Mothering Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<p>What do you make of this article?</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.infowars.com/myths-and-facts-study-verifies-that-there-is-no-value-in-any-flu-vaccine/" target="_blank">http://www.infowars.com/myths-and-facts-study-verifies-that-there-is-no-value-in-any-flu-vaccine/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Give it a quick read, and let's see what happens. It helps to remember that this is not really a non-vax vs. pro-vax war. We are all  on the same side--we just want what is best for our kids and families. I hope this article can inspire a discussion, not an argument.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
<p>When you've got a sentence that begins "Dr. Viera Scheibner, arguably one of the world’s most respected scientists and scholars on vaccine medical data," you've also got a fringe propaganda piece. A more balanced take on the efficacy issue, including the Cochrane review, than provided by "InfoWars" can be found <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,138 Posts
<p>The article was so biased (in both reporting/interpretation and added so much to the actual review and didn't link it in addition) that it put me off.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, I looked up the actual cochrane review they are referencing.</p>
<p><a href="http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html" target="_blank">http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html</a> First, I think the risk for getting the flu is low whether vaccinated or not. In all the years I didn't get a flu vax I got the flu once. My kids got the flu once. It's miserable when you get it!</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
<div> In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance. Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ok, so if the match is good and there is a lot of flu circulating (both don't usually happen) in 100 people 1 of the vaccinated will get the flu and of 100 unvaccinated 4 will get the flu, correct? In a poor match with the vax/circulation vaxed people are still 1 in 100 and unvaxed 2 in 100, right? Your absolute risk of getting influenza is low vaccinated or not. Still, unvaccinated people are less likely to get the flu than unvaccinated. You are, if I'm reading this correctly possibly going to have a less severe flu course if time missed from work is an indication.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>They (Cochrane...I do trust them for accuracy and scientific validity in their conclusions) reviewed child studies as well.</p>
<p><a href="http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html" target="_blank">http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
<div> From RCTs, live vaccines showed an efficacy of 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71% to 89%) and an effectiveness of 33% (95% CI 28% to 38%) in children older than two compared with placebo or no intervention. Inactivated vaccines had a lower efficacy of 59% (95% CI 41% to 71%) than live vaccines but similar effectiveness: 36% (95% CI 24% to 46%).</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>So, for kids in real life (effectiveness) a vaxed kid is 33-36% less likely to develop influenza than an unvaxed child. I would suspect, though, they have similarly low rates of infection whether vaxed or unvaxed  overall as found in the study on adults referenced above. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Reading that study, though, made me wonder about adult efficacy/effectiveness rates rather than percents infected. I found this review they (Cochrane again) published using those terms instead:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443504?dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443504?dopt=Abstract</a></p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
<p><span>Inactivated parenteral vaccines were 30% effective (95% CI 17% to 41%) against influenza-like illness, and 80% (95% CI 56% to 91%) efficacious against influenza when the vaccine matched the circulating strain and circulation was high, but decreased to 50% (95% CI 27% to 65%) when it did not. Excluding the studies of the 1968 to 1969 pandemic, effectiveness was 15% (95% CI 9% to 22%) and efficacy was 73% (95% CI 53% to 84%). Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work, but there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local tenderness and soreness and erythema. Spray vaccines had more modest performance. Monovalent whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%) against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p>Looks to be similar to the findings in children? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So no value <span style="text-decoration:underline;">isn't</span> correct based on my reading. However, a cost vs. benefit analysis may make an individual decide the potential benefit doesn't outweigh the potential drawbacks. But I think it's not accurate to say no value and I think the article you referenced is quite selective and biased in interpretation--the opposite of why I like Cochrane review and use them a lot in my own research!</p>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dootsmama

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,664 Posts
<p> l won't go to that site...ever...no matter what the article. </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
<p>Thank you Laohare, Otto, and Sbgrace. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>chaoticzenmom</strong> <a href="/community/forum/thread/1284762/there-is-no-value-in-any-flu-vaccine#post_16107877"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p> l won't go to that site...ever...no matter what the article. </p>
</div>
</div>
<p> Because I don't want people to see the above comment and get turned off from the infowars site I just want to say that I do respect the site and although the information sounds crazy and shocking when you first come acrosed it, if you really look into yourself you will find it to be true. Just a voice for the other side. Now back to the vaccine topic.<br>
 </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,664 Posts
<p>l have spent some time on that site, obviously, or  wouldn't have formed an opinion of it.  But as far as vaccine information goes, that's not the place to send people for info...unless you want to assure them that we're all paranoid conspiracy theorists. l think that the flu vaccine is useless, but 'm pretty sure my status as an Atheist is not about to send me to a concentration camp where 'll be turned into a slave in the NWO. </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
<p>I agree it's not the first place to go to for vaccine info but I'm just saying that people shouldn't automatically discount everything they say as wrong. Just because something is a conspiracy theory does not necessarily make it untrue. I think the site does alert people to some very serious issues and as far as vaccines it is probably bringing the issue to the attention of people who may never have considered it and will now do more research on their own. I'm an atheist also but I'm pretty sure Alex's stance on the issue is that the fema camps are for everyone except the elite. Of course I'm not going to say I absolutely agree with everything on the site. I don't. But it raises a lot of serious concerns about our future.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,211 Posts
<p>I won't read the piece, but I believe the only time there is a reason to get the flu vaccine is if there is a significant danger to the individual by getting the flu itself.  I also do not think that everyone around that person should then get the vaccine "to protect person X."  Person X getting vax'd and others doing diligent hand washing and staying away when ill suffices.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And I totally agree there is an argument to be made that if person X has that bad of a condition, why should they get any vaccine, but if there is value to the flu vax for anyone at all, it might be that person.  People in the everyday world with somewhat decent immune systems?  Nope, no value at all.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Jenn</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Otto</strong> <a href="/community/forum/thread/1284762/there-is-no-value-in-any-flu-vaccine#post_16107563"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>When you've got a sentence that begins "Dr. Viera Scheibner, arguably one of the world’s most respected scientists and scholars on vaccine medical data," you've also got a fringe propaganda piece. A more balanced take on the efficacy issue, including the Cochrane review, than provided by "InfoWars" can be found <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
Of course, the phrase "anti vaccine goofs" might also indicate bias...</p>
<p> </p>
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top