The Propaganda for Reform in Proprietary Medicines, Vol. 2 of 2

by Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry

INFLUENZA VACCINES

With the appearance of the epidemic of influenza, reports began to appear, chiefly in newspapers, as to new serums, vaccines, drugs and other methods for checking and even for curing the disease. A few samples of such as have come to The Journal appear in our Tonics and Sedatives Department this week. In Massachusetts, Commissioner E. R. Kelly appointed two committees to investigate the value of influenza vaccines as a preventive agent and as a treatment of the disease. The first committee, a special board for scientific investigation, consisting of Dr. M. J. Rosenau, chairman, and Frederick P. Gay and George W. McCoy, was appointed to consider the evidence available on the prophylactic and therapeutic use of vaccines against influenza. This committee presented the following conclusions:

1. The evidence at hand affords no trustworthy basis for regarding prophylactic vaccination against influenza as of value in preventing the spread of the disease, or of reducing its severity. The evidence from the present epidemic, though meager, suggests that the incidence of the disease among the vaccinated is smaller than among the nonvaccinated. The board, therefore, concludes that further experimental evidence should be collected.

2. The evidence at hand convinces the board that the vaccines we have considered have no specific value in the treatment of influenza.

3. There is evidence that no unfavorable results have followed the use of the vaccines.

The second committee, known as the Special Board of Statistical Investigation, consisted of Dr. George C. Whipple, chairman, William H. Davis and F. C. Crum. This committee reported:

1. The weight of such statistical evidence as we have been able to accumulate indicates that the use of the influenza vaccine which we have investigated is without therapeutic benefit. Exceptional cases where apparent benefit has resulted from the use of the vaccine can be matched by other cases where similar recoveries have been made without vaccination.

2. The statistical evidence, as far as it goes, indicates a probability that the use of this influenza vaccine has some prophylactic value.

3. There is also some evidence to the effect that other methods of protection, such as open-air treatment and the use of proper masks, are effective in protecting exposed attendants, and the use of vaccine should not be taken as an excuse for omitting such safeguards.

As a result, the following recommendations were made:

That the state encourage the distribution of influenza vaccine intended for prophylactic use, but in such manner as will secure scientific evidence of the possible value of the agent. The use of such vaccine is to be regarded as experimental.

That the state shall neither furnish nor endorse any vaccine at present in use for the treatment of influenza.

These reports are conservative, and offer to other health commissioners and their communities a reliable guide as to procedures that should be adopted before subjecting or trying out on the public any method of prevention or treatment that may be offered. These matters are the domain of medical science, and medical scientists of recognized ability should be called on to make the decision.—(Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 19, 1918.)

Serums and Vaccines

With respect to serums and vaccines in influenza, there are certain simple facts and considerations that physicians will do well to keep in mind at this times. The main point to keep always in sight is that unfortunately we as yet have no specific serum or other specific means for the cure of influenza, and no specific vaccine or vaccines for its prevention. Such is the fact, all claims and propagandist statements in the newspapers and elsewhere to the contrary notwithstanding. This being the case, efforts at treatment and prevention by serums and vaccines, now hurriedly undertaken, are simply experiments in a new field, and the true value of the results cannot be predicted by any one. Indeed, the exact results can be determined if at all only after a time, in most cases probably not until the epidemic is past and all the returns fully canvassed. Consequently, the physician must keep his head level and not allow himself to be led into making more promises than the facts warrant. This warning applies especially to health officers in their public relations.

As to serum treatment, the only noteworthy new method so far is the injection in severe cases of influenzal pneumonia of the serum of patients who have recovered from such pneumonia.[292] The principle of this method is rational; analogous procedures have given seemingly good results in scarlet fever and other diseases; and the results reported in influenzal pneumonia appear promising. Further trial of this treatment under proper conditions consequently seems to be warranted. It should be borne in mind, however, that McGuire and Redden[292] made their observations in the declining phase of the epidemic when the organism or organisms concerned appeared to be losing virulence. For this and other reasons, the expectations as to what may be accomplished by this method must be kept within reasonable bounds. Influenza is a self-limited disease with variable complications and of variable severity in different places, thus offering great difficulties in the way of evaluation of different methods of treatment.

At least two kinds of vaccine are in use in the hope that they may have preventive effects. One consists solely of killed influenza bacilli; it being extensively used in the East. We have as yet no decisive figures as to its effects, but there is an impression that it may have some value. The other vaccine is a mixed vaccine of the more important bacteria in the respiratory tract in influenza, principally pneumonococci, streptococci and influenza bacilli. It appears that vaccines of this nature are in extensive use, but we have no evidence that any benefit will be derived from them. To say that thousands have been vaccinated with apparently good results means nothing at all, simply because we are still in the midst of the outbreak, in many places even in the earlier stages. How slender the basis of this anti-influenzal vaccination when it is considered that the real nature of influenza is still unknown! In any event, it will require many carefully elaborated and controlled observations before anything definite may be learned in regard to the effect of these vaccines, and it is probably safe to say that nothing on which to rely in the future can be learned from the indiscriminate vaccination now going on. There is, therefore, no basis on which promise of protection from vaccines may be made. They may be harmless, and they may or may not be of preventive value.—(Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 26, 1918.)

---