Given time, anything can be politicized. Take the hysteria surrounding influenza A. Seems as though, since 9/11, the issue of mass casualties — be it via any cause — has, as a matter of policy, become a staple political topic among many policy organizations, governments, lawmakers, think tanks — you name it. With the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, protecting this country against the real or perceived threat of terrorism has become a necessary, yet arduous task, on the road toward providing and maintaining its national security. Military might is understood; in fact it is one of the exemptions President Obama seeks to the spending freeze he’ll announce at the SOTU address on Wednesday.

The spectre of biological warfare is another issue.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, many healthcare organizations and government healthcare agencies have refined policies regarding the national response to a biological terror attack. Naturally, this level of preparedness has also enabled many to take a look at contingency planning for infectious pandemics — with influenza at the forefront. Up until this year, the common strains of the inf. A virus made news — not because of the rate of infection of the virus, but because the response of healthcare organizations was less than adequate. The lack of a secure and constant supply led to a media frenzy in the mid 2000s, as tales of long patient lines waiting for vaccine — often in locations where there were many sick and vulnerable patients — resulted in sicker patients and even patient deaths due to supply depletion.

The availability of the H1N1 strain — this year’s hot topic — centered around the distribution of initial supplies of the vaccine in the face of an emerging and fatal pandemic, the likes of which the strain’s initial trajectory was essentially unknown. This uncertainty resulted in disparities with resource-heavier nations receiving much more of the vaccine than poorer ones. Was the World Health Organization’s initial response inadequate, or was it favored by Pharma manufacturers’ influence on distribution of the vaccine?

Many world governments set up purchasing agreements with Pharma companies to buy vaccines during a pandemic. As the WHO proclaimed the spread of the strain as a pandemic, now known to be mild, many of those worldwide governments were bound by those advance agreements, creating a surplus.

Although many millions around the world were infected with H1N1, and many thousands died, as the pandemic proved milder than health experts had originally feared. Many countries ordered tens of millions of doses of vaccines against H1N1 in an effort to protect their populations against H1N1 and are now trying to cut the orders or sell off surpluses of unused stock.^[1]

A hearing organized by a member of the German parliament set for today will address that issue. | LINK

1. It is unclear at this time as to whether the United States has a surplus and what it plans to do with extra unused vaccine overflow. [↩]

Related Posts Within Doctor Pundit:

1. Pharma Gets Involved in Global Goodwill The pneumococcal vaccine, available for a few years now in...
2. Scientists Look to Native Immunity in Answers to Perfect AIDS Vaccine The research into HIV and AIDS vaccinations may be getting...
3. Report: Pharma Amplified Global H1N1 Scare What is known about the H1N1 epidemic that plagued the...