Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 1, 2026

Development of Multiplex Real-Time RT-qPCR Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B, and MERS-CoV
Published on: November 10, 2023
The sponsored pandemic of the Mexican flu?
1Domus Medica, Utrecht, The Netherlands. dick.bijl@hetnet.nl
Abstract:
The first reports of the New Influenza A (H1N1) spoke of a markedly increased morbidity and mortality. Later it turned out that this flu was a very mild flu. Gradually the role of the WHO was questioned. The definition of a pandemic flu had been changed and there rose doubts about the independency of the experts advising the WHO. It showed that some of these experts had a conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, especially with those producing vaccines and neuraminidase inhibitors. As of june 2010 the WHO declared the outbreak to be a pandemic. This provided the momentum to produce vaccines. At the outbreak of the pandemic in the northern hemisphere, there was sufficient evidence that the pandemic would not be so serious, that a single vaccination was sufficient, that there were strong doubts about the efficacy of oseltamivir and that the drug, although rarely, could have serious side effects. With the stockpiling of neuraminidase inhibitors and with the recommendation of the vaccination political decisions were involved. These decisions should be driven and supported by independent scientific advisory bodies with no room for even the semblance of conflicts of interest. Stronger measures to limit the impact of experts with conflicts of interest on the development of, among others, guidelines are necessary.
Insights
The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic was initially feared severe but proved mild. Concerns arose regarding the World Health Organization
Area of Science:
- Public Health
- Epidemiology
- Medical Ethics
Background:
- Initial reports of the 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) suggested high morbidity and mortality.
- Subsequent observations indicated a milder clinical course than initially anticipated.
- This discrepancy led to scrutiny of the World Health Organization's (WHO) pandemic declaration and expert advisory roles.
Purpose of the Study:
- To examine the influence of potential conflicts of interest among experts advising the WHO.
- To evaluate the decision-making processes regarding pandemic H1N1 vaccines and treatments.
- To assess the impact of pharmaceutical industry ties on public health recommendations.
Main Methods:
- Review of WHO pandemic declarations and expert panel compositions.
- Analysis of scientific literature and public health guidelines concerning H1N1.
- Investigation of financial disclosures and industry relationships of key advisors.
Main Results:
- Evidence suggested a change in the definition of pandemic flu.
- Conflicts of interest were identified among experts advising the WHO, particularly those with ties to vaccine and neuraminidase inhibitor manufacturers.
- Doubts were raised about the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir, alongside evidence supporting single-dose vaccination.
Conclusions:
- Political and economic factors, including pharmaceutical industry influence, may have impacted pandemic H1N1 response decisions.
- The need for independent scientific advisory bodies free from conflicts of interest is highlighted.
- Stricter measures are required to mitigate the influence of conflicted experts on public health guidelines and recommendations.
Related Concept Videos
Influenza
Vaccinations
Infectious Diseases and Their Occurrence
Plague
Yellow Fever
Viral Recombination

