Cochrane review and flu vaccines - Page 2

[MamaMunchkin]

double post ...

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 12/2/12 at 8:54am

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Actually, mama, the issue is whether it's effective or not. If you'd like to discuss something else maybe start another thread. This one is to address the specific claim that the cochrane review said the flu shot is not effective.

The statements about the evidence of widespread manipulation and that the conclusion should be interpreted in light of this finding are quoted - directly - from the - same exact - articles linked in the initial post.  I see no need for another thread.

[Rrrrrachel]

Yet in spite of all that they still found that the flu vaccine was effective in reducing cases of flu.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Yet in spite of all that they still found that the flu vaccine was effective in reducing cases of flu.

So go get the flu shot.  

Effectiveness is hardly the only factor in deciding whether to get a shot.  There is safety of the shot, prevalence of the disease and harshness of the disease.

I don't feel the need to risk (and yes, there are risks) a shot on a yearly basis for something, that according to Cochrane,  will lower my chances of getting the flu by 1-4%  Moreover,  if I do get the flu (given my health profile) I will most probably spend a week on the couch and recover fully.

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/2/12 at 11:39am

[Rrrrrachel]

I already did.

There are certainly lots of other issues involved here. They are worthy of discussion. However this thread was for one specific purpose, which is that claiming the cochrane review says the flu shot is ineffective is a lie.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Yet in spite of all that they still found that the flu vaccine was effective in reducing cases of flu.

But the Cochrane authors also said:

The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 12/2/12 at 1:40pm

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I already did.
There are certainly lots of other issues involved here. They are worthy of discussion. However this thread was for one specific purpose, which is that claiming the cochrane review says the flu shot is ineffective is a lie.

We're discussing the contents of - exactly the same - articles.   

[midstreammama]

Call me crazy but isn't this, Quote:
The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.

Saying that even though the studies conclude that the flu shot is effective in reducing chances of getting the flu a measly 1-4%, which would mean that they are a little effective..that we should basically take these results with a huge bag of salt consedering that there may be rampant data manipulation and the like? I could be interpreting this way off and if so I will certainly go back in my hole..and continue lurking...

[Rrrrrachel]

This thread is not about discussing the cochrane review in general. It's about correcting the lie that the cochrane review said the flu vaccine was ineffective.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by midstreammama 

Call me crazy but isn't this, Quote:
The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.
Saying that even though the studies conclude that the flu shot is effective in reducing chances of getting the flu a measly 1-4%, which would mean that they are a little effective..that we should basically take these results with a huge bag of salt consedering that there may be rampant data manipulation and the like? I could be interpreting this way off and if so I will certainly go back in my hole..and continue lurking...

Ultimately they said it reduced flu incidence by 6%, but they woul like better evidence and they think public health policy places like the us is out of sync with the existing evidence. At least that's how I took it.

[midstreammama]

Is there a threshold of effectiveness that would make the cochrane review better? Idk, 6% seems pretty ineffective to me. Totally a question forthe gen pop..sorry nak and typing with one finger..

[MamaMunchkin]

The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.

The statements about evidence of widespread manipulation is - not - about the Cochrane review in general ...

The statements quoted above are in the review on flu vax for children - as linked in the initial post.  They are - also - in the the review of flu vax for adults.  These statements are - part - of both reviews.

[midstreammama]

I understand, I was naking and trying to make my point in as few words as possible..thx for the clarification tho

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin 

The statements about evidence of widespread manipulation is - not - about the Cochrane review in general ...

The statements quoted above are in the review on flu vax for children - as linked in the initial post.  They are - also - in the the review of flu vax for adults.  These statements are - part - of both reviews.

Do they say that the flu vaccine is ineffective? No. So that statement is still a lie.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I already did.
There are certainly lots of other issues involved here. They are worthy of discussion. However this thread was for one specific purpose, which is that claiming the cochrane review says the flu shot is ineffective is a lie.

that was the point of initial post, yes, but the issues being discussed are relevant and on topic. Sounds like you don't want a discussion thread, just a chance to make a statement that no one is allowed to disagree with.

I think public policy with respect to flu shot recommendation clearly needs to be reevaluated. It's disturbing that the effectiveness is so low, but even with documented severe side effects, this drug is being pushed on us so heavily.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 

that was the point of initial post, yes, but the issues being discussed are relevant and on topic. Sounds like you don't want a discussion thread, just a chance to make a statement that no one is allowed to disagree with.
I think public policy with respect to flu shot recommendation clearly needs to be reevaluated. It's disturbing that the effectiveness is so low, but even with documented severe side effects, this drug is being pushed on us so heavily.

I want a discussion thread that's focused on one specific issue I think is important, yes.

There is one documented severe side effect from the flu vaccine and its gbs. I believe it's literally one in a million doses.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

6% is the number the cochrane review came up with. There are widely differing numbers, partially because the number a study comes up with often depends very strongly on the type of flu season (mild or severe) and how good the match was between the vaccine and circulating strains that year.
Even if that 6% number is true, that's thousands fewer deaths in the us each year and tens of thousands world wide.
You can say the cochrane review was critical of the existing research. You can say they were critical of public policy. You can say they said the flu shot wasn't as effective as most people think. But if you say they said the flu shot was ineffective you're lying.

Nope. If "ineffective" means "not producing the desired effect" and you say that the review shows that the flu vax has been largely ineffective, it ain't a lie.
Edited by Jennyanydots - 12/3/12 at 9:45am

[midstreammama]

So instead of saying ineffective maybe it should be stated mostly ineffective..either way the numbers don't seem that promising. Seems like we are splitting hairs. I guess it just depends on which side you want to fall. You could say saving thousands the next person could say harming thousands which in the grand scheme of numbers is not very big because ere are so many people. Just depends where someone wants to put their money, so to speak.

[Rrrrrachel]

Except there's no evidence it's harming thousands.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm pointing out a particular statement is a lie. Which it is.

[Jennyanydots]

If 100 people must receive flu vax to prevent 1 case of flu, and flu and flu like illnesses (quoting from the cochrane summary) "rarely lead to death or serious illness" can you please explain how the optimistic rate of 6% effectiveness results in saving tens of thousands of lives? I am honestly asking if there's something I'm missing.