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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS