Transcript of Episode 17

LaMondre Pough: Welcome to 3DVU, one conversation, three different perspectives. I’m LaMondre Pough.

David Pérez: I am David Perez.

Richard Streitz: And I’m Richard Streitz . Thank you for joining us.

LaMondre Pough: The world has been waiting with eager anticipation of a vaccine for the COVID-19 pandemic that has literally put the world on pause and science has responded, and there are a number of vaccines that are being tested right now. And what’s interesting is that so many of them have a 90 to 95% efficacy rate.

So it’s amazing what’s happening and it’s happened so quickly, but that speed is what’s causing a lot of people to have questions. People are actually saying that they’re going to wait for a while before they take this vaccine. Why? Because it just seemed to come about so quickly. And honestly, people are afraid.

So today that’s what we’re going to talk about. We’re going to talk about the vaccines, how they came about, and actually look at why people are fearful of taking these vaccines. And so guys. What’s the deal with this? Are you going to take the vaccine when it first comes out? Let’s talk about it.

Richard Streitz: Well, I think, you know, uh, I think it’s an interesting, um, problem where we have a, uh, a merger of, um, politics and science, um, and, uh, and that can never, it can never end well, uh, if left unchecked. Um, so I think that’s where a lot of the fear and misinformation that’s being generated by a number of different sources um, are, uh, are, are not giving a tremendous amount of confidence to the public in general, which, you know, draws and stems confusion. Um, so I think this is certainly a real important issue to address. Would I take the vaccine? Yeah, I would, when it becomes available, uh, and totally fully understanding that it being available to me probably won’t happen until April of next year.

So it’s not like it’s going to be happening next week. Um, there’s still quite a number of months before, um, it becomes readily available to the vast majority of the general public, but, uh, um, so, uh, it’s not like it’s gonna happen tomorrow, but, uh, but yeah, I think absolutely I would.

David Pérez: Yeah, no, I would too. I, it’s fun.

When you were introducing the topic. I remembered that when this whole thing started and we were all sent home and told to quarantine and everything, I was telling my wife, if you put the best minds in the world to work on something, they’re going to figure something out. There’s going to be a solution.

I thought it would be sooner actually, because the information is flowing so fast. So I just, just thought, well, they’re going to find something, maybe not a vaccine per se, but maybe a sort of cure, a pill you could take that would reduce symptoms or something like that. But I was just, for me, it wasn’t unexpected.

So. Whenever they decide that it’s my turn. I’ll take it. I live in Costa Rica and the government decides when you take it basically. So we’re just going to have to wait and I’ll take it as soon as I can.

I want to protect the people that, around me.

LaMondre Pough: Right, right. I would take it as well. And, um, one of the reasons that is, is because I am confident that once I recognize that it’s safe and it has been, uh, it has been vetted. I’m confident that that it will be, but not everybody has that same confidence. And I think one of the reasons that is, is because we’ve seen where it takes sometimes years for drugs or therapies to get approved.

And this is happening in a matter of months and people are really afraid of that. And if you look back historically, there are some real reasons as to why those fears can indeed be founded. But I really want to know more about what was the process for this and, and, and how is it that something that would typically, that we’ve seen in the past take years, uh, to really come to a place where it’s been approved and ready for widespread use, how could this happen in a couple of months, particularly for something so dire.

So how did this come about and, and why was it that this, how is it that this one can get approved so quickly?

Richard Streitz: Well, uh, you know, it’s an interesting question. And, um, you know, certainly there, uh, addressing this, there was actually a video interview that was done. It was recorded, um, just a week ago, uh, actually, um, uh, between Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Anthony Fauci, uh, and it’s a very interesting video interview that, uh, um, where the question is, this question is actually specifically asked and, um, Dr. Fauci goes into extreme detail as to how and why, I’ll certainly paraphrase, it’s an hour long interview. And, uh, and you know, we’ll certainly recommend everyone if th if they have a chance to listen to it, because it is very interesting and good information.

Um, we’ll have a link probably associated with the video. Uh, but I’ll paraphrase here. Um, and mind you, we’re just three individuals. We don’t have scores of fact-checkers or people, I’m doing this from the top of my head. I don’t have somebody in my year, spoonfeeding information, as I’m talking, I’ll do my best to try to paraphrase, but I think the information is certainly interesting and worthy of discussion here.

And so. To the issue of how this vaccine, um, has come about with such a high, a rate of advocacy with, um, efficacy without, uh, having the long duration behind it. Um, and, and that’s, that’s not completely true. Um, so. One thing. I think it’s important for a lot of people to understand is how vaccines are created in general.

Um, so they they’re done in what’s called platforms, just like there’s windows platforms and, and, and iOS platforms and so forth vaccines fall into, also have those same sort of categories. There’s there’s families of these vaccines. Um, and they refer to them as platforms, for example, flu vaccines, the idea of where, um, uh, the virus is, uh, is cultured.

And then it’s, it’s, um, created into something that gets injected that then excites, uh, our natural antibodies and that’s becomes the inoculation that, that we use to fight, uh, the flu viruses. That’s, that methodology is considered a platform. Um, with the Corona virus, it’s actually a complete different type of platform.

So it’s not done in the same way. It’s actually working at a DNA level and, uh, with the, with the Corona virus. And the reason why it requires a different type of platform is because of the style of that virus. The coronavirus is an extremely harsh and challenging virus to deal with. Um, that differentiates itself from other viruses, like the normal flu virus, which is why they’re not the same, they, they’re different categories. Again, I’m not a doctor, I’m not a medical professional, I’m paraphrasing things that I’m remembering. Um, and I’m hopefully trying my best to remember them correctly. The, so what’s interesting about the idea of these platforms is that the platform for the Corona virus is this DNA based, uh, platform.

Um, and that platform has actually something that’s been worked on for many, many, many years. It’s not that it’s come out of the blue, we, as the general public are certainly becoming more aware of it now because of the immediacy of what’s happening with the coronavirus. But the platform itself is something that’s been developed for many years prior.

The coronavirus is something that is now bringing it to the forefront where there’s now a cause and a reason as a, as a catalyst to, to generate a vaccine using this type of platform. Um, and it’s DNA based, which means that instead of us getting, um, uh, uh, a portion of the actual virus and getting it injected into us, it’s the DNA triggers of that particular virus that trigger our body into thinking that we have it. So it’s not the actual virus itself. It’s the DNA tricking that’s been, that’s been torn apart from the, from the virus. That’s tricking our, our, our auto immune system into responding to it, thinking that we have it.

So there’s no risk of us getting the virus from these injections. So that’s one thing that I think is, is really, really important in trying to understand how this platform of vaccine is different than other previous platforms. Um, we’re not actually getting injected by the virus. Um, and so that’s how this, that’s how it’s going to work. Now, are there going to be side, side effects? Yeah, there are side effects and some of them mimic the responses that we do get as is typical. So there’s going to be high fevers, because again, these are natural responses when your system is fighting because your system believes it’s fighting something, your system is going to react the same way it normally does with, with high fevers or headaches or some of these other more common, typical, um, you know, responses that last just for a very short period of time because your system catches itself and realizes what’s, what it does.

And, and, and so, as the antibodies are being produced, your system is, is, uh, reacting. And then, and then after 24, 48 hours at the most, then those symptoms go away. So, um, but it’s not necessarily that you’re getting the virus. So in a nutshell, that’s sort of how and why this, this platform of, of, of, um, of, uh, vaccines that are being generated for Corona virus are different than others and why they, they, people really shouldn’t be as scared and in regard to the speed of it, um, because of the advances in, in, in, uh, the amazing advances in medical science, um, and vaccine science, this platform has existed and has been used and, or been developed for many, many years.

This is just sort of the first go round to the general public, where it’s something that, uh, is able, that we as public are going to be receiving.

LaMondre Pough: Let me tell you,

Richard Streitz: I hope that makes some sense, some kind of sense.

LaMondre Pough: No, that was actually great. That was, that was a really good synopsis of it and a, and a really good breakdown of, of that process.

And I’m gonna tell you what I think is so important. One of the things that I know that people are afraid of is they’re thinking that it was like the old flu vaccinations when you’re literally given a small, you know, diluted, uh, specimen of the flu and your body fights that off. So if you’re not really being injected with the Corona virus, that does indeed, that does indeed take some of the panic out of it because people understood that, that, that older, um, or the other model, uh, of, of creating vaccines and hearing that.

No, no, no, you’re not getting, it’s not a, it’s not a diluted or a dead or an inactive, uh, sample of the virus that you’re getting. You’re actually, it’s, it’s just tricking your body into thinking that you have is so it will build up those immune responses. And I think that that’s an important distinction to let people know that this is what’s happening.

You know, what are your thoughts, David?

David Pérez: Yeah, I think that it’s definitely important for people to understand that it is a more sophisticated method. That accomplishes the same thing, which is giving you the most immunity it can give you. So that’s why I said, if you put the best minds in the world, working together to accomplish a goal, you’re going to get things that are completely mind blowing.

Because people might not be aware of this because they’re focused on COVID. But at the same time using this same technology, the same platform that Richard was talking about, they seem to have been able to create a vaccine for malaria, which hasn’t been able, they haven’t been able to do that in forever, but they have been able to do it now.

And if they are able to create that, that would mean they would, we would be capable of eradicating one of the biggest viruses in the world.

LaMondre Pough: Right.

David Pérez: And that’s, life-changing for many people that actually suffer from that and people die yearly from malaria, so right. If, if, if, if this advances are coming, why not accept them and just flow with them?

I think that the reason that people are just getting so scared and, and being so, it’s because of the media, the media, hasn’t done a good job of explaining what Richard was just explaining, and they have sense, sensationalized or has made everything sensational about everything about this process of getting that vaccine approved, I’ve seen the news covering things like one side effect that happened to one person.

LaMondre Pough: Right.

David Pérez: People were not aware of the side effects that happened during the development of the flu vaccine.

Richard Streitz: Right.

David Pérez: If they were, they would never take it. But the media had to report on that. Because it’s something that, that sells, that creates that buzz that viralizes their content.

LaMondre Pough: Well, that was going to be the other thing I was going to say that, that it was it wasn’t just that it wasn’t just that.

Okay. There, there was this one side effect and we just reported on it. No, they made it seem like this is the thing that’s going to happen to you, who, if you take this and that that’s a far cry from saying, Oh yeah, you know, um, one in every 10,000 people experienced this, you know, no, no, this is Sarah.

Sarah’s life has been forever changed and completely altered, you know, and, and of course, all you see is yourself and Sarah. You know?

David Pérez: Yeah. And they, they were trying to do that. They were trying to scare people and the end goal for them is not for people to not take the vaccine is for people to buy their newspaper or watch their ads, or do the things that they want them to do.

And they’re just not thinking about the fact that we need everyone to be on the same page on this, on this one thing. We need everyone to be on the same page. We can fight over whatever else you want, but taking the vaccine and making sure that we don’t have to live in quarantine for seven more years.

Like there’s a movie being created that’s about that. The world in quarantine for seven years or something like that. I think that we all need to be on the same page and try to understand that sometimes doctors do, do know things,

LaMondre Pough: Right. Yeah. You know what I will say also, I think that much of this has to do with what has happened over the past, you know, um, at least the past six years. Were there, there has been, and these are my words.

So, you know, just, just hold it to me. There has been a general dumbing down of how we communicate and the things that we communicate about. Uh, and I’m talking about in general. Um, you know, I remember at one point where academia and science was celebrated. Um, we, we really held those things in high regard.

Um, but here recently it seems, yeah. I want the average everyday guy to, to, to fill me in on what’s going on. Well, I mean, it, it depends on what we’re talking about if we’re talking about, yeah. I just want a general concept of, of, of what people’s opinions are. Absolutely. I want to hear from the, every everyday average person, but if I want a consultation on brain surgery that I need to have, I don’t necessarily want Joe the plumber to be the person that gives me the insight on what’s happening inside my freaking brain.

And I think that what we’ve come to do is we’ve started to celebrate that and, and what that has subsequently done is it has fostered a not only a distrust, but almost a disdain for, almost a disdain for science, almost a disdain for, um, academia. Um, If that makes sense.

Richard Streitz: Yeah. You know, it is sort of interesting how we’ve come to that.

Uh, you know, over the, I would say you’re right about the past 10 years or so. Um, it it’s, it’s sort of has, you know, seven to ten years. It’s, it’s led to that where there is this, um, urgency to, um, to dumb down and which is, I don’t like that term, but I can’t think of anything better at this at the time. But, uh, um, you know, to dumb down information to the point where it’s no longer, it can be easily misinterpreted and, and turned into something else, uh, by individuals in, in, in how it’s repeated.

And that’s problematic given the, uh, the platforms that now exist, the social media platforms and so forth. And the, and the, uh, the speed at which we are able to share and transfer information among our groups, our peer groups our, and, and friends and, and, and, uh, and the world in general. Um, and so as a result, this propagates misinformation in a way that is just horrific and dangerous, uh, in many ways to, uh, to societies, um, and, uh, this, of course not only just affects, um, uh, uh, medicine, but, uh, but many other things, the social issues and so forth it where, where this, this issue, um, exasperates itself.

So, uh, you know, I think you’re absolutely right. We need to get back to sort of honoring and respecting, um, people in the medic and the medical or sciences, uh, industries, fields. Um, these are individuals that are leading and driving the future of, of where we go as a civilization as a, as a peoples, uh, as a species.

Um, and, and not so villavi, uh, um,villainizing them.

LaMondre Pough: Yeah.

David Pérez: Yeah. I, I want to say something about that because I think that the, the, the real culprit of this scenario that we’re living is business. They decided that science was against their best interests of making more money. And they started saying, maybe we don’t agree with your science.

Maybe we don’t agree with your facts. Maybe what you’re saying is, is not true. And they started pushing that and pushing that and pushing that so far that it went into politics and it went into people’s houses. Now people just don’t trust science and it’s fun because they trust everything else.

LaMondre Pough: Right.

David Pérez: Everything that can not be proven that they simply trust it. But if, if, if it comes from a scientific source, they are very much against it. Like it’s a cult to believe in facts.

LaMondre Pough: Right. Right. And that was going to be the, the, the other point that I was going to make it is you’re right. They’re trusting in everything else.

And the truth is none of those things can be verified. At least, at least with science, there is a, there is a system that’s in place to verify. And if the facts bear a different, uh, something else or it doesn’t support what was initially said, there is a system to also report that. So I almost think about when, when the, uh, Corona virus, uh, was first really noticed in the US and the initial guidance from Dr. Fauci and the CDC was ‘no, you don’t really, necessarily need to worry about wearing a mask’. But then as the information came in and the facts were being shown, it was a change. And then with that change, that actual change was used to discredit and disqualify anything that came out after that. And the issue is, but wait a minute, that’s how science is supposed to work.

You know, you, you, you present the evidence and what the evidence bears at that moment at that time, that’s what you report and should the evidence then begin to present something else. Then you report that as well. Um, as opposed to, Oh, it’s only going to be um, it’ll just magically disappear in, in, in, in April.

And the truth is there was no science, there was no evidence. There was no support of that. And when it didn’t happen, it was still like, Oh, well, it’s just gonna magically disappear eventually. You know? And so it’s like, but it’s not going to magically disappear. That’s not, what’s going to happen and you don’t have any basis for that.

And unfortunately, that. That whole concept of constantly saying, Oh no, no, no, no, no. The hoity toity is from that big school affair or saying this and you just can’t believe them. You just can’t trust them. You know? And so, and that’s been perpetuated and I think that we were seeing, um, We’re seeing the results of that and it’s costing lives every day.

Richard Streitz: You know, what’s interesting is that, you know, the other facts that people are listening to, you know, where, and who are they coming from, and ultimately their peer groups and the, and this is what’s happening. We we’ve shrunken. I think culturally we’ve, we’ve shrunken our pool of people or, or sources that we’re getting information from.

So instead of, um, listening to, to, um, authorized, uh, outlets of facts, you know, like medical journals and so forth. People are listening to their buddy or to their, uh, you know, to their member, maybe a co-member of a group that they’re in or what have you. Um, and they’re listening to the facts of those individuals as true facts.

And then that sort of becomes the isolated pool while anything outside of that, any information or, that I get from outside that pool is no longer trustworthy. I’m only trusting the information I’m getting within this small pool of people that I know around me. And that of course is, is, is horribly inefficient as a way of picking and digesting, uh, facts, uh, on, on information that is critical, like medical information.

LaMondre Pough: Right. Right. And, and, and believe me, I understand that just from the history, um, in America that, I understand why, why groups can be somewhat skeptical, can be skeptical of the medical community. We’ve seen that, uh, in, uh, the disparity, uh, in America, when it comes down to racial disparities in the medical system, how COVID rollout was handled.

Um, and it it’s a historical thing. It goes way back. I mean, we look at the Tuskegee experiments. Um, where the, the, the experiment was to see, you know, what were the results of, um, what was the result of untreated syphilis? And so they specifically targeted African-Americans and these people thought they were being treated and they were not.

And this happened from the 1930s to the 1970s. So that kind of, those kinds of behaviors have contributed to the mistrust of many, um, of the medical system in the US however, I think that there is also a point. Where we have to look at it and say, okay, so this is what happened before, but where are we now?

And what are the, what are the, what are the components in place to ensure that those kinds of things don’t happen anymore? And I think it is up to the medical university, the medical. Uh, um, I said, university, why did I say university? I have no idea, but from the medical community to instill, to build that trust again, to, to rebuild those trusts.

And I think it’s been happening. But when you see some of the disparities that are directly linked, um, to the way the medical community, in many instances have behaved towards minorities and people of color, uh, and the poor. Um, that it also perpetuates that. So when you kind of put those two things together, you really do kind of have this perfect storm, uh, of, of, of mistrust.

And so I think that that has to be recognized. I think that that has to be, has to be seen and put out there on the table as well.

David Pérez: Yeah, absolutely.

We need to talk about those things that happened, those mistakes and start creating progress and start curing some of those of those.

How do you call them wounds that still exist because you need to do that in order to create progress.

But that doesn’t mean that what you’re doing now is completely wrong.

LaMondre Pough: Absolutely.

David Pérez: And that’s true of anything, right. I believe in, that people can change and that people who can do better, so let’s give them a chance. But then again, we’re not basing this on what they did in the thirties, in the seventies.

We’re basing this in the fact that it, there’s a scientific process that proves that the results will be this, if you do this, right. So if the vaccine comes in the minus, whatever, temperatures that it, it needs to come and you get it and you get, then get the second shot. You’re 95% probably not gonna have COVID-19.

That’s what they’re saying. Right? So that’s pretty good chance of things going right.

Richard Streitz: You know.

David Pérez: A lot of things can go wrong and you might be the one that gets something to go wrong with you, but we need to think about the bigger picture here. We’re trying to protect society from themselves.

Richard Streitz: Right, absolutely.

David Pérez: Remember we, we’re, we have been fighting COVID. But COVID doesn’t jump from my house to LaMondre’s house, through the internet. I need to go to LaMondre’s house and give him the COVID that I have if I had it. So we need to protect people from themselves and to do that the only way is by making everyone as immune as possible. It’s not about making everyone immune it’s about making as many people as possible as immune as possible so that we can start going out again.

Richard Streitz: Right.

David Pérez: People are gonna have a hard time with this, but we need to push a little more and maybe until half of 2021, we’ll be, we’ll still be dealing with the masks and the staying at home and not filling up restaurants or not going to Disney, which I have suffered this year.

Richard Streitz: You know, it’s, it’s  interesting.

There’s two points, um, to that. One, I think it’s important to, to recognize just the reality of how science works, right. Advancements in science are based off of the failures, uh, off of wrong turns. Uh that’s that’s just the way science works. Uh, no one gets it right, um, right out of the gate. Um, that’s what experimentation and the, and the refined process of the empirical approach and so forth in, in science is all about. It’s about progressing till you, till something doesn’t work the way you thought it does, and then backtracking and going a different way to improve or, or advance or what have you. And this is how science happens. This is how all innovation and science happens. Uh it’s it’s trial and error. Um, and so, you know, it’s, it’s important to realize that the realities of, of how difficult it is, um, for, uh, for scientists and, and so forth to, to work.

And to do what they do, um, is that it’s not a perfect, we hear about it when, when they get it to a certain, you know, to a pretty good point. It may not necessarily be perfect and it never is really perfect. I think it’s, it’s, it’s really important that everyone realized that look we’re, we are all very, very different individuals.

The chemistry inside each individual, even within particular groups of people are, are, you know, vary, and as a result, how one reacts to, to anything that we put into our bodies is going to vary dramatically. They aim for sort of the largest curve possible to capture as many people as possible, but there’s going to be individuals that are going to have extremely adim.

This speaks to the, you know, the, the, uh, the adim that you, you mentioned earlier about the news. This is sensationalizing, this, news item. You know, there’s going to be cases of that. You know, there’s people who dropped dead from eating an aspirin, um, that, that does happen. Very, very, very rarely there’s people who are allergic to penicillin.

Um, again, not, not a common, uh, reaction, but it does happen. And, and so it’s important to realize that, you know, sure. There’s, nothing is perfect. It it’s, it’d be wrong to say that it’s a hundred percent guaranteed absolutely perfect. Um, and no one is saying that. Absolutely no one is saying that. What this does is, this hassles our bets in the most, in the most dramatic way possible to give everyone the benefit of, uh, of proper immune against this particular virus and all vaccines do this ultimately with any of the, uh, of what they’re fighting against. But, uh, but I think it’s just really important that, uh, we realized that, that you know, that everyone has to go in understanding the realities.

LaMondre Pough: And I think that that’s, that, that is the key, understanding the realities, not just the realities of the situation that we find ourselves in.

In terms of, um, in terms of the pandemic and what it has done to us as a society and as a world. But I think it’s also important to understand, um, the science behind it, at least at least a cursory understanding of it so that you’re not running off of opinion, that you’re not, you’re not making life or death decisions based on a feeling that your friend had that was presented as fact, as opposed to really understanding what’s happening.

But because, because he, the truth is it is going to be up to us as individuals, um, to really stop this thing, to really slow this thing down, even. Um, you know, it is your responsibility to wear your mask. It is your responsibility to limit, um, to limit interactions and all those kinds of things. Um, so it’s up to us.

It really is. Science can provide the tool. Science can provide the pathway. Um, our medical professionals can, can present those things to us. But it’s up to us really to decide whether or not this is the route that we want to go. And I’ve decided that once I understand it, and once I feel that this is, this is better than the alternative, then yes, I will indeed take it.

And I’m one of those people that are considered vulnerable. I’m one of those people who, who, you know, it when, when they release it, I’ll probably be one of the first, one of the first lines. Of of, of people to get it. And actually I’m good with that. And honestly, it’s not just for the further, for the, um, it’s not just about protecting my own life.

I have people that come in here every single day to care for me. I have people who come in and out who go, then leave my house and go back to their families. So for me, it really is looking at it from a communal standpoint. And what is my contribution? To making things better for us. So yes, it could protect me, but it also could protect the people that, that are a part of my, a part of my circle of influence and it kind of radiates from there.

So, you know, my whole thing is do the research, take a look at it. Don’t just look at the sensational headlines and don’t just take the, don’t just look at the one in 10,000 incident that happened, but what about the other 9,999, uh, cases where that didn’t happen and make your decision based on that.

So, a really interesting time. I often say that this is even though it’s a tough time, this is an incredible time to be alive. And just the advances that we’re seeing in, in, in science and in medicine. It’s really inspiring and actually being able to see the results of those things. It’s one thing to see something in a, in a test tube or Petri dish, but then to say, what are the real world ramifications of this and the fact that we can develop a vaccine.

So, you know, that that is so effective, um, is honestly mind blowing. So yeah, great conversation, man. Thank you, Richard, for sharing. And the information that, that, that, that, that, you got today, and we really appreciate it. So.

Richard Streitz: You bet.

LaMondre Pough: Until next time.

Richard Streitz: Thank you.

David Pérez: Thanks for joining us this week on 3DVU, make sure to visit our website ruhglobal.com/3DVU.

That’s ruhglobal.com/3DVU where you can subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts or join our YouTube channel, so you will never miss a show. While you’re at it, if you find value in the show, we appreciate it if you would leave a like or comment, or simply tell a friend about the show, that would really help us a lot too. If you would like to join our conversations you can join our Facebook community 3DVU three perspectives, one conversation. .