On of the reasons we are hearing about 'flu' vaccines is the debate over the swine 'flu' vaccination program in the nineteen seventies, and President Ford's role in promoting an over-optimistic reading of the situation. I recommend chapter five, "The Swine 'Flu' Immunization Program" in Diana B. Dutton, "Worse Than The Disease; Pitfalls of Medical Progress (Cambridge U.P., 1988) The conclusion runs, "In short, the swine flu story was *not* inevitable. There were alternative actions and decisions that might have produced a happier ending. Many were the steps that critics tried in vain to bring about. Their failure highlights the dangers of relying too heavily on the views of technical experts, whose unswerving confidence in the safety and efficacy of meidcal intervention (even in the name of prevention) seemed to bling them to impending problems, and of insulating national health policy from public scrutiny. The lessons seem clear in hindsight. Harder will be knowing how and when to apply them next time." To reinforce the point that 'flu' has long been deadly, here are the mortality figures from 'flu' for England and Wales from 1890-1907 (source: Britannica) 1890 4,523 1891 16,686 1892 15,737 1893 9,669 1894 6,625 1895 12,880 1896 3,753 1897 6,088 1898 10,405 1899 12,417 1900 16,245 1901 5,666 1902 7,366 1903 6,322 1904 5,694 1905 6,953 1906 6,310 1907 9,245 The death rates per million varied between 122 and 574. Early epidemics are hard to track but Brittanica suggests there were ones in 1403, 1427, 1510 1557, 1580, 1676, 1703, 1732, 1737, 1762, 1782, 1787, 1803, 1833, 1837, 1847. Britannica notes a falling away of incidence from then until 1889, when there were only 55 deaths from 'flu' in England and Wales. Then it came back. David Ritchie Portland, Oregon ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html