Flu Vaccine: Does It Work??

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
facetguy said:
Your personal experience of course matters and is important. However, it's anecdotal. Specter will be along momentarily to explain to you why it doesn't count as real evidence.



Let's stay focused here. We're talking about the flu vaccine, not all vaccines. And there are some mainstream voices expressing these sentiments about the flu vaccines. They wouldn't qualify as members of the anti-vaccination crowd.

But your comment does reflect the general attitude toward vaccines: don't point out any possible shortcomings or we will label you anti-vax.
Click to expand...

Actually, her anecdote is in line with both the literature and the scientific theory built upon critically reviewed literature.

This is what I ask of you in each of these threads. Continuity.

Do you even know what cellular changes occur with administration of a vaccine? If you understood pathogenesis of infection you would understand just how much sense her story makes.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Members don't see this ad.
 
facetguy said:
My understanding of how the flu vaccine is made each year is irrelevant (although I do understand). I bolded what I bolded for the exact reason I said I bolded it. The implication from that quoted comment is that the flu shot usually works, but this year's flu season will be particularly rough and so, this year, you can get the flu even if you get the shot. This is of course misleading and suggests that in typical years the flu shot actually works as well as advertised, which the data tells us isn't true. Admitting that truth (or lack thereof) is the whole point.
Click to expand...

Do you know why? It is really rather simple.

If you could, give me a run down of influenza and what the yearly shot entails and why it can on occasion fail.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
SpecterGT260 said:
Do you know why? It is really rather simple.

If you could, give me a run down of influenza and what the yearly shot entails and why it can on occasion fail.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

You are missing my point. Of course the shot can fail. But when it comes to the flu shot, it appears to fail a lot. Way more than we are led to believe. The evidence isn't that strong, or at least incomplete and probably biased. As long as that is openly known and reported, then fine. You're an evidence guy, so you get that. But we continue to treat the flu vaccine, with its kazillion dollar marketing push behind it, like it's a slam dunk. And don't take my word for it; read the comments from the folks who actually study this stuff.

Surely you aren't opposed to more realism when it comes to this topic. (And, yes, I called you Surely)

Edit: And what's with Roche refusing to release the data on Tamiflu? Sounds shady.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Tamiflu isn't a vaccine. And units of measure like "a lot" applied to "more than we know" are not sound bases for judgement.

The point is that vaccines have an expected failure rate which makes compliance MORE important. Not less.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
SpecterGT260 said:
Tamiflu isn't a vaccine.
Click to expand...

Even I know that. But doesn't it make you, an evidence guy, a little uncomfortable to know that you (will someday) prescribe a medication for which the manufacturer won't let anyone see the trials data? Here's a quick article describing this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harlankrumholz/2013/01/08/the-myth-of-tamiflu-5-things-you-should-know/

From the article (authored by a MD-epidemiologist from Yale):
"The problem is that we actually know little about the effectiveness and safety of Tamiflu – and Roche is not willing to share all the relevant data they have."

Evidence guys should demand better.
 
facetguy said:
Even I know that. But doesn't it make you, an evidence guy, a little uncomfortable to know that you (will someday) prescribe a medication for which the manufacturer won't let anyone see the trials data? Here's a quick article describing this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harlankrumholz/2013/01/08/the-myth-of-tamiflu-5-things-you-should-know/

From the article (authored by a MD-epidemiologist from Yale):
"The problem is that we actually know little about the effectiveness and safety of Tamiflu – and Roche is not willing to share all the relevant data they have."

Evidence guys should demand better.
Click to expand...
Id have to know more about this. The FDA isn't usually in the habit of allowing drugs to hide data.

But.... nobody here is really backing tamiflu. Why bring up one drug in which there may or may not be an issue as if that pertains to the vaccine or anything. I guess I would ask you to apply this reasoning to your own beliefs on healthcare before nitpicking the other side of the fence. This is a case of the obsidian pot calling the chrome kettle black.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
SpecterGT260 said:
Id have to know more about this. The FDA isn't usually in the habit of allowing drugs to hide data.

But.... nobody here is really backing tamiflu. Why bring up one drug in which there may or may not be an issue as if that pertains to the vaccine or anything. I guess I would ask you to apply this reasoning to your own beliefs on healthcare before nitpicking the other side of the fence. This is a case of the obsidian pot calling the chrome kettle black.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

No, no. I'm not anti-medicine. You know that by now. I simply bring up Tamiflu because, although it doesn't pertain to a vaccine, it does pertain to the flu. And Tamiflu has been in the news recently due to this issue of the hidden data.

And while nobody here is backing Tamiflu (or at least not outwardly), your US government has been spending lots of your tax dollars on it, buying a reported $1.5 Billion dollars worth as of 2009 (obviously it's more by now). Now, the US gov't can blow money like nobody's business, that's obvious, but let's at least give the money to a drug company who can be open and honest about its trial data. Perhaps we can agree on that?
 
facetguy said:
No, no. I'm not anti-medicine. You know that by now. I simply bring up Tamiflu because, although it doesn't pertain to a vaccine, it does pertain to the flu. And Tamiflu has been in the news recently due to this issue of the hidden data.

And while nobody here is backing Tamiflu (or at least not outwardly), your US government has been spending lots of your tax dollars on it, buying a reported $1.5 Billion dollars worth as of 2009 (obviously it's more by now). Now, the US gov't can blow money like nobody's business, that's obvious, but let's at least give the money to a drug company who can be open and honest about its trial data. Perhaps we can agree on that?
Click to expand...

I suppose.... what I still see is you making statements like this as a quasi apology for chiropractic or a defense against the complaints that are lodged. I feel like there is a big fancy Latin word describing a fallacy here. Appealing toward the middle ground doesn't invalidate or diminish the complaints lodged nor does finding fault in the occasional drug or study. I just see you as very critical of the endorsements given to modern medicine and while not turning that criticism inward. You often attempt to establish some idea of "well we both seem to be drinking the kool aid" but.... I think if you had a better idea of the atmosphere of medicine you would understand why such statements are so poorly received here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Interesting article from the Director of Hospitalist Services at a NY hospital:
http://blogs.hospitalmedicine.org/SHMPracticeManagementBlog/?p=6588

He says with regard to the flu vaccine:
"Call me cynical, but the descriptor “oversell” does come to mind, and I do not think I am judging inhospitably."

And read the 2 quotes from Michael Osterholm (the Univ. Minnesota guy mentioned earlier in this thread). There are clearly holes in the flu vaccine data.

It's turning out that I'm not such an island afterall (at least on this issue :)).
 
20 minute interview with Tom Jefferson, MD from Cochrane about flu vaccine evidence:
http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2012/12/15/884-fighting-flu/


Straightforward discussion of what we know and don't know. He purposely avoids policy-related comments.

(Free access to this interview may be expiring in a few days. It says it will be free for 4 weeks and the interview date was apparently on or about Dec 15, 2012)
 
You realize that when you just throw links around without giving your take it leaves one to just assume, right?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Members don't see this ad :)
SpecterGT260 said:
You realize that when you just throw links around without giving your take it leaves one to just assume, right?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

You're right. I put up 2 links.

The first is simply an article (a blog entry, really) that matches quite well what I've been saying in this thread. The only thing is it's written not by me, the lunatic chiropractor, but by an MD who at least appears to hold a fairly important position, at least in the hospital in which he works. He appears to be saying that, given our busy lives, we sometimes just do what we do because we've always done it, without always giving it much thought. But, as it relates to the flu vaccine, when we finally do get around to thinking about it,we may be surprised at what we find. He also posts 2 quotes from Osterholm, whom I had mentioned earlier in the thread and whose comments are self explanatory (and also match what I've been ridiculed for saying in this thread).

The second is an interview with another influenza expert, Tom Jefferson MD, who spends his time analyzing the influenza vaccine research and tells us that this research isn't as impressive as we commonly believe. He points out that there are in fact considerable holes in the data.

So, I posted those links because they are informative and, perhaps more importantly, because they feature people other than me saying what I've been saying (and as such you don't have to simply take my word for it).

Your thoughts?
 
2 links today. But you give about a link in any one of about 5 threads about every 3-4 days.

My point is that you seem to present this information as support for the position against the vaccine. I just wish you would state your position with each link rather than leaving it to the imagination.

Relating specifically to those links, I'll read them later :)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
SpecterGT260 said:
2 links today. But you give about a link in any one of about 5 threads about every 3-4 days.

My point is that you seem to present this information as support for the position against the vaccine. I just wish you would state your position with each link rather than leaving it to the imagination.

Relating specifically to those links, I'll read them later :)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

Leaving it to the imagination? Are you saying that I haven't been clear about my position? I wasn't expecting that.

As far as "support for the position against the vaccine" (meaning the flu vaccine, I assume), I'm not against the vaccine. I'm against exaggerating the benefits of the flu vaccine and against not being transparent about the weakness in the research. Are you not in agreement? And as I stated earlier, lest you think these are my kooky original thoughts, I have provided links to others (who are clearly more expert in these matters than the two of...well, let's just leave it at me ;)) for perusal.

I think you and I might end up with similar opinions on this.
 
facetguy said:
Leaving it to the imagination? Are you saying that I haven't been clear about my position? I wasn't expecting that.

As far as "support for the position against the vaccine" (meaning the flu vaccine, I assume), I'm not against the vaccine. I'm against exaggerating the benefits of the flu vaccine and against not being transparent about the weakness in the research. Are you not in agreement? And as I stated earlier, lest you think these are my kooky original thoughts, I have provided links to others (who are clearly more expert in these matters than the two of...well, let's just leave it at me ;)) for perusal.

I think you and I might end up with similar opinions on this.
Click to expand...

Being against exaggeration is not sufficient evidence that exaggeration happens. People have varied opinions here, and I view many of them as alarmist. I guess I was just asking that you explain your purpose (as you see it) when you post links. In many (many) other threads and posts you will provide a link and respond to the reactions in an air of moderatism, a door that is only opened by the technicality of not explicitly stating the position implied by the otherwise extreme links (not necessarily this situation) you provided. I've never been able to tell if you do it intentionally or not, however. But from my position I reference back to your OP where you state "or lack there of" regarding efficacy. I hesitate to respond to links until I understand both your purpose and your understanding of the link. I know how I would apply said links to your position, but we've done that song and dance before.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Another against-the-grain opinion regarding flu vaccination, this time from a PhD/MPH infectious disease epidemiologist:
http://www.philipalcabes.com/2013/01/against-universal-flu-immunization/

He points out "Over the past twenty years, flu-vaccine coverage — the proportion of the population that is immunized — has been going up progressively. But flu hospitalization and mortality rates have been basically constant. If mass immunization had any public health value, those rates should go down as coverage goes up."

He discusses efficacy, but then mentions effectiveness:
"Importantly, the Jefferson studies found that effectiveness of immunization — the prevention of serious illness or hospitalization from influenza-like illness — is very low."

He sums it up by saying "Get immunized against flu if you’re worried. But keep in mind that vaccination against flu is not going to help the public’s health, and it isn’t highly likely to help yours "

Is he crazy?
 
Dr. Alcabes might be incorrect in his assumption that influenza-related hospitalizations will decline in a linear fashion as immunization rates increase. In fact, if his numbers are correct, the opposite conclusion could be reached: there isn't a reduction in influenza-related hospitalizations because we haven't achieved herd immunity.

Influenza has a relatively low mortality rate. Most people who get it recover uneventfully. Even the nasty Spanish flu of 1918 had a mortality rate of < 3%, and that was still enough to result in a Black Death-type situation in some cities like Philadelphia, where the bodies were piling up faster than they could be buried.

If a stats person could weigh in, it might be helpful. What I'm thinking is, it's hard to parse the benefits of vaccinating against a disease with a low morbidity and mortality. But that doesn't mean the benefits aren't there. We know the flu vaccine works both for the people getting it, and for vulnerable people who can't get it if the people around them do. And these benefits are not captured in a measure of flu-related hospitalizations.

Other thoughts?
 
facetguy said:
My understanding of how the flu vaccine is made each year is irrelevant (although I do understand). I bolded what I bolded for the exact reason I said I bolded it. The implication from that quoted comment is that the flu shot usually works, but this year's flu season will be particularly rough and so, this year, you can get the flu even if you get the shot. This is of course misleading and suggests that in typical years the flu shot actually works as well as advertised, which the data tells us isn't true. Admitting that truth (or lack thereof) is the whole point.
Click to expand...

Whatever if you don't want to flu shot don't take it. I'm of the opinion that those people who think vaccines cause autism should not take vaccines. Then when theres an outbreak and their children get sick. We can knock on their door and tell them: "told'ya so":laugh:
 
Medstart108 said:
Whatever if you don't want to flu shot don't take it. I'm of the opinion that those people who think vaccines cause autism should not take vaccines. Then when theres an outbreak and their children get sick. We can knock on their door and tell them: "told'ya so":laugh:
Click to expand...

Was this tongue in cheek or do you not understand herd immunity?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Article from The Atlantic on Tamiflu:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/tamiflu-myth-and-misconception/273167/#

From the article:

"Why does the CDC recommend Tamiflu as a first line treatment against the flu?

When we asked the CDC to show us the data behind the decision, the agency responded, "CDC looks at more than clinical trial or randomized control trial data ... many observational studies ... have consistently found that early oseltamivir treatment of influenza patients reduces the duration of hospitalization and risk of severe outcomes such as intensive care unit admission or death." In other words, they're willing to throw out the scientific evidence in favor of observational studies."
 
facetguy said:
I had just read this. Only 9% effective for age 65+. I guess that's better than nothing, but too much lower than this could been seen as a waste of resources (although that would never be officially stated).
Click to expand...

Wait - you don't consider 9% to be a waste of resources? :eek:
 
MOHS_01 said:
Wait - you don't consider 9% to be a waste of resources? :eek:
Click to expand...

9% certainly isn't impressive. But I'd imagine that some will argue about herd immunity and the need to vaccinate everyone else to prevent infecting old people (even though the evidence shows this doesn't work).

The bottom line is that the flu vaccine will continue to be promoted with an essentially unlimited budget regardless of what the evidence shows. That's just the way it is.
 
One problem with the flu vaccine is the yearly guessing game it unavoidably is. This year was bad. IMO still worth it. You can't predict the bad years until after the fact.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
SpecterGT260 said:
One problem with the flu vaccine is the yearly guessing game it unavoidably is. This year was bad. IMO still worth it. You can't predict the bad years until after the fact.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

Are you finally out of SDN jail? Any new tattoos?
 
Being on the inside changed me, mang. Only new tats from shanking fools during "club rush week". They served punch. It was a lovely evening.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
SpecterGT260 said:
Being on the inside changed me, mang. Only new tats from shanking fools during "club rush week". They served punch. It was a lovely evening.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

Breakin' rocks on the chain gang. Those blisters never heal bro.

So what happened? Did you hurt someone's feelings or something?
 
facetguy said:
Narcolepsy link to H1N1 vaccine seems more certain:
http://www.france24.com/en/20130227-study-boosts-link-between-flu-vaccine-sleep-disorder-0
Click to expand...

Utter bunk.

From the article...

It normally occurs among 25-50 of every 100,000 people, although figures are sketchy, the study said.

Last September, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) said that, on the basis of evidence from sleep centres in Finland and Sweden, vaccination for H1N1 among teenagers and children had led to a narcolepsy risk of one in 20,000.

50 out of 100,000 is the same as 1 in 2000. So the flu vaccine actually decreases the narcolepsy rate.
 
There is also the issue of the subjective nature of narcolepsy diagnosis.... I am aware of narc patients who present with sleep disturbances which are more than likely due to stress, caffeine use, or some combination therein. They get put on amps and suddenly the sleep disturbance is 10x worse but at least now they feel bright-eyed and bushy tailed during the day (but who doesn't when sucking down 80-100mg of amphetamines a day?). Suddenly narc-esque symptoms arise as the drugs wear off but this is very likely due to sheer exhaustion. Just being around the illness and seeing the way sleep disturbances are handled makes me feel this is already a very poor metric of analysis.

I get irritated with these correlated studies anyways. From a basic mathematical perspective, if you look at enough diseases (actually, 20, if using p<0.05) you are bound to find one that is positively albeit loosely correlated with any given treatment. This is why scientists have all but tattooed the phrase "correlation is not causation" on their foreheads.
 
There are more things than just that to be concerned about... That person claims a number of things and only states to have data, but does not give it. Being a nephrologist, hell, being a physician, is not an automatic seal of expertise on this subject. There do exist dissenting voices. The thing is that I have yet to see any who provide a sound basis for their complaints. This woman being nothing but a simple nutcase who managed to get a medical degree and attributes everything she sees to some personal belief is not outside the realm of possibility. I'm not saying that is the case, I'm just saying an angry letter sent to a journal is right up there next to "blog" in terms of the value of a source.
 
It's working. At the same time we need take healthy food while taking medicines.:eek:
 
Good zombie thread to revive. Many voices question the efficacy of the flu vaccine which is undoubtedly one of the biggest scams in healthcare. It is very difficult to prove the efficacy of the flu vaccine. It would be relatively easy to perform a study vs non-flu vaccinated individuals but they wouldn't dare do that because of what it would reveal.
 
Unchained said:
Good zombie thread to revive. Many voices question the efficacy of the flu vaccine which is undoubtedly one of the biggest scams in healthcare. It is very difficult to prove the efficacy of the flu vaccine. It would be relatively easy to perform a study vs non-flu vaccinated individuals but they wouldn't dare do that because of what it would reveal.
Click to expand...
Wrong

Effectiveness of the trivalent influenza vaccine
 
Those aren't slam dunk types of studies either. Click on some of the referenced studies. Weak also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

GH253
We Had the Vaccine from the Start—You Just Weren't Allowed to Take It
Replies
1
Views
3K
ChordaEpiphany
C
V
Future Magical Election Day COVID Vaccine
Replies
4
Views
3K
ParaMagic1
ParaMagic1
Ccdd
  • Question
Nurses Anti-Vax/Antivax
Replies
29
Views
6K
docdocgoose12345
D
T
Coronavirus or simply Flu or Cold Symptoms? Why to know your symptoms well before rushing to hospital
Replies
0
Views
1K
taariqmr
T
K
Chiropractors against Vaccines in Maine
Replies
4
Views
2K
NotAProgDirector
NotAProgDirector
Top