Sandman On Flu Risks For Seniors

 

# 4235

 

 

“This next week, or beginning this weekend, we're going to kick off the national influenza vaccination week. This is a concerted effort that the CDC, health and human services and all of our partners to encourage vaccination.

 

It includes a focus on people at high risk for complications, adults with emphysema, pregnant women, seniors, children, really encouraging vaccination for anyone who hasn't yet been vaccinated and wants to be.” – Dr. Anne Schuchat, CDC News conference Jan 8th, 2010

 

 

Yesterday, the CDC basically stated that it was time for seniors to get in line for the novel H1N1 vaccine.   Until now, with vaccine in short supply, the focus has been on vaccinating children, teenagers, and adults under the age of 64.

 

While this change was anticipated, many seniors – after hearing for months that they are at low risk of catching the virus – may not be very quick to embrace the vaccine.   And that is something that Dr. Peter Sandman worries will backfire on public health officials.

 

Dr. Peter Sandman is an expert on effective crisis communications, and he along with his wife and colleague  Dr. Jody Lanard produce a wealth of invaluable risk management advice on their website:

 

 

I’ve highlighted their work on numerous occasions, including:

 

Peter Sandman: Swine Flu For Grownups

Experts: `Mild’ Is A Misleading Term For This Pandemic

Peter Sandman On Pandemic Risk Communication

 

Yesterday Newsweek ran a story entitled Why Seniors Really Should Fear Swine Flu which was based largely on an analysis created by Dr. Sandman back in December, looking at the relative risks that various age groups face with the H1N1 swine flu.

 

Dr. Sandman used data from CDC Estimates of 2009 H1N1 Influenza Cases, Hospitalizations and Deaths in the United States, April – November 14, 2009  which is pretty much summarized in the chart below.

 

 

 

First we’ll look at the opening paragraphs of the Newsweek article, then we’ll go to the original analysis by Dr. Sandman, and end with a few brief comments of my own.

 

 

Why Seniors Really Should Fear Swine Flu

The CDC's vaccination advice for the over-65 set has been misleading.

By Sharon Begley 

Jan 8, 2010

In the federal government's explanations of swine flu, through its Web site and public-service announcements, one message has come through loud and clear: seniors can rest easy. Children face a much greater risk from this disease, and they are dying from it in numbers never seen with regular, seasonal flu. Maybe seniors even have some special immunity to H1N1.

 

There's only one problem: according to a new analysis, the CDC's own numbers show clearly and unequivocally that H1N1 is more than twice as deadly to seniors as to children. As a result, "many older adults undoubtedly underestimate their own risk and the importance of getting vaccinated," says Peter Sandman, a longtime scholar of risk communication. "Older adults have been told they don't have to worry, and that's not true. If the virus comes back, people will die."

 

Sandman's analysis of the latest estimates of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is here, but let me summarize the basics. Children 0 to 17 are likeliest to catch swine flu. But adults (18 to 64) and seniors (65 and older) are much more likely to die of the disease. Kids are least likely to die if they catch swine flu.

 

(Continue . . .)

 

 

The analysis from the Sandman website follows.  You’ll want to follow the links to read this in its entirety.

 

 

What the CDC Is Saying about Swine Flu Severity

• How deadly is the pandemic so far?
• What age groups is it hitting hardest?
• What age groups does the government say it is hitting hardest?

by Peter M. Sandman

This update draws some inescapable tentative conclusions from the most recent (December 10) tentative estimates of U.S. pandemic flu cases, hospitalizations, and deaths provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The update also contrasts the CDC’s estimates with CDC communication about them, and with the Department of Health and Human Services’ new H1N1 vaccination campaign, “Together we can all fight the flu,” launched on December 7.

 

I don’t have any opinion on whether the estimates the CDC reported on December 10 are reliable, valid, and useful. But I am certain that the arithmetic I have performed on those estimates to show what they mean is solid. And I am certain that what the CDC’s estimates mean diverges significantly from what the U.S. government is telling people about the pandemic.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

It is important to note that  Dr. Sandman is not criticizing the CDC’s decision to target children, teenagers, and younger adults for vaccination.  That is, as he points out, not his field of expertise.

 

He cautions, however, that the messaging from the CDC needs to accurately convey the facts, and not just support their policy decisions.  Something he feels hasn’t always happened with their vaccine messaging.

 

Otherwise, he warns, they risk losing credibility.

 

Last summer, when the Advisory Committee On Immunization Practices decided to target children, teenagers and young adults (see The ACIP Committee Recommendations) for vaccination, the data was showing mostly children and teenagers being hit by this virus.

 

The downsizing of the estimated volume of vaccine to be available by mid-October, from 120 million doses to about 45 million (a target that was not met), further complicated matters.

 

Between the early demographic data, and the scarcity of vaccine supplies, one can understand the focus by the CDC on vaccinating pregnant women, children and teenagers.  

 

Since kids are walking Petri dishes, targeting them first appeared to provide the most bang for the buck. 

 

Although it was only 3 weeks ago that I was able to get the H1N1 vaccine (I’m 55 and not in a risk group), we now find ourselves awash in vaccine.  To the point where there is talk of giving away millions of doses lest they go unused.

 

Admittedly, all of this has been a precarious balancing act for the CDC, with shifting demographics and vaccine supplies. Trying to convey a simple `sound byte’ message about vaccination, without it becoming too convoluted, has been a challenge.

 

And perhaps, that’s the problem.   Trying to deal in `sound bytes’.

 

Designing an information campaign that relies on 10 second, or even 30 second PSAs, is the equivalent of my giving up this blog and only posting 140 character `microblogs’ on Twitter.  

 

It makes it difficult to `flesh out’ a message.

 

I’m not an expert on crisis communications, but following the ACIP recommendations, a better message early on might have been:

 

“Pandemic flu is a risk to everyone, although some in our older population may be lucky enough to have developed limited immunity to this virus.

 

Eventually we hope to see everyone vaccinated against H1N1, as vaccination is our best protection against influenza.

 

Right now, however, vaccine supplies are limited. More is on the way.

 

But for now we need to target those who are the biggest spreaders of the flu – children and young adults – and those we currently believe to be at highest risk – pregnant women and those with chronic health problems.

 

We ask for your patience.  When more vaccine becomes available, we will expand coverage to all ages.”

 

Too complicated?    I don’t think so.

 

But it requires more than 10 seconds. 

 

And it requires trusting the public to understand that there are physical limits as to what the government can do.   Something that  many in government are loath to admit.

 

As we face an increasingly complicated world, with threats that are not always well defined and solutions that are not always clear cut, we should be moving towards better risk communication . . .not shorter risk communication.

 

And for that, I can think of no better resource than the Sandman website.   Something that should be required reading for anyone charged with communicating with the public.

»» Read More

Peter Sandman: Swine Flu For Grownups

 

 

# 3550

 

 

Peter Sandman is a risk communications expert, and makes his living advising companies, agencies, and governments on how to handle media relations during a crisis.

 

Risk communications can deal with everything from a terrorist attack or a pandemic to a CEO’s indiscretion or a product recall. 

 

Depending on the circumstances, getting it right can salvage a company, resurrect a career, and even save lives.

 

The Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website combines the expertise of Dr. Sandman, along with his wife Jody Lanard M.D., and is is a veritable treasure trove of risk communications information.  

 

Since the Sandman website has so much information, a good place to start is the Crisis Communication (High Hazard, High Outrage) page.  Here you will find a number of articles on risk communication during events such as pandemics, hurricanes, and other disasters.

 

Today we get an editorial from Dr. Sandman that is being widely syndicated in newspapers around the world, entitled  Swine Flu For Grownups. 

Swine Flu for Grownups

Jul 27th, 2009

by Peter M Sandman
- Peter M. Sandman is a risk communication consultant based in Princeton, NJ, USA. Further advice can be found on his website, www.psandman.com.

PRINCETON – No one knows how the swine flu (H1N1) pandemic will evolve. Will it keep spreading, or will it fizzle? Will it retreat during the northern hemisphere’s summer and return in the fall? Will it stay mild or turn more severe? Flu experts just don’t know.

 

What is certain is that health officials risk mishandling how they explain this new and potentially alarming threat to the public. Although they know a lot about virology and public health, they often know next to nothing about how to talk (and listen!) to people about risks.

 

So here’s a primer on the swine flu pandemic risk communication, framed in terms of what health officials shouldn’t do when they’re telling you about this new disease.

 

 

1. Don’t feign confidence. Nobody likes uncertainty; we all wish the experts knew exactly what will happen. But we cope better with candidly acknowledged uncertainty than with false confidence. When health officials tell us confidently that X is going to happen, and then Y happens instead, we lose trust in their leadership. Smart officials are planning for various swine flu pandemic scenarios, and expecting surprises that will force them to change their plans. They should tell us so.

 

2. Don’t over-reassure. So far, this pandemic is mild. But even a mild influenza virus kills a lot of people, especially those with other medical problems. And experts worry that the novel H1N1 virus could mutate into a more severe strain. Yet officials endlessly insist that there is, as a Scottish health official put it, “absolutely no need for the public to be concerned.” This is false and it could backfire. Even before a situation deteriorates (if it does), people sense when they are being “calmed” rather than informed. Not trusting that officials will be candid about alarming information, we rely more on rumors. Not trusting official over-reassurances, we become even more alarmed.

(Continue . . . )

 

There are 7 more important points in this editorial, well worth reading in its entirety.

 

Dr. Sandman’s writings have been mentioned in this space an number of times, most recently in Experts: `Mild’ Is A Misleading Term For This Pandemic, but also here, here, here, and here.

 

If you haven’t already, you shoud make plans to visit Dr. Sandman’s website.

 

But fair warning, pack a lunch.  There is a lot to see and absorb.

»» Read More

Peter Sandman On Pandemic Risk Communication

 

# 3231

 

 

 

Peter Sandman is a risk communications expert, and makes his living advising companies, agencies, and governments on how to handle media relations during a crisis.

 

Risk communications can deal with everything from a terrorist attack or a pandemic to a CEO’s indiscretion or a product recall. 

 

Depending on the circumstances, getting it right can salvage a company, resurrect a career, and even save lives.

 

The Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website combines the expertise of Dr. Sandman, along with his wife Jody Lanard M.D., and is is a veritable treasure trove of risk communications information.  

 

Since the Sandman website has so much information, a good place to start is the Crisis Communication (High Hazard, High Outrage) page.  Here you will find a number of articles on risk communication during events such as pandemics, hurricanes, and other disasters.

 

Today Dr. Sandman has a commentary that appears in Nature, which delves into the things that – from a risk communications perspective – the CDC has gotten right, and the things they have gotten wrong over the first few weeks of the H1N1 Swine flu outbreak.

 

By all means, read it in its entirety. 

 

And then, when you are done, make plans to visit Dr. Sandman’s website.

 

But fair warning, pack a lunch.  There is a lot to see and absorb.

 

 

 

Pandemics: good hygiene is not enough

Peter M. Sandman¹

1. Peter M. Sandman is a risk-communication consultant, 59 Ridgeview Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-7601, USA.
   Email: peter@psandman.com

 

Abstract

The US government is doing well to communicate uncertainty over swine flu. It must also help the public to visualize what a bad pandemic might be like, says Peter M. Sandman.

R. LARSEN/THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS/AP

 

Hygiene is useful, but getting ready for a pandemic also requires stocking up on key supplies.

 

By the time you read this, the outbreak of H1N1 'swine flu' may no longer seem to be a worldwide threat and the disease may have receded from the headlines. As the initial fuss dies down, public-health experts will remain on high alert, but the media and public will move on to something else, muttering about fear-mongering.

 

And whatever the situation is like now, it won't be the end of the story. A mutated virus (more virulent or transmissible or resistant to drugs) could appear a few months later.

 

As a risk-communication professional, I have been watching the US government walk a tightrope between over-reassurance and over-alarm about a swine-flu outbreak that could easily turn out to be devastating, relatively mild or anywhere in between. The United States hasn't issued false reassurances that they will keep the pandemic from 'our' shores — a temptation to which dozens of governments have succumbed. Here I will show what else I think the country is doing right — and wrong.

 

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is doing a superb job of explaining the current situation and how uncertain it is. The reiteration of uncertainty and what that means — advice may change; local strategies may differ — has been unprecedentedly good.

 

The CDC's biggest failure is in not doing enough to help people visualize what a bad pandemic might be like so they can understand and start preparing for the worst.

 

(Continue . . . )

»» Read More

Peter Sandman On H5N1 Research Risk Communications

 

 

# 6162

 

 

I’m a bit chagrinned to admit that I hadn’t checked Peter Sandman’s terrific risk communications website over the weekend in the wake of last Friday’s decision from the Technical consultation on H5N1  held in Geneva.

 

Had I, I would have found a long and thoughtful essay on the need for respectful dialog . . . not `education’ or one sided advocacy in ongoing H5N1 discussions.

 

While not experts in virology, or influenza, Dr. Peter Sandman and his wife and colleague  Dr. Jody Lanard, are often consulted on pandemic communication issues and are internationally recognized experts in all manner of risk communications.

 

Their website, quite frankly,  should be required reading for anyone who’s job it is to deal with the public during a crisis.

 

The Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website

 

Last Friday Dr. Sandman sent Lisa Schnirring of CIDRAP news  a long email with his thoughts on the press releases coming out of the Geneva meeting (see WHO News Release On Geneva H5N1 Technical Meeting).

 

Lisa subsequently incorporated some of his comments in her article on the meeting Friday night (see WHO H5N1 study group extends moratorium, calls for full publication).

 

Rather than delay further, I’ll simply invite you to visit Dr. Sandman’s site to read:

 

The H5N1 Debate Needs Respectful Dialogue, Not  “Education” or One-Sided Advocacy

by Peter M. Sandman

(a February 17, 2012 email to Lisa Schnirring of CIDRAP News )

 

 

Highly recommended.

»» Read More

Two Referrals In One

 

 

# 2648

 

 

 

One of the nicest things about being a flu blogger is quality of the company I get to keep.    I not only read, and enjoy, the other bloggers - I've become friends with many of them as well.

 

And one of the perks of having a blog is the ability to give a `hat tip' to a colleague when they've done something particularly well, or have found something of interest that you'd  like to mention in your own blog.

 

Today, I get to do a double hat tip to SophiaZoe, and another to Drs. Sandman and Lanard.  

 

 

 

SophiaZoe, my cyber-twin and editor of A Pandemic Chronicle, after a work-related absence, is blogging furiously again.  And we're glad to have her back.     

 

I'll call you attention to two of her recent blogs.  

 

First, this one from yesterday where she highlights two of my favorite writers, Drs.  Peter M.  Sandman and Jody Lanard,  latest work on a very topical subject: Healthcare worker vaccinations.

 

 

 

Influenza vaccine messaging

by SophiaZoe on January 11, 2009

Drs. Sandman and Lanard have published a new article that is worth a read even if one is not a healthcare worker. Unfortunately, many of the general public also hold the beliefs and misconceptions addressed.

Convincing Health Care Workers to Get a Flu Shot … Without the Hype

 

Susan Keady, an infection control practitioner in Alaska, recently sent the following comment to this website’s Guestbook:

My hospital is struggling, as we do every year, trying to get hospital employees to accept influenza immunization. There seem to be two issues here.

First, people say “I don’t need a vaccine because the flu is no big deal” or “because I never get the flu.” It’s a high-hazard, low-outrage risk. Of course, most of the hazard is to our patients.

Second, employees tell us that the flu vaccine is dangerous, has serious side effects, and may have unrecognized adverse effects on health. Vaccination is low-hazard, high-outrage.

Any suggestions on preparing messages to deal with both these issues? We are not finding that education or evidence work!

 

 

The Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website is a veritable treasure trove of excellent risk-communications information.  

 

Anyone whose job it will be to communicate during a crisis would do well to visit the website of Dr. Peter Sandman, who is an expert in risk communication, and who has written about pandemic communications on several occasions.

 

Since the Sandman website has so much information, a good place to start is the Crisis Communication (High Hazard, High Outrage) page.  Here you will find a number of articles on risk communication during events such as pandemics, hurricanes, and other disasters.

 

Highly Recommended.

 

 

 

Over the weekend, I was dragged kicking and screaming (well, not quite that traumatically) into the world of twitter by one of my blogging buddies. 

 

I was already a little intrigued with the idea after reading another blog by SophiaZoe, outlining FEMA's upcoming Twitter Media Conference, scheduled for later today.  

 

 

 

FEMA and Twitter

by SophiaZoe on January 9, 2009

There is going to be an interesting “New Media” event on Monday January 12.

 

FEMAINFOCUS Twitter Media Conference

FEMA Administrator David Paulison will be available from 3 -3:30 pm Monday, Jan 12, 2009, to give a message and reply to questions using the agency’s Twitter account, femainfocus. The agency’s top official will discuss where FEMA was, where it is now, and where he sees it going.

All related documents will be posted or linked from this page so please use this page to bookmark or link to.

 

Readers of this blog may have noted that I am a participant on Twitter, and FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency, US] is one of my Twitter “friends”, which simply means I receive their posts meant for those that have “friended” them.

 

(Continue )

»» Read More

Sandman And Lanard On Pandemic Credibility and Communication

 

 

# 4688

 

 

My thanks and a big hat tip to Crof at Crofsblog  for posting a link to what he rightfully calls the ` absolute must read’ of the day; an in-depth analysis of the World Health Organization’s pandemic communications and the charges of a `fake pandemic’.

 

The “Fake Pandemic” Charge Goes Mainstream and WHO’s Credibility Nosedives

by Peter M. Sandman and Jody Lanard

The extremely long assessment that follows advances an argument we can summarize in a single sentence:

The absurd charge that the World Health Organization (WHO) hyped a fake pandemic in order to enrich Big Pharma has gained undeserved mainstream credibility mostly because WHO has badly mishandled its risk communication about three issues: (a) the mildness of the pandemic (so far); (b) the debatable meaning of the term “influenza pandemic”; and (c) the inevitable – but not culpable – structural conflicts of interest of WHO advisors.

 

(Continue reading . . . )

 

Dr. Peter Sandman is an internationally recognized expert on effective crisis communications, and he along with his wife and colleague  Dr. Jody Lanard produce a wealth of invaluable risk management advice on their website:

 

I’ve highlighted their work on numerous occasions, including:

 

Referral: Risk Communication and Disasters

Peter Sandman: Swine Flu For Grownups

Experts: `Mild’ Is A Misleading Term For This Pandemic

Peter Sandman On Pandemic Risk Communication

»» Read More

Peter Sandman: Outrage On Both Sides

 

 

# 6335

 

 

Dr. Peter Sandman is a world renown expert on crisis communications, and along with his wife and colleague Dr. Jody Lanard, provide consulting services to individuals, organizations, and companies – often during their worst public relations nightmares.

Together they also produce a wealth of invaluable risk management advice on their website, which quite frankly should be second home for anyone involved in public relations or risk communications.

 

 

I’ve highlighted Peter and Jody’s work often in the past, including:

 

Peter Sandman: Swine Flu For Grownups

Experts: `Mild’ Is A Misleading Term For This Pandemic

Peter Sandman On Pandemic Risk Communication

 

 

When you think about `risk communications’ and `flu’, very little comes close to the often unseemly debate of the past few months over the publication of the Kawaoka and Fouchier H5N1 transmissibility papers.

 

 

For those that need a refresher:

 

Last September, Ron Fouchier from the Netherlands (and almost simultaneously Professor Yoshihiro Kawaoka from Wisconsin) announced success in creating enhanced strains of the H5N1 avian flu virus in the laboratory that can transmit efficiently among ferrets, which quickly sparked biosecurity concerns.

 

For some background, see Katherine Harmon’s Sci-Am article , New Scientist: Five Easy Mutations, & NPR: Bio-Terrorism Concerns Over Bird Flu Research.

 

 

The fate of these two papers has now been decided; Kawaoka’s was published earlier this month (see Nature Publishes The Kawaoka H5N1 Study), and a revised version of Fouchier’s paper is due out anytime.

 

While the original focus of this debate has been settled, we are left with nagging questions regarding the way this debate was handled, and concerns over what happens when this sort of situation inevitably occurs again.

 

Which brings us to a long, detailed, and very informative analysis of the risk communication missteps made by both sides of this debate, posted by Dr. Sandman on his website in response to a reader’s comment.

 

It is called:

 

Risk communication aspects of the debate over H5N1 transmission studies

 

 

I’ll not try to summarize this well reasoned and detailed examination of the events of the past few months, as to do so would be a disservice.

 

This article deserves to be read in its entirety. 

 

Highly recommended.

»» Read More

Businesses Urged To Avoid Pandemic Pitfalls

 

 

# 2379

 

 

 

 

From Lisa Schnirring at CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy) News,  we get an overview of this week's webinar held by CIDRAP's Dr. Michael Osterholm and risk communications expert Dr. Peter Sandman on pandemic preparations for businesses.

 

 

I'll just post the opening couple of paragraphs.  Be assured there is plenty of good information in this article, and it is well worth following the link to read it in its entirety.

 

 

 

Businesses urged to avoid pandemic planning pitfalls

 

Lisa Schnirring Staff Writer

 

Oct 9, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – The current financial crisis may be pulling time and resources away from business pandemic planning, but two experts on the topic today told corporate leaders they can improve their firms' survivability during a global health emergency by avoiding specific mistakes.

 

The two—infectious disease expert Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, and risk communications expert Peter Sandman, PhD—spoke at a webinar today that was sponsored by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) Business Source, an online infectious-disease preparedness resource for business. Osterholm directs CIDRAP, based at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Sandman is a risk communication consultant from Princeton, N.J. About 326 people from 83 sites took part in the webinar.

 

Osterholm and Sandman told the group that business pandemic planners face tough challenges, not only in managing problems caused by the financial markets, but also in keeping the preparedness momentum going amid "pandemic planning fatigue."

 

(Continue reading . . .)

 

 

You'd be hard pressed to find two people who would be more knowledgeable in their respective fields than Dr. Osterholm and Dr. Sandman.    Together, they present 7 important pandemic planning pitfalls to avoid.

 

CIDRAP is one of the best infectious disease resources on the Internet.   Not only for avian flu, but for many other emerging threats. 

 

The caliber of science reporting from CIDRAP Editor Robert Roos, news reporter Lisa Schnirring, and contributing writer Maryn McKenna are second to none.

 

Peter Sandman's website is also a wonderful resource on the issues of risk communications.   Businesses pay big bucks for his counsel, but you can glean much of his wisdom from the scores of articles and essays on his site.

Both are highly recommended.

»» Read More

Peter Sandman On the CCIVI Vaccine Report

 

# 6638

 

Two days ago Michael Osterholm and his group at CIDRAP released their 160-page Comprehensive Influenza Vaccine Initiative (CCIVI) report, that among other things, cited longstanding overstatement of the effectiveness of the seasonal flu vaccine as a barrier to creating new, and more efficient vaccine technology.

 

Up until about a year ago the CDC’s mantra has been for healthy adults under the age of 65, in years when the vaccine is a good match to circulating strains, effectiveness ranges from 70%-90%.

 

A statement that at times was interpreted as `up to 90% effective’  by officials and the media. A quick Google this morning found the following statement on a major company’s website (link) from 2006.

 

Get a seasonal flu shot every year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that getting a seasonal flu shot the best way to prevent the seasonal flu. In fact it's up to 90% effective in preventing the seasonal flu and even if you catch the seasonal flu, the immunity provided by the vaccine can make your case milder.

 

Not only does this site overstate the effectiveness of the seasonal flu jab, it fails to mention the CDC’s  disclaimer of `in healthy adults under the age of 65’. I can find plenty of instances of this 90% effectiveness meme being used, some as recently as August of this year (link)

 

A little more than a year ago the CDC updated their FAQ on Flu Vaccine effectiveness, and as part of a much longer detailed posting, lowered their estimate of the inactivated flu shot’s effectiveness to read:

 

. . . recent RCTs of inactivated influenza vaccine among adults under 65 years of age have estimated 50-70% vaccine efficacy during seasons in which the vaccines' influenza A components were well matched to circulating influenza A viruses.

 

A number that pretty much matched CIDRAP’s finding (see A Comprehensive Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Meta-Analysis) which would be released a couple of weeks later. That analysis showed the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) had a combined efficacy of 59% among healthy adults (aged 18–65 years).

 

While these numbers are much lower than we would would like to see, 50%-60% protection is far superior to no protection at all.

 

Which is why I continue to get, and support getting, the seasonal flu vaccine.

 

All of which serves as prelude to some extended comments released yesterday by Dr. Peter Sandman on the CCIVI report and public health’s long-standing inclination to overstate the effectiveness of the flu vaccine.

 

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Sandman, he is a world renown expert on crisis communications, who along with his wife and colleague Dr. Jody Lanard, provide consulting services to individuals, organizations, and companies – often during their worst public relations nightmares.

 

Together they also produce a wealth of invaluable risk management advice on their website, which quite frankly should be second home for anyone involved in public relations or risk communications.

 

In the interests of full disclosure Dr. Sandman served on the CCIVI Expert Advisory Group and has worked with CIDRAP in various capacities in the past, points that he makes abundantly clear in his preface. 

 

What follows are excerpts from a lengthy email he sent to Lisa Schnirring of CIDRAP NEWS, in advance of the report’s release, for use in her news articles.

There is so much good content here, I find it difficult to pick and choose excerpts.  As you’ll see, from the title onward, Dr. Sandman does not mince words - so please - follow the link to read it in its entirety.

 

 

We’d Be Likelier to Develop a Better Flu Vaccine If Public Health Officials Didn’t Keep Misleading Everyone about the Flu Vaccine We Have

 

by Peter M. Sandman

(an October 14, 2012 email to Lisa Schnirring of CIDRAP News)

On October 15, 2012, CCIVI released its report, entitled “The Compelling Need for Game-Changing Influenza Vaccines.” The report argued that the current flu vaccine is sorely inadequate; that a key barrier to developing a better vaccine is the widespread judgment that the current one is fine; and that the main reason the vaccine’s effectiveness is so consistently overestimated is that public health officials keep saying it is better than it is.

<SNIP>

Chapter 7 does a fine job of documenting how public health – especially ACIP – overestimates and overstates the efficacy of the flu vaccine. There are really three criticisms here:

• ACIP recommendations for ever-wider flu vaccination have been grounded in claims, assumptions, and judgments that the vaccine was more effective than it actually is.
• Early on that was because good data weren’t available, but long after there were ever-better data showing that the flu vaccine wasn’t very effective, ACIP continued to speak and act as if it were – ignoring some studies, misinterpreting others, leaning too heavily on studies with big methodological flaws, relying on plausibility and expert judgment while claiming to be relying on sound science, etc.
• In their zeal to encourage vaccination, ACIP, CDC, and the rest of the public health leadership kept telling the public (often via state and local public health officials and people’s personal doctors) that the flu vaccine worked better than it works.

<SNIP>

2. How do you think the report will be received? (Some of Chapter 7 sure reads like a GAO report. Lots of investigation work went into the analysis of ACIP’s recommendations.) What areas might see some early impact from the findings?

The central claim in the report is of course its claim that the flu vaccine is a lot less effective than most vaccines and a better one is badly needed.

 

Many in public health will find that claim difficult to embrace. But however reluctantly, I think they will embrace it. The Lancet I.D. study paved the way; in anticipation of that study’s publication, CDC stopped claiming 70–90% effectiveness in healthy adults under 65 and retreated to the much more supportable 50–70% estimate.

 

Now, sadly, CDC and many lower-level public health officials often provide no flu vaccine effectiveness estimate at all in their public communications, having learned that 70–90% is scientifically unsound but fearful that the more accurate 50–70% might undermine public acceptance. This is a small example of officials not trusting the public, which is a very large risk communication problem in public health. (See “Trust the Public with More of the Truth: What I Learned in 40 Years in Risk Communication.”)

 

(Continue . . .)

 

 

The CCIVI report and Dr. Sandman’s comments will undoubtedly discomfit many in the public health field, even if they privately accept their findings. 

 

There is, after all, legitimate concern that anti-vaccine activists will use this report as fodder for their propaganda machine.

 

But in reality, public health faces an even bigger challenge.

 

As I wrote earlier this year in in Science At The Crossroads, the public’s faith in science and technology is eroding. And during a public health emergency, that could prove disastrous.

 

One only has to look at the deep divisions over climate change, evolution, vaccine safety, nuclear power, and genetically modified food crops to realize just how wide this rift between the public and scientists has become.

 

Recent revelations regarding deceit and fraud in scientific research (see PNAS study Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications) have only served to intensify this mistrust.

 

Rekindling the public’s trust is paramount, and the first step in that direction is trusting the public with the truth (or at least, our best estimation of the truth at the time).

 

If the vaccine is only 60% effective, we need to embrace that number and promote it the same way we do seatbelts.

 

Seatbelts don’t guarantee you’ll walk away from a wreck, but they sure improve your odds.

 

Most people understand that, and buckle up.

 

I honestly believe that those who are inclined to get a flu shot will accept those limitations, while those who are vehemently against vaccines  . . .  well, they weren’t going to be persuaded by VE numbers, no matter how high they were.

 

I can’t help but remember what a terrific job the CDC’s Admiral Anne Schuchat - Director of the National Center For immunization and Respiratory Diseases - did during the summer and fall of 2009 briefing the press and the public day after day on the emerging H1N1 pandemic.

 

Her candor, ability to work `off script’ and willingness to concede the things they did not know about the virus were equal parts effective, comforting, and refreshing - and in my mind, anyway – constituted the CDC’s finest hour during that crisis.

 

I believe this type of straight talk should be the model for all public health messaging, even if inconvenient facts (like a VE rate of 60%) are less than comforting.

 

That it is only if you trust the public with the truth that you can win, and hold, their confidence. 

 

Anything less just deepens the rift of public distrust and plays into the hands of the critics.

»» Read More

Referral: Risk Communication and Disasters

 

# 4608

 

 

DemFromCt, writing on the Daily Kos, has a lengthy and important post on Risk Communications, and the way that has been playing out with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. 

 

Included are extensive remarks by risk communications experts Peter Sandman and Jody Lanard.  This is a long (6000+ words) essay, but well worth taking the time to absorb.

 

Highly recommended.

 

 

Risk communication and disasters: just tell the truth

by DemFromCT

 

 

Dr. Peter Sandman is an internationally recognized expert on effective crisis communications, and he along with his wife and colleague  Dr. Jody Lanard produce a wealth of invaluable risk management advice on their website:

 

 

I’ve highlighted their work on numerous occasions, including:

Peter Sandman: Swine Flu For Grownups

Experts: `Mild’ Is A Misleading Term For This Pandemic

Peter Sandman On Pandemic Risk Communication

»» Read More

Peter Sandman On Talking To The Public About H5N1 Risks

 

 

 

# 6241

 

 

While I’ve vented my frustration over the way that the H5N1 research controversy has been `managed’ for public consumption (see here and here), today we get a far more useful and cogent commentary from risk communications expert Peter M. Sandman.

 

The Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website combines the expertise of Dr. Sandman, along with his wife Jody Lanard M.D., and is is a veritable treasure trove of risk communications information.  

 

Anyone who must deal with communicating with the public, particularly during times of uncertainty or stress, would do well to regard this site as essential reading.

 

You’ll find two incarnations of the same article (a longer original and one edited down for publication in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News) on the mistakes Dr. Sandman sees being made in how H5N1 research issues are being communicated to the public.

 

Highly recommended.

 

 

• Talking to the Public about H5N1 Biotech Research (original longer version)

  Submitted to Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, March 18, 2012

  Talking to the Public about H5N1 Biotech Research    (accepted shorter version)

  Published in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, April 15, 2012

»» Read More

Sandman & Lanard On Worst-Case Crisis Communications

 

 

# 5411

 

 

When it comes to risk communications during a crisis, you’d have to go a long way to beat the advice of Dr. Peter Sandman and his wife Dr. Jody Lanard. 

 

Both are highly regarded consultants in the field, and have been called upon by entities both public and private during times of crisis. Between the two of them, they produce a wealth of invaluable risk management advice freely available on their website:

 

 

For anyone even remotely involved as a spokesperson for an agency, organization, or company during a crisis, this site should be viewed as essential reading. 

 

Over the years I’ve featured their writings a number of times, including here, here, and here.   For more, simply do a blog search on `Sandman’.

 

Last night Sandman and Lanard responded to an anonymous journalist’s question regarding the open discussion of `worst-case’ scenarios in Japan. 

 

You’ll find an excerpt below, but follow the link to read it in its entirety (and follow the links as well!).

 

Japan’s nuclear crisis: The need to talk more candidly about worst case scenarios

name:Anonymous

field:Newspaper reporter

date: March 16, 2011

location:Canada

comment:

I’m a reporter working on a story that takes a look at the rhetoric/fear-mongering surrounding the disaster in Japan. I figured you’d have some awesome insights based on your field of work.

The story is pegged to these comments, from Europe’s Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger, on Tuesday:

• “There is talk of an apocalypse and I think the word is particularly well chosen. Practically everything is out of control. I cannot exclude the worst in the hours and days to come.” [from: www.telegraph.co.uk]
• “The site is effectively out of control. In the coming hours there could be further catastrophic events which could pose a threat to the lives of people on the island.” [from: msnbc.tumblr.com]

Do you have any reactions?

peter responds:

Note: My wife and colleague Jody Lanard collaborated on this response.

Oettinger’s statements are at the upper end of dramatic. “Practically everything” isn’t out of control.

 

Statements like his result from the failure of officials to follow two crucial precepts of crisis communication.

• Be incredibly respectful of and empathic about normal people’s fears and fantasies.
• Get out in front of worst-case-scenario speculation by sharing the worst case scenarios that officials consider possible and worth planning for.

The main communication problem results from the public’s inability to know how much of the situation is under how much control, and what might happen if things get worse. Japanese officials have not helped us to understand that. Worse, they have not communicated in ways that encourage us both to trust that they are telling us everything they know and everything they’re worried about, and to trust that they know what they are doing.

 

What are the worst cases their experts are worried about and working to prevent? The world has a right to know that, and the world has a right to judge them harshly for not revealing that. More importantly, the world has no choice but to try to figure out on its own what the worst case scenarios might be that officials are either too irresponsible to consider or too cowardly to reveal.

 

Under such conditions, outside speculation about worst case scenarios justifiably gains traction – especially since the trajectory of the story has been to keep getting worse in the face of official assurances that things were not likely to get worse.

 

Ideally, officials would have preempted much outside speculation by sharing their worst fears publicly. Our crisis communication advice is always that officials should try to recreate in the public the same level of concern that they themselves are experiencing, and should focus about equally on the two most important questions about the short-term future:

1. What do you think is most likely to happen?
2. What’s the worst outcome that you haven’t dismissed as too unlikely to be worth worrying about?

Since officials have avoided answering the second question, speculation has taken off.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

Great stuff, so go read it all.

»» Read More

The Outrage Factor

 

 

 

# 3674

 

 

 

When it comes to Risk Communication, you can’t do much better than the works of  Dr. Peter Sandman and Dr. Jody Lanard.   Both are well established experts, and together have provided a long and valuable stream of essays and books on the subject.

 

Dr. Sandman is the creator of   Risk= Hazard + Outrage meme.   A shorthand way of expressing that risk is more than just the hazard, it is the hazard plus the outrage people feel about it.

 

There are some hazards that are relatively major, but that we are used to, and so our outrage is small.    The annual death toll from influenza -  estimated at 36,000 Americans – is a good example.

 

Since 90% of the deaths occur in the the elderly – often among nursing home patients or others that are weak or infirmed – we tend not to be terribly outraged over that risk.  

 

Pneumonia, for centuries, has been called `The Old Man’s Friend’, because it tends to take the elderly quickly and quietly.  This yearly viral `harvesting’ of those close to the end of their life is accepted, or at least largely ignored, by the public.

 

When children, or young adults die from influenza, it is another matter entirely.  

 

It makes the newspapers, and sometimes the evening news.  It jolts the public, because we think it isn’t supposed to happen. And so, when it does, the outrage is high.

 

In truth, between 50 and 100 children die each year from influenza.  A horrible number, but still small in a nation of 300 million people. 

 

Now . . . imagine the outrage if 1,000 children should die this winter from pandemic flu.  Or 5,000.    Or more . . .

 

We would rightfully view it as a national tragedy.  

 

The only thing that might temper it, and cause it to have a smaller emotional impact than say – the 9/11 tragedy – would be that it would occur over a period of months, not all at once and on live TV.

 

In order to meet this challenge the CDC and the HHS have put together numerous guidance documents on everything from ways to keep school open to the best way for HCWs (Health Care Workers) to protect themselves when caring for flu patients.

 

Most of the guidelines, and recommendations being promoted by the HHS and the CDC are perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. They are based on a combination of the available science, practicality, and the fact that thus far, the novel H1N1 virus has shown a low level of lethality.

 

And in a perfect world, that would be enough. 

 

People would recognize the limitations that any government or society has in dealing with a pandemic, accept that certain losses cannot be avoided, and acquiesce to the policies promulgated by pandemic planners (sorry, I am unfortunately functionally alliterate).

 

Of course, we don’t live in a perfect world.  And what may seem reasonable from one perspective isn’t always reasonable to another. Following policies that make sense on a macro, or population-wide basis, may not always seem attractive or reasonable to individuals and families.

 

Some hazards may be statistically small, but nonetheless carry a lot of outrage.  

 

Officials who base their planning decisions solely on the science, and fail to take into account the `outrage factor’ that their plans and guidance may foster, are likely to find an irate and uncooperative public response.

 

Keeping schools open is a good example. 

 

There is a lot to be said for that.   Schools are the ideal place to teach kids good flu hygiene, and probably the best venue to deliver vaccinations to large groups of children.  

 

Closing schools won’t stop the spread of the virus in a community, and it would constitute a burden to a great many families where the parents both work.    There are also millions of students who depend upon the school nutrition program.

All valid reasons to keep schools open, and operational if possible.

 

It is arguably good for kids, it’s good for the community, and it’s good for the economy.

 

That is . . until a healthy kid - who follows the government’s advice and goes to school - comes home with the virus and ends up in the hospital . . . or worse, dies.   

 

And we know that is almost certainly going to happen.  Hundreds, probably thousands of times over the next few months. 

 

And when it does, parents – who instinctively think of schools as a `safe place’ to send their kids – are going to be outraged.  

 

Count on it.

 

Disinfecting school rooms, fever checks each morning, encouraging hand washing, and sending kids home with flu-like symptoms all make sense, but they won’t prevent kids from catching the virus at school – and bringing it home.

 

At best, these things may slow down the spread of the virus.   But parents aren’t going to want to hear that. 

 

They want their children safe and protected.

 

I’m already hearing a lot of outrage from parents who can’t believe that the plan is to keep schools open, even if students are falling ill from the virus. No matter how `reasonable’  from a public health standpoint the argument is for keeping schools open, for a parent, the health and wellbeing of their child comes first. 

 

Parents of children with asthma, or where there are at-risk individuals in the home, are particularly concerned over the risks of sending their kids to school, and what they might bring home.

 

My fear is that officials aren’t taking the inevitable outrage into account.    Or perhaps they are, which is why the decision to close schools has been left to local officials.

 

Closing schools is going to be a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t  decision.   And no, I don’t have a good solution.  I suspect there isn’t one.  

 

Just as many people are likely to be outraged if you close the schools as those who will be outraged if you don’t.

But public officials need to understand that for parents there is no trauma greater than the loss of a child, and no instinct stronger than that of protecting their children from harm. 

 

If parents are afraid to send their kids to school in a pandemic – even if, in the eyes of authorities, it is an unreasonable fear -  they need to be able to keep their kids home without punitive actions taken against them, or their kids.

 

If officials try forcing kids to attend school during a pandemic, and those kids start getting sick, or dying, they are just asking for outrage.  

 

Regardless of how reasonable their arguments might be.

 

      *             *              *               *                *              *

 

In 1976, the Swine Flu vaccine ended up being blamed for about 25 deaths, and hundreds of cases of paralysis.  The outrage over the damage caused by that vaccination program probably cost Gerald Ford the presidential election. 

While the vaccine killed only 1 person out of every 1.6 million who got the shot  - and was blamed for neurological problems (GBS) in about 1 in 80,000 -  the nation was horrified.  

 

The actual risk was very low, but the outrage was very high.

 

Why?   I suspect because the vaccine was supposed to save lives.  And it didn’t.   It claimed more lives than the swine flu that year.  More people died in auto accidents in one day in the US than were killed by the vaccine, but that didn’t matter.

 

Deaths in car accidents are expected.  Deaths from vaccines are not.

 

Thirty years later, and millions of people still don’t trust vaccines.  While the hazard was apparently fixed decades ago (we’ve not seen a recurrence of the GBS neurological side-effects since then) the outrage, and the damage, remains to this day.

 

We are now about to embark on another huge vaccination program, and even if this H1N1 vaccine turns out to be among the safest ever devised, we will almost certainly be bombarded by reports and claims of side effects – and perhaps even deaths – linked to the shot.

 

These may turn out to be coincidental events, unconnected to the vaccine, but that won’t matter.  The media has harped on the dangers of a `rushed and untested’ vaccine for months. 

 

People are primed to expect another vaccine debacle. 

 

Already there is outrage about the fast tracking of vaccines, about the possibility of using untested adjuvants, and some people even fear that the vaccine will be forced on them.

 

While public health officials may find these fears ridiculous, unfounded, or just plain nuts . . . they would do well to take them seriously.  These concerns . . . and the outrage they inspire . . .  are powerful and potentially destructive forces.  

 

They must be addressed publicly, and often.  Otherwise, they have the potential to derail any national vaccination program.

 

No matter how safe or effective the vaccine might be.

 

 

       *             *              *               *                *              *

Another area of outrage, again with the potential for real damage, comes from health care workers who believe that their safety will be compromised during a pandemic, particularly if surgical masks are deemed `good enough’ protection when caring for flu patients. 

 

(See Nursing Survey Shows Hospital Deficiencies)

 

For decades they’ve been told that surgical masks are not PPE’s (Personal protective equipment).  That you needed N95 respirators or better to protect the wearer from an airborne virus. 

 

Surgical masks protect the patient from the doctor or nurse treating them . . . not the other way around.

 

Now , with a pandemic on our doorstep and a severe shortage of N95 masks likely,  surgical masks are suddenly being promoted as being `good enough’.  And many HCWs are outraged.

 

Most HCWs understand that our supply of N95's is very limited.  That, for a variety of reasons, hospitals and the government decided they had more pressing priorities than to stockpile PPEs for a pandemic.  

 

They understand it, but they are outraged over it. 

 

And many feel that rather than admitting to a general failure to prepare, the `rules’ are being changed instead. 

 

While it may be reasonable to recommend surgical masks when there are insufficient quantities of N95s available, the root of the problem is the lack of planning that put us in this situation; The failure to stockpile adequate PPEs. 

 

It is only pure luck that we are facing a less lethal swine flu pandemic, and not a highly fatal H5N1 virus.   Our PPE stockpile would have been no better had we been struck by the latter.   HCWs know that, and also know that this virus could become more virulent over the winter.

 

 

And you can bet that just about every nurse or HCW who is issued surgical masks instead of N95s, and ends up getting sick, is going to blame their hospital or workplace for not adequately protecting them.

Count on it.  

 

And it won’t matter whether or not having N95s would have made a difference.   HCWs will assume they would have.

 

  Because that’s what they have been told for the past 30 years.

 

       *             *              *               *                *              *

These were three examples of predictable outrage, but there are dozens more.  And public officials, hospital administrators, and others in a position of power need to be cognizant of their likelihood, and their potential for damage.

 

And it isn’t just the considerable political hit that public officials may take that should worry them. Businesses (including those in health care) could see lawsuits over perceived lapses in employee safety or patient care.  

 

The ultimate success or failure of the national vaccination program will depend, in large part, on how effectively officials communicate the risks and rewards of vaccination to the public. 

 

The percentage of HCWs and first responders that agree to work during a pandemic may well hinge on how well they believe they are being protected on the job.

 

In other words, there is a lot riding on how well officials handle the public outrage that pandemic policy decisions are almost sure to generate. 

 

To all of those, in the public or private sector, who are either involved in policy making, or in communicating a pandemic policy to employees or the public  . . . I urge you to proceed directly to the Peter Sandman Risk Communication website.

 

 

From It’s The Outrage, Stupid by Dwight Holing we get the Sandman philosophy in a nutshell. 

 

When it comes to communicating environmental risk, business needs to recognize that outrage is as important as hazard. “When people are outraged, they tend to think the hazard is more serious than it is,” says Dr Peter Sandman, the preeminent expert on risk communication. “Trying to convince them that it’s not is unlikely to do much good until you reduce the outrage.”

 

Business can accomplish that by being open, honest, accountable and sharing control with the public.

 

The same could be said about any government agency, as well. 

 

It isn’t going to be enough to formulate `reasonable plans and guidance’ and expect everyone to accept them.   The public has to be brought on board, made a part of the discussion (and that’s a 2-way conversation), and told honestly what can, and can’t be done during a pandemic.  

 

Since the Sandman website has so much information, a good place to start is the Crisis Communication (High Hazard, High Outrage) page along with  Sandman’s Swine Flu Pandemic Communication Update. 

 

But pack a lunch, there’s a lot to glean from their website.

»» Read More

Jody Lanard: Risk Communication & Flu Vaccine Effectiveness

 

 

# 5923

 

My thanks to Crof for picking up on a short posting by Dr. Jody Lanard on the CDC’s recent unveiling of flu vaccine efficacy numbers.

 

As most of my readers know, flu vaccine effectiveness studies have been all over the map in recent years, with some showing remarkably high levels of protection while others have returned less encouraging numbers. 

 

For years the CDC’s mantra has been for healthy adults under the age of 65, in years when the vaccine is a good match to circulating strains, effectiveness ranges from 70%-90%.

Of course, if you don’t fall into this `ideal’ cohort, or if the virus drifts away from the vaccine strain, your mileage may vary. 

 

Sometimes, considerably.

 

Which is something we’ve addressed numerous times in this space, including:

 

Study: Obesity, Influenza & Immunity

Study: Flu Vaccines And The Elderly

Flu Shots For The Elderly May Have Limited Benefits

 

Recently the CDC updated their FAQ on Flu Vaccine effectiveness, and as part of a much longer detailed posting, lowered the estimate of the inactivated flu shot’s effectiveness to read:

 

. . . recent RCTs of inactivated influenza vaccine among adults under 65 years of age have estimated 50-70% vaccine efficacy during seasons in which the vaccines' influenza A components were well matched to circulating influenza A viruses.

 

 

Dr. Jody Lanard, who along with her husband Peter Sandman, are considered among the most authoritative in the world on the subject of risk communications, has posted a brief commentary on the way this revised information has been rolled out by the CDC.

 

Highly recommended.

 

Follow the link to read:

 

Brief analysis of a risk communication error:

The CDC reports its newest estimate of influenza vaccine efficacy: 50-70% in healthy adults under 65

By Jody Lanard M.D. (posted on October 25 2011, 1:30 pm EDT)

 

 

 

Between Sandman and Lanard, they produce a wealth of invaluable risk management advice freely available on their website:

 

 

For anyone even remotely involved as a spokesperson for an agency, organization, or company during a crisis, this site should be viewed as essential reading. 

 

Over the years I’ve been happy to feature their writings a number of times, including here, here, and here.  

 

For more, simply do a blog search on `Sandman’.

»» Read More

CIDRAP Summary Of The Council Of Europe Hearings

 

 

# 4295

 

CIDRAP news tonight has in depth coverage of the Council of Europe hearing into the WHO’s (World Health Organization’s) handling of the H1N1 pandemic.   

Lisa Schnirring, who was up way before I was this morning, monitored the proceedings.

 

Lisa not only brings us the details of that hearing, she draws on the considerable expertise of two of the best risk communication experts in the world for some analysis of how the WHO might have handled things differently.

 

 

Dr. Peter Sandman along with his wife and colleague  Dr. Jody Lanard, M.D.  are risk communications consultants who have produced a wealth of invaluable risk management advice on their website:

I’ve highlighted their work on numerous occasions, including:

Peter Sandman: Swine Flu For Grownups

Experts: `Mild’ Is A Misleading Term For This Pandemic

Peter Sandman On Pandemic Risk Communication

 

 

Lisa does her usual terrific job of reporting here, so follow the links to read the article in its entirety.

 

European hearing airs WHO pandemic response, critics' charges

 

Lisa Schnirring Staff Writer

Jan 26, 2010 (CIDRAP News) – Officials from the World Health Organization (WHO) and a vaccine-maker trade group at a public hearing today defended themselves against allegations from some European politicians that they exaggerated the H1N1 pandemic threat to benefit drug companies.

 

The hearing was conducted by the Council of Europe's Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs on the second day of the group's parliamentary assembly. Yesterday the council rejected a request that the committee's former leader made to schedule a debate on the theme "False pandemics: a threat to health." Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a German physician and epidemiologist, is no longer a council member, because he lost his race in Germany's September federal election. However, he has been serving as an advisor.

 

The theme of today's hearing was transparency issues that arise in a pandemic setting. The Council of Europe, a separate entity from the European Union, is known for working on broad issues such as civil rights, economics, and democracy. The group was established after World War II and is made up of elected officials from 47 nations.

 

(Continue . . .)

»» Read More