The Swine Flu Vaccine: Worth the Risk?

You can’t turn on the news or read the headlines without seeing information about the H1N1 virus, aka, “swine flu.” Swine flu isn’t anything new; H1N1 was first attributed to a major flu pandemic in 1918. However, it is debated among many whether the virus made its original jump from pigs to humans or vice versa. Swine flu again emerged as a threat in 1976 when a soldier at Ft. Dix died from a H1N1 variant and over 500 soldiers at the installation became ill as well. The 1976 strain appeared extremely similar to the 1918 virus, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide. As a result, President Gerald Ford pushed a nationwide vaccine program which kicked off October 1, 1976, and was immediately halted in December after an unusually high number of people reported a rare neurological condition called Guillain-Barré syndrome. Guillain-Barré is a painful, paralyzing neuromuscular disorder that can be fatal. It resulted in 25 deaths in 1976, and over 500 cases of Guillain-Barré were reported that were directly linked to the vaccine. In fact, the swine flu vaccine killed more people in 1976 than the disease did.

This leads me to the question, should you get vaccinated for swine flu when it becomes available this fall? A government report released August 24th suggested that a “plausible scenario” for swine flu this fall would result in 30,000 – 90,000 deaths, over 1.8 million hospitalizations, and up to 50% of the US population getting infected with swine flu. The Centers of Disease control has been quick to minimize that threat, stating that this is a “worst case scenario” and hardly a “plausible” one. By comparison, seasonal flu infections typically infect about 20% of the population and result in somewhere around 30,000 deaths annually. The big difference between seasonal flu and swine flu seems to be who is most susceptible. Swine flu seems to affect people in their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s, while seasonal flu tends to lead to complications which typically result in most deaths in people over the age of 65. The reasons for this difference are not entirely clear, but it may be because H1N1 isn’t as prevalent in recent history, and giving people over the age of 65 a greater likelihood to have developed a partial immunity to the virus.

A lot of the reports on swine flu create a lot of alarm. Last spring when swine flu first reemerged, many schools closed when outbreaks of the virus were first detected. A recent poll suggested that over two-thirds of Americans are concerned about swine flu. With all those worst case scenarios out there, it seems that prevention is the best kind of medicine, right? Well, not so fast. I am far from being a conspiracy theorist, but after taking a deeper look at some of the risks associated with flu vaccines in general, and specifically looking at the H1N1 vaccine that will be available in October, people should be aware of the following risks associated with the shot.

  • The efficacy of flu vaccines in general has been largely debated. Depending on the sources you read, the flu vaccine has an efficacy between 0 and 96%. Some well conducted studies in the 1990’s showed that flu vaccine efficacy was no better than 20-40% even if the vaccine is close to the strain of flu that is currently spreading. The problem with producing flu vaccines in general is that the flu virus is genetically unstable and mutates rapidly. In order to produce vaccines, which need to begin months before flu season, pharmaceutical companies and doctors have to guess which strain is going to be the most prevalent. The end result is that often the vaccine that goes into production isn’t similar to the virus that is spreading. A study produced in 1995 indicated that 76% of isolated influenza samples were not similar to the vaccine.
  • Harmful substances are used to produce vaccines, especially swine flu vaccines. The list of potentially harmful substances that go into the production of vaccines is too long to post here; however there are a few that I would like to highlight. Swine Flu vaccines are made with formaldehyde, thimerosal, and MF-59. Formaldehyde is used for a variety of applications, most notably as a solution for preserving tissue and an embalming agent (think the liquid preserving the frogs and cats in biology lab). Formaldehyde is toxic, and it is classified as a known carcinogen by the EPA. Thimerosal is used as an antifungal and antiseptic and is also toxic. In the human body it is broken down into ethyl mercury. Although ethyl mercury doesn’t accumulate in the body the same way as methyl mercury does (found in seafood and a contaminate from industrial waste), it is still unknown what long term effects it has on the body. Thimerosal is used in many vaccines, but was banned for use in childhood vaccines EXCEPT the flu vaccine. MF-59 is an adjuvant. Adjuvants help the body develop antibodies to a foreign substance more quickly, which therefore make a vaccine more effective. The problem with MF-59 is that it contains squalene. Some doctors suggest that squalene greatly increases the risk of arthritis and other neurological problems. Others have tried to suggest that the squalene in Anthrax vaccines given to soldiers during the first Gulf War in the early 1990’s helped contribute to the symptoms that became known as Gulf War Syndrome. These connections have not been clinically proven, but there is plenty of debate out there.
  • The rise of autism and the risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome have been attributed to the toxic substances present in vaccines. I will preface this section with the statement that the links between autism and these vaccines are not clinically proven. However, there are several doctors that have suggested a possible link after a 1998 study by British physician Andrew Wakefield. Additionally, others have suggested a link between flu vaccines and Alzheimer’s disease, but this has largely been proven a myth and contradicts studies that seem to suggest the opposite. Guillain-Barré was linked to the 1976 flu vaccine and has clinical credibility.
  • Vaccines are big business. Pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money off of vaccines. For the upcoming swine flu vaccinations, the World Health Organization reported August 18th that countries in the Northern Hemisphere have ordered over 1 billion doses of vaccine. Prices are estimated at $10 per dose, which is about 6 times the production cost of the vaccine. Simple math suggests that drug makers rake in big profits from vaccines. In the past, drug makers have even sold drugs they knew were tainted. The best known case was in 1984 when Bayer discovered that Form VIII (a drug for hemophiliacs) was tainted with the live HIV virus. Even though they pulled it off market in the US, they knowingly sold it in Asia and France, killing off an entire generation of hemophiliac patients. The executives responsible ended up in prison, but it is one illustration of how the profits that drug makers stand to reap often can get in the way of information that is in the best interest of the public’s health.

The decision about whether or not to vaccinate your children or yourself from the swine flu is a personal one between you and your doctor. I would suggest that most vaccines probably outweigh the risk of contracting life threatening illnesses such as polio. However, when it comes to flu vaccine and specifically swine flu, I would exercise a bit of caution. Limited efficacy, combined with short clinical trials and a lot of questions about the long term effects of substances used in the vaccines, make H1N1 vaccines a scary proposition. As of July of this year, 70,813 cases of the swine flu have been reported, with 311 of the cases resulting in death. For statisticians out there that represents 0.43% of the cases resulting in death. That is without a vaccine and just letting the disease run its course. While one death can be viewed as too many, I am not sure that the potential risks outweigh the reward.

Image credit: LittleMan

3 thoughts on “The Swine Flu Vaccine: Worth the Risk?

  1. I’m sorry, but I have to blow the BS whistle on a couple of your facts. First of all, the Wakefield study is discredited; subsequent “studies” have not produced reliable data; in short there is no verifiable data to support the hypothesis that vaccines have any link whatsoever to autism.I wish people would stop perpetuating this myth. Among scientists there really is no debate. You can’t say “nobody has proven it isn’t true” because that is simply not possible. If you dispute that cornerstone of logic, please disprove the following: There is a giant super-intelligent invisible teapot orbiting our galaxy that controls our weather.
    An extremely thoroughly researched debunking is to be found here:

    Secondly, this squalene/adjuvant hypothesis is complete frogwash. Again, contrary to your assertion, there is no significant debate in the scientific community on this issue. There is no data to support the hypothesis. Your post indeed smacks of having read too much of Dr. Mercola’s website, which is chock-full of questionable science, cherry-picked data and dubious hypotheses.

    A relevant quote (citations for data available on the site linked above):
    “In other words, adjuvants containing squalene don’t induce an immune response to squalene [Mercola’s principal assumption]. No antibodies are created to cause whatever autoimmune phenomena Dr. Mercola cares to postulate, including GWS. His hypothesis fails.”

  2. Also, I must say in general, a statement like “These connections have not been clinically proven, but there is plenty of debate out there” bears no place in a piece of reporting on a scientific issue. A great many things espoused by a great many people have not been clinically proven. Psychic healing of tumors, for example. The existence of unicorns. If there is no clinical, which is to say, scientifically testable and repeatable analysis supported by data, to support an assertion, there is no basis for “debate” and thus no reason to base any decision affecting your health or your family’s on that assertion.

    The existence of “debate” on a subject by persons unknown, in and of itself, signifies nothing but the existence of expressions of opinion by persons perfectly entitled to do so. It confers no validity on those opinions, no matter how loudly expressed or prominently presented they may be. The existence of such so-called debate, then, should not weigh in your decision-making process.

    Base your decisions on your family’s health on the best scientific evidence available. Science loves to be proven wrong, and there are plenty of examples of genuine scientific debate, i.e. hypotheses with some credible evidence — enough to convince some scientists but not others. In general, such debates exist where the evidence is “too close to call.” In the cases you reference, there is no testable evidence to support the hypotheses. It’s not even close. Thus, amongst scientists, there is in fact no “debate.”

    Sure, there’s a lot science doesn’t know. But that’s as it should be, because as the comic Dara O’Briain observed, “if it knew everything, then it would stop.”

  3. Michael,

    Thank you for your detailed and quick response. First of all, I would like to clarify the point of this article. The fact that there is not substansial clinical evidence that supports links between autism and vaccinations or the risks of adjuvants such as squalene isn’t the point. The point is that when it comes to making decisions about your family’s health, it is important to not blindly accept something like a vaccination, especially when it is being pushed by the government. As noted in the article, this is a formula for bad results. Also, relying entirely on “the best scientific information available” is not enough by itself. There are countless times when that information has later been proven to be “frogwash” Bloodletting, lobotomies, and malaria therapy have been commonly prescribed solutions in the past. Bayer at one time marketed heroin as a cure for morphine addiciton and as a cough suppressant. The fact remains that there is a lot of money to be made from vaccines, and in an era when pharmaceutical companies have been proven to be less than scrupulous, it raises concern. Pfizer recently agreed to pay a record $2.3 billion dollars after acknowledging that they deliberately marketed off label usage of one of their pain killers. To me, there is a conflict of interest between public health and corporate profits. As far as the Wakefield study goes, yes it was shown that the study had flaws. But contrary to your assertion that no one else thinks that the possibility exists between harmful substances in vaccines and autism isn’t the case.

    Secondly, in reference to the squalene claim, again I must disagree. There are many resources available that point to the potential dangers of adjuvants. If you consider the principle surrounding the use of adjuvants, it is trying to get the same benefit of an active ingredient by dilluting it. But there is documented research that brings the use of squalene into question, not to mention that the DOD denied that it ever used squalene for a long time, until it was proven otherwise.

    I also am not suggesting that vaccination as a whole is a bad thing. My two sons have received all of their required vaccninations for school and daycare. However, they will not receive the swine flu vaccine. I hold to my original belief that the efficacy of flu vaccines, combined with the list of ingredients that are known to be harmful that go into making the flu shot, is not worth the potential side effects.

Leave a Reply