Flu Shots Less Effective Than Previously Thought
(Dr Greg’s comments imbedded)
A report in the October 28, 2006 issue of the British Medical Journal says that flu shots aren’t as effective as promoted by their manufacturers. Lead researcher Dr. Tom Jefferson, coordinator of the Cochrane Vaccines Field in Rome, Italy says, “We’ve got an exaggerated expectation of what vaccines can actually do. I’m hoping American and European taxpayers will be alerted and will start asking questions.”
In this study, Jefferson looked at all the systematic reviews he could find around the world that studied the effectiveness of the inactivated (dead virus) vaccine. He chose systematic reviews for the study because they “are the gold standard for evaluating effectiveness.”
In the U.S., medical authorities recommend that the flu vaccine be given to children aged 6 to 23 months, anyone over 50 and to people with chronic disease conditions such as asthma and heart disease. For the first time, they are recommending this year that children aged 23 months to 5 years old also be given the vaccine.
Previous studies by Jefferson have found that the vaccine is only mildly effective in preventing flu in the elderly. (Mildly effective? I don’t like the sound of that at all.) He also found little scientific
evidence to support giving the vaccine to children under two.
Historically, the flu vaccine has been marketed with claims that it reduced hospital stays, time off work or death from flu and its complications. In this study, Jefferson found scant evidence to support these claims. “Almost none of the benefits [that are routinely claimed] are actually given by inactivated vaccines,” he said.
From the "Damn students can't even get sick properly" department
Researchers investigating a large outbreak of mumps in 2006, when 6,584 cases were reported among college students, have discovered that virtually every sufferer had been vaccinated twice against the disease. CDC researchers speculate that the outbreak - primarily among 18- to 24-year-olds - was the result of the 'wrong type of mumps'. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 358:1580-1589.(So what is this telling us? How about the fact that these shots don’t work very well and CAUSE issues we would not normally encounter?)
Non-vaccinated kids not a risk (from the "Duh" department)
August 21, 2008 - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - "The student who is not vaccinated is at increased risk of getting a disease, but poses no threat to the other students because the number is so small,' Mr. Cole said." PG South: County changes rules for vaccines, boosters.(Isn’t that one of the arguments that schools tend to use about kids who are not vaccinated? Why on earth would someone who is not vaccinated pose any threat to anyone else? Wouldn’t it be the other way around? Misinformation, yet again.)
Tedd Koren comments: Cole would have been more accurate had he said, "The student who is not vaccinated is far healthier than vaccinated students who are at increased risk of getting autism, asthma, allergies and diabetes."
|