While Adimmune Corp’s production of vaccines is the concern of the company and the Food and Drug Administration, vaccination policy is jointly managed by the Department of Health (DOH) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The government departments that oversee production and use of vaccines are on an equal footing, neither being subordinate to the other, and the relationship between the vaccine maker and the government being one of buyer and seller.
Former health ministers have voiced their support for the government’s swine flu vaccination program — Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) by volunteering for a flu jab and Twu Shiing-jer (涂醒哲) by saying that he hoped everyone would get vaccinated. The vaccines are supplied by two companies — Adimmune and Novartis — and they do not have the right to be partial to one or the other.
Adimmune chairman Steve Chan (詹啟賢), also a former health minister, has criticized Minister of Health Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) for being unwilling to publish vaccine test data. This is a question of government and business taking a different approach.
When Novartis was having difficulty supplying enough vaccines to meet demand, the DOH and the CDC had no choice but to approach Adimmune as the only other possible supplier.
Now that both Novartis and Adimmune are able to supply adequate amounts of the vaccine, it is time to shore up public confidence by publishing clinical test data on the two companies’ vaccines. Novartis’ A(H1N1) vaccine test report can be found in the Sept. 11, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2009 issues of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Any adverse reactions following administration of the vaccine should be announced in a timely manner, and statistics should be compiled of mild and severe reactions.
The occurrence of severe reactions should be weighed against the death rate for A(H1N1) in the whole population (six in 100,000). If the disadvantages of immunization outweigh the advantages by a statistically significant margin, then the newly established Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should intervene and investigate. If the FDA finds this task to be beyond its limited capabilities, then it should invite experts from overseas drug administrations to help out.
In 1976, when the US instituted a program for the whole population to be vaccinated against swine flu, there were 743 cases of severe adverse reactions, including 67 deaths. The vaccination program started on Oct. 1 of that year. As severe reactions were reported one after another, and given the fact that the human mortality rate from swine flu was not as high as expected, the program was terminated on Dec. 16. A New York Times opinion piece described the affair as a “sorry debacle.”
Although science and technology are more advanced today than they were then, Adimmune should take what happened 34 years ago as a warning. The company must face the risk of allergic and autoimmune reactions such as death, semiplegia, rheumatoid arthritis and acute facial palsy and publish data about severe reactions so they can be compared with equivalent figures from the US and figures for severe reactions to the Novartis vaccine in Taiwan.
Since 1998, when I was involved in the CDC’s establishment and promotion of the flu vaccination program for people aged 65 and over, I have watched the CDC gradually mature in its efforts to prevent enterovirus and influenza.
This is borne out by public support for the CDC, which has consistently been over 80 percent throughout the past decade.
In the first month of the A(H1N1) vaccination program, which started in November, cancellations of classes and work because of swine flu outbreaks plunged 95 percent, and the number of deaths has not risen from 35. These figures indicate that the immunization policy is a wise one.
In the US, following the failure of the 1976 swine flu immunization program, the vaccine industry reviewed its work under the strengthened supervision of the US CDC, allowing it to emerge from the crisis and start anew.
The same should be done in the case of Adimmune and other vaccine makers in Taiwan. Furthermore, capital owned by political parties should not be invested in the vaccine industry; otherwise it will create a situation where those parties can control national health policy through the DOH.
The spat between Chan and Yaung should serve as a warning.
Mayo Kuo is a pediatrician.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS