Flu Vaccine, enough already! - Page 16

A study published in the October 2008 issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu had no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.

The researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.

• A 2008 study published in the Lancet found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people.

This supports an earlier study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

• Research published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine also confirms that there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia in the elderly, despite the fact that vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now.
• In 2007, researchers with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious

Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health published this conclusion in the Lancet Infectious Diseases: “We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality,have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits.”

• A large-scale, systematic review of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children under 2. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.

A study published in the October 2008 issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu had no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.
The researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.

A 2008 study published in the Lancet found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people.
This supports an earlier study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Research published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine also confirms that there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia in the elderly, despite the fact that vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now.

In 2007, researchers with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health published this conclusion in the Lancet Infectious Diseases: “We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality,have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits.”

A large-scale, systematic review of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children under 2. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.

More anti-vaccination agendas
It is somewhat disconcerting that there are still allnurses members that are cutting and pasting slanted and sensationalistic attacks on the influenza vaccinations to further the anti-vaccination agenda. Tshores’ post above (#149) is another example. The post purports to be an original authoritative summary of peer-reviewed articles ostensibly demonstrating the overall failure of influenza vaccinations. Below I discuss each of the links in tshore’s post and the actual conclusions in those articles.


The researchers actual formal conclusions from the abstract of the linked article are as follows:

“In 2 seasons with suboptimal antigenic match between vaccines and circulating strains, we could not demonstrate VE in preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED or outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years. Further study is needed during years with good vaccine match.”

The failure to find vaccine effectiveness could be result of the poor match between circulating influenza strains and the strains used in that season’s vaccination. More research is recommended.



The actual quote from the Lancet article abstract is as follows:

“The effect of influenza vaccination on the risk of pneumonia in elderly people during influenza seasons might be less than previously estimated.”

The authors of the Lancet article do not conclude that influenza vaccination was useless for elderly people, only that it's efficacy may not be as high as reported.

The second link provided by tshores in this quote does not lead to a peer reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine --- but rather to one of Mercola.com’s web pages.

The referenced article does not discuss vaccine uptake rates, but is a study of mortality rates. The actual conclusions of the researchers in this article is as follows:
“The 51% reduction in mortality with vaccination initially observed in patients with pneumonia who did not have influenza was most likely a result of confounding. Previous observational studies may have overestimated mortality benefits of influenza vaccination.”

The article does not confirm that increased vaccine uptake has failed to decrease elderly deaths from influenza and pneumonia, only that there seems to be fewer mortality benefits from vaccinations among the elderly.


While this is a direct quote, the conclusions are not fully accepted in the scientific community. Conveniently, the original author of this material fails to cite the rejoinder comments about this article by several authors in The Lancet Infectious Diseases : Volume 8, Number 8, 1 August 2008

The strident interpretation of the effectiveness of vaccines compared to a placebo for children under 2 years is not supported by a reading of the authors’ actual conclusions which are as follows:

“Influenza vaccines are efficacious in children older than two years but little evidence is available for children under two. . . If immunisation in children is to be recommended as public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.”

People need to do their own research and come to their own reasoned opinions.

The post by tshores demonstrates the perils of cutting and pasting information from the internet and passing it off as original effort in an attempt to further an anti-vaccination agenda.

First of all an American includes the Canda, Mexico, and all of the central and south AMERICAN nations So I think you mean as a citizen of the USA. Second of all...God given? I think not....you get your rights from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That said you are correct. As a citizen you have the right to refuse. as a healthcare worker you have the right to get the shot or wear a mask all shift every shift. Also, you have the right to change careers.

Wow! Can't remember the last time I heard a Canadian or Mexican or Central American refer to themselves as an 'American'. Pretty darn sure, the world over, when someone says, "Oh you're an American." They are thinking about those of us from AMERiCA...the United States of AMERICA....nowhere else.


If you refer to yourself as an AMERICAN and you are not a citizen of the United States of America, get over it and try a little pride in the country you do come from!!!

provincial, much? when i was in korea, someone asked if i was from the usa and i said yes, i am from america, and they said no, the usa. i had to admit they were correct. this whole hemisphere is 'america.'

Provincial, much? When I was in Korea, someone asked if I was from the USA and I said yes, I am from America, and they said no, the USA. I had to admit they were correct. This whole hemisphere is 'AMERICA.'