THE FLU EPIDEMIC: MADE IN WASHINGTON?

[Guest guest]

http://www.cancer-coverup.com/newsletter/01-2004/

 

THE FLU EPIDEMIC: MADE IN WASHINGTON?

BY KATHLEEN DEOUL

 

The headlines are frightening all right:

 

" Twenty Children Die From Flu! "

 

" CDC Predicts Worst Flu Epidemic In Years! "

 

" New, Virulent Strain Of Flu Appears! "

 

Added to the headlines are the nightly pronouncements from government officials

warning about vaccine shortages and the staggering number of deaths caused by

the flu each year. Unsurprisingly, the public has responded en masse crowing

clinics to get a flu shot and exacerbating the vaccine shortage.

 

But what the government officials aren't telling you is that the vaccine

shortage was created in Washington, and that the solution they have proposed may

actually make this flu season worse!

 

How could this be?

 

To answer that question, you have to go back a few years to a proposal for a

federal law that would make vaccination mandatory for all children. Now you

might think that vaccination is already mandatory, since most school districts

require that children be vaccinated in order to attend public schools, and

failing to send your child to school is often a punishable offense. But these

laws are applied unevenly, and do not cover children in private or parochial

schools, or those that are home-schooled. Moreover, it does not cover all

vaccines - for example the flu vaccine.

 

That is why the Clinton Administration proposed a law that would federally

mandate vaccination of all children for the list of recommended diseases. This

may sound reasonable on the surface but consider one fact:

 

If a child of pre-school age receives all of the recommended immunizations, they

will have been given 33 doses to cover 10 diseases. By the time the child

graduates from high school, as many as 15 additional immunizations including the

Hepatitis B vaccine which is known to have serious side effects and is a disease

unlikely to strike children.

 

But the proposal didn't just mandate vaccination. It also required drug

companies to sell the vaccines at cost - clearly an anathema to the

profit-hungry pharmaceutical industry.

 

And what was their response?

 

Some twenty-three of the Twenty-five vaccine manufacturers dropped vaccines from

their product lines, opening the door to gross market manipulation through

contrived " shortages. "

 

Over the past two years alone, there have been seven shortages of various

vaccines. Manufacturers cite low profits and high risk as the reason they don't

make more, but all of this complaining ignores an essential fact: vaccines are

much cheaper overseas.

 

The simple fact is that the companies know that a compliant Congress and FDA

will let them squeeze more profit out of the U.S. market, and they intend to

squeeze as much out of consumer's wallets as they can. Indeed, a Government

Accounting Office investigation found that during the flu vaccination shortage

that occurred in 2000, there was widespread price gouging:

 

" Because supply was so limited during the usual vaccination period, distributors

and others who had supplies of the vaccine had the ability - and the economic

incentive - to sell their supplies to the highest bidder during this time rather

than filling lower-priced orders they had already received. "

 

One case investigated by the GAO illustrated how the price gouging worked. One

physician's practice:

 

" ordered flu vaccine from a supplier in April 2000 at $2.87 per dose. When it

received none of that vaccine by November 1, the practice placed three smaller

orders in November with a different supplier at the escalating prices of $8.80,

$10.80, and $12.80 per dose. By the first of December, the practice ordered more

vaccine from a third supplier at $10.80 per dose. The four more expensive orders

were delivered immediately, before any vaccine had been received from the

original April order. "

 

In other words, the doctor ended up paying as much as 4 ½ times as much for the

later doses that were actually delivered than the ones he had originally

ordered.

 

A similar phenomenon is taking place right now in regard to the " FluMist " nasal

spray flu vaccine.

 

While the press widely touted the new product, it ignored many of the facts

surrounding it. Among the most important was that the vaccine was originally

rejected by and FDA Advisory Panel, which voted 10 to 4 against approval.

 

Why was there such a lopsided margin?

 

Simple, the manufacturer couldn't prove that the vaccine worked!

 

But that wasn't all.

 

First of all the FluMist nasal spray is much more expensive than the traditional

flu shot, costing $70 per dose as opposed to $20.

 

Cost, however wasn't the only consideration.

 

Another concern was the fact that the vaccine used a weakened " live " virus to

accomplish immunization.

 

You see, there are two types of vaccines. The first is the so-called

" inactivated virus vaccine. " This form uses viruses that have been killed to

stimulate an immune response. They pose no potential for actually causing the

disease against which they are intended to protect, either in the individual who

is vaccinated or anyone who comes into contact with them.

 

The second form is the so-called " live attenuated virus vaccine. " This form

employs a virus that is still alive but that has been weakened. The Sabin Oral

Polio vaccine is an example of this form and has been criticized because

individuals who receive it can indeed infect others with Polio for a period of

time following immunization.

 

The same is true of FluMist.

 

In fact, the manufacturer's warning label accompanying the FluMist vaccine warns

that individuals who receive it should refrain from contact with anyone who has

a compromised immune system for at least twenty-one days!

 

The problem of the FluMist being a live attenuated virus vaccine is further

exacerbated by one of the vaccine's most common side effects: runny nose and

nasal congestion. Nor is the problem a small one. In clinical trials, over 48%

of the children and over 44% of the adults given the vaccine developed the

symptom!

 

Worse, studies of the vaccine also show that individuals who suffer from this

side effect " shed " the flu virus. This means that anyone coming into contact

with them is at risk of infection. They are in essence a " carrier " of the

disease. If they have an older person in the home - say a grandparent, or

someone who is taking a steroid, or who has some other immune system problem

ranging from eczema to AIDS, they could contract the flu from someone who has

been vaccinated with FluMist.

 

In other words, if FluMist were widely administered, it could result in many

unprotected people being infected, spreading the very disease it was intended to

protect against! Indeed, it could even cause the flu pandemic that is so feared.

 

But is the flu really something to worry about?

 

History suggests that it is.

 

Most people, if asked to name the most serious epidemic in history would be

likely to name the Black Plague that took place in the Middle Ages.

 

On the surface this would seem a fair enough response. Between 1347 and 1352,

the Black Plague killed some 25 million people, an average of 5 million a year

around the world. Yet, compared to the most virulent Influenza pandemic, or

Spanish Flu, its effect was modest.

 

Over a period of slightly over a year between June of 1918 and July of 1919 over

70 million people worldwide - almost three times the number attribute to the

Black Death - are believed to have died from the Spanish Flu. In the United

States alone, flu deaths reached at least 500,000 and may have topped a million

before the epidemic concluded. In Baltimore, almost 11% of the population died

from the disease In Philadelphia 15.8% succumbed to its ravages. Washington,

D.C. had its population reduced by 10%.

 

Yet, compared to some parts of the world, the Spanish Flu's toll in the United

States was not severe. In Samoa, from 80% to 90% of its population was taken.

India suffered some 16 MILLION flu-related deaths. On the Western Front

(remember the pandemic occurred during the First World War) 70,000 American

troops were hospitalized with the disease and one third of them died.

 

So, it was the flu, not the Black Plague that was the deadliest pandemic.

 

But what about today?

 

According to the CDC, each year the flu claims 36,000 victims in the United

States. To put that figure in perspective, it is more than twice the number that

die from AIDS (15,000) and almost as many that die in automobile accidents

(42,000). On at least two occasions the figures were much worse.

 

The Asian Flu epidemic that took place between 1957 and 1958 killed 70,000

Americans. The Swine Flu epidemic of 1968-69 killed 34,000, but the population

was much smaller and younger then. As terrible as the death toll was in these

two recent epidemics, a new flu epidemic might be much worse. There are several

reasons why this could be the case.

 

First of all, the elderly are among the populations most at risk from the flu -

although often it is the complications that accompany the disease rather than

the flu itself that is the actual cause of death. The Baby Boom generation is

aging, and as it grows older, it becomes increasingly susceptible to those sorts

of complications.

 

A second factor is the restructuring that has taken place in America's hospital

system. There are fewer hospital beds available today than there were in the

1950s or 1960s As a result, there may not be enough capacity to take care of

everyone who needs hospitalization in the event of a broad flu epidemic.

 

The third factor is the seeming rise in virulence of the flu strains that are

striking our population. This change is manifest in the rising death statistics

associated with the flu. For example, during the 1976-77 flu season, it was

estimated that 16,263 people would die from the flu. Today that figure is 36,000

-- more than twice as high despite the increased number of people who receive

annual vaccinations. This discrepancy can only be explained by an increase in

the virulence of the flu bug - a factor that cannot be explained, but that is

troubling.

 

Even more troubling is the notion that a strain of flu could suddenly cross over

from animals and appear without warning - as happened in the case of the Spanish

flu. The danger is underscored by a recent occurrence in Hong Kong. Earlier this

year a 5-year-old boy was infected with a bird flu virus. Although the boy

recovered, international health officials were alarmed.

 

" Every transmission of an avian influenza virus to humans raises the possibility

of a pandemic. So we immediately have a red alert. " said Klaus Stohr, a top flu

specialist with the World Health Organization.

 

His sentiments were echoed by Scott Harper, a flu expert with the CDC in

Atlanta. Harper noted, " As opposed to what we're seeing with this year's flu

season, which is, granted, bad season, what we're concerned about is the

beginning of a pandemic of influenza with a new virus that emerges from the

animal population. … This would be really an entirely different scenario than

just having a bad influenza season. "

 

What makes the emergence of a new strain of virus so dangerous is that although

most people have some natural immune resistance to known strains, they would

have no such protection against a new one. In order to affect humans, however, a

new animal strain would have to combine with a human strain. If this does occur,

it can be deadly, as in the 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic when an avian flu strain

combined with a human strain.

 

The concern governments have in regard to the potential cross-over of avian

strain is demonstrated by the response to one recent incident in the

Netherlands. There, when an outbreak of flu in chickens was discovered, that

government to killed 32 million birds. Even then, the response was almost too

late. Some 80 people were infected, including veterinarian who died.

 

What makes the scenario so frightening to public health officials is that the

sudden emergence of a new strain creates a double problem. First is the fact

that people would have no degree of natural immunity to the disease. The second

is that because it is unexpected there will be no vaccine available to combat

it. Moreover since it takes at least four months to manufacture a vaccine, there

would be no opportunity to make it before infections were widespread.

 

This does not, however, mean that the situation is hopeless. There is a way to

minimize the impact of a newly emerged flu strain: encourage people to boost

their immune systems before it strikes. The only trouble is no one in Washington

takes this option seriously.

 

Because of the influence of Big Pharma, Washington's approach to the health care

system has always been focused on treating people after they get sick, not

keeping them healthy in the first place.

 

Now you might think that this statement isn't true. After all, isn't there a

campaign against obesity and high blood pressure and high cholesterol? What

about anti-smoking campaigns. On the surface all of these things would appear to

be aimed at preventative health care, but the key word is APPEAR.

 

The real reason for these " initiatives " is that they are all tied to the sale of

more and more prescription drugs.

 

Take for example obesity.

 

By declaring obesity a " disease " the government made its treatment eligible for

reimbursement by health insurers. It is no coincidence that this move happened

at the very moment that a number of major pharmaceutical companies announced

that they were developing new weight loss drugs, and doctors came up with the

new, controversial " stomach stapling " operation.

 

The same is true for high cholesterol. By changing the rules on what would be

considered an acceptable level of cholesterol, the government gave Big Pharma a

bonanza of 35 million new customers.

 

In the case of high blood pressure, the government again changed the rules and

made millions of people who had been healthy the day before the change " sick. "

Big Phama, of course was again the beneficiary.

 

So why not immune function?

 

Put simply, the modalities through which people could improve their immune

function are found mostly in the form of dietary supplements and vitamins - none

of which bring much in the way of profit to Big Pharma. So the powers that be

find little reason to advocate this aspect of health care.

 

It is interesting to contrast this attitude with the one taken towards the

FluMist vaccine. Even though it is of questionable value (even the most

optimistic studies suggest it is only 85% effective) and far more expensive than

the existing alternative, it's being pushed. Health insurers now are willing to

reimburse their members for the vaccine, causing a sudden spurt in sales.

 

This couldn't have happened too soon for its manufacture Medimmune and marketer,

Weyth. The companies had projected sales of 5 million units this year generating

revenues of $350 million. But through the end of November, at which point the

majority of flu shots are normally administered, only 400,000 units had been

sold. The $28 million in sales generated by these shipments equaled less than 1%

of what had been predicted. So the decision by the Department of Health and

Human Services was a godsend. Further, once the precedent of reimbursement was

established, it will be difficult for companies to stop reimbursing FluMist next

year. Once again, Big Pharma had its bacon saved by its friends in Washington.

 

The result?

 

More profits for Big Pharma and an even greater risk that an already bad flu

season could get worse. No matter how bad the flu season is this year, one thing

is certain. It was made in Washington.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003