Swine flu is still in the news, although not with the level of panic we experienced two weeks ago. Last Friday the head of the World Health Organization’s Global Influenza Programme held a news conference in which she discussed, among other things, two groups who seem to be particularly susceptible. While this is valuable information, it shows how health institutions fail us.
The first group of people who have died from swine flu consisted of apparently otherwise healthy young adults. Ordinarily, young adults are not at all susceptible to flu. When pressed by reporters as to why this would be so, the programme’s director said she had no idea—although in a long response laced with seemingly relevant scientific facts in which she never actually said, “I have no idea.”
The second group, to no one’s surprise, consisted of people with underlying chronic conditions such as asthma, tuberculosis, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. In other words, people whose immune systems were under attack and so were preoccupied with other matters, making them vulnerable to an opportunistic flu virus.
It seems to me that an obvious question to ask is this: what exposure rendered the immune systems of apparently healthy young people incapable of fighting a virus that in more mature adults caused only mild flu symptoms? That these young people were affected might just be a statistical oddity—so few people have actually died that all sorts of odd statistics could pop up. Still, it points to questions that aren’t being asked and protections that aren’t being pursued.
For example, instead of a strategy that calls for stockpiling anti-viral pharmaceuticals, why is there no program to support immunity with nutrient-dense food and mandatory, no-fault time off work to rest—which is one of the best things you can do for a flu and at the same time reduce exposing other people?
The answer’s pretty clear—that’s quite literally not how we do the business of health care.
Last week a study reported that losing your job puts you at greater risk of getting stress-related illnesses such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Remember the pre-existing conditions that put people at higher risk for getting swine flu? This study joins a large body of research on how bad economic times affect health.
So deteriorating social conditions attack the immune system. Environmental exposures also attack the immune system. Just yesterday I received an advance copy of an article to be published in the journal Pathophysiology regarding the growing body of evidence on the effect of electromagnetic radiation from wireless technologies on the immune system. Essentially, the immune system responds as it would to any other attack. I draw two implications from this. First, while the body is fending off the assault, it’s vulnerable to other attacks. Second, the attack creates stress that in turn triggers chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes, and the rest.
Social stressors and environmental stressors attack the immune system making it vulnerable.
The horror story told by public health institutions worldwide about swine flu is that it could explode into a pandemic because people’s immune systems haven’t developed the antibodies to combat it. This approach ignores the latest research in immunology that suggests that the problem is not lack of antibodies. The immune system actually holds back from producing antibodies and other biochemicals that defend the body. So what the body needs is support in doing what it’s already equipped to do quite well.
To put things in perspective, of the 10 major things that kill people, the flu is way down at the bottom of the list—which is not a reason to ignore it. But the risk isn’t from the virus. The risk is from exposures that compromise your immune system. The health response shouldn’t be about anti-viral drugs and vaccinations. It should be about stopping the attacks on our immune systems and supporting our capacity for a robust response. But, of course, that’s not how we do the business of health care.
