|
|
10-17-2013, 08:43 PM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
*deep sigh*
Once again, we have to go through this charade. My employer is once again demanding that all personnel either get an influenza vaccination or fill out paperwork to 'decline'. Those who decline will be required to utilize physical barrier methods in clinical settings; those who vaccinate will not be so required.
I urge everyone to familiarize yourself with the commentary of Dr. Tom Jefferson, the lead reviewer for Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group and Cochrane Vaccines Field with regards the ‘influenza vaccination’ programs. It is readily available online, but our leadership here at OHSU seems to have ignored it….
http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDoc..._statement.pdf
For a bit more ‘up-to-date’ information the Cochrane Collaboration has an online site for this information
http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/de...e-Reviews.html
I would note that in the section indicated as ‘Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults’, they state:
Quote:
Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season.
Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited..
|
Then, in the section on vaccinations for health care workers caring for elderly patients, they state:
Quote:
There is no evidence that only vaccinating healthcare workers prevents laboratory-proven influenza or its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract infection) in individuals aged 60 or over in LTCIs and thus no evidence to mandate compulsory vaccination of healthcare workers. Other interventions, such as hand-washing, masks, early detection of influenza with nasal swabs, antivirals, quarantine, restricting visitors and asking healthcare workers with an influenza-like illness not to attend work, might protect individuals over 60 in LTCIs. High-quality randomised controlled trials testing combinations of these interventions are needed.
|
Ironically, my employer, the primary health care research and education institution in the state, will allow those who have obtained a dubious vaccination to work without the other interventions, thereby increasing the likelihood that their care providers will infect their patients with any number of the other nearly 200 flu-like viruses, while those who have ‘declined’ will be more likely to NOT infect their patients.
I suspect that there must be some kind of kickback from the vaccine producers. Why else would those who have ready access to evidence-based medicine research ignore the evidence? Quackery lives on in medicine!
|
Thanks, from:
|
Ari (10-17-2013), ceptimus (10-18-2013), Crumb (10-17-2013), Dingfod (10-17-2013), Janet (10-18-2013), JoeP (10-17-2013), Leesifer (10-18-2013), lisarea (10-17-2013), Stormlight (10-21-2013), The Lone Ranger (10-17-2013), Watser? (10-18-2013)
|
10-17-2013, 11:37 PM
|
|
A fellow sophisticate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
I never got a flu vaccination before last year. My employer offers them for free, but we have to assert our wish to get one rather than decline. I got innoculated last year because my immune system sucked and the scary-ass swine flu was all over the news. I will probably decline it this year. Oh, and I didn't get the flu after being vaccinated. I didn't get the flu after not being vaccinated the previous seven or eight years either.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
|
10-17-2013, 11:41 PM
|
|
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Ugh, Flu vaccines don't prevent the scary and more deadly MRSA.
Masks and barriers and whatnot should be used as standard practice.
|
10-18-2013, 02:54 AM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
I got my first ever flu shot today, at the request of an imunocompromised coworker.
|
10-18-2013, 05:02 AM
|
|
Bizarre unknowable space alien
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flint, MI
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
I get them when my mom gets freaked out enough by the scaremongering to insist.
__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
|
10-18-2013, 10:19 AM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Have to call bullshit
Quote:
Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis)
|
Guillian-Barre is an autoimmune disease, and just as likely to be triggered by a bout of influenza as by the vaccine that is supposed to protect against it. Similar research was done intot he use of adjuvants and and increase in narcolepsy, which is also caused by an auto-immune reaction.
Sounds like vaccine scaremongering to me.
|
10-18-2013, 10:54 AM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
also
Quote:
There is no evidence that only vaccinating healthcare workers prevents laboratory-proven influenza
|
is a strawman. No-one is claiming that only it helps. Just that it helps some. I do agree that everyone should be more careful about spreading respiratory infections, though, vaccinated or not. That is just plain common sense.
Also, evidence of influenza vaccination reducing the amount of deaths among the elderly and other high-risk groups in Japan - albeit after vaccination programs that simply vaccinated all schoolchildren, not specifically for health-care workers below:
http://origem.info/FIC/pdf/Reichert_...Exp_NEJM01.pdf
|
Thanks, from:
|
Adam (10-18-2013), beyelzu (10-18-2013), Clutch Munny (10-19-2013), Corona688 (10-19-2013), Crumb (10-19-2013), Janet (10-18-2013), JoeP (10-18-2013), Kael (10-19-2013), LadyShea (10-18-2013), lisarea (10-18-2013), The Lone Ranger (10-18-2013)
|
10-18-2013, 03:58 PM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
While I do not study viruses, I am a microbiologist and I am taking a virology class currently.
I don't think I trust Dr. Tom Jefferson
Quote:
First, every year they have to make an educated guess which influenza strains will be circulating 9 months in the future.* The better the guess, the better the protection the vaccine should provide.* Some years they choose better than others. But often the match between the vaccine and the disease is not optimal, so vaccine efficacy can be decreased.* The vaccine works best when there is a good antigentic match between the vaccine and circulating strain of influenza.
Second, response to the vaccine is not 100%.* The older and more immunoincompetent are the least likely to develop a good antibody response to the vaccine. In a bit of medical irony,* the more likely a patient is to need protection from the vaccine, the less likely they are to get a protective antibody response from the vaccine.
Third, vaccination rates are often suboptimal to get benefit in populations, i.e. herd immunity.* The elderly will more likely benefit if they are not exposed to influenza at all rather than relying of vaccine mediated protection. It may be more important if those around them, say their health care provider or family, receives the vaccine and as a result does not pass flu on to more vulnerable people. But we rarely (never, ever, never) get vaccination rates at levels for herd immunity to kick in.
So it’s a suboptimal vaccine.* And that’s a problem. One, because it will make it more difficult to prove efficacy in clinical studies and two, there is a sub group of anti vaccine goofs who seem to require that vaccines either be perfect, with 100% efficacy and 100% safe, or they are not worth taking.
The influenza vaccine is not 100% efficacious in preventing disease, but it is as close to 100% safe, and much safer than the disease.
There are multiple kinds of studies one could do to prove efficacy, each with their own problems.
|
Flu Vaccine Efficacy « Science-Based Medicine
|
10-18-2013, 04:02 PM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Does everyone understand why the flu virus is a particular tough beasty to protect against? I could run through it if anyone wants.
|
10-18-2013, 04:17 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
yes please
|
10-19-2013, 12:22 AM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
also
Quote:
There is no evidence that only vaccinating healthcare workers prevents laboratory-proven influenza
|
is a strawman. No-one is claiming that only it helps.
|
I disagree. The way it is being presented on campus is a a quasi-scare tactic with influenza vaccine being panacea. "Get a flu shot and you won't get the flu, or infect your patients."
|
10-19-2013, 12:29 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
"Get a flu shot and you won't get the flu, or infect your patients."
|
I have to agree with this, whether I get a flu shot or not, there is very little chance that I will infect my parents.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
10-19-2013, 12:34 AM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu
While I do not study viruses, I am a microbiologist and I am taking a virology class currently.
I don't think I trust Dr. Tom Jefferson.
|
That's fine. Don't.
I don't trust Ab Osterhaus.
|
10-19-2013, 02:24 PM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
The Der Speigel interview with Dr. Tom Jefferson about influenza vaccinations.
I'm amused that so many secularists natter on about the need to commit to 'Evidence-Based Medicine', but when an organization like Cochrane Collaboration actually DOES produce 'evidences' they are ignored and denigrated if the evidences don't conform to what the whiners want. I'm curious as to what these people think Dr. Jefferson's motives are for doing what he is doing. I can clearly see what the motivation is for those he criticizes.
Can you tell me that, bey?
|
10-19-2013, 02:37 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
also
Quote:
There is no evidence that only vaccinating healthcare workers prevents laboratory-proven influenza
|
is a strawman. No-one is claiming that only it helps.
|
I disagree. The way it is being presented on campus is a a quasi-scare tactic with influenza vaccine being panacea. "Get a flu shot and you won't get the flu, or infect your patients."
|
I am not talking about your campus. I am talking about your post and the article you referenced in it. And the only scare-tactic I have seen so far is you referencing an article that claims that vaccines cause Gillain-Barre, that they are not significantly effective, and insinuate they are only pushing them because of Big Pharma.
That is 1 case of demonstrable BS from a doctor who should know better, 1 very doubtful claim, and one conspiracy theory.
I mean I am sure there are some serious crooks in the pharmaceutical industry, but with every single person with a bee up his or her bonnet starting to froth at the mouth whenever corruption by Big Pharma is even imaginable the actual crooked ones must have an easy time of it. It is like being the one real wolf in a country where all the boys cry wolf all the time.
|
10-19-2013, 05:15 PM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
also
Quote:
There is no evidence that only vaccinating healthcare workers prevents laboratory-proven influenza
|
is a strawman. No-one is claiming that only it helps.
|
I disagree. The way it is being presented on campus is a a quasi-scare tactic with influenza vaccine being panacea. "Get a flu shot and you won't get the flu, or infect your patients."
|
I am not talking about your campus. I am talking about your post and the article you referenced in it. And the only scare-tactic I have seen so far is you referencing an article that claims that vaccines cause Gillain-Barre, that they are not significantly effective, and insinuate they are only pushing them because of Big Pharma.
That is 1 case of demonstrable BS from a doctor who should know better, 1 very doubtful claim, and one conspiracy theory.
I mean I am sure there are some serious crooks in the pharmaceutical industry, but with every single person with a bee up his or her bonnet starting to froth at the mouth whenever corruption by Big Pharma is even imaginable the actual crooked ones must have an easy time of it. It is like being the one real wolf in a country where all the boys cry wolf all the time.
|
Nope...I'd say the one crying wolf all the time is Ab Osterhaus and his cohorts. That's what Jefferson is alluding to...the tools of the pharmaceutical industry which are gaming the system to line their own pockets. Just follow the money. Ask who is paying for all this and question whether the commitment to mass vaccination might actually be a misdirected policy to begin with. The whole debacle with the changing the goalposts at WHO and the "pandemic" and all the scare-mongering which followed seems to be more indicative of the real state of a lot of 'science': bought and paid for.
|
10-19-2013, 05:47 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
...and you know this is going on because...
|
10-19-2013, 06:03 PM
|
|
puzzler
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Because there are scare-stories every year about the new 'killer strains' of 'flu and lots of urging everyone to be vaccinated. But, up until now, it's turned out that the people pushing the 'flu vaccines were just shouting 'Wolf' as loudly as possible while raking in the money.
__________________
|
10-19-2013, 06:33 PM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Viv....Are you clear on what the Cochrane Collaboration is? Are you familiar with their purpose? Have you even read any of the links I've posted?
I mean...I'm still trying to discern what it is you think that Dr. Jefferson is getting out of this. He is hardly a 'woo warrior' - quite the opposite. The organization with which he is associated is the 'gold standard', the shining exemplar of Evidence-Based Medicine. Dr. Jefferson is doing the job he was meant to do, verify that the 'evidence' has veracity. In the case of influenza vaccines, they don't, or it is very weak; it certainly doesn't meet the claims made on its behalf. As versus being the 'boy crying wolf' (which quite accurately typifies Osterhaus and his string of failed prognostications of doom), I see Dr. Jefferson as the child who points out that the 'Emperor has no clothes'. As a result of the commitment to influenza vaccination whole shiploads of healthcare resources have been shifted to a dubious campaign of questionable efficacy...largely because the big western players, the pharmaceutical companies that stand to gain huge amounts of money on inadequately tested vaccines....with no fucking liability at all....at public expense, they're calling the tune.
|
10-19-2013, 10:38 PM
|
|
mesospheric bore
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
The Cochrane Collaboration is a pretty respectable evidence-based medicine group. When they put out a meta-analysis that includes "Forty... clinical trials of over 70,000 people" and finds that "Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations" there's probably something in it.
Quotes from here.
On the other hand, in my quick googling I've seen criticism of Tom Jefferson that his public statements go beyond the more measured conclusions in the Cochrane reports. Can't say I'm inclined to delve deeply enough to form my own judgement on that.
|
10-21-2013, 09:44 AM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
I still think the GBS discussion is strange, as similar studies have shown that it can be misleading to look at them in the way they are being looked at. Take a million people who have had h1n1 and compare them a million who have not, and you will find 4 more of the first group develop similar anti-immune diseases, for instance.
That quibble aside, I do find it very interesting that the majority of the tests that claim vaccines work well tend to consistently score a lot lower on CI's own quality standard. I am not competent to judge the quality of their standard, but it is very interesting that the studies funded by the people who produce the vaccines tend to consistently score differently, and differently in similar ways, and overwhelmingly report positive results. That is a fairly tangible piece of data right there, and not vague conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
|
10-21-2013, 09:21 PM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
So influenza is a segmented RNA virus. This leads to different forms of evolution of the virus: antigenic shift and antigenic drift. The viral genome is copied by RNA dependent rna polymerase. DNA polymerase generally has a proofreading function so it has very low error rate. RNA polymerase does not. I think typical error rate is about 1 in 10,000 or so. The genome of influenza is about 14000 basepairs long, so basically every single copy will be a mutant on average. This type of mutation is drift. The other form of mutation, the super ultra scary kind is antigenic shift. When I said that the RNA is segmented, that means that it has 8 different strands of RNA. If an organism gets infected by two different strains, the segments can be mixed and matched. This allows to very rapid changes in the virus and can lead to pandemic.
One way to think about this is, the part of the virus that the immune system targets changes relatively slowly in the case of drift. The anitbodies may still recognize it even if it is not as effective. Shift though can be a radical change and the antibodies won't recognize it all.
|
10-21-2013, 09:35 PM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Viv....Are you clear on what the Cochrane Collaboration is? Are you familiar with their purpose? Have you even read any of the links I've posted?
I mean...I'm still trying to discern what it is you think that Dr. Jefferson is getting out of this. He is hardly a 'woo warrior' - quite the opposite. The organization with which he is associated is the 'gold standard', the shining exemplar of Evidence-Based Medicine. Dr. Jefferson is doing the job he was meant to do, verify that the 'evidence' has veracity. In the case of influenza vaccines, they don't, or it is very weak; it certainly doesn't meet the claims made on its behalf. As versus being the 'boy crying wolf' (which quite accurately typifies Osterhaus and his string of failed prognostications of doom), I see Dr. Jefferson as the child who points out that the 'Emperor has no clothes'. As a result of the commitment to influenza vaccination whole shiploads of healthcare resources have been shifted to a dubious campaign of questionable efficacy...largely because the big western players, the pharmaceutical companies that stand to gain huge amounts of money on inadequately tested vaccines....with no fucking liability at all....at public expense, they're calling the tune.
|
I'm not Viv, but I would like to the address, he has no reason to lie argument. I just think his argument is stupid in part because it ignores things like pandemics which have occurred. Having a system in place which is relatively harmless and offers some protection from flu is a good idea becuase of potential for pandemic. Also, I think its a pretty good idea to get as many antibodies against flu as possible. This is not the case in things like dengue where the immune response can fuck you up.
Note, I find the link to an autoimmune disorder weak.
|
10-22-2013, 03:13 AM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
I don't think it ignores pandemics at all. Indeed, Jefferson was incensed over the buggering of the WHO monitoring alarm system which, in 2009, at the newly reset 'lower bar' for what qualified as a 'pandemic', the vaccine producers raked in a shipload on a non-event that was whipped up with false panic. The point for me is that considerable public resources are being expended to do mass vaccinations that are dubious in efficacy. Those resources could be redirected to other, more pressing issues, even within the field of monitoring and preparing for some real outbreak, rather than just another wave of snotty noses and a couple days of feeling lousy.
I note that in 2011, Cochrane became an advisory group to the WHO cadre that advises on the annual influenza recommendations. Perhaps it will result in a more discerning approach.
Still, the other question I'm hearing is whether the whole vaccination against influenza is even an appropriate course. Jefferson seems to keep suggesting that physical barriers, like hand-washing, self-isolation, masks, and ongoing public hygiene retraining would be a better emphasis in dealing with a broader spectrum of infectious viral diseases. But, as I understand it, there's inadequate evidence.
Why is it we are so set on vaccines for influenza?
Last edited by godfry n. glad; 10-22-2013 at 02:24 PM.
|
10-22-2013, 02:41 PM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Bad science perpetuated - influenza vaccine revisited
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I still think the GBS discussion is strange, as similar studies have shown that it can be misleading to look at them in the way they are being looked at. Take a million people who have had h1n1 and compare them a million who have not, and you will find 4 more of the first group develop similar anti-immune diseases, for instance.
That quibble aside, I do find it very interesting that the majority of the tests that claim vaccines work well tend to consistently score a lot lower on CI's own quality standard. I am not competent to judge the quality of their standard, but it is very interesting that the studies funded by the people who produce the vaccines tend to consistently score differently, and differently in similar ways, and overwhelmingly report positive results. That is a fairly tangible piece of data right there, and not vague conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
|
Um...how about specious claims on the part of vaccine producers?
From Shannon Brownlee's Atlantic piece:
Quote:
Such comparisons have shown a dramatic difference in mortality between these two groups: study after study has found that people who get a flu shot in the fall are about half as likely to die that winter—from any cause—as people who do not. Get your flu shot each year, the literature suggests, and you will dramatically reduce your chance of dying during flu season.
Yet in the view of several vaccine skeptics, this claim is suspicious on its face. Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens, and even after adding in the deaths to which flu might have contributed indirectly. When researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases included all deaths from illnesses that flu aggravates, like lung disease or chronic heart failure, they found that flu accounts for, at most, 10 percent of winter deaths among the elderly. So how could flu vaccine possibly reduce total deaths by half? Tom Jefferson, a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, says: “For a vaccine to reduce mortality by 50 percent and up to 90 percent in some studies means it has to prevent deaths not just from influenza, but also from falls, fires, heart disease, strokes, and car accidents. That’s not a vaccine, that’s a miracle.”
The estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction is based on “cohort studies,” which compare death rates in large groups, or cohorts, of people who choose to be vaccinated, against death rates in groups who don’t. But people who choose to be vaccinated may differ in many important respects from people who go unvaccinated—and those differences can influence the chance of death during flu season. Education, lifestyle, income, and many other “confounding” factors can come into play, and as a result, cohort studies are notoriously prone to bias. When researchers crunch the numbers, they typically try to factor out variables that could bias the results, but, as Jefferson remarks, “you can adjust for the confounders you know about, not for the ones you don’t,” and researchers can’t always anticipate what factors are likely to be important to whether a patient dies from flu. There is always the chance that they might miss some critical confounder that renders their results entirely wrong.
When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. “People told me, ‘No good can come of [asking] this,’” she says. “‘Potentially a lot of bad could happen’ for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, ‘We know that vaccine works.’ This was the prevailing wisdom.”
Nonetheless, in 2004, Jackson and three colleagues set out to determine whether the mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated might be caused by a phenomenon known as the “healthy user effect.” They hypothesized that on average, people who get vaccinated are simply healthier than those who don’t, and thus less liable to die over the short term. People who don’t get vaccinated may be bedridden or otherwise too sick to go get a shot. They may also be more likely to succumb to flu or any other illness, because they are generally older and sicker. To test their thesis, Jackson and her colleagues combed through eight years of medical data on more than 72,000 people 65 and older. They looked at who got flu shots and who didn’t. Then they examined which group’s members were more likely to die of any cause when it was not flu season.
Jackson’s findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly” didn’t or couldn’t. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all. Jackson’s papers “are beautiful,” says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. “They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done.”
|
My bold. So...It sounds to me like vaccine producers and their in-house researchers are selling miracles, not medicine...snake oil, basically.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 PM.
|
|
|
|