It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Indian H1N1 outcome worse than anecdotal data let on

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:46 PM

WASHINGTON – In September, the top health official in the nation told tribal health professionals that it appeared Native Americans were not suffering from the effects of H1N1 flu at as high a rate as had been previously feared. Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report indicating that American Indians and Alaska Natives have made up a disproportionate number of deaths from the virus.

The report noted that the deaths made up 9.9 percent of all cases, although AI/AN represented only about 3 percent of the general population in the states studied. The states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

One need not look that far back in history to remember a mistake Canadian government officials made involving Indians and H1N1 over the summer.

It was widely reported that Canadian health officials included dozens of body bags in shipments of medical supplies they sent to First Nations communities hit hard by the virus. The incident spawned nationwide outrage and a government investigation.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:19 PM
I didn't notice in the story anyone saying the vaccine given to the NA were going to be tested, will that be done? I also don't see whether the vaccine had any effect in stopping the virus, by this article. If the vaccine was given, those who come into contact would get the flu, right? Wouldn't that just spread the flu if the NA population was supposed to be more "at risk"?
Also, any idea why Native Americans would be more "at risk" to the virus?

From the link: "He also said that in September President Barack Obama’s science advisory council released a report saying Native American populations were considered at elevated risk of severe outcomes from H1N1 infection due to their populations being “historically at high risk for severe respiratory infections,” and based on data from other indigenous populations."
Do you know what data they're talking about? Or, is this just hyperbole to get the NA population running to the vaccine?

The commercials for the virus are back on, saw one on A&E this morning.
And from the link: “There’s still plenty of time to get the H1N1 vaccine – get your vaccination if you have the opportunity, that’s the message."

It seems the message was the body bags. Almost a warning from someone.

Obviously, I'm of the opinion that the vaccine is worse than the virus. I don't understand though, why they seem to be targeting NA. It seems that one "paranoid theory" piled on to another and another, a pattern has developed.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:21 PM

Also, any idea why Native Americans would be more "at risk" to the virus?

Minorities typically don't trust the govt as much as others do. Go figure.

They need extra prodding to get them to take the vaccine.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:32 PM
This is simply genetic.

Native members of many parts of the world have a lower immunity to diseases that are common to the mainstream populations.

This is easy to see in the recent six hundred years of conquest by European nations.

The diseases that the Europeans brought to North and South America, Africa, Asia as well as Australasia decimated entire cultures and civilizations even more so than modern weapons.

Native populations simply don't have as much genetic resistance to some diseases.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by badgerprints

Of course you are right about us having a lower immunity however in many cases the tribes were put on the bottom of the list when it came to receiving their share of the vaccine

top topics

log in