Research draft February 6, 2010

The beginning of March 2009 signified the beginning of the H1N1 influenza flu pandemic. This strain of flu, reminiscent to that of the seasonal flu, proved to be highly contagious and dangerous for persons of all ages. Consequently, drug companies worked diligently to produce a new vaccination to combat this particular form of influenza.  Scientists soon proved to be successful in creating such a product and urged the public to use it despite reports of highly severe and adverse side effects. Regardless, Americans perceive the H1N1 vaccination to be beneficial, for the multimodal media persistently conveys this message.

A journal article titled “Use of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine” from the MMWR Recommendations and Reports explains that between March and April of 2009, two children living in the United States of America acquired an illness representative of the seasonal flu; however, it demarcated the commencement of a pandemic. These two children represented the first specifically diagnosed and confirmed cases of the H1N1 influenza in the United State. This strain of flu contaminated communities in America within a mere matter weeks after the first confirmed cases and was declared a worldwide pandemic on June 11, 2009 by the World Health Organization (WHO) (1-2).

            The H1N1 influenza continued to infect thousands of Americans, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates between thirty-nine and eighty million people contracted swine flu from April to December 12th of 2009. Of these predicted cases, the main demographic affected by the virus was those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four years old. Furthermore, the CDC estimates 7,880 to 16,460 Americans died from H1N1 between this time span as justified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website in the article “CDC Estimates of 2009 H1N1 Influenza Cases, Hospitalizations and Deaths in the United States, April-December 12, 2009” (2-3).

            For quite some time, the age distribution of confirmed influenza A illness, the severity of the illness, and the prevalence of medical risk factors among persons with severe illness have been consistent not only in the United States but other countries as well. The average age of a person who contracts H1N1 influenza is twelve years old, with the highest infection rate among those aged five to twenty-four years old. Similarly, higher activity of the virus has been associated with places where the youth congregates, such as schools, camps, and colleges. In addition, the average age of death caused by influenza A has been found to be thirty-seven (“Use of…” 2-3).

Although these numbers do not appear positive, the CDC released information indicating a decrease in the spread of H1N1 in America between November 15^th and December 12^th. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shared with the public that the number of people visiting doctors for influenza-like illness fell nationally from 4.3% to 2.6% during this time span. Moreover, only eleven states were reporting widespread flu activity as opposed to thirty-two previously (“CDC Estimates of 2009…” 3). Some may question what attributed to this decrease in H1N1 activity, and the cause may be related to the release of the vaccine for this particular strain of flu.

An article in MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report titled “Safety of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccines – United States, October 1- November 24, 2009,” shares that on September 15, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed the first of four 2009 influenza A vaccines (Broder et al 1351). The vaccine is available in two forms, a nasal spray and an injection. In the nasal spray, a weakened version of the virus is introduced to the body to trigger an immune response in the body without causing any illness. As for the shot, it is produced from a killed, highly purified influenza virus, which stimulates the body’s immune system to protect itself in response when injected, clarified by the “Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccine” online article by the New York times (2). The CDC argues that the most effective method to protect oneself from the flu and flu-associated illnesses is to receive the H1N1 vaccination (“Use of…” 2). However, when the vaccine was first released, supplies were highly limited; thus, they needed to be restricted to target populations, meaning those at highest risk. These high-risk populations included pregnant women, those who live with or provide care for infants less than six months, health-care and emergency medical services personnel, children and young adults aged six months to twenty-four years old, and persons between twenty-five and sixty-four who have medical conditions that subject them to higher risk for influenza-related complications. As a result, the “…primary focus of vaccination efforts should be to vaccinate as many persons as possible in the recommended target groups as quickly as possible once vaccine becomes available” (“Use of…” 2).

With limited supplies, federal health officials only permitted doctors, clinics, and state-designated providers to carry the vaccination. However, once supplies increased, the H1N1 influenza vaccination became available at 90,000 different locations across the United States (“Swine Flu…” 2). One distribution point is at the Dominick’s food market on Fullerton and Sheffield in Chicago. After I conducted an interview with pharmacist Anh Cao, a graduate from the University of Illinois, Chicago, she estimates three hundred people have received the H1N1 vaccination from this Dominick’s. Cao highly embraces the vaccine and advises anyone who can tolerate the seasonal flu vaccination to receive the H1N1 vaccination as well. Moreover, she highly encourages young people to obtain the vaccine due to the high prevalence of activity among this demographic. With such high pressure from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the government, many Americans believe that the H1N1 vaccination is beneficial; however, I argue that although this is a general consensus, it does not make it correct.

After the release of the H1N1 vaccination, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) began monitoring serious side-effects that may be related to this vaccine. VAERS has found that there are eighty-two adverse event reports per one million H1N1 vaccine doses. VAERS monitored 3,783 reports while VSD monitored 438,376 vaccinations through an electronic database. Of the 3,783 reports VAERS watched, they reported 204 serious adverse effects. There were thirteen deaths after vaccination, four out of ten confirmed reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome, eleven cases of anaphylaxis, eight additional possibilities, and the remaining 173 were nonfatal but nonetheless dangerous. Although these statistics may appear low, this data is highly underestimated because VAERS is a voluntary reporting system, their reports only provide preliminary diagnoses, and with VSD, the number of H1N1 vaccinations administered has not yet reached an adequate level to detect small increases in risk for rare diseases (Broder et al 1353).

Unfortunately, this report released by the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is filled with technical jargon that is difficult to interpret and comprehend unless one is literate in this field; consequently, the public continues to maintain this misconception that the H1N1 vaccination has no repercussions. Once I conducted an interview with DePaul University chemistry professor, Dr. Sandra Chimon-Peszek, she defends that the vaccination is not beneficial yet. Dr. Peszek argues that the vaccine was “…pushed out a lot faster than it should have been,” for typically clinical trials require seven to seventeen years to conduct all necessary tests. She argues that it was different in this circumstance because it was declared a pandemic.

Although an educated professional who has had three articles published in respected scientific journals in a highly similar field to that of medicine does not promote the H1N1 vaccination, most other publications that communicate with the masses preach otherwise. In a different New York Times article titled “Don’t Blame Flu Shots for All Ills, Officials Say,” Dr. Butler defends in regards to the adverse side effects with the H1N1 vaccine, “Then we’ll try to verify the signal, see if it’s real. Then we’ll try to see if it’s associated with the vaccine. If it is, we’ll say so. The process will be as transparent as we can make it”(McNeil 3). However, I believe it is evident that the information is not accurately being shared with the public, for the reports specifying the negative effects of the vaccination are incoherent and difficult to comprehend for those illiterate in the field of medicine.

Sources more accessible to the public, such as the New York Times, continue to praise the vaccination without sharing the statistical data proving otherwise. Dr. Fineberg addresses that “…public health officials now must be ready to respond to rumors instantly” as a result of the readily available media (McNeil 3). Understandably, the CDC and other health officials wish to correct falsities, yet it is apparent to me that they withhold vital information about negative repercussions from the vaccine. In today’s society, every source of media has a bias, so the most commonly expressed ideal is then adopted by Americans.

Has the public become so dependent on medicine and vaccinations that citizens of the United States are causing their immune systems to become ineffective? Statics released by the “Use of Influenza A…” declare that “the incidence of infection was lowest among persons aged greater than or equal to sixty-five years” (3). On the contrary, “…children between the ages of six months to nine years received some protection from one shot, but not enough, so health officials will recommend that they get two shots twenty-one days apart” (“Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccine” 2). Are Americans dependent on science to survive? And with increasing technology, will this ordeal ever cease? Scientists may possess some insight to the answer; however, the public must wait for the mass media to inform them of the “correct” beliefs before they can reach an opinion.

 - Accurate citations

- Thought-provoking conclusion

- Interesting