Swine Flu: is the vaccine more of a threat than the virus itself?

On 18 March 2009, Mexican health officials began to pick up outbreaks of flu-like viruses.  Several weeks later, the first swine-flu related death was reported in central Mexico, which led to the Mexican Health Department notifying the World Health Organisation of the swine flu outbreak.

Now, several months later, the total number of worldwide cases up to 31st July stands at over 160,000 with more than 1100 deaths.  However, the WHO states that swine flu (also known as the H1N1 virus) is relatively mild in most cases and appears similar to regular seasonal flu.  Despite this, the media is full of stories regarding vaccines that may not have been tested thoroughly and government-planned mass vaccinations. So the question is this: is the swine flu vaccine more of a threat than the virus itself?

If swine flu is no more of a threat than seasonal flu, why is it necessary to vaccinate the population?   According to Dr Peter Holden from the British Medical Association, the vaccination will “reduce the chances of a shortage of hospital beds because of people suffering from swine flu” and also “reduce the effect on the economy by ensuring workers were protected from the virus”. 

Pregnant women are said to be among the list of ‘priority groups’ which should receive the vaccination first. This is due to the fact that the WHO identified a higher risk of fatal illness in pregnant women when infected with swine flu. I’m sure that many expectant mothers will be very reluctant to have a vaccination whilst pregnant, bearing in mind that many vaccinations (such as MMR) are NOT recommended during pregnancy due to the risk of birth defects. With the vaccination being so newly developed, I would struggle to see how any significant testing could have been done on the vaccination’s effect on an unborn child. This risk of birth defects occurs in vaccinations containing LIVE viruses (many vaccinations use dead viruses, such as tetanus, which are not thought to potentially cause defects). There have been reports that the swine flu vaccination will also contain live H1N1 virus, although this will most likely not be confirmed until the vaccination is released. According to the WHO website, “…new technologies are involved in the production of some pandemic vaccines, which have not yet been extensively evaluated for their safety in certain population groups…”, so they recommend “post-marketing surveillance of the highest possible quality” – does this sound like using people as guinea pigs??

In the UK, a new “swine flu” hotline has been created which allows you to be diagnosed with swine flu over the phone – is this an ingenious way to allow treatment whilst minimising the spread of the virus by keeping people in their own homes, or is it simply a way to brand everything as swine flu and artificially inflate the figures of those infected? We’ve already seen the tragic case of a 2 year old who was misdiagnosed with swine flu and went on to die of suspected meningitis.

In the US, concerns have been raised over President Obama’s health care bill which allows “interventions” in private homes by Vaccine Teams. To quote the bill: “Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions.” This does nothing to quash the fears of those who worry about forced vaccinations on themselves and their children.

It does seem concerning that such an extensive vaccination program is being discussed for a virus that appears not to be more life threatening than regular seasonal flu.  This begs the question: is there something more to the vaccination than meets the eye, or is there something they’re not telling us about the potential severity of swine flu?

(Hub 10 / 30 for 30 Hubs in 30 Days Challenge)