•Swine flu marketing

•Wind more efficient than solar

Swine flu marketing

On Sunday, The Garden Island ran a front page article called “Public urged to get flu shots.” From the title, its contents were predictable. I’m assuming that this was in response to the current surge in government recommendations for everyone to get vaccinated against the flu (influenza).

What I don’t understand is why we hear the same thing every year — creating fear about a seasonal disease which doesn’t impose much risk to healthy individuals.

In the article, we read that about 36,000 people die from flu-related complications. This most likely comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, let’s be clear about this statistic. These numbers include those who died from pneumonia and other upper respiratory ailments. The number of people who actually die from the flu is only about 1,000.

And now we are dealing with a new strain, and a new fear — the swine flu. What people should know is that the swine flu is no more dangerous than the ordinary flu we see every year. In fact, as of June 15, only 429 people have died from the swine flu worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. On its Web site, WHO admits that symptoms of the swine flu continue to be mild and most people don’t need hospitalization or medical care. They say the illness “appears similar to levels seen during local seasonal flu.”

This didn’t stop them from declaring a pandemic, however. And now that there is a pandemic, drug companies, fighting to come up with an antidote, can “fast track” their new vaccines. This means, in effect, that the usual FDA safety approval process is bypassed.

There is not enough time to properly test the product. Unfortunately, this could present a heath safety problem. We already know that many flu vaccines include thimerosal, a form of mercury. In addition, companies like Novartis, which has received $690 million from the government to develop a vaccine, admits to using squalene in their product. Squalene had been shown to cause paralysis in rats and immune system disorders in humans. The fact is that we will not know what problems may occur from the use of such vaccines until after their use.

To make matters worse, the Emergency Use Authorization law protects any company from liability that may arise from injury to the public during a public health emergency, such as a pandemic — which means that we are being asked to be guinea pigs for a new vaccine which hasn’t been sufficiently tested, and no one wants to take responsibility for any harm that may occur.

Let’s keep in mind that, in contrast to government statements, the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is still in question. In a recent study published in the Lancet, the use of flu vaccines were found to shave only about half a day on average off the time people were sick.

An article in Reuters on Aug. 22 stated that “the flu drug Tamiflu and Relenza may not be worthwhile to treat seasonal influenza in healthy adults.” A thorough report on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is way beyond this letter. But let me offer one other report which came out in the August edition of the British Medical Journal. It found that more than half of the doctors and health care workers surveyed would refuse to take the swine flu vaccine due to concerns about its “side effects” and its efficacy.

My confusion is that the fear and concern about this mild version of the flu seems out of sync with reality. Perhaps we can find clues in the big business of drug manufacturing.  The potential sales during a pandemic could be huge. At approximately 5 billion flu shots per year sold to government agencies at just under $10 each — well, you do the math. The bottom line is that, along with every health choice we make, we must weigh the risks against the benefits. Maybe the vaccine can be helpful to those who are already in poor health, to prevent further complications, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a risk for healthy individuals who get the flu. So why all the fuss?

Bob Swiryn, Kapa‘a

Wind more efficient than solar

In response to Kawika Moke’s Aug. 28 letter “Power from the sun” my comments follow.

I agree with Kawika , solar voltaic cell power is a good source of energy. Especially for those areas blessed with cloudless skies and long days. Kekaha certainly is one of those places.

Unfortunately, not all areas have these conditions. To say solar cell derived power is more “efficient” than wind power is an error of fact. As long as the earth rotates on its axis around the sun there will be on average only six hours of useable sunshine to generate power using solar cells every day.

Wind driven generators are capable of delivering power 24 hours a day, regardless of cloud conditions. Not all wind driven generators are noisy and unsightly. New helix systems are shaped liked the shell of a Nautilus, as an impeller, and can be mounted on the ground unimpeded by wind turbulence generated by land and man-made structures.

As these helix systems appear as a solid surface, as opposed to the in-vogue propeller blade systems, birds avoid flying into them as they avoid flying into upright buildings. The helix generators are quiet as well.

So Kawika, please stop spreading misinformation on technologies you have not thoroughly researched.

Dale Gearhart, Kalaheo