H1N1 Overestimated?
I am not surprised by the results of a CBS investigation that concluded that H1N1 flu cases may be overestimated. Apparently, most people that are diagnosed with the H1N1 are not tested. The CDC decided at the end of July that it was no longer necessary. I doubt they did so to save resources since that never seems to be a government agency’s priority. I think it was a purposeful move so that they could continue to fuel the hysteria even if the H1N1 flu was not as bad as they had claimed it would be. They would hate to be stuck with all those H1N1 vaccines if the bug fizzled out.
I think the majority of people that have “flu-like” symptoms and are therefore told they have H1N1 really only have a nasty cold. The handful of people that I know that have been told they have H1N1 or that their children have it were sick for a couple days. The flu, the real flu, last up to two weeks, the fever usually lasting 5 days. The last time I had the flu (the only time) I was in bed sick for 4 days and felt like crap for about 10.
What I am concerned about is the possibility that H1N1 is actually more deadly than we are being told. If fewer people really have it than they are saying than the percentage of people that get infected and die would really be higher than is now being reported. I need to know the real risk of becoming severely sick before I can weigh the risks/benefits of a vaccine that was rushed to the market
I doubt we will ever really know what the real numbers look like.
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
They didn’t stop testing due to any type of conspiracy. It is simply because there is no need to.
Go here and read comments #24 and #39:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/26/defending-science-isnt-always-pretty/
There is nothing special about the H1N1 vaccine. It is simply a vaccine targeting a specific strain of influenza rather than targeting a few strains like the seasonal flu vaccine. I have read some articles that suggest H1N1 will be included in next years seasonal flu vaccine.
The vaccine hasn’t been rushed to market.
Please look at the CDC weekly flu report for Oct 11-17th.
Of tests done that were positove 99.7% were of Incluenza A. H1N1 is a sub-type of Influenza A. 69.7% were of sub-type H1N1. So why keep testing if a vast majority of them are H1N1. Testing is worthless at this point. They have their data and it shows H1N1 is widespread.
In addition it is a strain that not a lot of the population has immunity to and the strain shows higher than average deaths in younger segments of the population which generally are not high-risk for death due to Influenza (sorry no source for this, will have to hunt it down).
Your post doesn’t list the fact and adds to the anti-vax bullshit.
Sorry, here is the link:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/
Yes, most of the people who have tested positive for the flu have also been positive for H1N1, so most of the flu that is going around is H1N1. But, as of this week 60% of those that were tested in the “spot-checks” were negative for any type of Influenza at all. So, I stand by my statement that most people that are being told they have H1N1 do not have the flu at all and probably just have a cold. There are definitely still reasons to test people with “presumed H1N1”. How else are we to know the true extent of the threat? From this summer’s numbers (when we were still testing everyone with “presumed H1N1”) it appears that the threat has been grossly overblown. In some states only 1% of “presumed” tested positive for H1N1.
There is nothing anti-vax in this post. I am in general pro-vaccination, but I want real information and not propaganda before I inject anything into my body or my child’s body. Any vaccine that was developed and tested within 8 mths is in my opinion rushed to market. Saying something was rushed does not mean that I think it is automatically bad, but it deserves scrutiny. It is possible that if the virus spread faster than they could make the vaccine, they would need to add adjuvants to the vaccines that were not tested in the original trials. This would allow the vaccines to go farther. Now, if the virus is serious enough it may be worth receiving that untested adjuvant containing vaccine, but how am I suppose to make a risk/benefit analysis without real data. Also, I argued that this bug may be more serious if the total numbers are skewed because this would make the real mortality rate higher. If that was the case than the benefits of vaccinations would be higher. So, I see nothing in this post that is anti-vax bullshit.
For someone that is as distrusting as you are of the government you seem to put an awful lot of trust in the CDC, which let me remind you is a government agency. You have read enough books about the War on Drugs to know that the DEA uses skewed numbers and misinformation to protect their jobs, pad their budgets, and push their own agenda. Why would you think the CDC would be any different? Are they benevolent bureaucrats? I do not really believe in smoke-filled room type conspiracies, but I do believe that people in positions of power have an agenda and will not waste a crisis to push that agenda, even if the crisis is not a real crisis, but one made of hysteria.
Note: I had a long IM argument with Michael about the CDC data. I hate to admit it, but he was right. I was misreading whether or not those that tested positive for Flu A were also testing positive for H1N1. But, that is not really relevant to whether or not the total number of Flu cases has been inflated.