Friday, November 13, 2009


No one reads this blog anyway so I can write whatever I want.

There has been no testing for H1N1 since June or July.  Yet, 20 million (!) people have had this disease.  On the other hand, we all still need to be vaccinated for this, because...?  I am so confused.

Personally, I've had a bad cold (well, a productive--yes, gross--cough for almost two weeks, regular cough for a week longer than that, mild aches, occasional headaches and sort throat, and low-grade fever).  My PCP's office will not test me for flu "unless I am sick enough to be hospitalized" because this practice was "told" not to by someone.  Told not to by whom?  The Department of Public Health?  The CDC?  The higher-ups at the practice?  Meanwhile, I'm 11 weeks pregnant (so, if anyone does read this, congratulations, you know the pregnancy status of a stranger or perhaps not if you're super-smart and figured out, hey, I know this person).  And have had extreme pressure to get an H1N1 shot from a group of formerly-crunchy midwives (and OBs).  One midwife, in response to my query about my symptoms, told me: (1) yes, there are many versions of the flu out there right now, some milder than others, (2) H1N1 seems to have different strains, (3) I should get the H1N1 vaccine ANYWAY because of the changes in the virus.

Wait a second.  The virus is mutating and I need a vaccine that was built on the flu as it was in spring 2009?  How on earth will that possibly help me?  Yes, I realize my chances for getting GBS are low.  And, yes, I realize that pregnant women have been hit hard by this flu due to its getting into the lower lobes of the lungs, etc.  And, yes, finally, I can get the almost-free-of-mercury shot.  My question is: WHY?  Why have a very-likely unnecessary medical intervention?  Half of my older child's class was out with presumed swine flu.  My kids have been coughing for WEEKS (with no fevers).  Are they likely to bring this flu home to me in March?  Seriously?  After we've probably already had it, and, if not had it, been exposed to it?

Is it at all possible that the Vitamin D we've all been taking has caused us to fight off the worst effects of this strain of flu?  That's what the Vitamin D research out there indicates.  (Here is a great article on the benefits of Vitamin D during pregnancy, noting the 25% reduction of viral illnesses:

If we're not testing anyone, except for those who are deathly ill or dying, it is very easy to say that everyone must be vaccinated.  Here is what is happening:  (1) We hear only about the tragic deaths from this illness and not about any milder form; (2) Thus, we all feel vulnerable and scared, because how do we know the same won't happen to us?  (3) We have no proof of any immunity since we have no confirmation that we've already had the flu (and those of us with milder illnesses are not even tested); and (4) Finally, even those of us who were told we probably had the flu are told to get vaccinated anyway because, really, who knows.

I don't believe that the vaccine is a means for population control or is going to be widely dangerous.  (See for a reasoned discussion on H1N1 and the vaccine.  My understanding is that he posits, in part, that we should aim for natural immunity as much as possible, even pregnant women, but understands why some feel more comfortable being vaccinated (particularly those with asthma, etc.).)

I do believe that the vaccine has been strategically withheld to increase demand.  And the way to increase demand is through fear.  That is good business.  And vaccine manufacturing is a business.  As much as I believe, inherently, that people in government and the medical professions want to save as many lives as possible, if there was truly the horrific risk we are presented with each day, that vaccine would have been made available much, much earlier than this.

No comments: