On October 27, AoA posted an article titled “Without Vaccine, Australia Shrugs Off Swine Flu”, By David Burd. This article consists of a string of claims clearly at odds with reality:
“(Australia has) no vaccine available for H1N1 flu…”
The University of Queensland claimed to have manufactured the first litre of an H1N1 vaccine made in Australia on June 29, 2009. Large-scale immunization began on September 28.
“Australia recently ended its 2009 `Flu Season’ (their Winter in our Summer), with 186 flu-associated fatalities of 36,991 Aussies confirmed having H1N1.”
Australian authorities openly acknowledge that their “official” numbers are very incomplete. Many possible cases have gone unconfirmed, due to limited resources and the rapid accumulation of reports. It is possible that a significant number of deaths went intentionally unreported, to circumvent government rationing of antiviral drugs. In any event, H1N1 is presumably still spreading, as the number of officially acknowledged cases has continued to grow. On October 26, the day before Burd’s article was posted, a new report acknowledged 37,039 cases, 48 more than the Oct. 21 report which provided Burd’s figure.
“Canadian front page news on flu vaccinations has transfixed Canada health authorities, prompting official suspension of regular flu vaccination programs until further notice.”
What actually happened is that authorities in one province of Canada decided not to give the H1N1 vaccine to those over 65 H1N1 vaccine production and distribution has not stopped and may accelerate. A Canadian commenting on an earlier essay of mine has said, “The only temporary suspension that occurs is when we run out of vaccines…”
“This comes from a sweeping study of Canada by research Doctors Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre of Disease Control and Gaston De Serres of Laval University in Quebec concluding Canadians receiving flu vaccinations have twice the risk of coming down with the flu, compared to those who do not take the shot.”
The study in question did not claim that receiving an H1N1 vaccine increased the risk of H1N1 infection, which is almost certainly what Burd wishes to imply. Rather, it claimed that those who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 were at higher risk of catching H1N1 during the following year. Skowronski openly admitted that an actual causal relationship is open to debate.
“(On Oct. 4) U.S. doctors offered the opinion that the Canadian doctors’ flu vaccination study was certainly wrong and must have used flawed study parameters, though (they) admittedly could not identify anything specific.”
No later than September 26, CDC spokesman Joe Quimby stated, “(S)cientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have not seen this effect in systems we have reviewed in the U.S.”
The most benign interpretation of this article is that Burd has credulously accepted a number of possible “urban legends”. I think there can be little doubt that modern “legends” are involved. I find the claim that H1N1 vaccination has been suspended in Canada, in particular, plausible as a “real” Canadian rumor. Bogus reports of current or impending changes in US government policies are a common type of “urban legend” in the US itself, and it is only to be expected that other nations would be subject to similar lore. But, such bogus reports often merge into hoaxes and scams. (A commonly aired suspicion is that individuals or groups create or promote legends about their enemies.) I am inclined to interpret Burd’s article (and AoA’s publication of it) as more in the vein of a hoax. Even if they more or less believe the story, it is hard to regard its posting as anything but cynical posturing.
Urban legends about H1N1 and its vaccines are already being noted, as in a chain email about a hospital supposedly warning staff not to be vaccinated. Such rumors can be recognized questioned promptly by looking for the following “clues”:
1. The report is more like a personal narrative than “news”, particularly in giving very specific details about people and events without specific dates, locations, etc.
2. The narrative, or a part thereof, is attributed to someone other than the immediate source or an acquaintance thereof (the infamous “friend of a friend” tale!)
3. The narrative features what I call a “phantom quote”: a sensational statement by a supposedly authoritative but unnamed or unfamiliar source.
4. Statements by named and familiar sources are not easily found or verified, for example being without a given broadcast or publication date, or especially being allegedly censored before wide distribution.
5. You have already heard a similar story with differences in key details.
By recognizing such clues, one can recognize a fundamentally suspicious story even before trying to verify it independently. Being on guard at first hearing may well be a better defense against the spread of disinformation than any amount of subsequent investigation.
David N. Brown is an AS adult living in Mesa, Arizona. He is author of the ebook The Urban legend of Vaccine-Caused Autism and several works of fiction, and creator of the autism website evilpossum.weebly.com.
