Political ideology may be influencing your decision regarding vaccination. That’s the conclusion one easily makes when reviewing surveys regarding vaccination opinions.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to get the Covid-19 vaccine. When I first heard this, I was surprised since the vaccines were developed under the Republican administration of President Trump. But repeated surveys have confirmed this finding and it remains true today.

William A. Galston, columnist for The Wall Street Journal, tells us more than 80% of Democrats have already received at least one shot, compared with 49% of Republicans. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans say that they won’t get vaccinated under any circumstances, and an additional 9% will do so only if required. That means a solid 36% of Republicans are opposed to the Covid-19 vaccines.

The election results of 2020 would seem to predict vaccination rates across the nation. President Biden carried all 20 states with the highest vaccination rates while Trump carried 17 of the 20 states with the lowest rates of vaccination.

How do you explain these findings?

You might think the opposite of these findings would be true. In addition to the fact the vaccines were developed under a Republican administration, it’s also true that Republicans tend to be older than Democrats. While older Americans are getting vaccinated, the rate of Republicans overall is about the same as 18-to 29-year-olds. Democrats, on the other hand, are receiving shots at the rate of Americans 65 years and older.

Some other demographics are also puzzling. Eighty-one percent of Republicans are white, compared with 59% of Democrats. White Americans are getting vaccinated at higher rates than blacks and Hispanics, who comprise 32% of Democrats but only 9% of Republicans. All things being considered, you would expect Republicans should be getting vaccinated at rates much higher than Democrats. But the opposite is true.

Galston blames these findings on other demographic differences. He says white evangelical Protestants make up one-third of the Republican Party, compared with only 6% of Democrats. He says these white evangelicals get vaccinated at a rate well below the national average. He also says those with college degrees get vaccinated more than those without degrees. Only 30% of Democrats supposedly don’t have college degrees while 57% of Republicans didn’t graduate from college. If these statistics are true, there has been a radical makeover of the Republican and Democratic parties in my lifetime.

Galston gives three hypotheses to explain the differences in Republican v. Democratic vaccination rates:

• Many Republicans are libertarians – those who oppose government control in any form. To these people, anything the government advocates makes them suspicious. In a survey that asked whether vaccination is a “personal choice” or “part of everyone’s responsibility to protect the health of others,” 71% of Republicans saw it as a personal choice compared with 27% of Democrats.
• Republicans are populists – who bristle at what they see as elite condescension toward ordinary citizens. Despite the reassurances of medical experts that the vaccines are safe, many Republicans wonder how they can be sure since the vaccines were developed faster than usual.
• White evangelical Protestants distrust science – Galston says for more than a century, these people have had a tense relationship with modern science, which they see as challenging core tenants of their faith. They are less likely than other Americans to take “follow the science” as their benchmark.

What do you believe?

Is Galston correct or way off base? It is certainly true that libertarians tend to favor the Republican Party and also tend to oppose government intrusion into their lives. Perhaps some oppose anything the government favors. But would they put their own health at risk over these differences? Maybe. Many Republicans also detest elite condescension – who wouldn’t? But when your personal health is at stake, it’s a very personal matter. As to the “tense” relationship of white protestants to science, this is perhaps the least credible explanation of all. This sounds like elite condescension to explain differences of opinion on creation v. evolution.

Fortunately, we all still have the choice to be vaccinated or not. I would hope that a careful review of the science, and the risks v. benefits of the vaccines, would be the driving influence on whether or not people get vaccinated – not political ideology. We still live in a free country and the choice is everyone’s to make.

Let me know what you believe – and your reasons for accepting or rejecting the vaccines.

The Food and Drug Administration finally got it right. The FDA and other government agencies involved in healthcare have had their share of failures in the last year or more, but now there’s hope for Americans suffering with Alzheimer’s disease.

In an earlier post, Risk v. Benefits in Drug Treatments, I criticized the FDA for dragging their heels on approving Biogen’s new Alzheimer’s treatment drug, aducanumab.  Now the FDA has approved the drug, the first treatment shown to slow cognitive decline, giving hope to millions. I doubt my post had anything to do with this change, but credit FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock for resisting the pressure from those on the left who have campaigned against the drug.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board says aducanumab’s twisted path to approval illustrates the challenges of drug development. Hundreds of experimental Alzheimer’s treatments have failed in clinical trials over decades. While some approved drugs can temporarily mitigate behavioral and cognitive symptoms, none before aducanumab had shown an impact on disease progression.

The cause of Alzheimer’s is still elusive but its hallmark is amyloid plaques and tau tangles in the brain, which usually begins long before symptoms become apparent. Many scientists believe removing amyloid could slow disease progression. This is how aducanumab works, by clearing amyloid. A high dose of the drug in a late-stage trial removed 71% of the amyloid buildup after 18 months.

Earlier trials of aducanumab failed, but post-trial analysis suggested the termination of the trials was premature. Significant benefits were discovered when higher doses were used. The higher doses were also needed for a longer time than initially tried.

The FDA worked with Biogen to analyze the data, which the FDA described as “exceptionally persuasive.” But an outside advisory panel disagreed, though none of its members actively treated Alzheimer’s patients. The panel accused Biogen of massaging the data. Activists on the left attacked the FDA for collaborating with Biogen. They claimed the FDA would be lowering its standards and compromising its objectivity if it approved the drug.

Perhaps this opposition from the left was related to TDS – Trump Derangement Syndrome. President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed made possible the development of three Covid vaccines in less than a year by encouraging collaboration between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. Give credit to the Biden administration’s FDA for ignoring those on the left who would try to stifle this game-changing new drug development.

The WSJ editorial board says many of the critics seem to object to the cost more than the effectiveness. New blood tests can identify the disease years before signs of cognitive decline, so the potential patient pool may soon expand. But with Alzheimer’s costs in the U.S. estimated at $277 billion a year, a drug that can mitigate this horrible disease is well worth the investment.

Cancer is not one disease. It has always been inaccurate to talk about “winning the war on cancer” since it is not one enemy. Cancer is many enemies, each with unique cellular identities and patterns of behavior. Yet, it seems we are winning many more battles in this war on many enemies – and that is definitely news to celebrate.

Dr. Robin L. Smith is founder and chairman of Cura Foundation and Stem for Life and a pioneer in regenerative medicine. She writes of the advances in cancer treatment in The Wall Street Journal. She tells us fifty years have passed since President Nixon declared war on cancer in his 1971 State of the Union address. “The time has come in America when the same kind of concentrated effort that . . . took man to the moon should be turned toward conquering this dread disease.” Notwithstanding the inaccuracy of his description of cancer as a singular disease, we are closer to that goal than ever before.

Some statistics are useful. Cancer, in one form or another, killed 10 million people world-wide last year, and doctors diagnosed 19 million new cases. Yet scientists have made startling progress in understanding, preventing and treating it. Here are some of those achievements:

• Vaccines – New vaccines against human papillomavirus, which causes cervical and throat cancer, are in late-stage trials. Scientists are also testing vaccines for melanoma, leukemia, lung and renal cancers.
• Blood test screening – In five years there may be a simple blood test costing less than $500 that can detect 70% of all cancers in the early stages. When patients with breast, prostate and thyroid cancer are diagnosed early, their five-year survival rates are 99%.
• Gene editing – New Crispr gene-editing technology deploys a molecular defense system borrowed from bacteria, which use this system to kill invading viral cells by destroying their DNA. Scientists are using Crispr to repair or rewrite flawed genes. This therapy cured sickle-cell anemia in the first three patients to receive it. Many trials of Crispr therapies in the U.S. now are in Phase 2 for leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma and more. China is currently experimenting with Crispr to treat lung cancer with some promising results.
• Immunology – Immunologist Carl June pioneered the use of CAR T-cell therapy to fight HIV in the 1990s, after which simpler drugs arose and turned AIDS into a chronic, treatable disease, like high blood pressure. Now this therapy is used against breast cancer and leukemia and shows broad promise.
• Stem Cells – Celularity is a company exploring the use of placental stem cells to replace or repair defective genes at the heart of major diseases. Dr. Robert Hariri, CEO of Celularity, discovered that postbirth placenta can be a rich source of stem, progenitor and immune cells, which can be turned into two kinds of weapons against disease: genetically modified T-cells to target specific antigens and recently discovered “natural killer” (NK) cells that may fight broader targets in cancer and virally infected cells. Best of all, the placenta can provide T-cells and NK cells for all patients without the need for donor matching.

These are encouraging developments in our understanding and treatment of the many types of cancer that can ravage the human body. It is exciting to consider what the future might bring, but we must also beware the compromise of our ethical standards in the search for these new cancer treatments. For instance, we must never be willing to sacrifice life, through abortions, just to provide sufficient sources of human placenta for cancer research and treatment.

If you are facing cancer treatment today, you are much better off than you would have been twenty years ago. With such important advances as above, we will all be even better off if we face cancer twenty years from now.