In the end, H1N1 was a bad flu virus - that's it

I was surprised to find the addition of a special “V” section when I opened my Globe and Mail newspaper this morning.  The headline of this special insert is “Front Line Medicine” and is  prefaced by a blurb about the proud history of research and development of vaccinations in Canada.

Yep, this special informational supplement is a six-page collection of vaccine advertisements and reports by pharmaceutical companies, advocacy groups, and Dr. David Butler-Jones (Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada).  The message repeated time and again is that immunizations are safe and effective and that not enough Canadians are lining up to get their shots.

It is interesting to see the changes in approach that the government and the pharmaceutical companies are take with the Canadian public depending on the situation.  When the H1N1 paranoia was at its peak, there was a lot of fear-mongering and pressure to get vaccinated not only for one’s own personal health but to also “protect” others around them from getting sick.  Then, when it was clear that there was insufficient amounts of the vaccine, the message changed again to say that only certain portions of the population really actually needed vaccination and the rest would be fine.  Then, in December 2009, demand for H1N1 vaccination bottomed-out after activity of the disease in Canada virutally vanished.  And then Canadians were left to pay the bill for millions of doses of useless surplus vaccines.

The fact is that more Canadians are catching on that maybe vaccinations are not the best answer to public health.  They are not as easily scared and pressured into a form of treatment and are willing to seek out alternatives.  Oh, and as if that wasn’t enough, they’re not happy about the “experts” wasting their money and handing it over to the pharmaceutical industry.

The World Health Organization grossly overstated the severity of H1N1 and was largely responsible for creating the paranoia and boosting revenues for vaccine makers.  If there’s any consolation, at least Canadians didn’t over re-act as much as the French.

Vaccinations remain a highly contentious issue

The scientific community is up in arms and the prestigious British medical journal, “The Lancet“, has been pressured to retract a study that it published in 1998.  This particular study shocked parents when it concluded that there was a causal link between the MMR vaccination (measles, mumps, rubella) and autism.  As a direct result of this study, parents around the world began to question the safety of vaccinations and refused to subject their children to the injections for fear of putting their children at risk of developing autism.

Now, the design of the study and the head researcher’s methods have been discredited as unscientific and unethical.  The explanation given by medical experts as to why there appears to be a perceived link between vaccinations and autism is that many of these childhood vaccinations take place right around the age of the onset of autism.  In other words, it is just an unfortunate coincidence.

The irony of this situation is that opponents of vaccination argue that if you examine the scientific evidence about vaccinations in general, the declines in disease rates were already occurring BEFORE widespread vaccination.  In other words, declines in disease rates and the introduction of vaccinations are just a fortunate coincidence.  Worst of all, despite the fact that there is potential harm from vaccination, companies that profit from selling these vaccinations influence the medical community and governments to pressure parents to vaccinate their children.

How ethical is that?