FluMist was HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION

"The owners of a retail chain considered distributing FluMist in their
stores
but changed their mind when they realized that Christmas shoppers may not be
too thrilled if they were sneezed upon and showered with live viruses from
vaccinated folks."
--F. Edward Yazbak, MD

I think Sherry Tenpenny, DO wrote an article that helped the retail chain
(Walmart?) rethink its plan to offer FluMist...

Thanks John.

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/confer...004_jan12.html

HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION

Chickenpox, Lyme, Rotavirus, And A Highly Revealing Analysis Of Flu
Statistics

By RFD Columnist, Dr. F. Edward Yazbak

TL Autism Research
Falmouth, Massachusetts

E-mail:

Years ago, the description of diseases used to be accurate. Smallpox was a
very dreaded, serious, and often fatal illness. Certainly, no parent
wished
smallpox on his children. Chickenpox on the other hand was a relatively
benign illness: a low-grade fever, an itchy rash and a week out of school.
Like all childhood illnesses, it was worse in adults and parents were
actually hoping that their children could "catch chickenpox" and be
finished
with it for the future.

In 1995, chickenpox suddenly became a major health problem. Six children
were reported to have died from chickenpox; frequent and repeated TV
coverage lasted for weeks without anyone mentioning that two of the six
children had leukemia and the others were on cortico-steroids.
Concurrently,
chickenpox became a major economical disaster that was gravely impacting
the
United States economy, as working mothers stayed home to give their
children
Aveeno baths and syrup to relieve itching. A short time later, the
chickenpox vaccine was cheerfully and successfully launched.

Historically, epidemics have occurred in cycles. Experts in infectious
diseases could often predict them. The number of unvaccinated children
increased during several successive years of low spread and when the
reservoir was full, an outbreak, an epidemic or a pandemic occurred.
Children then developed a solid immunity that was boosted successfully
during subsequent outbreaks. Recently, in the United States, a new
epidemiological trend has become very evident: MBAs and Marketing
Directors
predict epidemics that are then orchestrated to occur, on cue, when a new
vaccine is due to be launched.

A flurry of interest about Lyme disease started in the Northeast and Upper
Midwest in 1996-97. It promptly snowballed into a major news campaign in
the
targeted areas, where indeed there were increasing numbers of cases, many
with serious long-term complications. In 1998, the LYMErix vaccine
received
conditional approval by the FDA and was welcome in the geographical
locations where the disease was common and often devastating.
Unfortunately,
it was soon discovered that the vaccine itself had major side effects and
doctors became disenchanted with its use. Since the manufacturer
discontinued production of the vaccine, the newspaper articles, experts'
interviews and television "health minutes" on Lyme disease have completely
stopped. It is almost as if the disease has totally disappeared, when it
obviously has not.

Years ago, we did not talk much about the rotavirus. Most people did not
even know the name and some thought that it was "RotoVirus", because it
kept
spreading "around and around" nursery schools. We were happy to tell the
parents the baby had "some kind of a virus", that penicillin was not going
to help, that we were seeing many children with the same symptoms, and
that
they improved after a few days. We then suggested liquids and a limited
diet
and the reassured parents left with their little ones, to stop at their
neighborhood drugstore for Pampers and Pedialyte. We obviously were
immensely more alarmed when a child had salmonella, shigella, cholera,
pathogenic E. Coli and staphylococcus gastro-enteritis.

Rarely, the babies with rotavirus infections became dehydrated. They were
then brought to a holding unit at the hospital, given intravenous fluids
and
discharged before 23 hours. Officially, they had not been actually
"admitted" to the hospital.

Suddenly, in 1998, every newspaper and every TV news program started
continuous reporting on the rotavirus. Overnight, the rotavirus became a
household name and the most common cause of diarrhea. It also killed
thousands of babies. The fact that the deaths occurred in Third World
countries was rarely, if ever, mentioned. In addition, the news programs
warned that the economy of the United States was once more in dire danger,
that HMOs were almost bankrupt trying to keep up with the rising costs of
hospitalizations and that millions of hours were lost in the workplace
during the rotavirus season; after all, mothers of affected children had
to
stay out of work to care for them and could not drop them off, as usual,
at
schools and day-care centers. In the midst of that intense "information"
campaign, the rotavirus vaccine "Rotashield" was released to the joy and
relief of The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
pediatricians and parents. Because three doses were needed, the delight of
the manufacturer and stockholders was tripled. One could almost imagine
them
visualizing a set of gorgeous blond triplets singing "Triple the Doses,
Triple the Dough" using the old and proven tune of "Double the Mint,
Double
the Fun".

And then, something went wrong, very wrong. It became quickly evident that
some infants who received the vaccine developed intussusception, a form of
intestinal obstruction and that a few died. The CDC, to its credit, acted
promptly and suspended the administration of the Rotashield in July 1999,
just a few months after it was released. In October 1999, it issued a
detailed statement that started with the following two paragraphs: "The
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decided that
Rotashield,
the only U.S.-licensed rotavirus vaccine, should no longer be recommended
for infants in the United States. This action was based on the results
of
an expedited review of scientific data presented to the ACIP by CDC in
cooperation with the FDA, NIH, and Public Health Service officials, along
with Wyeth-Lederle. Data from the review indicated a strong association
between Rotashield and intussusception (bowel obstruction) among some
infants during the first 1-2 weeks following vaccination. Use of the
vaccine was suspended in July pending the data review by the ACIP.
Parents
should be reassured that their children who received rotavirus vaccine
before July and remain well are not at increased risk for intussusception
now.

Rotavirus is a severe diarrheal illness in childhood that accounts for
more
than 500,000 physician visits and approximately 50,000 hospitalizations
each
year among children less than 5 years of age. Symptoms include fever, an
upset stomach and vomiting followed by diarrhea, which may lead to
dehydration. This results in $264 million in direct medical costs and $1
billion in total costs to society.

The rotavirus media blitz came to a screeching halt and for four years,
interest in the "designer diarrhea" has ranged between nil and minimal.
Children with the disease had once again "some kind of a virus."

However, this is due to change AGAIN. Yes indeed, very soon, we will be
undoubtedly bombarded once more with a barrage of relentless rotavirus
propaganda, diarrhea will become extremely serious in the United States
and
the cost to the National economy will become even more staggering as the
launching of the "new, safe, effective and improved" rotavirus vaccine is
carefully orchestrated. This second vaccine has been developed for years
and
has been ready to go. If rotavirus disease is so serious, the new
formulation should have been released already "to save lives". But it was
probably felt that releasing it too soon after the first fiasco would not
have been a good business move and as it happens sometimes, when it comes
to
the care of children, MBAs may overrule MDs. So everyone involved had to
wait patiently for the opportune time. Indications are that 2004 will be
the
year.

For years, the inactivated flu vaccine has been recommended for the
elderly.
It was also recommended for children and adults at risk, mainly those with
chronic debilitating conditions. Recently, annual vaccination of all
children aged 6 to 23 months and older children and adolescents in their
household was recommended. Because of parental concerns over thimerosal, a
"preservative-free" pediatric flu vaccine was expressly produced for the
2003-2004 season. Marketing experts decided that the description of the
product as "preservative-free" was less controversial than "mercury-free".

A live intranasal flu vaccine, FluMist, was also recently licensed. As per
the manufacturer: "Before you get the flu, ask your health care
professional about new FluMist - the first nasal flu vaccine that helps
prevent the flu where the flu virus typically enters your body - your
nose.
FluMist helps prevent the flu for the entire season. FluMist is indicated
for active immunization for the prevention of disease caused by influenza
A
and B viruses in healthy children and adolescents, 5 to 17 years of age,
and
healthy adults, 18 to 49 years of age. FluMist is not indicated for
immunization of individuals less than 5 years of age, or 50 years of age
and
older."

It is not exactly clear why suddenly healthy infants, children and adults
under the age of 50 needed to be vaccinated.

As expected, an outbreak of flu occurred in the fall of 2003. A massive
barrage of "information" was orchestrated and news programs were saturated
except for two days after the capture of Saddam Hussein. There was special
emphasis on pediatric cases and particularly pediatric deaths.

According to the 2003 "Red Book" of the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP), the Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases and the
pediatrician's reference on the subject, par excellence: "Influenza
classically is characterized by sudden onset of fever, often with chills
or
rigors, headache, malaise, diffuse myalgia, and a nonproductive cough.
Subsequently, the respiratory tract signs of sore throat, nasal
congestion,
rhinitis, and cough become more prominent. Conjunctival injection,
abdominal
pain, nausea and vomiting can occur. In some children, influenza can
appear
as an upper respiratory tract infection or as a febrile illness with few
respiratory tract signs. In young infants, influenza can produce a
sepsis-like picture and occasionally can cause croup, bronchiolitis or
pneumonia. Acute myositis characterized by calf tenderness and refusal to
walk may develop after several days of influenza illness." (p. 382)

Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases is an
important
CDC publication that is often used as a resource. The following is from
page
249 of the 5th Edition: "The severity of influenza illness depends on the
prior immunologic experience with antigenically related virus variants. In
general, only around 50% of infected persons will develop the classic
clinical symptoms of influenza.

'Classic' influenza disease is characterized by the abrupt onset of fever,
myalgia, sore throat, and non-productive cough. The fever is usually
101-102°F, and accompanied by prostration. The onset of fever is so abrupt
that the exact hour is recalled by the patient. Myalgias mainly affect the
back muscles. Cough is believed to be the result of tracheal epithelial
destruction. Additional symptoms may include rhinorrhea (runny nose),
headache, substernal chest burning and ocular symptoms (e.g. eye pain and
sensitivity to light.)"

All of us who have had the flu remember the aches and pains, and how much
our eyes hurt when we moved them. We remember the cough and the fever and
the sick stomach. We remember how we felt tired and fatigued for a long
while. We actually remember our flu encounters so well that we feel sick
all
over again watching that great commercial with the poor actor looking so
miserable and enumerating all his symptoms.

MMWR
For years, the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC
has been the most reliable source of accurate information on diseases. The
CDC was so careful about every statement and figure that it included the
following disclaimer in every report on the Internet: All MMWR HTML
versions
of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This
conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in
the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are
referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy
for the official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this
issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government
Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202)
512-1800.
Contact GPO for current prices

The MMWR of December 19, 2003 [/ 52(50);1232-1234] covers the period
between
December 7 and 13. It can be accessed here

Important portions will be copied verbatim and footnotes will be inserted
between brackets, immediately after the corresponding statements for
clarity
(italics). My comments will appear in bold.

Influenza activity in the United States continued to increase during
December 7--13, 2003*. [* Provisional data reported as of December 17] The
proportion of patient visits to sentinel providers for influenza-like
illness (ILI)? overall was 7.4%, which is above the national baseline§ of
2.5%. [? Temperature of 100.0º F (37.8º C) and cough and/or sore throat
in
the absence of a known cause other than influenza] [§ Calculated as the
mean
percentage of visits for ILI during non-influenza weeks, plus two standard
deviations. Wide variability in regional data precludes calculating
region-specific baselines and makes it inappropriate to apply the national
baseline to regional data.] The above symptoms are not flu symptoms. They
are certainly not those listed in the Red Book and the quoted CDC
publication and they are certainly not those that the average person
attributes to the flu. A child or an adult with just such a low-grade
fever
and a cough or a sore throat can hardly be said to have Influenza. The bar
has been substantially lowered if the CDC includes such cases in the
national flu statistics, whatever the intention. Similarly, one must
wonder
why and how the 2.5% baseline for low-grade fever, sore throat or cough
was
decided on. Certainly every primary physician and nurse practitioner will
easily assert that year-round, patients with such symptoms amount to a
greater percentage of visits. The unrealistic 2.5% figure lowers the bar
further.

During the reporting week of December 7--13, World Health Organization
(WHO)
and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS)
laboratories reported testing 3,814 specimens for influenza viruses; 1,365
(35.8%) were positive. Of these, 262 were influenza A (H3N2) viruses,
1,080
were influenza A viruses that were not subtyped, and 23 were influenza B
viruses.

Since September 28, WHO and NREVSS laboratories have tested 32,854
specimens
for influenza viruses; 9,464 (28.8%) were positive. Of these, 9,395
(99.3%)
were influenza A viruses, and 69 (0.7%) were influenza B viruses. Of the
9,395 influenza A viruses, 2,113 (22.5%) have been subtyped; 2,112
(99.9%)
were influenza A (H3N2) viruses, and one (0.1%) was an influenza A (H1)
virus. All 50 states have reported laboratory-confirmed influenza this
season. The fact that only 1/3 of the submitted specimens were positive is
of some concern and may suggest that most of the patients tested may not
have had the flu. A more careful clinical diagnosis, based on more
appropriate criteria, would have yielded reasonable incidence figures and
higher confirmation rates. One can only imagine the uproar if surgeons
performed appendectomies on patients who vomited once, had a low-grade
fever
and a vague tummy ache.

Of 269 influenza viruses collected by U.S. laboratories since October 1
and
characterized antigenically by CDC, 265 were influenza A (H3N2) viruses,
two
were influenza A (H1) viruses, and two were influenza B viruses. The
hemagglutinin proteins of the influenza A (H1) viruses were similar
antigenically to the hemagglutinin of the vaccine strain A/New
Caledonia/20/99. Of the 265 influenza A (H3N2) isolates that have been
characterized, 62 (23%) were similar antigenically to the vaccine strain
A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2), and 203 (77%) were similar to a drift variant,
A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2)**. Both influenza B viruses characterized were
similar antigenically to B/Sichuan/379/99. [** Although vaccine
effectiveness against A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses might be less than
that
against A/Panama/2007/99-like viruses, the current U.S. vaccine probably
will offer some cross-protective immunity against the
A/Fujian/411/2002-like
viruses and reduce the severity of disease.] It is imperative to point out
that 77% of the cultures antigenically identified by the CDC did not match
the strain in the flu vaccine this year. In addition, one must question
the
first statement in the footnote "Although vaccine effectiveness against
A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses might be less than that against
A/Panama/2007/99-like viruses". The use of the word "might" seems
inappropriate. The vaccine effectiveness against A/Fujian/411/2002-like
viruses is definitely less than that against A/Panama/2007/99. The bar has
been lowered further. The authors were wise to use the word "probably" in
the following sentence: the current U.S. vaccine probably will offer some
cross-protective immunity against the A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses and
reduce the severity of disease. Commenting on that possibility, an
infectious disease specialist said in an interview: "The available flu
vaccine will prevent death".

* * *

On December 19, 2003, a MMWR Dispatch was also published by the CDC
(52:1-2). Reported by J Wright, DVM, A Likos, MD, N
Bhat, MD [EIS officers, CDC], it was entitled Update: Influenza-Associated
Deaths Reported Among Children Aged 18 Years --- United States, 2003--04
Influenza Season.

Since October, 42 influenza-associated deaths among children aged 18
years
have been reported to CDC. All patients had influenza virus infection
detected by rapid antigen testing or other laboratory testing methods. The
fact that all 42 deaths, according to the authors, were
"influenza-associated" does not mean that the cause of death was the
influenza, of course. The second sentence serves to "reinforce" the first
and to convince anyone with doubts. But it cannot change the fact that
detection of influenza viral infection in the laboratory does not prove
that
"The Flu" was the cause of death.

Among the 42 reported deaths, 20 (48%) patients were male, and 21 (50%)
were
female; the sex of one patient was not reported. Twenty-three (55%) of the
children were aged 5 years, and 13 (31%) were aged 6--23 months. The
median
age was 4 years (range: 9 weeks--17 years). Seventeen (40%) of the
children
had underlying chronic medical conditions; the previous medical status for
four (10%) children was unknown. Among the 21 patients who had no
underlying
chronic medical condition, five had invasive bacterial co-infections,
including three caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA), one by Streptococcus pneumoniae, and one by Group A streptococcus.
Three children with underlying chronic medical conditions had invasive
bacterial co-infections, including one caused by MRSA, one caused by
Streptococcus pneumoniae, and one caused by Neisseria menigitidis. One
must
wonder why in a review of national importance, an effort was not made to
identify the sex of one child and the past history of four others. The
underlying chronic conditions (some children had more than one) we
Lupus
1, cerebral palsy 2, chromosomal abnormality 1, hypothyroidism 1,
gastroesophageal reflux 1 and biliary atresia 1. Two children were
developmentally delayed and 2 had mental retardation. Three children had
asthma, one had received a heart transplant, 3 had seizure disorders, one
had Pierre Robin Syndrome and the last one had the syndrome of Cornelia de
Lange. The available information is not enough to determine the role of
the
influenza infection in the demise of these children. Eight (19%) of the 42
children had fulminating systemic infections. At least in these, influenza
was not the primary cause of death. [The immediate cause of death
is
listed first on a death certificate. To its right, the physician must
enter
the interval between onset and death. In the following three lines,
underlying and associated causes are listed in order of significance with
the intervals between onset and death.]

What may be tragic is the fact that, because of the continuous bombardment
with reports of the "epidemic", some parents, believing that their
children
just had the flu, may have waited too long to seek medical advice for
meningitis, septicemia or pneumonia. Similarly, a busy ER physician seeing
a
multitude of children brought by parents concerned about the "major flu
epidemic" going on, may have thought that the child he was sending home,
simply had the flu, like all the others. Symptoms of early bacterial
meningitis are easily mistaken for the flu. This was evident in New
Hampshire around Christmas when an 18-year old co-ed was seen in an
Emergency Room, diagnosed with the flu and discharged without further
testing only to die of meningococcal meningitis a short time later. The
cases of the 5 children in the MMWR report, who died of invasive bacterial
illnesses, and who had no underlying condition, should be thoroughly
investigated. The fact that they "tested positive for the flu" may be
etiologically irrelevant.

Influenza vaccination status was available for only seven patients; five
(aged 1 year, 14 months, 20 months, 3 years, and 8 years) were not
vaccinated; two (aged 21 months and 5 years) received 1 dose of influenza
vaccine; however, their previous vaccination history was unknown.
Influenza
A viruses were isolated from 11 (26%) patients; 29 (69%) infections were
detected by rapid diagnostic testing or by direct fluorescent antibody
testing of respiratory specimens. In two (5%) patients, evidence of
influenza A virus infection was solely by immunohistochemical staining
(IHC)
of postmortem tissue specimens at CDC. Five cases that were positive by
rapid antigen testing of respiratory specimens also were tested by IHC;
all
five also had influenza A viral antigens detected in bronchial epithelium
tissues obtained at autopsy. CDC continues to work with state health
departments to collect additional information on all cases. The lack of
information on the vaccination status of 83% of the deceased children is
disturbing and indicates a further lowering of the bar. Positive viral
cultures are more definitive proofs of viral presence. The fact that viral
cultures were positive in only 26% of cases is important. On the other
hand,
a positive viral culture is not absolute proof that influenza is the cause
of death; without more details, its significance is hard to determine.

Lastly, the fact that the events that followed vaccination of seven
children
were not made available for review is also of concern.

Before December 2002, there were 12 reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events
Reporting System (VAERS) of children under 10, who expired shortly after
receiving the inactivated flu vaccine. It is accepted that only a small
percentage of actual reactions are ever reported to VAERS. In 11 cases,
the
flu vaccine was the only vaccine administered. All children had serious
underlying chronic illnesses. Five children died within 24 hours of
vaccination and 2 within 72 hours.

* * *

Influenza outbreaks are usually widespread and of uniform intensity. So,
was
the flu a global emergency this past fall, as it seemed to be in the
United
States? Specifically, what was the situation worldwide during the week of
December 7 to 13?

According to a December 23, 2003 report of the World Health Organization
(WHO) entitled "Widespread influenza activity persists in northern
hemisphere - update 5" Disease Outbreak Reported that covered Week 50, 7
December - 13 December 2003: " Influenza activity associated with
influenza
A(H3N2) viruses continues to increase in Africa (Tunisia), Europe (Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Russia
Federation and Ukraine) and North America (the United States), and
persists
in France and some parts of Canada. In other European countries (Portugal,
Spain and the United Kingdom) and most parts of Canada, activity has
declined.

Most influenza infections this season have been attributed to influenza
A(H3N2) viruses. The majority of viruses antigenically characterized so
far
have been shown to be A/Fujian/411/2002-like; the rest have been
A/Panama/2007/99-like. There have been few reports of influenza
A/Fujian/411/2002-like virus detections from Asia .

An avian influenza A(H5N1) outbreak in poultry in a chicken farm in the
Republic of Korea was reported on Tuesday 16 December. The outbreak was
recognized by the death of about 19 000 chickens. Surviving chickens in
the
affected farm were slaughtered. As of Monday 22 December 2003, nine
poultry
farms in 4 provinces were found to be infected by avian influenza. About
one
million chickens and ducks are to be culled. The A(H5N1) strain isolated
is
being examined to determine its relation to other influenza A(H5N1)
viruses,
which emerged in Asia recently. So far no human A(H5N1) cases have been
reported. [http://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_12_23/en/]

It is not unusual for flu outbreaks to be increasing in the second week of
December. It is unusual that this outbreak was already decreasing in
Spain,
Portugal, the United Kingdom and most of Canada. In fact, the British
vaccine authorities were so sure the flu season was over that they were
happy to sell their leftover stock of flu vaccines to the CDC. Over all,
it
should be reassuring to note that a shorter paragraph was needed to
summarize the influenza activity globally in the week in question
(December
7 to13) than to describe what happened in chicken farms in Korea.

Over here, the CDC was publishing on December 11, a long and detailed
report
entitled Flu Vaccine Supply-2003-04 Season
[http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluupdate.htm] which started with the following
statement: "The strong consumer demand for influenza vaccine this year
will
likely exceed the consumer demand seen in previous flu seasons. Some
healthcare providers have used - or may use -- all of their supplies of
influenza vaccine. In past years, supply has generally been sufficient to
meet demand. This year, however, a strong demand has continued for longer
than usual into the month of December. At a time when flu vaccination
clinics are typically winding down, people are still seeking vaccination.

That certainly says it all.

The early reports of vaccine shortage resulted in sustained greater
demand.
People who had never been interested in previous flu vaccination programs,
when the vaccine supply was plentiful, were lining up this past fall
before
the "vaccine ran out". To its credit, the CDC was able to provide vaccines
for anyone who wanted to be vaccinated. Vaccine supplies were
redistributed
to areas with increased demands and more stock was imported from abroad.
People lined up in clinics on a first come first serve basis and in
certain
sites, had to pick up little pink numbered tickets like those used at
delicatessen counters. The vaccine was also administered in drugstores and
senior centers.

The owners of a retail chain considered distributing FluMist in their
stores
but changed their mind when they realized that Christmas shoppers may not
be
too thrilled if they were sneezed upon and showered with live viruses from
vaccinated folks. Computer-literate folks searched on eBay.

In New York, two entrepreneurs without medical or nursing training, rented
space in an apartment building and started administering the flu vaccine
to
anyone who could afford it. [They were arrested]. In Florida, thousands of
doses of an unapproved vaccine almost found their way to the people.

Some HMO's became convinced that the flu was a National Emergency and
decided that distribution of the vaccine was the patriotic duty of all
healthcare providers. This resulted in payments that were less than the
cost
of the product and its administration forcing some physicians to refer
their
private patients to clinics.

Earlier in the season, the makers of FluMist were concerned about the
limited popular interest and offered $25 refunds to stimulate sales.
Recovery was quick when the shortage of the inactivated vaccine was
publicized. The perfect example of a win-win situation was the recent
offer
by the CDC to purchase a substantial number of doses of FluMist at $20 a
dose.

Over all, the sales of flu vaccines exceeded everyone's expectations.
Large
bonuses must have certainly been distributed and everyone in flu vaccine
companies must have had wonderful holidays. That was indeed a very good
year
and it would not be surprising if textbooks for Business 101 were
rewritten
to include a chapter entitled: "The Marketing of an Epidemic: The Flu of
2003".

Some of the following questions have been asked. Many more should be.

How effective is the inactivated flu vaccine? Is it safe? Does it still
have
serious side effects? Does it cause long-term problems? Do the benefits
outweigh the risks for everyone including debilitated children and adults?
Should preservative-free products be developed for adults and particularly
the elderly? How are the strains for the upcoming season vaccine really
chosen? Do MDs get vaccinated yearly? How about the owners of the company
that manufactures the vaccines?

How good is the live flu vaccine? Will it be considered "safe and
effective"
after a few years? Do we really need to vaccinate every one?

How serious was this Flu Epidemic?

Why is Medicine changing so much?