(inspiring music)

- The Trump administration is pushing hard

to have a COVID-19 vaccineby the end of the year.

But what are the risks of moving too fast?

Neurologist and best-sellingauthor Dr. David Perlmutter

(air whooshes)is here to talk about

vaccination research andwhere this virus came from.

Welcome back, Dr. Perlmutter.

- Thanks, glad to be back.

- Well, the presidentis saying we may have

a vaccine by the end of the year.

Is this advisable?

Are we rushing to get a vaccine?

- Well, we are definitelyrushing to get a vaccine,

and I don't think that'snecessarily the problem.

We want to expedite this, that's for sure.

But we do have to make sure that what

is ultimately produced andpurveyed upon the public

is both effective and safe.

Think back, in previoustimes, when we had swine flu,

and there was a vaccine created for that

and it was widelydistributed, and there was not

an insignificant number of people

who had some serious sideeffects, like Guillain-Barre

syndrome, which is a neurological issue.

So we have to make sure it's safe,

and we have to make sure that it's useful,

and I think that safety is first.

So everybody wants a vaccine tomorrow,

that's for sure, to endthis whole situation.

That's not in the cards.

Is it going to happen in six months?

That is a stretch.

I think we've been hearinga year to 18 months,

and I think reasonably,that's what we can expect,

but having said that, we were very buoyed

by the new report out ofOxford, England, last week

where a new technology is being utilized

to work on a previousplatform, a previous vaccine,

utilizing a differentRNA virus, modifying it

in such a way that it can then be

responsive or reactive against COVID-19.

And those researchers indicated that it

could be six months that they could have

enough of this to possibly go around.

So we just have to keepwatching the science,

and we all want thisto happen immediately,

but we have to think about safety.

- Break it down for us,what's the difference

that that platform makes,in terms of testing

and in terms of safetyand in terms of being able

to release it to a general population,

knowing that you alreadyknow the side effects?

- Well, they won't knowthe exact side effects

until, of course, it goes intosome form of clinical trial.

But the difference this time around,

in terms of what this oneparticular laboratory is doing,

is they are taking avaccine that's already been

created against adifferent respiratory virus

that happens to be also a RNA virus,

so it's quite similar, modifying it

in such a way that itwill then react against

the specific characteristicsof coronavirus,

and therefore, they believeit will be effective.

They've already triedthis on some primates,

on what are called macaque monkeys,

and found that it is incredibly effective.

When these macaque monkeys were exposed

to this coronavirus at very high levels,

which really is important,we can talk about that

in a moment, they had no reaction

in terms of developing any disease.

So getting that platformto be used in humans

is something that they've already done

in another context, witha previous iteration,

so we feel that this is going

to move along relatively quickly.

I want to just mentionthe idea of the dosage

that people are exposedto, and how that might

be relevant in terms of theseverity of the disease.

I just mentioned thatthese macaque monkeys

got a really whoppingdosage of coronavirus

and seemed to be protected.

This relates to humansbecause we're now seeing

an explanation as towhy healthcare providers

are getting this virus so aggressively.

Not only are they contracting it,

which you might expect, but they're having

a tough go with it, they'rehaving bad reactions to it,

and it might be because they receive

a much larger dosage on the front end

compared to somebody who, let's say,

gets exposed at a school or a restaurant

or some other type oflower-level exposure.

So it looks like the dosageof our exposure does matter,

in terms of how severeour experiences might be.

- All right, let's talkabout testing and tracing,

that seems to be one of thekeys to opening the economy.

Where do we stand with testing?

- Well, we've taken acouple of steps backwards

in terms of testing overthe past couple of days.

We've seen the FDA getinvolved and actually

really issue some warningsthat some of the testing

that is out there, andit's the Wild West in terms

of a lot of testing that's being created,

may not be really valid andmay create more harm than good.

We really need to makesure that people submit,

right now, there are several companies

that have 10 days to submit their results,

we really need to makesure that these tests

have very low levelsof both false positive

and false negative, so let me explain.

A false positive saysthat you've had the virus,

you have the antibodies,but it's erroneous.

And how can that be?

Well, we know that falsepositives can be induced

if you've had a previouscoronavirus infection.

We've most likely all been exposed

to a coronavirus, one form or another,

over the past many decades.

These have been around a very long time,

first identified inhumans back in the 1960s.

So previous exposure might trigger

some of these poor-quality tests to say

that you've now gotantibodies for this specific

COVID-19, and thatmight let a person think

that he or she is free to go out

and interact with others,maybe go back to work.

So we really have to ensurethat there's high standards

of quality in terms ofwhat these tests show.

Now, these tests are going to play

a pivotal role in giving us the ability

to allow businesses to resume.

We do feel that whenindividuals have a valid test

showing good levels ofone type of antibody,

we call them IgG, thatmost likely they carry

immunity and can no longer be infected.

There was a report out of South Korea

a couple of weeks agoindicating that even though

people are testing negative, about 2.1%

can have a recurrence of the disease.

Does that mean the virusis reactivated within them,

or does it mean they've caught it again,

they contracted again?

It looks like probably the explanation,

this was a big study, over 7,000 people,

it looks like the explanationis that the original

lab testing that showed thatthey had now tested negative,

didn't have the virus anymore, that

that might have been a bit erroneous,

so we need to continue to watch that.

But it doesn't mean thatbusinesses cannot resume

sooner than later with implementation

of appropriate socialdistancing, hand washing, gloves,

masks, and even Plexiglasisolation where appropriate,

allowing really the best of both worlds,

keeping people safe andallowing the economy,

then, to get back under way.

- Well, good advice, good analysis.

Thank you so much for being with us.

- Thank you, good to see you.