Decidedly, it is an attack in order against this poor H1N1 flu vaccine that already suffers enough not to protect from a disease "sufficiently deadly".
Is it not that we learn that one of the government's advisers on the fight against the H1N1 pandemic is also working for one of the laboratories manufacturing the vaccine (source Le Parisien).
That's a scoop!!!
Therefore, of course, the vaccination campaign would only be due to the intervention of this adviser to the Ministry of Health. Journalists are right. Let us ignore all that is decided in other Western countries, forget the opinion of who, fustigeons the conclusions of the World Committee of Experts concluding a vaccination as wide as possible, all rotten in the balance of the great capital Pharmaceutical!!!!
I will not go back to the risks of the vaccine that I dealt with in a previous post.
Maybe it would be time to consider pharmaceutical labs as companies doing (and wanting to) profits, but without them no vaccine, drugs, new diagnostic techniques…
The real question is whether the proposed massive vaccination (and I insist "proposed") by the government is justified by reasons other than the willingness to bail out the caisses of SANOFI, GSK and Compagnie.
Let's see this.
It is believed that the lethality (number of deaths among influenza-affected individuals) of the H1N1 virus is close to that of a seasonal virus. The data are still partial and difficult to verify because of the brutality of the pandemic and therefore the difficulty of retrieving reliable data. Rates change from 0.1% to over 14%! No one is currently able to announce an official case-fatality rate outside who and the latter does not risk it (at least not to date in its latest bulletin). So we can't look on this side to justify the current campaign.
On the other hand, the majority of the world's population has never encountered this virus. We are therefore not protected, if only partially, with regard to this flu. This implies a very wide spread of the virus and a very large number of patients (50% of the population is mentioned in industrialized countries because of the promiscuity in the cities). The problem lies well.
A lethality of 0.1% (this is attributed to the seasonal influenza virus) for 100 000 cases generates 100 deaths. For a population of 60 million people contaminated with 50%, we arrive at 30 000 deaths.
For the record, it must be remembered that the heatwave of 2003 had officially been 19 490 dead and that was not said, this summer there, on the government's negligence. Perhaps this vaccination campaign should be considered as the late aftershock of the earthquake of the heatwave or even contaminated blood?
Currently, we have two antivirals (oseltamivir or zanamivir). I say two and only two. These treatments have proven to be useful especially to prevent serious cases. But like any treatment, viruses adapt and resistances appear (who source). Obviously, these same labs are probably looking for new active molecules, but nothing new at the moment. Vaccination is specific to a virus and does not have resistance.
The question is: Is it better to have a vaccine with an arsenal of reduced but effective medication in case of complications or not vaccines and more treatment at all because of the secondary resistance to the massive use of antivirals?
The vaccination campaign
So, for or against the vaccine, a government under influence or not, whatever. It is appropriate for everyone to have the information to decide knowing the facts and above all to know what we know, but also what we do not know. The WHO website is for me the reference and is open to all.
I agree with the statements of Jean-Marie Le Leigh, it is time to bring back in this campaign a little serenity by basing only on the facts without giving in to the sirens conspiracy and other sectarian drifts.
Let's see the facts, the facts, the facts alone…