by morte

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1/3

Re: a different take

morte - thanks for posting the link. Here is the most important quote from the article.

Nancy Cox, the CDC’s influenza division chief, says flatly, “The flu vaccine is the best way to protect against flu.” Anthony Fauci, a physician and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH, where much of the basic science of flu vaccine has been worked out, says, “I have no doubt that it is effective in conferring some degree of protection. To say otherwise is a minority view.”

Re: a different take

Originally Posted by Laidback Al

morte - thanks for posting the link. Here is the most important quote from the article.

is that important because you think it is wrong, or because you agree?
and, in that quote she is saying very little, actually....!

Re: a different take

Originally Posted by morte

is that important because you think it is wrong, or because you agree?
and, in that quote she is saying very little, actually....!

I think they are saying a lot - get an H1N1 vaccination. I think that the recommendations for H1N1 influenza vaccination by Fauci and Cox, two recognized influenza experts, meets the criteria for factual, evidence-based medical information as posted by NRSKarenRN at this thread.

http://allnurses.com/pandemic-flu-fo...466-page4.html

Re: a different take

Originally Posted by Laidback Al

I think they are saying a lot - get an H1N1 vaccination. I think that the recommendations for H1N1 influenza vaccination by Fauci and Cox, two recognized influenza experts, meets the criteria for factual, evidence-based medical information as posted by NRSKarenRN at this thread.

http://allnurses.com/pandemic-flu-fo...466-page4.html

i was referring to the small snippet that YOU quoted......in which it said it would confer "some" immunity....that could be as little as 1%.......and do we want to put "our eggs all in one basket"?

Re: a different take

Very interesting article - thanks Laidback Al! Oops - I meant Morte!

Re: a different take

Originally Posted by CrunchRN

Very interesting article - thanks Laidback Al!

???????

Re: a different take

From the folks at Effect Measure

Originally Posted by Effect Measure

I keep getting asked about the Atlantic Magazine article, Does the Vaccine Matter? by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, two reporters whose particular bias is that we as a nation are "over treated." As a generalization that's probably true, and finding examples isn't hard. Unfortunately by taking as their main example flu vaccine during a pandemic, they have not only picked the wrong example but created more confusion at a time when there's already too much.
Brownlee and Lenzer rely upon (and romanticize as a martyr and truth-teller) Dr. Thomas Jefferson, someone who is fast establishing himself as an "Evidence Based Medicine" (EBM) crank who who courts notoriety by being a contrarian. The kind of EBM practiced by the likes of Jefferson and some other randomized trials zealots is far from the judicious weighing of the evidence envisaged by its early proponents. For example, David Sackett, defined EBM as:

"the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research." (BMJ, 13 Jan 96, Sackett, David L.).

There is nothing judicious about Jefferson, whose problem was described by one of my colleagues as "methodolatry," the profane worship of the randomized clinical trial as the only valid method of investigation. In this case his evidence base isn't even relevant, because we aren't dealing with seasonal flu but pandemic flu. For the record, what he is saying about the uncertainties about flu vaccine efficacy in the over 65 age group isn't new. In fact we've discussed it here, several times (here, here), going back a couple of years. But it is also clear that the vaccine offers protection in the age groups that matter for this pandemic, the people under age 50.
Nor is Jefferson, as claimed in the article, someone who "knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet." That's an absurd claim. The literature is vast and he knows only a tiny part of it. But insofar as there is an acknowledged expert on vaccine efficacy, it would be biostatistician Elizabeth Halloran, who reviewed the clinical trial and experimental challenge literature recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology. We wrote a longish post on the subject here. There is general agreement, even among so-called skeptics, that the vaccine works in the under 60 age group, precisely the group at issue with the swine flu vaccine........

read the entire article at: http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasur...the_atlant.php

The Editors of Effect Measure are senior public health scientists and practitioners. Paul Revere was a member of the first local Board of Health in the United States (Boston, 1799). The Editors sign their posts "Revere" to recognize the public service of a professional forerunner better known for other things.

Re: a different take

Originally Posted by HonestRN

From the folks at Effect Measure


read the entire article at: http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasur...the_atlant.php

The Editors of Effect Measure are senior public health scientists and practitioners. Paul Revere was a member of the first local Board of Health in the United States (Boston, 1799). The Editors sign their posts "Revere" to recognize the public service of a professional forerunner better known for other things.

and we would expect ANY OTHER REACTION from the powers that be? lololol
and i do believe that it was acknowledged in the article that that would be the ONLY group that may be a benefit to vaccinate.....but in the interest of keeping the older free of disease.