Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Do flu shots work?
Do flu shots work?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
fresh support in recent weeks.
One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
than on the basis of flu surveillance.
COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
this in detail in my book, FOWL!
How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
Thanks Vince
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
fresh support in recent weeks.
One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
than on the basis of flu surveillance.
COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
this in detail in my book, FOWL!
How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
Thanks Vince
Re: Do flu shots work?
"bigvince" <Vince.Miraglia@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
> Thursday, October 11, 2007
> Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
> In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
> benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
> fresh support in recent weeks.
>
> One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
> Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
> for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
> and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
> remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
> magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
> from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
> PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>
> Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
> offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
> immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>
> 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
> from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
> influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>
> 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
> effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
> the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
> all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
> 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>
> 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
> vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
> healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
> that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
> nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>
> 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
> bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
> vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
> really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
> defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
> than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>
> COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
> involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
> better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
> advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
> this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>
> How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
> and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>
> Thanks Vince
>
What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?
It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .
It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."
So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.
I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.
PM
"bigvince" <Vince.Miraglia@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
> Thursday, October 11, 2007
> Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
> In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
> benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
> fresh support in recent weeks.
>
> One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
> Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
> for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
> and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
> remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
> magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
> from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
> PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>
> Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
> offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
> immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>
> 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
> from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
> influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>
> 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
> effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
> the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
> all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
> 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>
> 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
> vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
> healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
> that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
> nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>
> 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
> bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
> vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
> really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
> defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
> than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>
> COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
> involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
> better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
> advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
> this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>
> How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
> and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>
> Thanks Vince
>
What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?
It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .
It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."
So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.
I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.
PM
Re: Do flu shots work?
On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on . net > wrote:
> "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
> > Thursday, October 11, 2007
> > Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
> > In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
> > benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
> > fresh support in recent weeks.
>
> > One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
> > Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
> > for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
> > and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
> > remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
> > magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
> > from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
> > PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>
> > Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
> > offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
> > immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>
> > 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
> > from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
> > influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>
> > 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
> > effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
> > the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
> > all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
> > 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>
> > 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
> > vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
> > healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
> > that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
> > nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>
> > 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
> > bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
> > vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
> > really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
> > defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
> > than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>
> > COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
> > involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
> > better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
> > advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
> > this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>
> > How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
> > and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>
> > Thanks Vince
Peter the Moron wrote:
> What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
> effectiveness?
How about eating and living a health promoting lifestyle?
How about getting some vitamin C from some citrus fruit?
How about getting some vitamin D?
Their effectiveness is shown by the success and not getting the flu.
We are not testing drug A vursus drug B here, ya know? Real world
results only are adequate.
>
> It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
> effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
> into many different forms.
Define "quickly" for us. 24 hrs, 24 days, 24 wks, 24 months, or 24
yrs for example?
Where is your peer reviewed and published da
A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
> The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
> just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
> effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .
>
> It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
> going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
> the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
> whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
> 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
> against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."
>
> So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
> vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
> these studies.
>
> I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
> little protection.
>
> PM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on . net > wrote:
> "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
> > Thursday, October 11, 2007
> > Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
> > In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
> > benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
> > fresh support in recent weeks.
>
> > One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
> > Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
> > for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
> > and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
> > remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
> > magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
> > from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
> > PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>
> > Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
> > offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
> > immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>
> > 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
> > from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
> > influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>
> > 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
> > effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
> > the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
> > all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
> > 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>
> > 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
> > vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
> > healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
> > that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
> > nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>
> > 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
> > bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
> > vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
> > really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
> > defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
> > than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>
> > COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
> > involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
> > better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
> > advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
> > this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>
> > How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
> > and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>
> > Thanks Vince
Peter the Moron wrote:
> What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
> effectiveness?
How about eating and living a health promoting lifestyle?
How about getting some vitamin C from some citrus fruit?
How about getting some vitamin D?
Their effectiveness is shown by the success and not getting the flu.
We are not testing drug A vursus drug B here, ya know? Real world
results only are adequate.
>
> It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
> effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
> into many different forms.
Define "quickly" for us. 24 hrs, 24 days, 24 wks, 24 months, or 24
yrs for example?
Where is your peer reviewed and published da
A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
> The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
> just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
> effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .
>
> It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
> going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
> the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
> whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
> 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
> against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."
>
> So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
> vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
> these studies.
>
> I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
> little protection.
>
> PM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re: Do flu shots work?
On Oct 26, 5:16 pm, drcee...@insightbb . com wrote:
> On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on . net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> >news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > > Thursday, October 11, 2007
> > > Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
> > > In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
> > > benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
> > > fresh support in recent weeks.
>
> > > One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
> > > Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
> > > for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
> > > and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
> > > remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
> > > magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
> > > from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
> > > PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>
> > > Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
> > > offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
> > > immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>
> > > 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
> > > from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
> > > influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>
> > > 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
> > > effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
> > > the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
> > > all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
> > > 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>
> > > 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
> > > vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
> > > healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
> > > that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
> > > nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>
> > > 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
> > > bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
> > > vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
> > > really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
> > > defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
> > > than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>
> > > COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
> > > involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
> > > better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
> > > advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
> > > this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>
> > > How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
> > > and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>
> > > Thanks Vince
> Peter the Moron wrote:
> > What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
> > effectiveness?
>
> How about eating and living a health promoting lifestyle?
> How about getting some vitamin C from some citrus fruit?
> How about getting some vitamin D?
>
> Their effectiveness is shown by the success and not getting the flu.
>
> We are not testing drug A vursus drug B here, ya know? Real world
> results only are adequate.
>
> > It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
> > effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
> > into many different forms.
>
> Define "quickly" for us. 24 hrs, 24 days, 24 wks, 24 months, or 24
> yrs for example?
>
> Where is your peer reviewed and published da
>
> A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
>
>
>
> > The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
> > just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
> > effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .
>
> > It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
> > going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
> > the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
> > whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
> > 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
> > against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."
>
> > So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
> > vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
> > these studies.
>
> > I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
> > little protection.
>
> > PM- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
technical glich here.
Let's see, a new vaccine needs to be produced each year.
The virus mutates rapidly.
New viruses come from Asia yearly.
The flu of 2006 spread around the world making people ill, according
to you. Where did it go? Why is it not still making people ill? Why
can this already worldly present virus not continue to make humans
ill? It does not have to be spread, it is already here.
If the virus mutates rapidly, then no one could ever make a vaccine
against it. By the time a vaccine was made, we would have different
viruses.
Why do all flu viruses have to come from Asia? Why not Canada, or
Australia, or any of the continents of the world? What proof do you
have that all flu viruses come from Asia? What is it about Asia that
is worse than a flu from Russia?
Now, I realize that Santa Claus travels the world to deliver toys to
good little boys and girls once a year, but he has elves to help him.
How does the flu do the same thing to humans only to deliver a
debilitating illness that may last 2-3 weeks?
DrCee
Not a member of the church of modern medicine
Not a member of the medical monopoly
On Oct 26, 5:16 pm, drcee...@insightbb . com wrote:
> On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on . net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> >news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > > Thursday, October 11, 2007
> > > Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
> > > In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
> > > benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
> > > fresh support in recent weeks.
>
> > > One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
> > > Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
> > > for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
> > > and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
> > > remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
> > > magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
> > > from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
> > > PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>
> > > Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
> > > offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
> > > immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>
> > > 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
> > > from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
> > > influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>
> > > 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
> > > effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
> > > the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
> > > all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
> > > 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>
> > > 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
> > > vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
> > > healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
> > > that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
> > > nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>
> > > 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
> > > bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
> > > vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
> > > really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
> > > defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
> > > than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>
> > > COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
> > > involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
> > > better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
> > > advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
> > > this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>
> > > How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
> > > and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>
> > > Thanks Vince
> Peter the Moron wrote:
> > What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
> > effectiveness?
>
> How about eating and living a health promoting lifestyle?
> How about getting some vitamin C from some citrus fruit?
> How about getting some vitamin D?
>
> Their effectiveness is shown by the success and not getting the flu.
>
> We are not testing drug A vursus drug B here, ya know? Real world
> results only are adequate.
>
> > It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
> > effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
> > into many different forms.
>
> Define "quickly" for us. 24 hrs, 24 days, 24 wks, 24 months, or 24
> yrs for example?
>
> Where is your peer reviewed and published da
>
> A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
>
>
>
> > The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
> > just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
> > effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .
>
> > It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
> > going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
> > the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
> > whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
> > 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
> > against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."
>
> > So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
> > vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
> > these studies.
>
> > I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
> > little protection.
>
> > PM- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
technical glich here.
Let's see, a new vaccine needs to be produced each year.
The virus mutates rapidly.
New viruses come from Asia yearly.
The flu of 2006 spread around the world making people ill, according
to you. Where did it go? Why is it not still making people ill? Why
can this already worldly present virus not continue to make humans
ill? It does not have to be spread, it is already here.
If the virus mutates rapidly, then no one could ever make a vaccine
against it. By the time a vaccine was made, we would have different
viruses.
Why do all flu viruses have to come from Asia? Why not Canada, or
Australia, or any of the continents of the world? What proof do you
have that all flu viruses come from Asia? What is it about Asia that
is worse than a flu from Russia?
Now, I realize that Santa Claus travels the world to deliver toys to
good little boys and girls once a year, but he has elves to help him.
How does the flu do the same thing to humans only to deliver a
debilitating illness that may last 2-3 weeks?
DrCee
Not a member of the church of modern medicine
Not a member of the medical monopoly
Re: Do flu shots work?
In article <1193433385.708080.154160@50g2000hsm.googlegroups . com >,
<drceephd@insightbb . com > wrote:
>On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on . net > wrote:
>> "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>>
>> > Thursday, October 11, 2007
>> > Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
>> > In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
>> > benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
>> > fresh support in recent weeks.
>>
>> > One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
>> > Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
>> > for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
>> > and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
>> > remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
>> > magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
>> > from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
>> > PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>>
>> > Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
>> > offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
>> > immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>>
>> > 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
>> > from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
>> > influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>>
>> > 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
>> > effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
>> > the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
>> > all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
>> > 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>>
>> > 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
>> > vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
>> > healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
>> > that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
>> > nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>>
>> > 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
>> > bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
>> > vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
>> > really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
>> > defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
>> > than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>>
>> > COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
>> > involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
>> > better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
>> > advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
>> > this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>>
>> > How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
>> > and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>>
>> > Thanks Vince
>
>Peter the Moron wrote:
>
>> What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
>> effectiveness?
>
>How about eating and living a health promoting lifestyle?
>How about getting some vitamin C from some citrus fruit?
>How about getting some vitamin D?
>
>Their effectiveness is shown by the success and not getting the flu.
>
>We are not testing drug A vursus drug B here, ya know? Real world
>results only are adequate.
If you actually had enough such results to form a statistical base,
not to mention a control group of people who didn't get any of those
things, you might have something. But you don't.
>> It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
>> effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
>> into many different forms.
>Define "quickly" for us. 24 hrs, 24 days, 24 wks, 24 months, or 24
>yrs for example?
>
>Where is your peer reviewed and published da
The fact that new strains are identified every year is evidence
enough.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy . net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke
In article <1193433385.708080.154160@50g2000hsm.googlegroups . com >,
<drceephd@insightbb . com > wrote:
>On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on . net > wrote:
>> "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>>
>> > Thursday, October 11, 2007
>> > Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
>> > In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
>> > benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
>> > fresh support in recent weeks.
>>
>> > One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
>> > Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
>> > for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
>> > and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
>> > remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
>> > magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
>> > from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
>> > PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>>
>> > Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
>> > offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
>> > immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>>
>> > 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
>> > from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
>> > influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>>
>> > 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
>> > effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
>> > the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
>> > all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
>> > 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>>
>> > 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
>> > vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
>> > healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
>> > that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
>> > nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>>
>> > 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
>> > bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
>> > vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
>> > really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
>> > defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
>> > than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>>
>> > COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
>> > involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
>> > better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
>> > advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
>> > this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>>
>> > How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
>> > and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>>
>> > Thanks Vince
>
>Peter the Moron wrote:
>
>> What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
>> effectiveness?
>
>How about eating and living a health promoting lifestyle?
>How about getting some vitamin C from some citrus fruit?
>How about getting some vitamin D?
>
>Their effectiveness is shown by the success and not getting the flu.
>
>We are not testing drug A vursus drug B here, ya know? Real world
>results only are adequate.
If you actually had enough such results to form a statistical base,
not to mention a control group of people who didn't get any of those
things, you might have something. But you don't.
>> It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
>> effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
>> into many different forms.
>Define "quickly" for us. 24 hrs, 24 days, 24 wks, 24 months, or 24
>yrs for example?
>
>Where is your peer reviewed and published da
The fact that new strains are identified every year is evidence
enough.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy . net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke
Re: Do flu shots work?
On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on . net > wrote:
> "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
> > Thursday, October 11, 2007
> > Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
> > In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
> > benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
> > fresh support in recent weeks.
>
> > One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
> > Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
> > for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
> > and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
> > remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
> > magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
> > from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
> > PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>
> > Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
> > offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
> > immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>
> > 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
> > from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
> > influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>
> > 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
> > effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
> > the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
> > all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
> > 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>
> > 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
> > vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
> > healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
> > that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
> > nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>
> > 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
> > bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
> > vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
> > really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
> > defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
> > than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>
> > COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
> > involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
> > better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
> > advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
> > this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>
> > How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
> > and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>
> > Thanks Vince
>
> What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
> effectiveness?
>
> It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
> effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
> into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
> The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
> just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
> effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .
>
> It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
> going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
> the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
> whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
> 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
> against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."
>
> So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
> vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
> these studies.
>
> I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
> little protection.
>
> PM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I found this interesting:
* w w w .medscape . com /viewarticle/485592
>From Cochrane Review Abstracts
Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults
Posted 07/01/2007
TO Jefferson
Introduction
Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 2006 11 20
Background
Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced world -
wide. Healthy adults are at present targeted only in North America.
Despite the publication of a large number of clinical trials, there is
still substantial uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness of
influenza vaccines and this has a negative impact on their acceptance
and uptake.
Objectives
To identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects
(efficacy, effectiveness and harms) of vaccines against influenza in
healthy adults.
Search strategy
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
(CENTRAL) ( Issue 4, 2005) which contains the Cochrane Acute
Respiratory Infections Group trials register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to
January 2006); and EMBASE (1990 to January 2006). We wrote to vaccine
manufacturers and first or corresponding authors of studies in the
review.
Selection criteria
Any randomised or quasi - randomised studies comparing influenza
vaccines in humans with placebo, no intervention. Live, attenuated, or
killed vaccines or fractions of them administered by any route,
irrespective of antigenic configuration were assessed. Only studies
assessing protection from exposure to naturally occurring influenza in
healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years were considered. Comparative
non - randomised studies were included if they assessed evidence of
the possible association between influenza vaccines and serious harms.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted
data.
Main results
Forty - eight reports were included: 38 (57 sub - studies) were
clinical trials providing data about effectiveness, efficacy and harms
of influenza vaccines and involved 66,248 people; 8 were comparative
non - randomised studies and tested the association of the vaccines
with serious harms; 2 were reports of harms which could not be
introduced in the data analysis. Inactivated parenteral vaccines were
30% effective (95% CI 17% to 41%) against influenza - like illness,
and 80% (95% CI 56% to 91%) efficacious against influenza when the
vaccine matched the circulating strain and circulation was high, but
decreased to 50% (95% CI 27% to 65%) when it did not. Excluding the
studies of the 1968 to 1969 pandemic, effectiveness was 15% (95% CI 9%
to 22%) and efficacy was 73% (95% CI 53% to 84%). Vaccination had a
modest effect on time off work, but there was insufficient evidence to
draw conclusions on hospital admissions or complication rates.
Inactivated vaccines caused local tenderness and soreness and
erythema. Spray vaccines had more modest performance. Monovalent whole
- virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic.
Authors' conclusions
Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing cases of influenza,
especially when the content predicts accurately circulating types and
circulation is high. However, they are less effective in reducing
cases of influenza - like illness and have a modest impact on working
days lost. There is insufficient evidence to assess their impact on
complications. Whole - virion monovalent vaccines may perform best in
a pandemic
-x-x-x-x-x-
Seems a bit mor epositive than BigMouth reported.
On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on . net > wrote:
> "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
> > Thursday, October 11, 2007
> > Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
> > In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
> > benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
> > fresh support in recent weeks.
>
> > One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
> > Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
> > for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
> > and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
> > remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
> > magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
> > from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
> > PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues
>
> > Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
> > offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
> > immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
>
> > 1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
> > from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
> > influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
>
> > 2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
> > effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
> > the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
> > all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
> > 23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.
>
> > 3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
> > vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
> > healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
> > that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
> > nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
>
> > 4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
> > bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
> > vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
> > really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
> > defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
> > than on the basis of flu surveillance.
>
> > COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
> > involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
> > better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
> > advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
> > this in detail in my book, FOWL!
>
> > How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
> > and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?
>
> > Thanks Vince
>
> What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
> effectiveness?
>
> It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
> effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
> into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
> The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
> just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
> effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .
>
> It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
> going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
> the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
> whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
> 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
> against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."
>
> So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
> vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
> these studies.
>
> I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
> little protection.
>
> PM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I found this interesting:
* w w w .medscape . com /viewarticle/485592
>From Cochrane Review Abstracts
Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults
Posted 07/01/2007
TO Jefferson
Introduction
Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 2006 11 20
Background
Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced world -
wide. Healthy adults are at present targeted only in North America.
Despite the publication of a large number of clinical trials, there is
still substantial uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness of
influenza vaccines and this has a negative impact on their acceptance
and uptake.
Objectives
To identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects
(efficacy, effectiveness and harms) of vaccines against influenza in
healthy adults.
Search strategy
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
(CENTRAL) ( Issue 4, 2005) which contains the Cochrane Acute
Respiratory Infections Group trials register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to
January 2006); and EMBASE (1990 to January 2006). We wrote to vaccine
manufacturers and first or corresponding authors of studies in the
review.
Selection criteria
Any randomised or quasi - randomised studies comparing influenza
vaccines in humans with placebo, no intervention. Live, attenuated, or
killed vaccines or fractions of them administered by any route,
irrespective of antigenic configuration were assessed. Only studies
assessing protection from exposure to naturally occurring influenza in
healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years were considered. Comparative
non - randomised studies were included if they assessed evidence of
the possible association between influenza vaccines and serious harms.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted
data.
Main results
Forty - eight reports were included: 38 (57 sub - studies) were
clinical trials providing data about effectiveness, efficacy and harms
of influenza vaccines and involved 66,248 people; 8 were comparative
non - randomised studies and tested the association of the vaccines
with serious harms; 2 were reports of harms which could not be
introduced in the data analysis. Inactivated parenteral vaccines were
30% effective (95% CI 17% to 41%) against influenza - like illness,
and 80% (95% CI 56% to 91%) efficacious against influenza when the
vaccine matched the circulating strain and circulation was high, but
decreased to 50% (95% CI 27% to 65%) when it did not. Excluding the
studies of the 1968 to 1969 pandemic, effectiveness was 15% (95% CI 9%
to 22%) and efficacy was 73% (95% CI 53% to 84%). Vaccination had a
modest effect on time off work, but there was insufficient evidence to
draw conclusions on hospital admissions or complication rates.
Inactivated vaccines caused local tenderness and soreness and
erythema. Spray vaccines had more modest performance. Monovalent whole
- virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic.
Authors' conclusions
Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing cases of influenza,
especially when the content predicts accurately circulating types and
circulation is high. However, they are less effective in reducing
cases of influenza - like illness and have a modest impact on working
days lost. There is insufficient evidence to assess their impact on
complications. Whole - virion monovalent vaccines may perform best in
a pandemic
-x-x-x-x-x-
Seems a bit mor epositive than BigMouth reported.
