Oh, my. As usual, an anti-vaxxer grossly misrepresents studies, fails to accurately report what they say, and shows an utter lack of comprehension of what the study does say.
I only read the study at the link “Read the government study that found no flu shot benefit in elderly” (I am not including the actual link). What it said is that the elderly they looked at were already immune to the H3N2 as a result of the 1968 pandemic—therefore, they did not benefit from being vaccinated. That is wildly different than saying that vaccinations do no good.
This study had some severe limitations, in that ALL of its conclusions were made on the basis of *estimates* of influenza illness, and not on actual diagnosed cases. To do a study properly, there must be *matched* control and study groups. There are various ways in which to set up such a study—one would be to vaccinate one group, but not the other, and then compare the rate of diagnosed influenza illness between the groups.
The claim that there was a higher death rate in elders following the increase of vaccination rates is easily interpreted by keeping in mind that there are more elders, and thus, more of them to die from these illnesses. It has nothing to do with vaccination; it most certainly does not mean that increased vaccination rates are *causing* higher death rates.
It is a well-known fact that the immune system becomes weaker after about age 65, and that people in that age group do not respond well to vaccines. This is why some companies have developed special high-dose influenza vaccines for the elderly. This is also behind the current recommendation to vaccinate everyone, and not just those in the high-risk age groups. If fewer people in the low-risk groups become ill, then the people in the high-risk groups are less likely to be exposed.
It is rather funny that the article hints at some government conspiracy that is preventing government scientists from speaking out—but the author of the article used publically available medical journals to find out what those same government scientists are saying, in their own words (even if the author did misrepresent what they said). It seems that if there were some big cover-up preventing government scientists from speaking up, you wouldn’t be able to find their articles in medical journals. The fact is that government scientists are encouraged to publish—in fact, their careers depend on it. They also attend research conferences and present their work. There is no evidence of some conspiracy meant to shut them up.
In closing, I will add that the flu vaccine has been reformulated since last year, and provides very good protection against the currently circulating strains of flu. I have had my vaccine, and expect another flu-free year.
>> an anti-vaxxer grossly misrepresents studies, fails to accurately report what they say, and shows an utter lack of comprehension of what the study does say <<
Agreed. My former enthusiasm for Sharyl has now waned significantly.
Always towing the party line...
[[The claim that there was a higher death rate in elders following the increase of vaccination rates is easily interpreted by keeping in mind that there are more elders, and thus, more of them to die from these illnesses. It has nothing to do with vaccination; it most certainly does not mean that increased vaccination rates are *causing* higher death rates.]]
Exactly, the baby boomers are elderly now- and we’ve had a marked increase in elderly- so it would skew the study and should have been included in the report
[[It is a well-known fact that the immune system becomes weaker after about age 65, and that people in that age group do not respond well to vaccines. This is why some companies have developed special high-dose influenza vaccines for the elderly.]]
Exactly- The study Sherryl cited most likely only studied single flu shot cases
[[If fewer people in the low-risk groups become ill, then the people in the high-risk groups are less likely to be exposed.]]
Very good point
Freepers must not remember ‘Mother Abigail’ the retired CDC scientist who posted here. The flu and ebola were a couple of her interests and she thought they were both pretty dangerous.
I get the shot. Don’t particularly want to drown in a cytokine storm as my immune system goes berserk fighting a hybrid human/animal flu. A swine or bird flu, like the 1918 flu that killed people by the millions. Children who lived through it spoke of being kissed goodbye by their healthy parents as they left for school, and then coming home to find that they were orphans. That’s how dangerous a flu virus can be. I don’t think most people realize it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2286992/posts?page=79
Since you are looking at the data, shouldn’t you say you expect to have a 48% chance of not getting the flu, as that is the effectiveness rate? IIRC someone posted on FR on another thread that the effectiveness in some years has been less than 20%.
Effectiveness has to be balanced against side effects. I personally know two people who got the shot and wound up with an infected nerve, i.e., Bell’s Palsy (yes the doctor said it was from the flu shot).