"Flu Vaccine associated with lower risk of cardiovascular events" - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-23-2013, 07:56 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

"Receiving an influenza vaccination was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events such as heart failure or hospitalization for heart attack, with the greatest treatment effect seen among patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS; such as heart attack or unstable angina), according to a meta-analysis published in the October 23/30 issue of JAMA.

 

In the 5 published RCTs, 95 of 3,238 patients treated with influenza vaccine (2.9 percent) developed a major adverse cardiovascular event compared with 151 of 3,231 patients (4.7 percent) treated with placebo or control within 1 year of follow-up, an absolute risk difference favoring flu vaccine of 1.74 percent. The addition of the unpublished data did not materially change the results (2.9 percent influenza vaccine vs. 4.6 percent placebo or control)."

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022170626.htm


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-10-2013, 08:54 AM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,756
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing @teacozy :)


cynthia mosher is online now  
Old 11-12-2013, 11:44 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

But the Cochrane Review complained that

"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 light of this finding." (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/abstract;jsessionid=BFE7620552A41CDDAD4B4177BC1C5CA1.f03t04)

 

Dr. Jefferson told Time Magazine:

"We looked at studies on vaccines in the elderly and in health care workers who work with the elderly, and we found an implausible sequence of results. We have studies that claim up to 90% effectiveness against death from all causes [in inoculated patients compared with the nonvaccinated]. If you were to believe that evidence, you would believe that flu vaccine is effective against death not only from influenza, but also from heart attack, stroke, hypothermia, accidents and all other common causes of death among the elderly. That is quite clearly nonsense.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1967306,00.html#ixzz2kSLg01Wj"

 

Looks like the vaccine manufacturers are trying to tweak the studies to make it look like the flu vaccine has a causal protective effect from heart attack, since that would be the least implausible of the situations described by Dr. Jefferson.  They must be getting desperate, since it's already been shown quite conclusively that the flu shot is ineffective in the elderly, by both the Cochrane Review and by CIDRAP.  So there they go, fear-mongering away....

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 11-12-2013, 11:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

But the Cochrane Review complained that

"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 light of this finding." (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/abstract;jsessionid=BFE7620552A41CDDAD4B4177BC1C5CA1.f03t04)

 

Dr. Jefferson told Time Magazine:

"We looked at studies on vaccines in the elderly and in health care workers who work with the elderly, and we found an implausible sequence of results. We have studies that claim up to 90% effectiveness against death from all causes [in inoculated patients compared with the nonvaccinated]. If you were to believe that evidence, you would believe that flu vaccine is effective against death not only from influenza, but also from heart attack, stroke, hypothermia, accidents and all other common causes of death among the elderly. That is quite clearly nonsense.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1967306,00.html#ixzz2kSLg01Wj"

 

Looks like the vaccine manufacturers are trying to tweak the studies to make it look like the flu vaccine has a causal protective effect from heart attack, since that would be the least implausible of the situations described by Dr. Jefferson.  They must be getting desperate, since it's already been shown quite conclusively that the flu shot is ineffective in the elderly, by both the Cochrane Review and by CIDRAP.  So there they go, fear-mongering away....

 

Neither of those articles are referencing the study I posted.  Both of those links are from 2010, over three years before this study was published....


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 11-12-2013, 09:16 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Neither of those articles are referencing the study I posted.  Both of those links are from 2010, over three years before this study was published....

"this study" that you posted is a meta-analysis of all clinical trials, referencing "all randomized clinical trials of influenza vaccine that studied cardiovascular events as efficacy or safety outcomes to determine if influenza vaccination is associated with prevention of cardiovascular events."  In other words, they look at many of the same crappy studies that the Cochrane Review complained about.

 

Wow, you really seem to want to prove that the flu shot is great!  You're going to great lengths to disagree with the experts at Cochrane...

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 11-12-2013, 10:08 PM
 
cwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

"this study" that you posted is a meta-analysis of all clinical trials, referencing "all randomized clinical trials of influenza vaccine that studied cardiovascular events as efficacy or safety outcomes to determine if influenza vaccination is associated with prevention of cardiovascular events."  In other words, they look at many of the same crappy studies that the Cochrane Review complained about.

 

Actually, the study only includes randomized clinical trials that met the high quality standard described in the Cochrane Review you cited (that was one of the criteria for inclusion).  It's possible to read the full article on JAMA if you register (for free) for their reader. 

cwill is offline  
Old 11-13-2013, 06:19 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,231
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwill View Post
 

 

Actually, the study only includes randomized clinical trials that met the high quality standard described in the Cochrane Review you cited (that was one of the criteria for inclusion).  It's possible to read the full article on JAMA if you register (for free) for their reader. 

It did not say that - at least not in the article.

 

Perhaps it said so in the full article - do you have a quote?

 

The numbers are small - we are talking 95 and 151 here.  

 

I find the numbers odd.  There is a 4.7 cardiac event rate in the non-vax group and a 2.9 in the vaxxed group…so a difference of 1.8%.  The flu vaccine only prevents about 2% of people (at best!) from getting the flu.  The vaccine is about 50% effective overall, and far less effective in the elderly (around 10% and the average age of those in the study was 67)- so the numbers are not adding up.  

 

I found this critique on CIDRAP which I thought was good read.  They raised a number of concerns that are valid.   They were particularly concerned with findings in subgroups.  In the subgroup of those who had a recent cardiac event, the risk of having a cardiac event if unvaccinated was 12 or 13% higher.  That makes no sense - it is far higher than the flu attack rate.

 

"In an accompanying JAMA editorial, Kathleen M. Neuzil, MD, MPH, welcomed the findings but raised questions about the big risk reduction in those with recent cardiovascular events.

Referring to the reported reduction in absolute risk, she wrote, "The estimate of 12.9 major cardiovascular events prevented for every 100 persons vaccinated would require a high attack rate, high vaccine efficacy, and nearly every episode of clinical influenza leading to a major cardiovascular event. This scenario seems unlikely, and suggests possible design flaws and residual bias in at least some" of the studies included in the meta-analysis"

 

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/10/meta-analysis-links-flu-vaccination-fewer-cardio-events


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 11-13-2013, 12:51 PM
 
cwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

It did not say that - at least not in the article.

 

Perhaps it said so in the full article - do you have a quote?

 

I'm not sure what you mean.  It doesn't say it in the abstract.  It says it in the methods and results section of the article.  I can't copy and paste from the JN reader and I'm not going to type out any quotes, sorry.  The reader is free - why don't you just read the full article yourself?  Then you can read Neuzil's full commentary as well.  You can get it here: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1758749

cwill is offline  
Old 11-13-2013, 03:59 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,231
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwill View Post
 

 

I'm not sure what you mean.  It doesn't say it in the abstract.  It says it in the methods and results section of the article.  I can't copy and paste from the JN reader and I'm not going to type out any quotes, sorry.  The reader is free - why don't you just read the full article yourself?  Then you can read Neuzil's full commentary as well.  You can get it here: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1758749

If you can't copy and paste from the reader that is fine.  I might read it - but to be frank, probably not.  Thanks for the link anyways.  I suppose any adult who had a cardiovascular event can weigh the info for themselves.  Ciao.

 

K.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off