FluMist and Fluzone

[Guest guest]

HOW THE MASS MEDIA IN THE U.S. CREATED FLU HYSTERIA

AND HELPED DRIVE THE VACCINE MARKETS FOR

THE MAKERS OF FluMist AND Fluzone.

By RFD Columnist, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/2003_dec18.html

 

The hype regarding this year's flu " epidemic " continues. In the wake of the

media-induced hysteria, a fascinating series of chronologically connected events

has materialized that appears to protect the pharmaceutical industry profits at

the expense of our children. This issue demands further examination.

 

On June 20, 2002, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

adopted a resolution to include the influenza vaccine in the childhood

vaccination schedule. The influenza vaccine will be recommended annually to all

children aged 6 months to 23 months, and to children aged 24 months to 18 years

who are household contacts of children aged less than 2 years. After becoming

effective on March 1, 2003, the resolution was implemented during the 2003-04

influenza season and the vaccine will be encouraged annually, for every

subsequent flu season, in other words, creating " regular customers for

life. "

Coming on the coattails of this announcement, the FDA approved the use of

FluMist, the first nasally injected vaccine. The company originally had sought

an indication for use in healthy people aged 1-64 years, but it was denied by

the FDA. Reports suggested the vaccine caused a 3.53-fold increased risk of

" asthma events " after the first dose in children 12-59 months of age.[ii]

After a 32-month review that included the submission of additional data, the

decision was reversed and on June 17, 2003, the FDA issued a license to

Medimmune to produce FluMist, a live attenuated influenza vaccine for use in

5-to-49 year olds. In a complicated vote, ACIP decided that, because only 641

adults over 50 years of age were studied, there was insufficient evidence of

vaccine efficacy in 50-64 year olds.[iii]

MedImmune Inc., FluMist's manufacturer and Washington DC's successful

biotechnology company, was jubilant over the decision. When MedImmune executives

and Wall Street bulls learned that FluMist would be released in time for the

fall flu season, MedImmune's stock soared to $43.32 per share, more than 63

times earnings.[iv] MedImmune announced it would manufacture between 4 million

and 6 million units of FluMist for the 2003 season.

A $25 million marketing campaign was launched in October by MedImmune, and its

partner, Wyeth, to create a demand for their new product. Ad after ad

demonstrated the inconveniences the flu caused to family members and co-workers,

encouraging everyone to get their flu shot-especially the shot up the nose. It

just so happened that flu outbreaks began to be reported in Houston earlier than

in previous years and about the same time as FluMist began to be used. Texas

Children's Hospital diagnosed 40 patients with the flu in five days. During

comparable weeks of the flu seasons in the previous two years, only 9 cases per

week had required treatment.[v]

However, despite the best efforts of a massive marketing blitz, the big demand

for FluMist didn't materialize. The " billion dollar blockbuster " lacked the

appeal its creators had dreamed about. The advantage of a getting a mist up the

nose over a shot in the arm couldn't justify the hefty price not covered by

health insurance (FluMist for $60-70 vs. flu shot for $7).

By November 17, MedImmune had reduced its 2003 fourth quarter, full-year revenue

expectations as earnings were projected to be $60 million less than anticipated.

MedImmune's CEO, David M. Mott, stated that he was " disappointed. " Half-way

through the 12-week peak " immunization season " the anticipated demand was just

not there.[vi] Perplexed, MedImmune announced on November 23 that it had " hired

a consultant to discover why its needle-free flu vaccine, FluMist, had

disappointed sales expectations this fall and was considering placing the

emphasis on FluMist's safety as well as its convenience. " [vii]

Shortly thereafter, the outbreaks initially seen in Texas were being reported

all around the country-much earlier than usually anticipated. Indeed, even a few

children were reported to have died from the flu. The media hyped these reports

as though this were an outbreak of smallpox instead of the flu, causing

hysteria.

With the announcement of the " flu epidemic " blazoned from every conceivable form

of news report, a stampede of patients arrived at doctors' offices, demanding a

shot to ward off the " deadly strain " of influenza. Parents especially wanted

their children vaccinated, and were willing to drive to cities hours from home

and even stand in line for up to 90 minutes.[viii]

But wait.

Doesn't the CDC say repeatedly that 36,000 people die every year from the flu?

Were these reported deaths indicative that all deaths possibly related to the

flu might be different or more numerous than deaths reported any other year? In

a telephone interview on November 17, 2003, this is what the CDC had to say:

MODERATOR: Miriam Falco from CNN, your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, Dr. Gerberding, thanks for doing this. Is this the most serious

early onset since 1976?

DR. GERBERDING: This is early onset from the standpoint that we have more cases,

particularly in Texas, where we see it's fairly widespread [outbreak] of flu.

But we have had many years where flu has started early and peaked earlier than

average. So it's a little too early in the game to say whether or not this

portends the worst flu season we've had in a long time.[ix]

(emphasis mine)

Again, on December 11, 2003, Dr. Julie Gerberding reported the following during

a CNN teleconference:

" We don't have scientific evidence or epidemiologic evidence to suggest that

this year's influenza outbreak is worse than it has been in the past or that the

strain is more virulent than strains that we've dealt with before. It's just

simply too early in the course of the outbreak to say for sure how this will

compare overall. " [x] (emphasis mine)

If that is the case, isn't the " epidemic " being reported nationwide by the media

a little like yelling " fire " in a crowded theater.when there is no fire? People

can be harmed and even killed by the ensuing stampede.

Further evidence suggests that the outbreaks did not deserve the feeding-frenzy

level of media coverage they have received. For example, the Rocky Mountain News

reported on December 11 that officials said flu cases had been cut in half and

the " the worst of worst Colorado season in years is over. " The report went on to

say that, " during a typical year, no more than two children and a total of 750

to 800 Coloradoans die of complications of the flu or pneumonia. " [xi] Do nine

reported deaths in children make this year the " worst of the worst " ? Does an

increase of 7 deaths over previous years constitute an epidemic?

In Arizona, the Department of Health Services reported on December 11, 2002 that

two adults and one child had died of influenza related sickness. Michael Murphy,

the health department's spokesperson, said that Arizona typically has 20

children deaths a year caused by influenza.[xii] Is one death an " epidemic " ?

This does not in any way minimize the tragedy of the death of a child. What

needs to be put into context is how extraordinarily small these numbers are to

lead to such media-driven hysteria. Furthermore, what were the underlying health

conditions of those who died? At least one other report stated that one of the

children in Colorado died of the flu and " other causes. " A 3-year-old boy who

reportedly died from complications of the flu at Children's Medical Center in

Dayton also had a missing pituitary gland and a cleft pallet.[xiii] Both

conditions can be associated with a compromised immune system. Perhaps the CDC

should recommend giving the flu shot only to children at highest risk-and their

immediate family members-instead of encouraging mass vaccination of children

with normal, intact immune systems.

Do we know if the reports of " flu-related illness " and death were actually

caused by an influenza virus? The CDC reports that the majority of

influenza-like illnesses are not caused by the influenza virus, but by other

viruses (e.g., rhinoviruses and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV]),

adenoviruses, and parainfluenza viruses).[xiv] Douglas Benevento, executive

director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated the

department's definition of " flu-related illness " includes kids who have flu

symptoms but haven't had a confirmatory test.[xv]

By early December, reports began to come out that stated the viral strain of

this year's flu " epidemic " was the A/Fujian strain. This was a serious error on

the part of the vaccine program because the most virulent strain of the flu

identified this season was not part of FluMist or Fluzone. In order to continue

encouraging vaccination, the CDC proclaimed that the flu vaccines " should "

confer " some " protection against this strain. The media continued to blare: get

your flu vaccine.

The CDC estimates that only 13 percent of healthy people less than 50 years of

age, or about 17 million Americans, got flu shots last year.[xvi] Typically, 80

million doses of the flu shot are manufactured annually. Therefore, millions of

unused doses of the flu vaccine from the previous year's stock are discarded,

along with the profits connected to them. With all this attention on the flu,

Aventis certainly benefited. As the manufacturer of Fluzone (the " flu shot " ), it

is interesting to note that Aventis stock rose from $48/share at the beginning

of September to $61.43 on December 12.[xvii] The extra, unanticipated Fluzone

sales may not be the sole contributor to the stock increase, but certainly this

can be considered as playing a role.

Predictably, the demand for the flu vaccine soon outstripped supply. In an

effort to assist health officials, effective December 10, 2003, Wellmark Blue

Cross and Blue Shield was one of many insurance carriers that began covering the

cost of FluMist vaccine through the end of December, or through the vaccination

time period recommended by the CDC for the 2003-2004 flu season.[xviii]

Now, even the government is getting on the band wagon to support consumer use of

FluMist. Negotiated by the CDC, the agreement will allow state and local

officials to purchase the nasal-spray vaccine for $20 a dose from now through

the middle of February from both MedImmune and Wyeth. At less than half of the

suggested wholesale price of $46 per dose, this may be the ultimate boost to

faltering sales.[xix]

The upshot of the run on flu shots, the newly implemented insurance coverage and

the boost from the federal government has surely created a bonanza for

MedImmune. The company probably hasn't had to spend an additional marketing dime

to implement the ideas of its newly hired consultants. Much of its marketing was

accomplished for free.through the Six O'clock news.

(SEE OTHER ARTICLES ON THE FLU BY DR. SHERRI TENPENNY LISTED BELOW)

MMWR. September 27, 2002/51(38);864, 875

[ii]ePediatric News. July 2003, Volume 37, Number 7.

[iii] CDC.

[iv]The Washington Post. MedImmune's Pain-Free Ambitions. March 18, 2002; Page

E01

[v]October 15, 2003.

[vi] PRNewswire November 17, 2003.

[vii] Washington Post. November 25, 2003. " MedImmune Seeks Help in Relaunching

FluMist. "

[viii] Rocky Mountain News. December 11, 2003 " Cases of flu cut in half. "

[ix] CDC News Conference Transcript. November 17, 2003. Update on Current

Influenza Season.

[x] CDC News Conference Transcript. December 11, 2003. Influenza Update.

[xi] Rocky Mountain News. December 11, 2003 " Cases of flu cut in half. "

[xii] The Navaho Times. December 11, 2002. " Flood of flu cases using up

vaccine. "

[xiii] December 15, 2003. " Toddler Dies Of Flu Complications "

[xiv] MMWR November 9, 2001/50(44); 984-6

[xv] Rocky Mountain News. December 11, 2003 " Cases of flu cut in half. "

[xvi] Washington Post. June 18, 2003, Pg. A01. " Spray Vaccine For Flu Wins FDA

Clearance. "

[xvii] Forbes Financial Report.

[xviii] Blue Cross/Wellmark.

[xix] The Washington Post. Tuesday, December 16, 2003; Page E01Government To

Purchase FluMist at A Discount. Deal Could Give Boost To MedImmune Vaccine

OTHER ARTICLES

December 8, 2003

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT FluMist®, THE NASAL SPRAY FLU VACCINE, MAY BE CAUSING THE

FLU?

November 30, 2003

NEW CAMPAIGN TO MARKET TOUGH-SELL FluMist

November 24, 2003

SHOULD YOU GET THE FLU SHOT?

October 3, 2003

RISKS OF FluMist VACCINE

Hundreds of TV and print ads have been designed to persuade everyone into taking

FluMist. The campaign will cost an estimated $25 million over the next couple of

months. And a three-year, $100 million campaign will be launched to encourage

use of the nasal flu vaccine among physicians. But there are many reasons for

caution.

Once you recognize what is happening, you have a moral obligation to become

involved.-- Dr. Stanley Monteith

One (wo)man with courage makes a majority.---Andrew Jackon

A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was

believed.When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses

over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a

raving lunatic. --Dresden James

*********************

Ingri Cassel, President

Vaccination Liberation - Idaho Chapter

P.O. Box 457

Spirit Lake, ID 83869

(208)255-2307/ 888-249-1421

vaclib

www.vaclib.org

" Free Your Mind....

From The Vaccine Paradigm "

" When we give government the power

to make medical decisions for us, we,

in essence, accept that the state owns

our bodies. "

~U.S. Representative Ron Paul

Support VacLib's work by becoming a

member or donating to our cause.

Click on the link below for more info:

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/memberindex.htm