A Physician Takes His Flu Vaccine Under Protest - Page 2

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

That "lab tested influenza" - which might exclude some actual influenza if not tested....?
Don't forget to read this bit from Rrrrrachels post which seems like vaccine is helping with some things:
"Deaths from pneumonia were significantly reduced (VE 39%, 95% CI 2-62%), as were deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27-50%)."

The Cochrane Review states quite strongly that the studies (including the ones you quote) are low-quality.

Again, quoting the lead researcher (whom you and Rachael pointedly ignore):

"In other words, we report that no effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza and its complications such as death. We detected an effect on non-influenza specific outcomes such as death for all causes. This we found to be implausible given that in the elderly and frail death occurs for a variety of causes completely unrelated to influenza. Dr. Kendall forgot to mention our warning that all studies in the review were of low quality (which is the most likely explanation for the findings on death from all causes).

www.vancouversun.com/health/Cochrane+review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7543272/story.html#ixzz2GpuASIjk

Why on earth would anyone want to spend hours and hours on the Internet, passionately defending the flu shot, even though the gold standard of mainstream medical review says that there was no detectable effect on flu, hospitalization from influenza, pneumonia from influenza, or death from influenza? Why would anyone feel its so important to trumpet the findings of industry-designed, low-quality studies over those of an independent, highly respected reviewer? Why would anyone claiming to be "pro-science" ignore the strongest science related to the flu shot?

I am mystified.

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not going to bicker with you taxi. People can read the results for themselves.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not going to bicker with you taxi. People can read the results for themselves.

Thank heavens for that!  

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856082?dopt=Abstract

were effective against deaths from pneumonia (VE 39%, 95% CI 2% to 62%) and deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27% to 50%)

is convincing to me.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

is convincing to me.

Why is that convincing to you when the Cochrane Review asserts that those studies are low-quality, and that those conclusions are not plausible?

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi, to reiterate, again, my only point in bringing it up is that these recommendations aren't based on nothing.

Also,once again, there is a difference between what the lead researcher has said and what the Cochran review actually said. The Cochran review is highly regarded because of the methodology and procedures it goes through in writing its reviews. Remarks the lead researcher makes in a letter to the editor are not held to the same standard.

Why can't you just let this go? The links are there for people to read. Why do you get so worked up just because people come to different conclusions than you? It's like it's a personal affront or something.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Taxi, to reiterate, again, my only point in bringing it up is that these recommendations aren't based on nothing.
Also,once again, there is a difference between what the lead researcher has said and what the Cochran review actually said. The Cochran review is highly regarded because of the methodology and procedures it goes through in writing its reviews. Remarks the lead researcher makes in a letter to the editor are not held to the same standard.
Why can't you just let this go? The links are there for people to read. Why do you get so worked up just because people come to different conclusions than you? It's like it's a personal affront or something.

My question was in reply to Chickabiddy, not to you, Rrrrachel.  

Edited by Taximom5 - 1/3/13 at 8:46am

[WildKingdom]

If you only want to talk to one person, you should probably use a PM. This is a forum. Oh, wait, you were talking to Rachel, not me.

Or are all three screen names mine?????

The world will never know....mwah ha ha!!!!

[Taximom5]

Taximom5

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

[This study] is convincing to me.

Why is that convincing to you when the Cochrane Review asserts that those studies are low-quality, and that those conclusions are not plausible?

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

If you only want to talk to one person, you should probably use a PM. This is a forum. Oh, wait, you were talking to Rachel, not me.
Or are all three screen names mine?????
The world will never know....mwah ha ha!!!!

I think it was pretty clear, both whom I was quoting, and whom I was addressing.

But if you think it's appropriate to make fun of me, there's not much I can do about it, except marvel at your maturity, sensitivity, and compassion.   

[IdentityCrisisMama]

If you agree with this statement, 

Intelligent, informative, and civil debate should be the shining light of this forum.

Please demonstrate that by posting in a way that directs the dialog towards what you wish this forum to be. Ignore rude, baiting comments.

A reminder of part of UA for discussion and debate: 

Do not stoop to accusation, condescending comments and veiled insults against an individual's character or intentions in posting here, as if that will somehow discredit the person or information.

I also want to thank those of you who chose to use the flag feature without escalating the issue. This makes moderating a lot quicker and easier. Thanks! 

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

My question was in reply to Chickabiddy, not to you, Rrrrachel.  Or are both screen names yours?

Rachel is welcome to respond, and we are different people.

I don't feel that I can interact with you productively, Taximom, so I will choose not to.

[Rrrrrachel]

Chickabiddy has the wise.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

Rachel is welcome to respond, and we are different people.

I don't feel that I can interact with you productively, Taximom, so I will choose not to.

I believe I asked you a reasonable, non-confrontational question:  "Why is that convincing to you when the Cochrane Review asserts that those studies are low-quality, and that those conclusions are not plausible?"  I was hoping to understand why you (not Rrrrrachel) came to a different conclusion than I did.

If you don't want to answer my question, that's absolutely fine.  

[hobojungle]

Just wondering if people have read the review of flu vaccine effectiveness by CIDRAP

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/center/mission/articles/ccivi-landing.html

For some reason I don't see many people referring to this recently completed study. Everyone keeps referring to the cochrane review. I can't imagine any intelligent person who reads this whole report to be in favor of the flu vaccine. The ACIP moved in favor of universal flu shots over the past years without scientific evidence. It is very disturbing.

I'm a dad with a one year old son and refused the flu vaccine at his 9 mo appt and got a dirty look from the nurse practitioner. Connecticut is one of two states that requires this stupid vaccine for kids in daycare starting at 6 mos. I hope other states don't follow this.
Edited by hobojungle - 1/4/13 at 6:37am

[Rrrrrachel]

It's not news to me that the flu vaccine varies widely in effectiveness, depending on how good the match is and how active the flu season is in a particular year. It's far from a sure thing, especially whe compared with other vaccines, and I didn't think it was going in.

Talking about how no intelligent person could do x or y shows a total lack of imagination.

Thanks for the link, though.

[Rrrrrachel]

I have read a little about cidrap (although I didn't realize that's what it was when you said it). The main conclusion seems to be that we need to keep working on developing a universal flu vaccine, and we need to make sure public policy and research funding are aligned towards that end. It also says pretty much what I did above, that the flu vaccine isn't as effective as what we're used to from other vaccines, but when there's a good match it still makes you substantially less likely to get the flu.

I don't think I'm getting what you did from it at all.

[hobojungle]

Yes, I think the main argument is that current flu vaccines effectiveness have been overstated and that they need a totally different approach for truly effective flu vaccines.

However within the report it talks about the push for flu vaccines to a broader population by the ACIP was not based on new evidence of effectiveness of current vaccines. It is now recommended for all people 6 months or older and if I remember correctly only 2 studies covered infants under the age of one and the results are inconclusive to any effectiveness.

They do recommend current flu vaccines should be use in the meantime but the argument hinges on the safety of current vaccines which you could argue is not truly known especially for infants.

Anyways I hope more people read this paper as it is very interesting and talks about how current flu vaccines work along with the development/funding process of vaccines

[hobojungle]

Sorry about the comment about "intelligent people". I was trying to get across that anyone who reads this report in entirety should come away with some skepticism of the current universal flu vac recommendation.

That comment is showing my annoyance that there are not many balanced research papers on vaccines in general. I reluctantly vax my son on a slightly spaced out schedule.

[Taximom5]

Hi, hobojungle, welcome aboard!

In addition to CIDRAP and Cochrane, I also found this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/

"Last month, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies."

[Taximom5]

Holy cow--even the DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH AND POLICY, who describes himself as a "pro-vaccine guy," is admitting that this vaccine is overpromoted and overhyped, and that it does not protect as promoted.  He also admits that it's not about health--it's all about marketing.

" 'We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,' said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, as well as its Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance. 'It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.' "

Apparently, he was out there heavily promoting the flu vaccine, mistakenly believing that it was effective--until he saw the actual study:

“I’m an insider,” Dr. Osterholm said. “Until we started this project, I was one of the people out there heavily promoting influenza vaccine use. It was only with this study that I looked and said, ‘What are we doing?’ ”