one of the things that is interesting, it is about a vaccination when there is an outbreak going on. the idea that you could vaccinate preventive lee was not for another target five years. the way we think of it doesn't mean is the way they thought of it. if you don't want to compare how people responded to smallpox vaccination questions during an outbreak to how we think of whooping cough monilia seen the case. a more meyerson deform modern comparison. the speaker is supposedly had some contagious. their country would mobilize. i am wondering if you could say a little bit about the outbreak me as a factor. >> if you for that question. one of the results of the litigation during this time, and

it comes out of the state, not so much the supreme court. the supreme court makes and not sit. the idea that compulsory vaccination -- and this is worse thinking through. the compulsory vaccination is carried out by a local health board without a stake. under some circumstances they ordered vaccination at their own discretion there must be epidemic. if there was a state law on the books as it was in massachusetts courts were much more deferential during this time, whether there was an epidemic and not. that standard became so important that it was referred to by one legal scholar as the present danger. this is 20 years before we think

of free-speech. a thing free speech is actually other civil liberties during this time. these issues are quite connected. so in the supreme court decision which upheld the power of the state to vaccinate people, in order people to get vaccinated against their will, mccourt nodded at the end of its decision which compared the right to order vaccinations, the right to repel an invasion, military invasion. the court nodded to individual liberty not being so easily invaded. the court said that vaccination measures must be reasonable. they must not be arbitrary. as an example the court went on

to just talk as judges to was to have made their ruling about the case of someone who could prove to a court of law that because of their medical background and history and condition vaccines pose special harmon danger to them. in such a case, the supreme court said, of course it would be a violation of that person's liberty to vaccinate them, to order them to be vaccinated. that is a standard that the court did not need to articulate. in other cases the courts, other courts talk even about equal protection as a standard. the city of san francisco during the plague epidemic had the plan with the federal government to require everybody in china to get vaccinated against the black

plague. the vaccine. and the one in federal court. the 14th amendment has this thing called the equal protection clause. is surely that applies. so anyway, it's interesting. the court give is, and the court take it away. my argument that both the power of government, police power, and individual liberty are being given strength by the judicial system. zero sum gain. >> high. prates talk. congratulations on the awards that you have one last month. i know it sounds really belated for me to be bringing this up now, but the last time i heard

you speak was three months ago and when you spoke to my class. i heard you talk on national public radio in early april. one of the things that really interested me was your own personal story because you have a vaccine injured son he developed and in conception after the first rotavirus vaccine. i am really fascinated because there is a whole back story to how that got approved. in fact, one of the coinventors of the current vaccine sat on the council then. he was part of -- >> is there a question? recess. there is a question. i just want to know if you are aware that he sat on the council and voted three times to get the

vaccine approved on the council which helped open up the margin for the rotavirus vaccine and therefore indirectly help get his own vaccine on the market? i'm just curious if you were aware of that or what your reaction to that, if you haven't heard of this before if you had known about it already, would your reaction was then. >> actually, i did know that he had been involved in the creation of one of the vaccines. i have to say, i understand the into vaccination looked like a piece of a larger conspiracy. >> he did have an interest in voting for that initial vaccine. he had a specific interest.

it may very well have approved that in good faith. i'm just saying that when he was involved in the process he did have a continued interest. >> i can't speak for him. he was here recently. maybe we can get somebody else for question. would love to talk to you afterwards. >> occur. >> to be perfectly clear when the data came forward on the incidence he was among the first to say, this must be withdrawn. that was not in his interest in the way has been portrayed here, and this should be pointed out that when the subsequent vote vaccine which was developed from his technology when into the field to another were 70,007 in that trial to prove that there was no excess. just to be clear.

sorry. you close on the note of the dilemma that a young parent faces in balancing the rest of his or her child having a miniscule vaccine reaction verses a minuscule chance of exposure to a given virus. such individuals to make the decision not to vaccinate are often characterized as the three writers. indeed it held next door who was less than one year of age is not yet knowledgeable. the job next door who has an immunologic problem is susceptible. the apparent decision to vaccinate their child is, if i must say, a communitarian decision. do you think public health today based on your research and your own experience has any prayer of making that appeal to the grandparents of the day? and then, is do it because it is

good for all of us? [applause] [applause] >> it is a wonderful question. i think it, perhaps, is more a question for a sociologist than for a historian. i would like to say i certainly hope so. one thing i can say is that the anti vaccination centers and has risen. there have been times of extraordinary support, even mandated vaccinations. the era of the polio vaccine when it first emerged is a case in point. so was the moment when smallpox returned briefly to new york city. there was a single case in 1947. people really lined up to get vaccinated. i guess i would say, yes, let's

have faith. let's take the concern seriously at think that there are telling in a lot of different places. some people, some of the anti vaccinations, the literature i have read sons like their rejection of government in general. but a lot of it doesn't. i don't think that it is inherently or necessarily a libertarian, but again, i'm a story in. i can tell you a lot about bucks 100 years ago but i haven't figured of the line about contemporary anti vaccination. >> thank you for a very interesting and informative left

-- lecture. amateur got here. it my question is both my parents were doctors and both were immigrants. not so much english spoken. you know, if you go into a house you have english. how do you deal with that kind of a situation? the patients and parents don't understand a word you're saying? >> well, i would assume that to date interpreter's play an important role in the public health process or at least i hope so. a lot of these vaccination rates. obviously that is crucial. we have to bridge -- those of us that care have to bridge cultural types of many farms and language may be the least of the

barriers. their cost barriers, many people are disaffected from their government or have no reason to religious people. a whole host of reasons. but i think that actually one of the most important forms of reach would be through immigrant doctors and communities, three medical clinics and members of the community. reach out to yank parents.

>> are public health challenges right now and seeing some very preventable diseases. diabetes the obesity epidemic. things that very aggressive public-health action could protect against, but at the same time really come into conflict with our civil liberties. you know, we tried to have calorie labeling and our menus in philadelphia. we are announced as food nazis. i am wondering, i am excited about your book. of going to get a couple of copies signed in a minute. i am wondering if from a historical perspective if you can give us any sort of thought of how we in public health and more productively reach out to people when we are really dealing with an issue where individual choice comes into conflict with what is going to be healthiest in the long term.

>> that is the challenge. i think that it has to occur in everyday practice some, bought through attempting to seize the town square. make this a project for public education. i made an argument recently that this moment right now seems to be the right moment for talking about the risks such as they are and the benefits of the vaccine, particularly this new outbreaks have been occurring over the past few years and also in the wake of this new report, the original vaccine paper. there is a lot of conversations that continued to be had. i have a lot of respect for people at the front line in

trying to increase the health. health may swells. he might have been. anyway. health of the commonwealth, extremely important. i appreciate the work people do to that end. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> this event was hosted by the college of physicians in philadelphia. to find out more visit collphyhil dot court. >> the tale of traumas. number one begins on september 203rd 1955 in denver, colorado on the golf course. dwight eisenhower did not enjoy the vacation that mess in years. believe it or not the president of the united states had himself

put a huge breakfast for his fishing buddies. the gulf was the president's priority for the day. after briefing prize now are headed for the cherry hills country club. the secretary robert that she had never seen him look or act better. eisenhower's golf game was interrupted four times that day for phone calls from the secretary of state, john buster douglas. this was before cell phones. an irritated and probably profane ike had to return to the clubhouse for each call, only one of which actually get through. that call was important. they confirmed that the soviet union had made an arms deal with egypt. he knew that this bold move would open a new chapter in the cold war. they agree that the president should send a message to the premier. but the president wants to think

about it overnight. he said he would call the following morning. that phone call was never made. he went back. his game deteriorated. as the day wore on the president experienced a growing discomfort, declined -- declined his usual evening drink and retired early. in the middle of the night he appeared by the bedside. i have a pain across the lower part of my chest, he said. since he had complained earlier about in digestion she gave rise bins milk of magnesia. at 2:54 a.m. she called dr. howard snyder, the president's physician who rushed to the white house. snyder initially put out the word that this was a digestive upset when he knew it was a massive heart attack. he waited until midafternoon that day before transporting the president's to the hospital, and

even then had him walk to the car instead of calling an ambulance. if you want more detail on the mismanagement of this situation you have to read the book. don't have time tonight. eisenhower was in the hospital for six weeks. in those days the gold standard for treatment of heart attack patients was total bed rest. his doctors would not permit him to read a newspaper, watch a movie, listen to a football game on the radio, let alone do a serious presidential business. he did not take a step across the room for a month. this incredibly active mandela like a caged animal. so at the very moment the soviet union attempted to change the balance of power in the middle east as an hour was out of commission. the secretary of state was on his own, unable t

none of whom had a snowball's chance in hell