Re: HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION
From: a.moore (Tdmoore32_at_aol.com)
Date: 10/28/04
- Next message: Joel M. Eichen: "Re: Mayonnaise (safety issues for whole egg home pasteuization)"
- Previous message: Steven Fawks: "Re: Mayonnaise (safety issues for whole egg home pasteuization)"
- In reply to: john: "HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Oct 2004 11:38:17 -0700
"john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message news:<ckvvlk$d78$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/2004_jan12.html
>
> HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION
>
> Chickenpox, Lyme, Rotavirus, And A Highly Revealing Analysis Of Flu
> Statistics
>
> By RFD Columnist, Dr. F. Edward Yazbak
>
> TL Autism Research
> Falmouth, Massachusetts
>
> E-mail: tlautstudy@aol.com
>
> Years ago, the description of diseases used to be accurate. Smallpox was a
> very dreaded, serious, and often fatal illness. Certainly, no parent wished
> smallpox on his children. Chickenpox on the other hand was a relatively
> benign illness: a low-grade fever, an itchy rash and a week out of school.
> Like all childhood illnesses, it was worse in adults and parents were
> actually hoping that their children could "catch chickenpox" and be finished
> with it for the future.
>
> In 1995, chickenpox suddenly became a major health problem. Six children
> were reported to have died from chickenpox; frequent and repeated TV
> coverage lasted for weeks without anyone mentioning that two of the six
> children had leukemia and the others were on cortico-steroids. Concurrently,
> chickenpox became a major economical disaster that was gravely impacting the
> United States economy, as working mothers stayed home to give their children
> Aveeno baths and syrup to relieve itching. A short time later, the
> chickenpox vaccine was cheerfully and successfully launched.
>
> Historically, epidemics have occurred in cycles. Experts in infectious
> diseases could often predict them. The number of unvaccinated children
> increased during several successive years of low spread and when the
> reservoir was full, an outbreak, an epidemic or a pandemic occurred.
> Children then developed a solid immunity that was boosted successfully
> during subsequent outbreaks. Recently, in the United States, a new
> epidemiological trend has become very evident: MBAs and Marketing Directors
> predict epidemics that are then orchestrated to occur, on cue, when a new
> vaccine is due to be launched.
>
> A flurry of interest about Lyme disease started in the Northeast and Upper
> Midwest in 1996-97. It promptly snowballed into a major news campaign in the
> targeted areas, where indeed there were increasing numbers of cases, many
> with serious long-term complications. In 1998, the LYMErix vaccine received
> conditional approval by the FDA and was welcome in the geographical
> locations where the disease was common and often devastating. Unfortunately,
> it was soon discovered that the vaccine itself had major side effects and
> doctors became disenchanted with its use. Since the manufacturer
> discontinued production of the vaccine, the newspaper articles, experts'
> interviews and television "health minutes" on Lyme disease have completely
> stopped. It is almost as if the disease has totally disappeared, when it
> obviously has not.
>
> Years ago, we did not talk much about the rotavirus. Most people did not
> even know the name and some thought that it was "RotoVirus", because it kept
> spreading "around and around" nursery schools. We were happy to tell the
> parents the baby had "some kind of a virus", that penicillin was not going
> to help, that we were seeing many children with the same symptoms, and that
> they improved after a few days. We then suggested liquids and a limited diet
> and the reassured parents left with their little ones, to stop at their
> neighborhood drugstore for Pampers and Pedialyte. We obviously were
> immensely more alarmed when a child had salmonella, shigella, cholera,
> pathogenic E. Coli and staphylococcus gastro-enteritis.
>
> Rarely, the babies with rotavirus infections became dehydrated. They were
> then brought to a holding unit at the hospital, given intravenous fluids and
> discharged before 23 hours. Officially, they had not been actually
> "admitted" to the hospital.
>
> Suddenly, in 1998, every newspaper and every TV news program started
> continuous reporting on the rotavirus. Overnight, the rotavirus became a
> household name and the most common cause of diarrhea. It also killed
> thousands of babies. The fact that the deaths occurred in Third World
> countries was rarely, if ever, mentioned. In addition, the news programs
> warned that the economy of the United States was once more in dire danger,
> that HMOs were almost bankrupt trying to keep up with the rising costs of
> hospitalizations and that millions of hours were lost in the workplace
> during the rotavirus season; after all, mothers of affected children had to
> stay out of work to care for them and could not drop them off, as usual, at
> schools and day-care centers. In the midst of that intense "information"
> campaign, the rotavirus vaccine "Rotashield" was released to the joy and
> relief of The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
> pediatricians and parents. Because three doses were needed, the delight of
> the manufacturer and stockholders was tripled. One could almost imagine them
> visualizing a set of gorgeous blond triplets singing "Triple the Doses,
> Triple the Dough" using the old and proven tune of "Double the Mint, Double
> the Fun".
>
> And then, something went wrong, very wrong. It became quickly evident that
> some infants who received the vaccine developed intussusception, a form of
> intestinal obstruction and that a few died. The CDC, to its credit, acted
> promptly and suspended the administration of the Rotashield in July 1999,
> just a few months after it was released. In October 1999, it issued a
> detailed statement that started with the following two paragraphs: "The
> Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decided that Rotashield,
> the only U.S.-licensed rotavirus vaccine, should no longer be recommended
> for infants in the United States. This action was based on the results of
> an expedited review of scientific data presented to the ACIP by CDC in
> cooperation with the FDA, NIH, and Public Health Service officials, along
> with Wyeth-Lederle. Data from the review indicated a strong association
> between Rotashield and intussusception (bowel obstruction) among some
> infants during the first 1-2 weeks following vaccination. Use of the
> vaccine was suspended in July pending the data review by the ACIP. Parents
> should be reassured that their children who received rotavirus vaccine
> before July and remain well are not at increased risk for intussusception
> now.
>
> Rotavirus is a severe diarrheal illness in childhood that accounts for more
> than 500,000 physician visits and approximately 50,000 hospitalizations each
> year among children less than 5 years of age. Symptoms include fever, an
> upset stomach and vomiting followed by diarrhea, which may lead to
> dehydration. This results in $264 million in direct medical costs and $1
> billion in total costs to society.
>
> The rotavirus media blitz came to a screeching halt and for four years,
> interest in the "designer diarrhea" has ranged between nil and minimal.
> Children with the disease had once again "some kind of a virus."
>
> However, this is due to change AGAIN. Yes indeed, very soon, we will be
> undoubtedly bombarded once more with a barrage of relentless rotavirus
> propaganda, diarrhea will become extremely serious in the United States and
> the cost to the National economy will become even more staggering as the
> launching of the "new, safe, effective and improved" rotavirus vaccine is
> carefully orchestrated. This second vaccine has been developed for years and
> has been ready to go. If rotavirus disease is so serious, the new
> formulation should have been released already "to save lives". But it was
> probably felt that releasing it too soon after the first fiasco would not
> have been a good business move and as it happens sometimes, when it comes to
> the care of children, MBAs may overrule MDs. So everyone involved had to
> wait patiently for the opportune time. Indications are that 2004 will be the
> year.
>
> For years, the inactivated flu vaccine has been recommended for the elderly.
> It was also recommended for children and adults at risk, mainly those with
> chronic debilitating conditions. Recently, annual vaccination of all
> children aged 6 to 23 months and older children and adolescents in their
> household was recommended. Because of parental concerns over thimerosal, a
> "preservative-free" pediatric flu vaccine was expressly produced for the
> 2003-2004 season. Marketing experts decided that the description of the
> product as "preservative-free" was less controversial than "mercury-free".
>
> A live intranasal flu vaccine, FluMist, was also recently licensed. As per
> the manufacturer: "Before you get the flu, ask your health care
> professional about new FluMist - the first nasal flu vaccine that helps
> prevent the flu where the flu virus typically enters your body - your nose.
> FluMist helps prevent the flu for the entire season. FluMist is indicated
> for active immunization for the prevention of disease caused by influenza A
> and B viruses in healthy children and adolescents, 5 to 17 years of age, and
> healthy adults, 18 to 49 years of age. FluMist is not indicated for
> immunization of individuals less than 5 years of age, or 50 years of age and
> older."
>
> It is not exactly clear why suddenly healthy infants, children and adults
> under the age of 50 needed to be vaccinated.
>
> As expected, an outbreak of flu occurred in the fall of 2003. A massive
> barrage of "information" was orchestrated and news programs were saturated
> except for two days after the capture of Saddam Hussein. There was special
> emphasis on pediatric cases and particularly pediatric deaths.
>
> According to the 2003 "Red Book" of the American Academy of Pediatrics
> (AAP), the Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases and the
> pediatrician's reference on the subject, par excellence: "Influenza
> classically is characterized by sudden onset of fever, often with chills or
> rigors, headache, malaise, diffuse myalgia, and a nonproductive cough.
> Subsequently, the respiratory tract signs of sore throat, nasal congestion,
> rhinitis, and cough become more prominent. Conjunctival injection, abdominal
> pain, nausea and vomiting can occur. In some children, influenza can appear
> as an upper respiratory tract infection or as a febrile illness with few
> respiratory tract signs. In young infants, influenza can produce a
> sepsis-like picture and occasionally can cause croup, bronchiolitis or
> pneumonia. Acute myositis characterized by calf tenderness and refusal to
> walk may develop after several days of influenza illness." (p. 382)
>
> Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases is an important
> CDC publication that is often used as a resource. The following is from page
> 249 of the 5th Edition: "The severity of influenza illness depends on the
> prior immunologic experience with antigenically related virus variants. In
> general, only around 50% of infected persons will develop the classic
> clinical symptoms of influenza.
>
> 'Classic' influenza disease is characterized by the abrupt onset of fever,
> myalgia, sore throat, and non-productive cough. The fever is usually
> 101-102°F, and accompanied by prostration. The onset of fever is so abrupt
> that the exact hour is recalled by the patient. Myalgias mainly affect the
> back muscles. Cough is believed to be the result of tracheal epithelial
> destruction. Additional symptoms may include rhinorrhea (runny nose),
> headache, substernal chest burning and ocular symptoms (e.g. eye pain and
> sensitivity to light.)"
>
> All of us who have had the flu remember the aches and pains, and how much
> our eyes hurt when we moved them. We remember the cough and the fever and
> the sick stomach. We remember how we felt tired and fatigued for a long
> while. We actually remember our flu encounters so well that we feel sick all
> over again watching that great commercial with the poor actor looking so
> miserable and enumerating all his symptoms.
>
> MMWR
> For years, the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC
> has been the most reliable source of accurate information on diseases. The
> CDC was so careful about every statement and figure that it included the
> following disclaimer in every report on the Internet: All MMWR HTML versions
> of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This
> conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in
> the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are
> referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy
> for the official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this
> issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
> Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800.
> Contact GPO for current prices
>
> The MMWR of December 19, 2003 [/ 52(50);1232-1234] covers the period between
> December 7 and 13. It can be accessed here
>
> Important portions will be copied verbatim and footnotes will be inserted
> between brackets, immediately after the corresponding statements for clarity
> (italics). My comments will appear in bold.
>
> Influenza activity in the United States continued to increase during
> December 7--13, 2003*. [* Provisional data reported as of December 17] The
> proportion of patient visits to sentinel providers for influenza-like
> illness (ILI)? overall was 7.4%, which is above the national baseline§ of
> 2.5%. [? Temperature of >100.0º F (>37.8º C) and cough and/or sore throat in
> the absence of a known cause other than influenza] [§ Calculated as the mean
> percentage of visits for ILI during non-influenza weeks, plus two standard
> deviations. Wide variability in regional data precludes calculating
> region-specific baselines and makes it inappropriate to apply the national
> baseline to regional data.] The above symptoms are not flu symptoms. They
> are certainly not those listed in the Red Book and the quoted CDC
> publication and they are certainly not those that the average person
> attributes to the flu. A child or an adult with just such a low-grade fever
> and a cough or a sore throat can hardly be said to have Influenza. The bar
> has been substantially lowered if the CDC includes such cases in the
> national flu statistics, whatever the intention. Similarly, one must wonder
> why and how the 2.5% baseline for low-grade fever, sore throat or cough was
> decided on. Certainly every primary physician and nurse practitioner will
> easily assert that year-round, patients with such symptoms amount to a
> greater percentage of visits. The unrealistic 2.5% figure lowers the bar
> further.
>
> During the reporting week of December 7--13, World Health Organization (WHO)
> and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS)
> laboratories reported testing 3,814 specimens for influenza viruses; 1,365
> (35.8%) were positive. Of these, 262 were influenza A (H3N2) viruses, 1,080
> were influenza A viruses that were not subtyped, and 23 were influenza B
> viruses.
>
> Since September 28, WHO and NREVSS laboratories have tested 32,854 specimens
> for influenza viruses; 9,464 (28.8%) were positive. Of these, 9,395 (99.3%)
> were influenza A viruses, and 69 (0.7%) were influenza B viruses. Of the
> 9,395 influenza A viruses, 2,113 (22.5%) have been subtyped; 2,112 (>99.9%)
> were influenza A (H3N2) viruses, and one (<0.1%) was an influenza A (H1)
> virus. All 50 states have reported laboratory-confirmed influenza this
> season. The fact that only 1/3 of the submitted specimens were positive is
> of some concern and may suggest that most of the patients tested may not
> have had the flu. A more careful clinical diagnosis, based on more
> appropriate criteria, would have yielded reasonable incidence figures and
> higher confirmation rates. One can only imagine the uproar if surgeons
> performed appendectomies on patients who vomited once, had a low-grade fever
> and a vague tummy ache.
>
> Of 269 influenza viruses collected by U.S. laboratories since October 1 and
> characterized antigenically by CDC, 265 were influenza A (H3N2) viruses, two
> were influenza A (H1) viruses, and two were influenza B viruses. The
> hemagglutinin proteins of the influenza A (H1) viruses were similar
> antigenically to the hemagglutinin of the vaccine strain A/New
> Caledonia/20/99. Of the 265 influenza A (H3N2) isolates that have been
> characterized, 62 (23%) were similar antigenically to the vaccine strain
> A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2), and 203 (77%) were similar to a drift variant,
> A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2)**. Both influenza B viruses characterized were
> similar antigenically to B/Sichuan/379/99. [** Although vaccine
> effectiveness against A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses might be less than that
> against A/Panama/2007/99-like viruses, the current U.S. vaccine probably
> will offer some cross-protective immunity against the A/Fujian/411/2002-like
> viruses and reduce the severity of disease.] It is imperative to point out
> that 77% of the cultures antigenically identified by the CDC did not match
> the strain in the flu vaccine this year. In addition, one must question the
> first statement in the footnote "Although vaccine effectiveness against
> A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses might be less than that against
> A/Panama/2007/99-like viruses". The use of the word "might" seems
> inappropriate. The vaccine effectiveness against A/Fujian/411/2002-like
> viruses is definitely less than that against A/Panama/2007/99. The bar has
> been lowered further. The authors were wise to use the word "probably" in
> the following sentence: the current U.S. vaccine probably will offer some
> cross-protective immunity against the A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses and
> reduce the severity of disease. Commenting on that possibility, an
> infectious disease specialist said in an interview: "The available flu
> vaccine will prevent death".
>
> * * *
>
> On December 19, 2003, a MMWR Dispatch was also published by the CDC
> (52:1-2). Reported by J Wright, DVM, A Likos, MD, N
> Bhat, MD [EIS officers, CDC], it was entitled Update: Influenza-Associated
> Deaths Reported Among Children Aged <18 Years --- United States, 2003--04
> Influenza Season.
>
> Since October, 42 influenza-associated deaths among children aged <18 years
> have been reported to CDC. All patients had influenza virus infection
> detected by rapid antigen testing or other laboratory testing methods. The
> fact that all 42 deaths, according to the authors, were
> "influenza-associated" does not mean that the cause of death was the
> influenza, of course. The second sentence serves to "reinforce" the first
> and to convince anyone with doubts. But it cannot change the fact that
> detection of influenza viral infection in the laboratory does not prove that
> "The Flu" was the cause of death.
>
> Among the 42 reported deaths, 20 (48%) patients were male, and 21 (50%) were
> female; the sex of one patient was not reported. Twenty-three (55%) of the
> children were aged <5 years, and 13 (31%) were aged 6--23 months. The median
> age was 4 years (range: 9 weeks--17 years). Seventeen (40%) of the children
> had underlying chronic medical conditions; the previous medical status for
> four (10%) children was unknown. Among the 21 patients who had no underlying
> chronic medical condition, five had invasive bacterial co-infections,
> including three caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
> (MRSA), one by Streptococcus pneumoniae, and one by Group A streptococcus.
> Three children with underlying chronic medical conditions had invasive
> bacterial co-infections, including one caused by MRSA, one caused by
> Streptococcus pneumoniae, and one caused by Neisseria menigitidis. One must
> wonder why in a review of national importance, an effort was not made to
> identify the sex of one child and the past history of four others. The
> underlying chronic conditions (some children had more than one) were: Lupus
> 1, cerebral palsy 2, chromosomal abnormality 1, hypothyroidism 1,
> gastroesophageal reflux 1 and biliary atresia 1. Two children were
> developmentally delayed and 2 had mental retardation. Three children had
> asthma, one had received a heart transplant, 3 had seizure disorders, one
> had Pierre Robin Syndrome and the last one had the syndrome of Cornelia de
> Lange. The available information is not enough to determine the role of the
> influenza infection in the demise of these children. Eight (19%) of the 42
> children had fulminating systemic infections. At least in these, influenza
> was not the primary cause of death. [The immediate cause of death is
> listed first on a death certificate. To its right, the physician must enter
> the interval between onset and death. In the following three lines,
> underlying and associated causes are listed in order of significance with
> the intervals between onset and death.]
>
> What may be tragic is the fact that, because of the continuous bombardment
> with reports of the "epidemic", some parents, believing that their children
> just had the flu, may have waited too long to seek medical advice for
> meningitis, septicemia or pneumonia. Similarly, a busy ER physician seeing a
> multitude of children brought by parents concerned about the "major flu
> epidemic" going on, may have thought that the child he was sending home,
> simply had the flu, like all the others. Symptoms of early bacterial
> meningitis are easily mistaken for the flu. This was evident in New
> Hampshire around Christmas when an 18-year old co-ed was seen in an
> Emergency Room, diagnosed with the flu and discharged without further
> testing only to die of meningococcal meningitis a short time later. The
> cases of the 5 children in the MMWR report, who died of invasive bacterial
> illnesses, and who had no underlying condition, should be thoroughly
> investigated. The fact that they "tested positive for the flu" may be
> etiologically irrelevant.
>
> Influenza vaccination status was available for only seven patients; five
> (aged 1 year, 14 months, 20 months, 3 years, and 8 years) were not
> vaccinated; two (aged 21 months and 5 years) received 1 dose of influenza
> vaccine; however, their previous vaccination history was unknown. Influenza
> A viruses were isolated from 11 (26%) patients; 29 (69%) infections were
> detected by rapid diagnostic testing or by direct fluorescent antibody
> testing of respiratory specimens. In two (5%) patients, evidence of
> influenza A virus infection was solely by immunohistochemical staining (IHC)
> of postmortem tissue specimens at CDC. Five cases that were positive by
> rapid antigen testing of respiratory specimens also were tested by IHC; all
> five also had influenza A viral antigens detected in bronchial epithelium
> tissues obtained at autopsy. CDC continues to work with state health
> departments to collect additional information on all cases. The lack of
> information on the vaccination status of 83% of the deceased children is
> disturbing and indicates a further lowering of the bar. Positive viral
> cultures are more definitive proofs of viral presence. The fact that viral
> cultures were positive in only 26% of cases is important. On the other hand,
> a positive viral culture is not absolute proof that influenza is the cause
> of death; without more details, its significance is hard to determine.
>
> Lastly, the fact that the events that followed vaccination of seven children
> were not made available for review is also of concern.
>
> Before December 2002, there were 12 reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events
> Reporting System (VAERS) of children under 10, who expired shortly after
> receiving the inactivated flu vaccine. It is accepted that only a small
> percentage of actual reactions are ever reported to VAERS. In 11 cases, the
> flu vaccine was the only vaccine administered. All children had serious
> underlying chronic illnesses. Five children died within 24 hours of
> vaccination and 2 within 72 hours.
>
> * * *
>
> Influenza outbreaks are usually widespread and of uniform intensity. So, was
> the flu a global emergency this past fall, as it seemed to be in the United
> States? Specifically, what was the situation worldwide during the week of
> December 7 to 13?
>
> According to a December 23, 2003 report of the World Health Organization
> (WHO) entitled "Widespread influenza activity persists in northern
> hemisphere - update 5" Disease Outbreak Reported that covered Week 50, 7
> December - 13 December 2003: " Influenza activity associated with influenza
> A(H3N2) viruses continues to increase in Africa (Tunisia), Europe (Czech
> Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Russia
> Federation and Ukraine) and North America (the United States), and persists
> in France and some parts of Canada. In other European countries (Portugal,
> Spain and the United Kingdom) and most parts of Canada, activity has
> declined.
>
> Most influenza infections this season have been attributed to influenza
> A(H3N2) viruses. The majority of viruses antigenically characterized so far
> have been shown to be A/Fujian/411/2002-like; the rest have been
> A/Panama/2007/99-like. There have been few reports of influenza
> A/Fujian/411/2002-like virus detections from Asia .
>
> An avian influenza A(H5N1) outbreak in poultry in a chicken farm in the
> Republic of Korea was reported on Tuesday 16 December. The outbreak was
> recognized by the death of about 19 000 chickens. Surviving chickens in the
> affected farm were slaughtered. As of Monday 22 December 2003, nine poultry
> farms in 4 provinces were found to be infected by avian influenza. About one
> million chickens and ducks are to be culled. The A(H5N1) strain isolated is
> being examined to determine its relation to other influenza A(H5N1) viruses,
> which emerged in Asia recently. So far no human A(H5N1) cases have been
> reported. [http://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_12_23/en/]
>
> It is not unusual for flu outbreaks to be increasing in the second week of
> December. It is unusual that this outbreak was already decreasing in Spain,
> Portugal, the United Kingdom and most of Canada. In fact, the British
> vaccine authorities were so sure the flu season was over that they were
> happy to sell their leftover stock of flu vaccines to the CDC. Over all, it
> should be reassuring to note that a shorter paragraph was needed to
> summarize the influenza activity globally in the week in question (December
> 7 to13) than to describe what happened in chicken farms in Korea.
>
> Over here, the CDC was publishing on December 11, a long and detailed report
> entitled Flu Vaccine Supply-2003-04 Season
> [http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluupdate.htm] which started with the following
> statement: "The strong consumer demand for influenza vaccine this year will
> likely exceed the consumer demand seen in previous flu seasons. Some
> healthcare providers have used - or may use -- all of their supplies of
> influenza vaccine. In past years, supply has generally been sufficient to
> meet demand. This year, however, a strong demand has continued for longer
> than usual into the month of December. At a time when flu vaccination
> clinics are typically winding down, people are still seeking vaccination.
>
> That certainly says it all.
>
> The early reports of vaccine shortage resulted in sustained greater demand.
> People who had never been interested in previous flu vaccination programs,
> when the vaccine supply was plentiful, were lining up this past fall before
> the "vaccine ran out". To its credit, the CDC was able to provide vaccines
> for anyone who wanted to be vaccinated. Vaccine supplies were redistributed
> to areas with increased demands and more stock was imported from abroad.
> People lined up in clinics on a first come first serve basis and in certain
> sites, had to pick up little pink numbered tickets like those used at
> delicatessen counters. The vaccine was also administered in drugstores and
> senior centers.
>
> The owners of a retail chain considered distributing FluMist in their stores
> but changed their mind when they realized that Christmas shoppers may not be
> too thrilled if they were sneezed upon and showered with live viruses from
> vaccinated folks. Computer-literate folks searched on eBay.
>
> In New York, two entrepreneurs without medical or nursing training, rented
> space in an apartment building and started administering the flu vaccine to
> anyone who could afford it. [They were arrested]. In Florida, thousands of
> doses of an unapproved vaccine almost found their way to the people.
>
> Some HMO's became convinced that the flu was a National Emergency and
> decided that distribution of the vaccine was the patriotic duty of all
> healthcare providers. This resulted in payments that were less than the cost
> of the product and its administration forcing some physicians to refer their
> private patients to clinics.
>
> Earlier in the season, the makers of FluMist were concerned about the
> limited popular interest and offered $25 refunds to stimulate sales.
> Recovery was quick when the shortage of the inactivated vaccine was
> publicized. The perfect example of a win-win situation was the recent offer
> by the CDC to purchase a substantial number of doses of FluMist at $20 a
> dose.
>
> Over all, the sales of flu vaccines exceeded everyone's expectations. Large
> bonuses must have certainly been distributed and everyone in flu vaccine
> companies must have had wonderful holidays. That was indeed a very good year
> and it would not be surprising if textbooks for Business 101 were rewritten
> to include a chapter entitled: "The Marketing of an Epidemic: The Flu of
> 2003".
>
> Some of the following questions have been asked. Many more should be.
>
> How effective is the inactivated flu vaccine? Is it safe? Does it still have
> serious side effects? Does it cause long-term problems? Do the benefits
> outweigh the risks for everyone including debilitated children and adults?
> Should preservative-free products be developed for adults and particularly
> the elderly? How are the strains for the upcoming season vaccine really
> chosen? Do MDs get vaccinated yearly? How about the owners of the company
> that manufactures the vaccines?
>
> How good is the live flu vaccine? Will it be considered "safe and effective"
> after a few years? Do we really need to vaccinate every one?
>
> How serious was this Flu Epidemic?
>
> Why is Medicine changing so much?
There is indeed no such thing as the "flu epidemic" when only 42 in
the entire country have died as a result. That is what one call bad
health care or a weakened immune system.If anyone can prove me wrong
,I wan to see the published evidence.
- Next message: Joel M. Eichen: "Re: Mayonnaise (safety issues for whole egg home pasteuization)"
- Previous message: Steven Fawks: "Re: Mayonnaise (safety issues for whole egg home pasteuization)"
- In reply to: john: "HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
