pushed the HIV epidemic

down in New York City in a rapid way, faster than expected and to a place. that is, you know, enviable across the world. Did a good job there, enough where they need me the deputy commissioner for disease control in New York City. And, you know, I remember when I was interviewed for it, they said, you know, you're going to do all the, you'll be the chief of infectious diseases for New York City. Every now and then you'll do an emergency response.

And then subsequently, I was in an emergency response the entire time. So, measles outbreak in Brooklyn, Legionella outbreaks all over the city and then ultimately COVID-19 where I was incident manager of a lot of events stayed there and then was recruited to CDC to be the head of HIV prevention.

Managed to stay in that. And actually I was hired by Robert Redfield during the first Trump administration. And I worked there for about three months and then got pulled back into the COVID space where I worked in the vaccine task force got back to HIV briefly, then M.Pox brought me to the White House, where I let, I think, what is considered like one of the most successful infectious disease responses in the last

couple of decades. And so that went great. And after that came back to CDC to work for National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, which is, you know, the home to vaccine programs around the country as well as a place where the smartest scientists worked. that the entire world looks toward for vaccine preventable diseases. And that brings me to today where I had to resign because it was getting weaponized. You know, I want to say for our listeners, I had the first time I actually was on a call and Dimitri was during his tenure at the White House overseeing the M-Pox response. And I was saying this, you know, before we officially begin the podcast, how, as he notes,

he oversaw one of the greatest public health responses to a crisis in my lifetime, certainly. But, you know, Demetri, you'll remember this. There was moments where on those calls, you guys had to talk through the nuances of how to vaccinate and whether it was up Q or I, it was just even the nuances of like the angle in which. A little complicated. It was really complicated. And but there was a lot of complications there, but you cut through that in a way that, you know, I try to emulate my own life when it comes to health and communication. but you did something that is, I think, incredibly hard to do. You don't necessarily get trained to do it in medical school.

You either learn it or you don't. Some of it is just natural. Some of it is hard to learn. We did an amazing job. And for our listeners here, everything that Dr. Demetri just pointed out, that's a lot of hard work. And there's a long days. I think you probably don't think, as you're in the midst of it, that you're going to end up where you just ended up high post at the CDC.

leading a really important center. But, you know, when you reflect back on the last week, the decision to put the resignation letter out there, take us through that because there's a lot there. And also before, I do want them to do a little tea up here for that resignation letter. I encourage all our listeners to go. Google Dr. Dimitri Daskalakis resignation letter to read it. It's very easily, easily discoverable on the internet. But, you know, you talk about conflict with RFK's leadership, undermining public health, ideological bias in science, concerns for an increase in vaccine preventable diseases, risks to our national security because of being less prepared for the next biocrisis. There was a lot there. I'm wondering your decisions and what went into your mind before you wrote it and what made you think, gosh, I got to write it?

Yeah. I mean, so I'll start by saying I'll take us back more than the week and take us back to the beginning of Secretary Kennedy's stint at HHS. I mean, I'm a government, a career government person. And, you know, what we thrive on is kind of being like AI, right? So our brains get trained on the information that we get so that we can actually like generate messaging that really is based on what that training. and that input is doing. So when Kennedy came, I was like, this is great because now we have like, we're going to hear from him at his like HHS welcome talk. And that's like the first time I'm going to hear like what he actually thinks now, as opposed to my impression of him before, which was definitely influenced by my experience leading the measles outbreak in Brooklyn, where I saw some of his sentiment toward vaccine come through.

So I really did that, you know, I'm going in there open-minded. I had everyone cancel their meetings in my center so we could listen to his speech. I had note takers avidly taking notes so that we could take what he said and say, how could we train that AI brain of our own? How can we train ourselves to be able to figure out how the things that we think are clinically and scientifically important,

how we can meld that into the vision of what the secretary is expressing? So- It sounds like, I mean, when I'm hearing you, say this in the pre-prep for his comments. It sounds like you guys were open and sort of willing to be perhaps proven wrong if you had pre-existing sort of a sense of what he might say. It sounds like you're open to a positive outcome here that maybe he was going to surprise him. A hundred percent. I was thrilled when he got on stage at that HHS meeting and said,

you know, I'm not coming with preconceived notions though you may hurt here that I have some. you should not come with preconceived notions either. And we were like, Shazam, that's the thing. Like, that's what we need to hear. And everyone was like, okay, we can work with that. And, you know, I think also, like, we heard the words, you know, gold standard science. And we're like, yes, science, since we felt that folks were trying to get away from it. And we heard radical transparency.

And we're like, yes, all of this is a yes. So we don't have had conversations, like, based on that transcript and other things we saw about how we could really plug in our stuff into that vision. And, you know, we were all, we all sort of started there. And then when we saw that the words and the actions didn't really correlate, we started to feel not so good about that. So for me, you know, as I saw that unfold, like, my question was always, where is my line? Like, what's going to happen where I'm like, I can't be here anymore? Like, I think, you know, again, I'm a doctor. I took the apocratic oath. Like, I really do believe in that, like, if I feel like I'm about to do harm, then it's really not a thing that I can do.

And so, you know, I, you know, was really close and continued to be close with Dr. Dad Howry and Dr. Dan Jernigan, you know, we, we definitely, you know, my letter, which has been sometimes criticized for being long, sorry, I had lots to say, you know, that letter. So that's why we have AI. Yeah, right. I should have summarized. So that, you know, like, I had prepared it and really had been chronicling, like, the things that got me close to my line. And then a couple of things happened. So the first, for me, was when a, the document that sort of guides what's going to happen at the advisory committee for immunization practices, the work group, that small group that creates recommendations that go to the bigger meeting for discussion, like we gave loads.

of feedback. Lawyers gave loads of feedback. And then ultimately what came back was this document that it wasn't about what they wanted to talk about in the meeting. Everyone was great with that, but it was more about the fact that they wanted to say that, you know, that they wanted to remove CDC scientific bias from the work group, which is weird because, like, I think that we have the most dissimpassioned scientists who are the least biased. And they sort of made it. clear that the work group, that the members of CDC staff weren't actually reporting to the director anymore, that they were like really beholden to a vision of the work group chair. The lead of the work group for COVID-19 has a pin tweet that says the evidence is clear,

we should stop giving people COVID vaccines. So, you know, and you know, call me crazy, but, you know, we've seen that, you know, COVID vaccine helped end the pandemic, all of the data in the world, except for sort of some sources that maybe these folks are citing that are not demonstrated to be valid sources, that the COVID vaccine is safe. There's always a risk for a vaccine. Like, nothing is zero, zero risk. But overall, it's a safe vaccine. Definitely there could be some side effects. And again, there's been a severe side effects are folks who had myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart. But that hasn't really been seen for a while. And it was really related to a very sort of specific

time where people were getting doses close together. Anyway, so that meant to me that there was no way that my scientists that were working for within CDC were going to be able to create science that was like that was not contaminated by the ideology since the ideologues were the one that were driving the conversation in a way that was unprecedented. So that was my first, my first line. And the second, you know, was when we started to hear that Susan was potentially Susan Menares, who is the, who was the director of CDC, you know, the congressionally sort of approved director of CDC confirmed, when we heard that she was probably going to leave

or be removed, you know, we were going back. to the time before we had a director, months and months of having no scientific leadership, where we were just getting these top-down recommendations with no ability to input. We'd never briefed the secretary once. Like not one NCIRD. No one from my center ever had briefed him, ever, ever, not me, not anyone. And so we were getting all this top-down stuff with no evidence backing it. We were like, great, we have scientific leadership. We're going to be okay. And then that got pushed aside, which meant that, like, imminently, we were coming to all these decisions and that there was all that could happen from my perspective was harm, no good. And that's my line.

You led the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. That was the post that you held. And, you know, we're having this conversation on Labor Day day, day after a conversation that we just had with President of the American Academy, Pediatrics, Dr. Susan Questley. What I find just, it's hard to keep up, but it's, you know, my wife's a pediatrician. I'm a pulmonologist, and we vaccines are what we do in our clinical lives in a variety of different ways. And I was talking to Dr. Cressily, and it was amazing to me that here is an organization, the AEP, that is now stepping into this void that is seemingly being created in a very,

very rapid period of time. And this just seems like this is all happening so quickly. Can you speak to what this means now for our listeners who represent a product swap in the general public? Because we were trying to, Dr. Krust, it was trying her darndest to represent 79 other medical societies and put good information out there, you know, link towards the end to a few websites, and it all felt, it just felt tragic, and it felt like no one podcast or entity is going to be able to fill the shoes of what we've lost. And what we've lost here is

incredible expertise and leaders, servant leadership like you and your colleagues. I'm just wondering what, what do you think this all means? Like, where are we headed? Yeah, Ben, I'm going to take it from high up to low down, which is that, like, what this means is that there is going to be a clear effort to limit access to vaccines. It's not going to be about improving the ability or freedom for people to choose. It's going to be about the inability to access vaccines. There may be bottles on the shelf, right? There may be bottles, needles, whatever, on the shelf that vaccine exists. But this is undermining two things. It's undermining access from the perspective of coverage. And I'll talk about that in a second. But it's also,

also undermining trust and confidence in vaccines. Like this chaos, all of this noise, creates an issue. Like, folks can't process all of this. And so what happens with all the different pieces coming in and the way that it's coming is that you're like, well, I don't know who to believe. Right. So that's, so I like, you know, I applaud like the medical organizations

that are trying to say, look, we are your trusted providers. By the way, they are the trusted providers. I mean, the secretary said, don't take his medical advice. I agree, don't take his medical advice. He is not an expert, nor has he listened to experts. So I trust the pediatricians. I trust the obstetrics and gynecology folks.

I trust the medical doctors. You know, I imagine that there's more coming. But here's the facts. If the government, if the ACIP, if the advisory committee on immunization practices, decides to somehow constrain who is able to get one back or another, for a reason that's not based in data, like, there may be reasons. Like, there may be like, oh, you shouldn't give this vaccine to X, Y, or Z, because the risk

and the benefit, it doesn't make sense. But for vaccines where the risk and benefit does, if there is some kind of ACIP recommendation that somehow makes it hard for someone to get vaccine or says, this vaccine shouldn't be given to a six to 12-year-old, that's probably not going to happen with COVID. But if that ACIP says that, yes, AAP and all the other organizations can say, we call inaccurate, that's not right, that's a false recommendation, but if a recommendation is an ACIP recommendation that gets signed by whoever it is, I guess, you know, a speech writer, O'Neill or the secretary, that then gets codified as a recommendation from CDC and HHS. That recommendation

triggers vaccine coverage and insurance. So if that says, do not give to six to 12-year-olds, that means that that vaccine may no longer be comforted by insurance. Let me give you one more very scary thing, which people don't know, but hopefully I can express it in as clear a way as possible. There is a program called vaccines for children. It is the program that is the safety net program that gets vaccines to kids who are uninsured or uninsurable, who can't afford it or who are on Medicaid. Over 50% of kids in the United States get their vaccines through the Vaccines for Children program. If the ACIP says this vaccine should not be given to six-month old to 12-year-olds, the VFC won't buy it.

I see. And that means that those kids will not get vaccine. You know, it was really, thank you for that. It was illuminating just to look at the data on six months to 23 months of age, children that are those in that age group, otherwise healthy. as the AAP was pointing out, that's a high risk group still for ending up in the hospital, even if they don't have an underline condition. And to your point, you know, when I think it's lost, I'm one of your view on this,

I think this level of detail, all it takes is you having 60 seconds to lay it out for us and it's clear. But it strikes me that a lot of these decisions are being made with perhaps the expectation that the general public won't rock what's actually happening. And, you know, I look at some of the decisions that were made on the FDA. You know, the FDA label changes to the COVID vaccine. And many people, and we did a lot of segments on broadcast for it,

and I got a lot of feedback saying, Venn, I didn't realize that this means my pharmacist cannot potentially do what they've been doing for the last five and a half years. And it's amazing that through line that there's complexity and, policy that if people understood that, you know, right below the headline, what this means for them, which you're, I mean, again, this is why you're so good at what you do. I do, do you think

that's what's missing here is the lack of accountability? Because there's that, a lack of a line. A hundred percent. I mean, but I feel like the role of sort of us, I'm going to sort of speak for for Deb and Dan. Like right now, we can point at the thing and say, this is the thing that you need to look at. And so I think there needs to be more voices of folks that understand sort of the policy nuances that are able to say something. I mean, I'm just going to, I'm pretty, I'm a simple guy, right? CVS and Walgreens say that they're not going to be able to vaccinate in some states. And in other states, they say you're going to need a prescription. So, you know, if you look at our data, sorry, the data, that's sad, right? The data at CDC, what you'll see is that the majority of COVID-19 vaccination for,

adults happen in pharmacies. So that's, that's going to be not so good for your seniors who definitely are at risk for COVID-19 complications. And if they're going to need to find a prescription or their state doesn't carry it in the, in the pharmacy, that's a problem. And so, you know, the people, you know, rural America, oh, no, right? Right. Right. Like your your best access is going to be a pharmacy. And so yes, some of the pharmacies that have like a doctor's office kind of affiliated, you may be able to get that prescription. But are you also going to get charged for a doctor's visit to be able to get the prescription and get the vaccine versus just go do the whole thing and be done? So like, so this has like ramifications that that mean that people won't have access to vaccine. So that's that's the part. Like I think it's not about about.

We don't want, you know, we don't want this to be like a mandate. We don't want there to be this thing where you're like, you know, that ACIP is releasing something that says, like, you must vaccinate X, Y, or Z for something. It doesn't say that. It just says recommended for some population with some parameter. And then, you know, physicians and patients and other clinicians, including pharmacists, are able to make decisions. The way that we're going, you know, there is going to be a clear decrease in

access for vaccines. And, you know, that is going to, you know, look like people unable to get the vaccines that they want. And I think that that's going to be highly problematic. And depending on what happens with these infections, COVID-19 specifically, you know, there may be potentially some pretty significant human toll if children and older adults end up getting hospitalized going to the ICU or worse outcomes. For our listeners here, Dr. Daskalakis, you referenced CBS and Walgreens and prescriptions. And, you know, I've seen some questions come through on social about exactly what you just raised, Dimitri, which is, do you need now a prescription for vaccines? And as CBS and Walgreens is reported late last week, ours in 16 states, I believe, for CBS, they are actually not right now.

They're pausing distribution of the COVID vaccine because it's not. not clear in the absence of a CDC endorsement of this vaccine from ACIP, which is this committee that you're referencing, they have to formally endorse recommendations for then pharmacists to be able to actually immunize. Do I have that right? And right now that that mechanism is lacking. You're almost 100% right. Just to be clear, ACIP makes a recommendation to the director of CDC and then the director of CDC endorses it. So it's an advisory committee. They do not set policy. that means that when Susan had been there, there was a chance

that there was going to be a balanced voice to sort of come up with like what recommendations should be. So they don't set the policy they recommend to the director who then signs off. But what you said is right. So that when you have an ACIP recommendation,

that is not just a pretty piece of paper. It actually opens the gate to all of the things that need to happen for a vaccine to be covered by insurance. And in many states, as you heard, to allow pharmacists to give it. So there's some states where you have to have an ACIP recommended vaccine to be able to give it. And there are other states that say, depending on what the recommendation is, you may need a

prescription for it. I just need to give one really good shout out to CVS and Walgreens. This is not because they're not trying, right? So everybody who hears me, this is not the time to be angry at CBS and Walgreens. this is the time to sort of question what's happening in government that has made the circumstance that these pharmacies are unable to provide a service that is so valuable to their patients. They're not pushing a vaccine on anyone.

They're just offering it. You know, like, I love, you know, I enjoy being reminded about my vaccines from CBS. I don't always take them up on it and from Walgreens, but, I mean, it's nice to get a reminder. And I think that, you know, when I go pick up my toothpaste, that may be a great time for me to get vaccinated so I don't have to wait or drive

to a doctor's office. So I think that that's, you know, Americans don't like having inconvenience and I feel like we're getting to a place now. Right, right. No, and thank you for that call out and just elaborating on it, making sure that we have, you know, we want to make sure we're operating with all the correct facts

and also sort of helping us understand CES and Walgreens place here. They are responding to changes in policy the best they can. And That's an important call-up. I do want to, you know, I was really struck, Dmitri, by a line that, or something that you were quoted on that the New York Times published, I believe it was today or recently. It was an article about everything that's happening and said, quote, the panel, this ACIP panel may curtail access to several vaccines, which is just the statement.

And then your quote after that was, quote, it really is transparent. that these decisions have all been predestined. And I'm curious what that, what you think that means playing it out. Right now we've talked about COVID. It feel, you know, I saw something between Senator Rand Paul and Senator Bill Cassidy on the hepatitis B vaccine. The latter was defending it. The former was questioning the need for it, the hepatitis B vaccine.

And for our listeners here, that's something that probably almost all of our listeners have gotten when they were infants. And, you know, I'm worried about where we're headed. It seems like that's what you've been signaling directly, you know, in the last few days. Where do you think we are headed? Yeah. I mean, so I fear that we are headed to a couple of things. So the first is the very overt work to, you know, curtail out.

access to vaccine, you know, by really calling into question data and I think that the other strategy there that I need to say is also questioning the quality of the data. So this is something to watch out for very carefully. I predict that at the ACIP meeting, there are going to be comments on the fact that there's not perfect data. We don't know about the reason for hospitalization. for every child in America. We don't know what every underlying condition for every child who's admitted for COVID-19 or every adult admitted for COVID-19.

There's going to be something there where they're going to undermine, I think, public health data as well as other data to make the point that it's not gold standard. What everyone needs to know is some of that data is completely unknowable in the United States of America up because we do not have a single-payer system with some sort of universal data stream.

I cannot know the underlying conditions of every child based on how our system works today. So what I fear is, before we even get to vaccines, is that the strategy will be to undermine the data that is available, which is very high-quality data and has been used for decades to make decisions, if not decades, years, and is also looked at by other countries as very significant data, there is going to be an attempt to undermine the scientists and the science that provide that data. That will then downstream destabilize recommendations, and that means that there will be people who will be using their non-expert expertise to make recommendations about what happens for vaccines. You know, I don't tell people who do operational research,

how to do modeling around about supply chains. So I think it's strange that an operational researcher is going to tell us, like, what child to vaccinate. It seems strange. And so I'm worried that there's going to be first, like, let's undermine science more and more and more, really call to question the data, not finishing the sentence and saying, like, you know, this data is imperfect and there is no perfect data available in the U.S. to make some of these decisions, but it's the data that we use and that's been so valid. And that's going to need decisions

are going to be made based on half-truths, when things that we'll be called common sense. There's a lot of things that are common sense that are not scientifically true. And so that's really important. But then, you know, and that will then translate into vaccine access problems,

insurance not covering, and then subsequently all of this results in so much noise for people, so much noise that they just won't know where to go or what to trust. Like I'll give you one more example, which is like, you know, there is a thing on the notice that the ACIP meeting is happening, an agenda item that is called respiratory syncytrial virus, RSV. Nobody knows what that agenda item is about. It's come from above down to the advisory committee. Scientists in CDC have no idea what's going to be discussed or presented.

And so, therefore, what that means is there's going to be a highly atypical discussion that doesn't include CDC science, nor its assessment of other science, to discuss something about RSV, which I predict will try to point at data and say that there's something that was not presented previously by a CIP that would require people to consider not using the monoclonal antibodies that really shut down the RSV season for kids last year. And that's going to mean more kids hospitalized in the intensive care unit during the holidays. And parents completely worried out of their minds that those kids are going to be in the intensive care unit. So it's going to be about destabilizing data and destabilizing public health because that,

I think, is the mission and the output of that is going to be sick kids. That is chilling. Yet again, you clarified how they're going to do this. There's a vision, but then, you know, how do you execute on it? And it's chilling to see that there's that through line. You know, I have to just remark that, and for our listeners here, Dr. Daskalakis and I, as many of you listening in either no health care professionals, you may be a health care professional. And, you know, what I'm always struck by just witnessing what's happening is when you practice medicine,

to even be able to practice medicine in some form, as you well know, you have to, as a gauntlet, board exams, many, many years in training, many, many years in debt. And there's continuing medical education, there's recertifications. There's scrutiny on how you practice by your peers to get recredentialed at a hospital. There's so many steps to make sure that being a professional in health care is that there's accountability, that there's quality standards, and you can't do, bad things can't happen because people are not trained for doing the wrong things. And what's stunning to me, especially in this world, patient advocates and all these guardrails

and checks and balances is how quickly, seemingly can all devolve without any accountability. I mean, it's stunning to me that a set of ideologues, as you pointed out, really can impact science. And I mean, you beautifully said in your resignation letter that blurring, there was a distinguishing between ideology and science, at least historically, and that's been entirely blurred. I'm stunned, though, that in an institution or in the profession of medicine that is reprimed, with accountability and guardrails and standards, things can be undone so quickly. I'm wondering your reaction to that. I mean, I think in general, when you think about public health,

there's three things that you need to be effective. You need community engagement, understanding what people need. You need political will and great science. So, you know, if that sort of pedestal on which science lives, which is supported by community engagement and by political will is compromised, the science fails. And so that's what we're seeing. The political will is not to uplift science so that we do best for the community. The political will is political will only. And there's nothing that that pedestal is holding up except for individuals, their egos, and their motivations.

So that's where we are. And so I think that, you know, everything, everything in sort of government, all of the sort of safe checks and balances, I think, exist if you have sort of this social contract that sort of make sure that folks are approaching things in a way that sort of maintains the best for communities and for people. So when the emphasis is not about the people, but about some unseen master or some unseen motivation, you can see exactly what happens. It breaks down.

I mean, you know, there's folks who are reviewing data at CDC right now that really is focused on, you know, the sort of epidemic of chronic disease, specifically autism, historically had been disallowed from accessing data because of their bad methodology and questionable ethics. And so, like, that's happening now because there's political will to let them have full access to CDC data. And so, yeah. Is, gosh, I could take this in so many different directions. I do want to end, you know,

on a semi-positive note, if we can, which is to stay, two questions. You know, as somebody that is in the media space for a part of my life, and especially in health journalism and communications, you know, I feel like I'm speaking to somebody that is an exceptional health communicator across the board, just communicator, and I don't have to qualify it by saying just on Matters Health. How do you envision the role of media today in covering these stories and in injecting truth into these discussions, because media can be powerful. I think media can be a force for good if used properly.

But I'm wondering, you're critiqued of media and things that we should be doing better. Yeah. I mean, I think that media is going to be, is really important. I think also leveraging sort of, you know, platforms that are not traditional media, like, you know, podcasts are great, thinking about other sort of social media.

I think that media, I think, needs to emphasize less the clickbait and more like what it means for people. And so that's what I feel like a lot of what I've been doing in the last week has been like, well, what this means for people is this. And so I think not sort of taking the bait, I mean, like we all take the bait sometimes, but not taking the bait to sort of, you know, focus on, you know, this person is saying this thing and, you know, let's go for that person. I think, I think that more saying like, what is this going to actually mean for a kid, their mom and dad, for an older adult, and just like sort of using that, like, you know, what you said to me before, really,

like take that 60 seconds, that 30 seconds. And I know sometimes it's 20 seconds to somehow message, you know, this is what's happening. And what that means for you is that you're going to have to pay $175 for a vaccine that was free last year. Like, I think that that's because I think if people understood that, I think that they would have a different perspective on, you know, on getting involved in the noise that is about, like, individuals and personalities and characters and sort of be more like, well, how do we fix it? Like, I didn't know that. I feel like that's, like, the thing that I'm getting the most is I had no idea. I didn't know that. And so is that a public health failure, too? Yes. But that involves public health being able to speak, which I think has been something that this HHS has limited pretty well as well. Before we let you go, I wanted to get your take on places our listeners, the general public should be going to to get critical information that I think now, especially in this chaotic

space here. If they have questions about, well, they need a prescription, can their pharmacist prescribe or administer vaccine, I know it's probably going to be harder to get one-stop shop when it comes to all the questions people have, but where do you go? Where would you recommend, you know? I do kind of have a one-stop shop, but it's not the perfect answer because, you know, not everybody has a physician or a clinician that looks after their health. But this is a time where I would say that's really important.

I think, you know, on clinicians, they don't get necessarily wrapped up in all this policy swirl. They know what's the right clinical thing to do and they look to the sources that are valid to be able to figure out what the path forward is for their patients. So, you know, I think always good to do research. I think looking at at the AAP, at ACOG, at AMA, at the alphabet soup of professional organizations that serve people. But I think that's like actually speaking to the provider, talking to the pharmacist, talking to your doctor,

talking to whoever in health care you have access to, I think is a great first step. And I know this is like very operational, like sort of like silly recommendation. But I see patients and sometimes you just have to be, very straightforward. Call before you go, please. Because I don't want people to go to the pharmacy and expect that it's business as usual and all of a sudden have like the swirl of chaos that is being created on purpose around them. So call and say, hey, like, I want to get this vaccine. Do you do it? Here's my insurance. Can you run a little test claim to see if it's covered so I know

what I'm paying? So just things like that. It's going to be a little bit of extra work. But I think that, you know, just a little bit of pre-calling, a little bit of pre-thinking is going to make it less complicated for people. This is fabulous advice. I'll layer on. I couldn't agree more with speaking to your own, your child's pediatrician, to your medical provider, best advice. I've got to say one more thing, man.

Like, everybody who's telling you not to listen to your pediatrician, red flag, it's not okay, right? Like, bottom line of all of this. Anyone who's like, you know, that pediatrician, he's pushing vaccines, no, that pediatrician is pushing health for kids. Like, no one pushes the vaccine. They're going to talk to you about the vaccine, and you can decide if you want to do it or not. But anyone who tries to destabilize what I think is a really, an relationship between doctor and patient, that's a red flag warning. Something is horribly wrong.

Oh, so well said. So well said. My wife thanks you, as does the AP. Healthy Children at ORG, American Academy of Pediatrics, very easily navigable, accessible health information platform, highly recommended immunized at ORG for adults. We are graced by your presence, the former head of the National Center for Immunizations and Respirate diseases, Dr. Dimitri Daskalakis. Thank you for joining us on a holiday. We're just grateful for your leadership and everything you've done for this country. Thank you, Vin. Nice talking to you. Thanks so much for having me. Can't get enough Midas? Check out the Midas Plus substack for ad-free articles, reports, podcasts, daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, and more. Sign up for free now at Midasplus.com.