More info that flu shots may not be worth it

Deb · Post by **Deb** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:13 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... hyped.html

Researchers from the University of Minnesota looked at 12,000 studies on the effectiveness and safety of the flu jab, going back to the 1930s.
They say that although Government officials claim it protects between 70 and 90 per cent of the population, this is actually not the case.

In fact, they say, it protects just 59 per cent of adults aged 18 to 65, but is far less effective in the elderly.

Gayle · Post by **Gayle** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:05 pm

Flu-jabs-waste-taxpayers-money-claim-scientists-benefits-hyped.html"
Researchers from the University of Minnesota looked at 12,000 studies on the effectiveness and safety of the flu jab, going back to the 1930s. They say that although Government officials claim it protects between 70 and 90 per cent of the population, this is actually not the case. In fact, they say, it protects just 59 per cent of adults aged 18 to 65, but is far less effective in the elderly.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/health-science ... yers-money
This article was written by person by the name of Sophie Borland.
BEWARE: Either she, or the headline writer, did add a little twist of interpretive opinion.

See also:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanin ... X/abstract

This report's author, Professor Michael Osterholm, said he still recommended the vaccine, but its benefits were over-reported. i.e.) ‘But we have over-promoted this vaccine. For certain age groups in some years its effectiveness has been severely limited relative to what has been previously reported’.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/health-science ... yers-money

And Douglas Fleming, of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ Influenza Monitoring Unit in Birmingham, said: ‘No vaccines are perfect. Last year’s flu vaccine was a bad match with the circulating strains. Its effectiveness varies from year to year and with different age groups.’

It is easy to understand why some individuals may interpret the raw numbers as reported by this particular meta-analysis study as meaning that they should not bother with getting the flu vaccine.

However, if one can look further than self ... to the broader interest of Public Health … what will then be understood is that if roughly 60% of individuals are successfully vaccinated, that is 60% fewer people infected with the flu virus – who in turn, are not spreading the flu virus further among their larger circle of friends, acquaintances and random other people that we all cross paths with daily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/ ... y-immunity

And from another perspective here, it is also not hard to understand why the benefit ratios were over stated by the Government as well as all Insurers. As the Government is a major insurer in this country, and is about to become an even more predominent insurer, the cost's of a large vaccination program dwarfs the cost's of care for a large population of people when a large scale flu epidemic happens. It is simply much more cost effective to attempt to achieve the Herd Immunity effect than to have to treat a rampant virus. And if an individual for some reason can not take the immunization, what that person really hopes is that everyone else can/will be vaccinated, so that the unvaccinated will be less likely to be exposed.

Cheers,
Gayle

Lesley · Post by **Lesley** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:43 pm

I am my own sample. I have been having the flu jab for years because I always got the flu. The ONE year I didn't get the jab I got flu. I was sick for 3 months.
People around here have been so sick. Not me, at least not with flu. And given my current MC status I think I would be vulnerable to it had I not had the jab.

I will NEVER miss it again!

Post by **tex** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:08 pm

Here is Dr. Briffa's opinion on this topic. It begins with:

We’re entering the ‘flu season here in the UK. Last year, my local surgery put a banner outside urging us to ‘roll up’ for the ‘flu vaccine. I wrote a blog post which explained why this practice is not nearly as effective or ‘evidence-based’ as one might think. In a previous blog post here I cited the evidence from bona fide researchers (known as the ‘Cochrane Collaboration’) which painted a pretty damning picture of the effectiveness of flu vaccination and the potential for industry-spinning of the benefits.

Flu vaccination ‘over-promoted’ and ‘over-hyped’ according to researchers

Tex

Lesley · Post by **Lesley** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:36 pm

Could be. I am only saying it has worked for me year after year. And I am grateful that I am one person who has benefited.

Post by **tex** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:55 am

Lesley,

Yes, they do work quite well for some people. The problem is that they don't work worth a hoot for a large percentage of the population, and for a few, they even cause life-threatening reactions (which most doctors seem to try to either ignore, or deny that they can even happen). As we get older, our immune system becomes progressively less capable of responding to a vaccine, so we become less likely to be able to generate an immunity to a vaccine.

And yet the vaccines are promoted as if they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. They're especially promoted for the older generation, (since this is a group that could definitely benefit from immunity), and yet the vaccines are the least effective for this group. While their motives might be admirable, using half-truths and misleading claims to promote a product that doesn't work nearly as well as it is described, places the whole program in the same category as the "snake oil" products that were promoted a century ago. The claims made about them were exaggerated, too.

I have nothing against the flu vaccine. On the contrary, I believe it's a good idea for anyone who might actually benefit from it. But if it can't be represented honestly and accurately, then the whole concept stinks, IMO. And if representing it honestly and accurately results in poor utilization of the program, then obviously, it's not worth pursuing. Let the "market" determine it's validity and it's value — all the government hype doesn't make it one bit more effective.

Tex

Lesley · Post by **Lesley** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:14 pm

You're right as usual, Tex.
They should do a study (long range) on how many people with other diagnoses, or older, or any other parameter, really don't get the flu after receiving the shot vs those that do, or those that the shot harms etc. There IS enough data out there to do an honest double blind study so that people know what they should do.
Personally I would always get a shot given my history, and what happens to ME if I don't. But there should be more info for people it could harm.

fatbuster205 · Post by **fatbuster205** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:26 pm

Lesley wrote:I am my own sample. I have been having the flu jab for years because I always got the flu. The ONE year I didn't get the jab I got flu. I was sick for 3 months.
People around here have been so sick. Not me, at least not with flu. And given my current MC status I think I would be vulnerable to it had I not had the jab.

I will NEVER miss it again!

With you there Lesley - I have had the flu jab since I was 11 at boarding school. First jab I reacted but never since. And the years at Uni and other times when I didn't have it I got flu (and I mean flu not a bad cold!!). I was diagnosed with asthma in my early 30s so now get the jab every year and would never miss it! It works for me!!

Hope you are feeling a bit better BTW?
Anne