Comments on: Why the swine flu isn’t a major threat

By: medconsumers

medconsumers — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:13:11 +0000

Here in the U.S., vaccine companies have already been granted immunity. In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, Congress passed a federal law that allows vaccine companies to be protected from liability if anyone suffers a vaccine-related injury. Authorities need only declare a public health emergency for the protection to go into effect. A government fund will purportedly cover the injured people. Another legacy from the Bush era is the idea that it is the fear of lawsuits that deters pharmaceutical companies from joining the vaccine market. According to Public Citizen, the truth is that there is no economic incentive for them to do so and lawsuits are not a factor in the current shortage. See this press release for the 2004 report from Public Citizen entitled, "Flu Vaccine Shortage: Another Example of How Bush Dis-Torts the Truth About Lawsuits."

By: Karen Campbell

Karen Campbell — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:15:36 +0000

While saying the H1N1 vaccine is safe, producers of that vaccine have been granted immunity from lawsuits by the Canadian government. That idea is sure to “catch on”!

By: Dianna Sabo

Dianna Sabo — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:17:56 +0000

This report is very important as it clarifies the change in the trend from the WHO being a people’s watchdog for humans around the world, and now a spokes-group for the big businesses who have the ability to fund large campaigns for products that are not necessarily the best for humans. There are billions at stake in vaccine programs. What professional can go up against his/her company if everything is not correct with a product when billions are at stake? I have personally witnessed the cover-ups internally of bad product for the sake of the profits. We must be careful and evaluate each new product release with a certain amount of skepticism. Corporations must earn our trust, not be given carte blanche to the checkbooks.

By: medconsumers

medconsumers — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:12:16 +0000

Dr. Jefferson meant to use the word 'rate' in that sentence (I just checked with him). Use of the word 'rate' takes into account your concerns about the increase in population growth. Death rates are usually calculated as the number of deaths per 1,000 of the population per year. While you say that “the fact that mortality rates are flat shows the vaccine is working” – it actually suggests the opposite conclusion. No change in mortality rates is evidence that immunization is not effective in preventing fatal flu cases. Thank you for pointing out the omisson. It has been corrected. As for the 36,000 deaths, that CDC-generated statistic is purportedly the annual number of influenza-related deaths in the U.S. Here's an excellent critique of that statistic. Four years old but still relevant.

By: GeeOh

GeeOh — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:42:42 +0000

With regard to the following statement

“We know that in the last 20 years in the U.S., the seasonal influenza-related mortality is flat, despite the fact that over the years a higher and higher number of people have been getting influenza vaccines.”

I am wondering if this accounts for population growth. As more people are getting flu vaccinations as there are more people. The fact that flu mortality rates are flat shows the the flu vaccine is working.