Calgary Herald Column - Fear Not the Flu Shot

This week's Herald column from yours truly looks at the fears and fearmongering concerning the H1N1 vaccine and vaccines in general: 

It should strike us as very telling that many of those complaining of unnecessary and unjustified fears over H1N1 flu are the same one spreading unnecessary and unjustified fears over the H1N1 vaccine.

The blatant hypocrisy of engaging in one form of hysteria while denouncing another belies a deeper agenda: vaccine denial.

The scope and severity of H1N1 may indeed have been overblown to some extent, although we've not yet really seen what this new virus is capable of. Fortunately, thanks to science and medicine, we need not witness its full potential.

Also, some of the alarmist rhetoric and sensationalist reporting has fostered a high level of public cynicism - an atmosphere which has provided fertile ground for the anti-vaccine movement.

On top of that, there's the perception that this the flu, after all, which for the most part is unpleasant but not the end of the world. Most H1N1 cases have been relatively mild, so it may seem more of an inconvenience for people to get a shot: apathy as opposed to fear.

When you couple that with the ramping up of anti-vaccine rhetoric, though, it's little surprise that some polls show a majority - or near-majority - of Canadians saying they will not get vaccinated.

But even if you are at worst going to contract a minor case of H1N1 flu, what if you then pass it on to someone at much greater risk of complications? Moreover, H1N1 seems to pose more risk to healthy young women and men than does seasonal flu.

Reducing the total number of cases of H1N1 flu is achievable and desirable - what's the upside of mass vaccine refusal?

There's some understandable concern among Canada's medical establishment, which is why Canada's chief public health officer has gone out of his way to counter the myths and make sure we're all aware of the facts.

Dr. David Butler-Jones is saying what the vast majority of other top medical experts are saying: the H1N1 vaccine is safe and effective. The benefits of getting it far outweigh the risk of refusing it.

Flu vaccines are not perfect, but their efficacy and safety have been demonstrated over and over again in the peer-reviewed medical research. Yet that matters little to the true believers of the anti-vaccine movement who routinely denounce even our most proven and effective vaccines.

 

(...)

 

All the anti-government and anti-corporate rhetoric in the world is no substitute for scientific evidence.

In this respect, the anti-vaccine movement comes to resemble creationists: with no science or evidence to bolster their argument, they run around trying to poke holes in the mountain of evidence bolstering the case of that for which they are in denial.

Mind you, creationism never gave anyone the flu, measles, or polio.

Fear the quacks. Fear the conspiracy theories. Fear not the flu shot. 

 

Further reading here, here, here, here, here, and here. Also, a caller last night asked me about the concern over Guillain-Barré syndrome and an outbreak believed to be linked to the 1976 swine flu vaccine. Here's the article in New Scientist magazine I mentioned:

 

In 1976, after the death of a US army recruit triggered fears of a repeat of the deadly 1918 pandemic, around 48 million Americans were given a swine flu vaccine. Of these, 532 developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralytic condition caused by rogue antibodies attacking nerve cells. Most people recover from Guillain-Barré, but not all; 25 died after 1976 and others suffered lasting damage.

The 1976 vaccine caused around 10 cases per million vaccinated. Even ordinary flu vaccines, however, are thought to cause one extra case of Guillain-Barré per million, in addition to the 10 to 20 per million who get Guillain-Barré some other way every year.

Does this mean it is safer not getting vaccinated? Absolutely not. First, there is the risk of swine flu killing you. Second, what few people know is that flu itself is far more likely to cause Guillain-Barré than any flu vaccine.

A 2009 study found that out of every million people who get flu, between 40 and 70 develop Guillain-Barré. So your best chance of avoiding Guillain-Barré is to get vaccinated, a conclusion backed by a 2007 study.

The vaccine risk is also diminishing. Cases of Guillain-Barré in the US have fallen 20 per cent since 1996, and cases reported after flu vaccination have fallen by 60 per cent. Intriguingly, this coincides with a fall in infections by the food poisoning bacterium Campylobacter, thanks to improved meat hygiene. Guillain-Barré usually follows infections, and Campylobacter is the main cause. It is also endemic among chickens, and flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs. So the occasional contamination of flu vaccines with Campylobacter proteins might explain the link with Guillain-Barré, according to a 2004 study.

That is reassuring, if true. If the problem in 1976 was contamination rather than some property of the virus, there is no reason to expect a repeat. There has never been a similar problem with any other vaccine. And almost all the pandemic vaccines now being given in the US, the UK and Australia are being made in the same plants and in the same way as ordinary flu vaccines.

Herald Column: Nanny State Just Keeps on Trucking

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at just how far government anti-smoking measures have gone and why they've crossed a line: 

When we suddenly awake one day to find that smokers are criminals, it will seem fitting that prison itself might be one of the few places left to legally smoke.

A number of federal inmates will argue in court this week that their rights are being violated by the smoking ban imposed by Correctional Services Canada last year. Should the challenge succeed, we can all sit back and marvel at the baffling legal construct where a convicted murderer would be permitted to smoke, but it would be forbidden for a trucker to do so.

In Ontario last week, a truck driver was stopped by police and issued a $305 ticket after being spotted on Highway 401 with a cigarette in his mouth. You see, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act prohibits smoking in the workplace -- a trucker's truck is his workplace. In fact, even if a trucker owns his vehicle and even if no one else but him drives it, it is still illegal for him to smoke in the truck.

Alberta's own law contains similar provisions, although no such citations seem to have been issued here. Pardon the pun, but the wheels have come completely off whatever justification previously existed for stringent anti-smoking measures.

Let's say for the sake of argument that second-hand smoke is as bad as even the worst-case assessment.

The whole point of smoking bans in the workplace and other public places was to protect the rest of us from ingesting fumes we did not consent to ingesting. The bans still at least paid lip service to the premise that if you want to smoke those awful cigarettes, then do so away from the rest of us. Now the whole "protection" mantra has been tossed out the window like the proverbial cigarette butt. We are now "protecting" the smoker himself, and once that genie is out of the bottle, there's no going back.

 Read the rest here.

Do They Make Body Bags for Dead Narratives?

You no doubt recall the great kerfuffle surrounding the shipment of body bags sent to a reserve in northern Manitoba. If not, here's a reminder: 

Aboriginal leaders in Manitoba are horrified that some of the reserves hardest hit by swine flu in the spring have received dozens of body bags from Health Canada.

The body bags — which were sent to the remote northern reserves of Wasagamack and God's River First Nation — came in a shipment of hand sanitizers and face masks.

Grand Chief David Harper, who represents northern First Nations, says body bags send the wrong message and no one can understand why Ottawa would do such a thing.

"It really makes me wonder if health officials know something we don't," he said. "I have a right to speak for my people. I make a plea to the people of Canada to work with us to ensure the lowest fatalities from this monster virus. Don't send us body bags. Help us organize; send us medicine."

 

That was the narrative last month. Turns out the narrative was bogus. Here's why the body bags were sent - because there were requested (emphasis added): 

Despite speculation that Health Canada ordered a controversial shipment of body bags to Manitoba's Wasagamack First Nation, the delivery was requested by the community's nursing station in preparation for a possible second wave of H1N1 pandemic, according to a much-anticipated report released yesterday by the Deputy Minister of Health.

Health Canada previously admitted it had "erred" in sending the body bags, but the report said it was Wasagamack's nurse-in-charge who ordered 100 body bags on Aug. 12.

(...)

"The person who placed the order made a bit of an error in requesting so much," echoed Grand Chief Ron Evans of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

"Had this person consulted with community leadership, the chief would have known that this sort of shipment would frighten people. This shows the need for better communication across all parties, including Health Canada."

The comments from Chief Evans is interesting since he wasn't sounding so concilatory last month: 

"It's frightening our people. It's frightening me as leader. It's frightening me as a grandfather, father, and that's not what we want," said Grand Chief Ron Evans. "[Health Canada officials] have to understand that. We care for our people, love our families, children, grandchildren, and we want to make sure when a pandemic hits, there's medicine for them and people to look after them."

More from Jonathan Kay and Dust My Broom.

Messrs. Steyn & Levant Go To Ottawa

A fascinating day on Parliament Hill, as the Commons Justice Committee held hearings on Section 13 of the federal human rights legislation. As part of today's proceedings, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were invited to testify.

 

The National Post reports: 

Two free-speech crusaders appealed to a parliamentary committee on Monday to do its part to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its power to investigate complaints of online hate, alleging that it is bad law that has been "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation."

Blogger Ezra Levant and author Mark Steyn contend that if anyone in Canada should have the power to investigate online speech, it should be police - not human rights employees who have behaved like out-of-control thought police.

"I call on this Parliament to assert its oversight role and compel a full inquiry into the commission," said Steyn, who was the target of a hate speech complaint by Muslims two years ago for an excerpt published in Maclean's magazine from his book, America Alone.

The House of Commons justice committee is studying whether Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be repealed in light of persistent complaints that the commission's powers to probe Internet postings that are "likely to expose"a complainant to hate are too broad.

You can view the opening statements of both gentlemen below:

 

 

 

 

You can view the rest of the hearings here, here, here, here, and here.

 

I think it's encouraging that this issue is receiving this sort of attention, but I'm still not convinced there's an appetite in Ottawa to take the bolds steps needed on this file.

 

In the meantime, with word that the CHRC is going to challenge the recent Lemire ruling, this is likely to drag on before the courts for some time. That's not to say that we won't get the proper conclusion to all of this via the courts, but some political leadership could resolve things much more promptly (and cheaply).

 

More coverage from Maclean's magazine and I'd highly encourage you to read Mark Steyn's latest piece in Maclean's.

 

Also, more from Kathy Shaidle, BCF, and Jay Currie.