The ongoing debate over vaccines is, not surprisingly, extended to swine flu now that a pandemic has been declared and, asThe Atlantic points out, the US government has mounted its most ambitious vaccination program since the anti-polio campaign in the 1950s. Five companies, you may recall, were commissioned to produce enough vaccine to cover the entire US population.
The mag also reminds us that the CDC has recommended 159 million adults and children receive either a swine flu shot or a dose of MedImmune’s nasal vaccine this year. Shots are offered in doctors’ offices, hospitals, airports, pharmacies, schools, polling places, shopping malls, and big-box stores like Wal-Mart. And the federal government has spent upwards of $3 billion stockpiling millions of doses of antiviral drugs like Tamiflu—which are being used both to prevent swine flu and treat those who fall ill.
But then there are these questions: What if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized?
The government — with support from leaders in the public-health and medical communities — has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And so The Atlantic writes that, unless fundamental questions are asked about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, the country could find itself, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Provocative? Well, read more....
17 Comments
Mmmm. "The Atlantic". That's where I always go to get the latest medical advice. Hopefully it isn't where my doctor goes for advice!
Note that the primary author of this article wrote a book in 2008 entitled: "Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker And Poorer" and an articles titled "How Drug Companies Convince Americans They're Sicker Than They Are", "Diagnosis: Too Much Medicine, Not Enough Information"
She certainly is not an unbiased observer....
Nathan,
There are always two sides to every story,.. tunnel vision is never a good thing, neither is burying your head in the sand.
Must read the article later but initial comment is that an average of 36,000 flu-related deaths per year in the US alone is very serious. If the author is incorrect that vaccines and pharmaceuticals are ineffective and people consequently avoid vaccines on the strength of the opinions expressed - and face unnecessary risk - that is very sad indeed.
Nathan,
Do you have the same opinion of the Cochrane Collaboration? Are they guilty of bias, too?
I had forgotten how much I missed you Lisa...
I agree, there are two sides to every story. I'm just pointing out that "this side" (the Atlantic article) may be just as biased as drug-company sponsored research. Moreover, it is likely less accurate -- I'm assuming that this author has no formal training in epidemiology. (maybe I'm wrong??)
I missed you also Nathan..
I am still on the fence in regards to getting the H1N1 vaccine,.. how about you?
My daughter, who is a medical professional, and a trained first responder rcved her vaccine yesterday, and I am praying, for her sake, that it is safe and effective. This Mom is known to be a worry wart.
Lisa,
The H1N1 vaccine should be no less safe than the annual flu vaccine. It is made the exact same way. Moreover, if H1N1 had been identified early enough, it likely would have been included within the annual flu vaccine (which changes year to year based on what strains are circulating).
Atlex
Atlex,
Personally,.. Id like to see more safety and efficacy data. Until then, I will practice good hygiene. But then again, I care for my 11 month old grandson during the day and may have to force myself to get one.
Lisa,
I'm curious as to what safety and efficacy data you want to see. The efficacy data is hard to come by, but there are huge quantities of safety data on the flu vaccine.
This webpage form the CDC does a great job of summarizing the issue.
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/vaccine_safety_qa.htm
Atlex
Atlex,
Your comment is exactly why folks across the U.S. are on the fence in regards to getting the swine flu vaccine. And Pharma's reputation in regards to supressing negative safety and efficacy data doesnt help the situation. And paid Industry spokespersons like Dr. Nancy Snyderman, of MSNBC dont help.
Lisa, first of all, don't besmirch someone without knowledge just because they disagree with you. Based on everything I've read, no one has every shown Snyderman to have financial ties to the pharma industry. The anti-vaccine groups have made the accusation because she adently disagrees with their position.
Second, the US government tracks vaccine safety quite closely. The data is widely available through the CDC. So you don't have to rely on the big bad pharma companies for your information.
Atlex, Actually,.. Dr Nancy admitted on live television, (ie; her own show on MSNBC) that she had financial ties to Johnson and Johnson.
Secondly, I would definitely rely on big bad pharma for my information, after all, they are the ones conducting the clinical trials.
"the US government tracks vaccine safety quite closely", That was meant to be a joke right?..
No, she admitted that she had once worked for J&J. She no longer does.
Nathan, I'm surprised that you imply in your response to Lisa that drug company sponsored research is biased?
Because research is sponsored by drug companies does not mean it is tarnished, biased, or less defensible than that by an academic center. On the contrary, it can provide high standards of well-funded and focused discovery that academic centers cannot. And increasingly, drug companies are sponsoring academic centers with hands-off stances simply to benefit from their independent ideas.
It is passe I think for us to generically and routinely stamp pharma as biased, conflicted and less than honest. Of course the critics will dispute this but so be it.
I guess we're all so pleased to be back it's best behavior time, at least for the first week or so.
If I get the flu for not getting the vaccine then I can suffer for my choice. Some are saying it's too late now anyway. Some are saying H1N1 isn't going to be as bad as the regular flu during any given flu season where the death count is sometimes very high. This appears to only differ because of the publicity. Maybe what turned me off was someone saying this will be the largest mass inoculation in... (I don't remember the quote). For what is now thought to be a relatively mild flu that has not mutated. I'll pass. Either way you want to look at it, trying to press people by using the "for the greater good" argument, seems like a scare tactic minus a decent argument.
That does not mean a pandemic can not or will not come about someday. If that day comes I sincerely hope it is handled better so we are not more concerned about the cure than the epidemic.
Vaccines and Drugs are a profit driven business. Until the profiteering is removed, we will never get unbiased information.
Effect Measure blog has a critique of the Atlantic article:
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/10/journalists_sink_in_the_atlant.php