As of December, 2003, none of our requests or concerns have been responded to by Health Officials at the BC Centre for Disease Control.

Letter one:

Danuta M. Skoworonski, MD, FRCPC
Physician Epidemiologist
BC Centre for Disease Control Society
655 West 12th Ave.
Vancouver, BC
V5Z 4R4



Feb 25, 2002

Dear Dr. Skowronski,

Re your conference call with Susan Fletcher and Edda West, Feb 21, 2002

Thank you for the opportunity to have opened a dialogue with you about public health information on influenza and its vaccines. As we stated in our conversation, our main concern is regarding a false impression that those government officials making decisions on the funding of vaccination programs, as well as the general public who receive public health information on influenza and its vaccines, may receive due to: possibly inaccurate statistics; concealment of the fact that only a small fraction of influenza-like illness (ILI) may possibly be prevented by the vaccine; and the fact that even for true influenza only a small percentage of individuals who actually come in contact with the influenza virus may be protected if the viral strains are a good match to those circulating. A fourth concern, which we did not have time to mention is that, as you say, pneumonia is lumped together with influenza in the medical literature, thus compounding the confusion and possibly making the affects of influenza appear more severe than is actually the case.

We also raised other concerns. You stated that protection from complications, hospitalizations and mortality are good with the vaccine. We provided some anecdotal evidence of vaccine failure and subsequent deaths, and the reference to a February 17, 2000, ACIP report by CDC influenza vaccine expert, Dr. K. Fukuda, saying that despite record numbers of the elderly receiving flu shots and a good match between vaccine and circulating flu strains, more influenza deaths had been reported during that season. Our concern is that the vaccine may be weakening already-vulnerable people to the point where they become more rather than less susceptible to influenza as well as all other circulating infectious pathogens - thus precipitating illness and death in these people.

One other point we didn't mention is that, according to Dr. Erwin Diener, retired professor emeritus of immunology, University of Alberta, "The flu virus is very fragile and dies quickly." He says "The newest data shows that sneezing takes a few minutes and the virus will die too soon [in most cases, for it to be contagious.], but on the skin there is humidity so it can survive." Dr. Diener recommends that everyone wash their hands as soon as they return home from an outing.

Due to the above concerns, the fact that the BC government spends a substantial part of its beleaguered health budget on influenza vaccinations, and considering the fact that health officials tend to pump up the fear factor while offering vaccines as the magic bullet (thus unduly influencing citizens to get a flu shot), we request the following:

1. Evidence, ie references to studies, citations and statistics to back up your claims that "18%" and "10% to 20%" and "1 in 6" of the BC population contract influenza each year.
2. That complete information be provided to government officials and to the general public, especially when advocating use of the vaccine, regarding:



1. the relative prevalence of influenza (approximately 10%) amongst all ILI's that occur in any given "flu season". (References: Dr. V. Demicheli, debate, CMAJ 2001; 164(1):38-9; Fluwatch reports 1998/99 and 2000/01).


2. the limited effectiveness of the vaccine; Dr. Demicheli states that only 24% of healthy individuals would gain protection from the vaccine - and this is only if they were actually exposed to the influenza virus and if the viral strains in the vaccine all matched the strains circulating in the individuals' environments.


3. the distinction between influenza deaths and pneumonia deaths, since the latter may be caused by many factors besides the influenza virus; we believe the statistics for these two illnesses should be kept completely separate.




3. That (an) investigation(s) be made to discover if influenza vaccines actually cause deaths in vulnerable elderly people rather that prevent influenza and deaths.
4. The actual statistics you provided the BC Ministry of Health in order that they could evaluate the desirability of the publicly funded influenza vaccine program.
5. The process used, once the vaccines were approved for public funding, to select (a) vaccine manufacturer(s)
6. The total annual cost of the influenza vaccine program in BC, including costs of vaccines, transportation, storage, administration, advertising, etc.
7. That an investigation be made to determine if doctors, nurses and staff of hospitals and care facilities regularly wash their hands between patient contact and procedures. Several studies in the U.S. have shown that such workers only do so 30% of the time. (ref. U.S. Centers for Disease Control)
8. That alternative measures to the vaccine be offered, eg one-to-one counseling on basic hygiene, nutrition and use of supplemental vitamin C, herbs and/or homeopathic prophylactics during the flu season for those whose immune systems are weak

Susan and I thank you for your attention to these 8 requests and look forward to your response.

Very sincerely,

Edda West
Vaccination Risk Awareness Network Inc.
PO Box 169,
Winlaw, BC
V0G 2J0

(top)

Letter two:

Danuta M. Skoworonski, MD, FRCPC
Physician Epidemiologist
BC Centre for Disease Control Society
655 West 12th Ave.
Vancouver, BC
V5Z 4R4



October 9, 2002

Dear Dr. Skowronski,

We respectfully suggest that our several questions posed to you in letters of March 22, 2002(sent at your request after you had lost the first letter sent February 25, 2002) and July 11, 2002, none of which have been answered to date, are much more fundamental and pressing than the need to mitigate the dampening effect of ORS.

We have read with interest a Canadian Press Sept. 24, 2002 story by Helen Branswell about a follow up trial and study concerning the 2000 flu shot and "oculorespiratory syndrome", ORS. Unfortunately, we were unable to find the "fast-tracked" CMAJ study with you the lead author. The news story leaves us with more questions than answers.

Regarding ORS, you are quoted as saying "We know it's not an intrinsic problem for those who had it, that they need not worry that every time they get the flu vaccine it's going to recur." This makes us wonder just what kind of problem it is. It would appear that the batch of vaccine given ORS sufferers was a "hot lot", except for the fact that under 5% (presumably over 4%) of 2001 flu vaccine recipients experienced a recurrence of ORS. Does this mean that some of the 2001 vaccine was also from a "hot lot", or did these people have a reaction similar to a neophyte to alcohol, where the first drink produces severe reaction, the second, less reaction????

It appears you have not found the answer, but despite that you stated: "So people who had ORS before can feel confident in getting immunized again. And their caretakers should feel confident in recommending it." Your dismissal of any need for concern reveals a double standard: one for vaccine promotion, another for consideration of adverse reactions. Our heads spin from your comment in the CP story that, participants who had reacted to the 2001 trial flu shot as well as suffering ORS from the 2000 shot would likely not be dissuaded from rolling up their sleeves for a third try at ORS!

The intense effort to clear the flu vaccine's reputation and fast-tracking by the CMAJ obviously were aimed at boosting flu vaccine uptake this fall. We respectfully suggest that our several questions posed to you in letters of February 25, 2002, March 22(sent at your request after you had lost the first letter) and July 11, 2002, none of which have been answered to date, are much more fundamental and pressing than the need to mitigate the dampening effects of ORS. Why, every fall and winter, are seniors falling terribly ill and dying shortly after receiving their flu shots? Are medical staff and caregivers vigilant about washing hands? And, most fundamental of all, where is the proof of the figures you use to justify your determination that many BC residents need a flu shot every year?

We have been patient but cannot wait forever. The question of validity of statistics relating to influenza vaccine was first raised by Susan Fletcher with her local medical health officer, Dr Paul Martiquet, a year ago and subsequently became an issue for VRAN as a whole. Since your desk became the final resting place for our letters of inquiry, we must assume that you are considered to be the authority able to answer them. If we receive no answers from you, we can only assume you don't have any answers and/or, worse yet, you consider our questions unworthy of your attention.

ANY reply from you would be appreciated.

Very sincerely,

Edda West
Vaccination Risk Awareness Network Inc.

Cc: Dr. John Blatherwick