Summary of Flu Vaccine and Treatment Risks

by Heidi Stevenson

18 July 2009

The World Health Organization, EU, and US are pushing the panic button on swine flu. Both vaccinations and drugs are being hyped. People's emotions are being played on so they'll not only willingly accept flu jabs and drugs, they'll demand them. As this goes on, little mention is made of the risks inherent in these mainstream approaches to another variation of a disease that comes around every year. Any person contemplating either the vaccination or the treatment for swine flu has a right to know what potential dangers they might pose.

Governments of the US and EU are buying up vaccines and Tamiflu at historic rates. In the UK, 132 million doses of the vaccine have been ordered. Because it's made from an attenuated live virus, it requires two jabs to achieve protection. In a country of 65 million people, it looks very much like the plan is to innoculate every single person in the country with the double jab.

Swine Flu Vaccine Risks

There are three ways to know whether the new influenza vaccines are effective and safe:

• Historical data.
• Test data.
• Potential risks of ingredients.

All of these approaches indicate serious risks inherent in the new flu vaccines.

Historical Data

Historical data demonstrate that there are strong indications of risk. In an echo of today's hype, the 1976 flu pandemic was hyped as being like that of 1918, which resulted in millions of deaths—though it should be noted that these deaths were likely the result of underlying tuberculosis⁽¹⁾, and that the tuberculosis death rate over the next decades was significantly decreased, likely as a result. A vaccine was pushed in the US; everyone was pressed to have a dose. It caused an outbreak of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a neurological disease that causes paralysis and can result in death, resulting in the vaccine being pulled from the market. By the way, the vaccine proved to be useless against that year's variety of flu.

Test Data

At this point, test data is a bad joke. The presumed severity of an upcoming pandemic has resulted in vaccine manufacturers being allowed to do hypotesting—very short trials for both efficacy and safety. Keep in mind, too, that these trials are being done or financed by the manufacturers, which significantly undermines any trust that should be placed in them. We know from previous drug trials that data is frequently hidden or twisted, that unsupported claims are made⁽²⁾, and that trials produced and influenced by Big Pharma are often designed to get the desired results. The fact that they're being allowed to do even shorter trials is very troubling.

Potential Risks of Ingredients

Perhaps the most disconcerting factor in this year's flu vaccines is the new adjuvant that is apparently being used. Squalene is introduced to increase vaccine effectiveness, especially in ones using attenuated live viruses, the kind being developed this year. The risks of squalene are, of course, being downplayed, but there are strong indications that it's particularly dangerous⁽³⁾. It has been implicated in Gulf War Syndrome, which is a particularly worrisome indication, since many of its effects were not noted immediately, but took years to occur.

Clearly, the safety of the new influenza vaccines has not been established.

Tamiflu Risks

Risks associated with Tamiflu, the primary treatment for influenza, are well documented and can be quite severe. Its effectiveness is very limited, doing no more than shortening the course of the disease by a single day. As reported by the CDC, the drug, generic name of oseltamivir, has already resulted in a drug-resistant virus strain^(4,5). This is taking place while Tamiflu is still under patent.

In exchange for this very limited protection, the potential risks are amazing. Tamiflu comes with a Black Box warning that it can be linked with self-injury and delirium. The list of frequent and infrequent side effects include nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain and cramps, bronchitis, cough, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, and insomnia. Considered rare are the following potential disorders:

• Gastrointestinal: dyspepsia, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and pseudomembranous enterocolitis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, hemorrhagic colitis
• Heart: angina, conduction disorder of the heart
• Liver: Abnormal hepatic function tests, hepatitis
• Mental/neurological: delirium, hallucinations, impaired cognition, seizures, vertigo
• Respiratory: upper respiratory infection, pneumonia
• Skin: Allergic dermatitis and reactions, skin rash, anaphylaxis, urticaria, eczema, toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme
• Systemic: anemia, diabetes mellitus, fatigue, fever
• Miscellaneous: conjunctivitis, epistaxis, ear irritation, facial edema, rhinorrhea

This frightening list of potential effects from Tamiflu— is the risk you take in exchange for shortening the term of disease by a single day.

At this point, a great deal of influenza vaccination public policy is being made with very little solid information on the either its efficacy or safety. We know from past pandemics that the particular virus that has caused disease has rarely, if ever, been correctly targeted by the vaccine developed that year.

Professor Sir Gordon Duff is co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in the UK and the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Advisory Committee. He claims, "We are content that benefits far outweigh the risks." Yet, he's making that statement without any clinical data on the vaccines—and even if he did have such info, it would be questionable, since it would come from the companies that would benefit from good results and lose revenue with bad ones.

Duff also says, "It is inconceivable that in the UK we would consider a vaccine without giving a full scientific appraisal of its benefits and theoretical risks. That is just what these risks are—theoretical." Certainly that's true. On the other hand, there is no documentation to demonstrate that there aren't any risks. And that seems to be the issue: Should we put our faith in a lack of proof of risks, or should we be more cautious? I'll leave that to the reader.