Questions which nobody must ask on ‘politics and business’ of vaccines  

My uncle, also a doctor, hailed me as I was sneaking out. “Where are you off to? We have to get vaccinated for corona today”.

But why, I sniggered. ‘I am young and fit. I don’t need it’.

“You need the vaccine so that you don’t infect the elderly,” he replied tersely.

“But the latest paper from Imperial college, London says that chances of asymptomatic cases infecting others is very low,” I remind him.

“Younger people of your age also do get sick and die,” came his rejoinder.

“In India seven people in every one thousand have been infected and one per ten thousand have died. In Bihar, the fatality is even lower at one in forty thousand. It seems we have some innate immunity against this virus,” I bravely pointed out. He glared at me.

If people had not acquired immunity, how else was the disease contained in large parts of India? Despite large gatherings in election rallies of people without mask and social distancing, there has been no catastrophic explosion in number of cases in Bihar, I argued.

“Rubbish,” he exploded. “How did we control Small Pox and Polio? Only through vaccines”. I had begun to enjoy the conversation.

“But those were not RNA viruses. In the West, people do take Flu vaccines but still hundreds of thousands die every year due to flu.” “But this vaccine is said to be 95 percent effective,” he shot back.

“More than 99.9 percent of us did not get the infection even without a vaccine and now you are telling me that the vaccine will protect only 95 percent people and that too against serious disease, not infection?”

“We need seventy percent of the people to have antibodies to break the chain of transmission. Everyone therefore must get vaccinated,” he responded grimly.

“In that case, shouldn’t I first have my antibody status tested before vaccination? Why not do a fresh sero survey to ascertain how many actually need immunisation,” I bantered. “But look at the figures from America.”

I was getting exasperated. The American and the Indian situations are so different, whatever be the reason, I exclaimed.

This time he averted my eyes and mumbled, “We have to consider world opinion, our national standing and the huge economic opportunities. And I have shares of Serum institute, Astrazeneca and Pfizer in my portfolio.”

Ah, the penny dropped.

What scientists do not comprehend but political leaders and businessmen obviously do, is the dynamics of a national vaccination programme, its export potentials, the national image on the world stage and the interplay of multinational agencies in shaping the perception of national needs.

As a sceptical doctor says, he expects the COVID vaccines to be sold in the black market at a premium during the initial months. The imported vaccines would be offered at a premium to those who can pay first. The empty vials will then be again filled up with some liquid and sold at a lower price to the poor and the desperate. This may not be too far-fetched a scenario.

Amusingly, as many as 40 percent of the Americans remain violently opposed to vaccination. Even medical professionals there would prefer to wait and watch the side effects first. The opposition to the vaccine is on valid doubts. Not enough time has been given to develop the vaccine and not too many trials have taken place. We know so little about the virus and the vaccine that they are not sure if mass vaccination of hastily produced vaccines is safe.

It is worth recalling the experience of Dr Tom Jefferson who was appointed by the Governments of UK and Australia to review the prevention and treatment of Flu. He was also lead Cochrane investigator for the efficacy of flu vaccination. His suggestion for controlled trial was turned down and he concluded that there was only the flimsiest of scientific evidence to back the flu shots, which however continue to be administered annually to millions of people.

Another unanswered question is the duration of protection the vaccine offers before it has to be repeated. I can foresee that evidence will be produced to recommend a yearly dose of the vaccine so that vaccine producers go laughing to the bank.

The vaccines have been tried only for short periods; there are questions about transparent sharing of data and charges of suppression of truth. The industry however has convinced governments across the world of the efficacy of vaccines by citing expert opinion from experts with flagrant conflict of interest.

Undeniably the Pharma industry has done great service to mankind; but at the same time, it has a chequered history of wrongdoing, and being economical with the truth to put it mildly as a euphemism for blatant lies in order to maximise their sales and profit.

Pfizer first announced that its vaccine appeared to be 90 percent effective, only to be upstaged days later by Moderna’s vaccine of 94.5 percent. Pfizer then hurriedly revised its efficacy rate to 95 percent. But no eyebrows were raised and no question was asked.

The virus is going to stay.

Vaccines with all its uncertainties will undoubtedly help people to live with the virus. Huge windfalls of political and business capital will just be a collateral.