or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Cochrane review and flu vaccines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cochrane review and flu vaccines - Page 3

post #41 of 81
Thread Starter 
6% is not optimistic. There are around 500,000 deaths from flu world wide each year. 6% of 500,000 is 30,000.
post #42 of 81

Both sides are occasionally guilty of occasionally hyperbolizing the truth to suit their agendas. However one has a much more well funded & accessible voice. The Cochrane review would never actually come out and say 'Bam, Ineffective, Take That Pharma!' . . .

 

But the MSM does come out and say 'Bam, Effective, Get the Shot!'

 

Saying that the shot's efficacy is similar to that of the Placebo is really pretty shocking given the blanket recommendations & madates for Health Care Workers. Perhaps the most correct statement would be that 'level of efficacy & benefit continues to be the subject of very legitimate debate' . . .

post #43 of 81
Thread Starter 
It's similar to placebo . . . For children under two. Not many of those in a group of healthcare workers.
post #44 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

6% is not optimistic. There are around 500,000 deaths from flu world wide each year. 6% of 500,000 is 30,000.

Prove that statement. Because we know the CDC's 36.000 is pulled from their backside.

post #45 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

6% is not optimistic. There are around 500,000 deaths from flu world wide each year. 6% of 500,000 is 30,000.
source, please.
How do you know this is influenza A or B, and not flu like illnesses lumped together, of which, according to Cochrane review, true flu actually accounts for 10%?
post #46 of 81
Also, you realize we are talking about preventing 6% of sets of sx here, not 6% of deaths, right?
What % of flu cases result in death?
post #47 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post



Even if that 6% number is true, that's thousands fewer deaths in the us each year and tens of thousands world wide.
 

But didn't the review find that the vaccine didn't have any impact on hospitalisations and lost work?  If that's the case, isn't it also likely that it has little or no impact on the number of deaths from flu?  (I'll admit, I haven't read the actual reviews, but I hope somebody who has the time to read it can answer this question.)

post #48 of 81
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

But didn't the review find that the vaccine didn't have any impact on hospitalisations and lost work?  If that's the case, isn't it also likely that it has little or no impact on the number of deaths from flu?  (I'll admit, I haven't read the actual reviews, but I hope somebody who has the time to read it can answer this question.)

The idea is you don't get sick in the first place. I believe the "no effect on hospitalization, etc" is once you were sick.
post #49 of 81
From the summary: "very little information was found on the safety of inactivated vaccines, the most commonly used vaccine in young children"

This is so, so terribly distressing greensad.gif
post #50 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The idea is you don't get sick in the first place. I believe the "no effect on hospitalization, etc" is once you were sick.
What? This makes no sense.
post #51 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


The idea is you don't get sick in the first place. I believe the "no effect on hospitalization, etc" is once you were sick.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post

What? This makes no sense.

 

Vaccinated people are less likely to get the flu, but some still do.  Of those who do, there is "no effect on hospitalization, etc.".

post #52 of 81
post #53 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post


Vaccinated people are less likely to get the flu, but some still do.  Of those who do, there is "no effect on hospitalization, etc.".
yes that's what she meant, obviously, but it makes no sense in terms of the review's findings that "Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised..." And "Vaccination... had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates..."
And it fails to answer the other poster's question.
post #54 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post
Mod note: Quote removed as quoted post was removed.

What is effective for you?  Anything above zero?

post #55 of 81
Thread Starter 

1. I don't think it matters.  My point is the Cochrane review doesn't say the vaccine is ineffective.  That's not a matter of perspective or interpretation.  They don't say it.

 

2. Saying the flu vaccine is ineffective, to me, means it doesn't work.  It doesn't prevent flu or lower the probability of any other adverse outcome.  This is not what it says.  The cochrane review actually says the opposite in several instances.

post #56 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

 

Vaccinated people are less likely to get the flu, but some still do.  Of those who do, there is "no effect on hospitalization, etc.".

Except that is not what they said.

 

They said this:

 

Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost.

post #57 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

1. I don't think it matters.  My point is the Cochrane review doesn't say the vaccine is ineffective.  That's not a matter of perspective or interpretation.  They don't say it.

 

 

I don't think it matter whether they say it is ineffective or not (which I doubt they are going to do, as "ineffective", unless you mean completely ineffective, is a judgment call).

 

It is up to us to interpret their finding - and their findings, in my mind, paint a bleak picture of the usefulness of the flu vaccine for the public at large, and certain demographics in particular.

 

I don't think people go around saying "Cochrane says the flu vaccine is completely ineffective" and if they do, call them on it if you like.  Some of it might be splitting hairs, though.

post #58 of 81
Thread Starter 

Yes, people are going around saying the cochrane review said the flu shot was ineffective.  Which is why I started the thread.

post #59 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


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

 

But the conclusion is based on ....

 

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.

 

So ....

 

Quote:

The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.

post #60 of 81

Thank you.  That's a powerful and compelling letter.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Cochrane review and flu vaccines