http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...xid=rss-health
Taken from the article:
Government data indicate that the flu shot is more necessary than ever. The rate of flu deaths among children, while not high, are continuing to rise — more than 80 deaths were recorded in the 2007-2008 flu season, according to the CDC — highlighting the potential benefit of vaccination.
Yet a new study published Oct. 6 in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine suggests otherwise — that the flu shot in children doesn't necessarily protect them from illness. Led by Dr. Peter Szilagyi, researchers at University of Rochester studied 414 children aged 5 and younger, who came down with the flu during the 2003-2004 or 2004-2005 flu seasons. These children were compared with over 5,000 controls who did not have influenza during the same seasons. Turns out that flu shots seemed not to make much difference: Kids who got immunized did not get the flu at lower rates than unvaccinated kids. In fact, the immunized youngsters were just as likely to be hospitalized or to visit the doctor as kids who never received the vaccine.
But before you decide to skip the flu shot this year, experts warn that results of flu studies like this are all about design. Depending on how a particular trial is set up — which populations are studied, which vaccine is used and how many subjects are included — the results can vary, and quite significantly. The Rochester study, for example, happened to look at the effectiveness of a vaccine during two seasons in which the flu strain included in the vaccine was not well matched to the predominant circulating strain that was making people sick. That could explain the lack of protection among the vaccinees — the shot may have been protecting against the wrong flu proteins.
Taken from the article:
Government data indicate that the flu shot is more necessary than ever. The rate of flu deaths among children, while not high, are continuing to rise — more than 80 deaths were recorded in the 2007-2008 flu season, according to the CDC — highlighting the potential benefit of vaccination.
Yet a new study published Oct. 6 in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine suggests otherwise — that the flu shot in children doesn't necessarily protect them from illness. Led by Dr. Peter Szilagyi, researchers at University of Rochester studied 414 children aged 5 and younger, who came down with the flu during the 2003-2004 or 2004-2005 flu seasons. These children were compared with over 5,000 controls who did not have influenza during the same seasons. Turns out that flu shots seemed not to make much difference: Kids who got immunized did not get the flu at lower rates than unvaccinated kids. In fact, the immunized youngsters were just as likely to be hospitalized or to visit the doctor as kids who never received the vaccine.
But before you decide to skip the flu shot this year, experts warn that results of flu studies like this are all about design. Depending on how a particular trial is set up — which populations are studied, which vaccine is used and how many subjects are included — the results can vary, and quite significantly. The Rochester study, for example, happened to look at the effectiveness of a vaccine during two seasons in which the flu strain included in the vaccine was not well matched to the predominant circulating strain that was making people sick. That could explain the lack of protection among the vaccinees — the shot may have been protecting against the wrong flu proteins.
... Can you say doublespeak? How dense do they think we are, seriously?
