Thanks to Crof at H5N1 for bringing to our attention a strong editorial in yesterday’s Bangkok Post. The editorialists note that H1N1 preparedness efforts were not always successful and that WHO, fresh from announcing that the H1N1 pandemic is over, is now promoting fears of renewed outbreaks of H5N1 (avian) flu. The editorial continues:
While it would be foolish to dismiss such warnings as this latest one on bird flu, it is important we keep a sense of proportion and not let them distract us from countering the unfashionable but widespread potential killers such as tuberculosis, HIV/Aids, diabetes, cancer, dengue and malaria. These are the diseases already causing widespread illness and economic harm….
Rather than competing for cash, the threat from newer diseases should serve as a catalyst to combat existing epidemics.
Competing for cash is key.
Funding for TB languishes, dengue incidence expands, more people with the AIDS virus are getting treated but new infections continue to occur, water scarcity (and displacement because of wars and natural disasters) makes diarrheal illness a persistent problem, and malaria transmission continues to threaten billions of people who live in tropical and subtropical regions — but flu preparedness dominates the public health scene. Why?
Here’s the infernal logic of WHO and the public health officers of wealthy countries (U.S., U.K., etc.): (a) At the start of the H1N1 outbreak in 2009, a sensible worst-cast forecast was about a million deaths worldwide; the more likely scenario was well under 500,000 deaths. (b) TB + malaria + diarrhea + AIDS together kill 6 or 7 million people a year. (c) Immunization against flu is notoriously variable in its effectiveness and mass immunization is almost never effective (except if instituted in an isolated population well before the flu virus makes inroads into the population).
Sounds like it would be worth it to pump lots of resources into reducing the incidence of malaria, TB, AIDS, and diarrhea. But that’s hard. It takes political will. Whereas immunizing against flu is easy: it just takes money. And national health officials were eager (it turned out) to transfer billions of dollars, pounds, and euros into the hands of vaccine manufacturers in order to be able to immunize their populations against H1N1 flu.
To an official whose job is to watch out for the needs of the economic machine, immunization pays.
One flu vaccine manufacturer estimates that in the U.S., employers lose $2.1 billion each year in productivity because of flu-related absences from work. Let’s be skeptical about this estimate, coming as it does from one of the beneficiaries of federal largesse in response to flu fears. But the point is clear enough: it was a great boon to the private sector to have the federal government spend $1.6 billion of taxpayer money on flu vaccine in 2009 even though the outbreak was mild and vaccine did virtually nothing to stop it. Because with the feds footing the bill, the burden on corporations was slight, whereas the private sector would have lost a lot of money if many Americans had fallen ill with flu.
It’s not just the vaccine manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies who stand to capitalize on the absurd calculus of protecting American businesses instead of poor people’s lives: scientists do, too.
Robert Webster is an eminent virologist who has become dean of those American scientists who purport to be able to foresee a future flu catastrophe. Perhaps he’s right, but of course nobody knows. So when Webster says
We may think we can relax and influenza is no longer a problem. I want to assure you that that is not the case,
as he just did in a meeting in Hong Kong, it’s a good sign that the preparedness crusaders are worried about their funding. They should be.
The preparedness crusaders have been unmasked as shameless shills for the private sector, even if the vaccine and antiviral manufacturers aren’t paying them directly. And the ones who are scientists have been revealed as self-important promoters of their own research — so fiercely protective of their own turf that they might use their prestige and the imprimatur of science to hoodwink officials into ignoring the more serious, and more certain, problems of the developing world.
Let’s hope that more opinion makers take the stand that the editors in Bangkok just did.
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 5th, 2010 at 5:05 pm and is filed under Disease, epidemics, Outbreaks, public health, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.