# The inactivated Flu shot only prevents the flu in just 1.5% of the population

- 1Jan 13, '13 by GarethausOk, I didn't want to hijack the other flu shot thread so......

I came across this meta-analysis from the Lancet, referred to by the NaturalNews website.

NaturalNews link here: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_in...ctiveness.html

And the Lancet meta-analysis: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...295-X/abstract - hope resources are available to get the review at your health place.

It took me a minute to see which direction the article was coming from.....

Ok.....go to figure 2. Section A.

Check out the treatment group: 221 individuals out of 18,797 who recieved a flu shot got the flu. That's 1.2%.

Now check out the control group: 357 individuals out of 13,095 who (technically) recieved a placebo got the flu. That's 2.7%.

The difference is 1.5%.

So if you get the flu vaccine, it would prevent 1.5 individuals out of a 100 strong population from getting the flu.

Wow, that's a great deal.joanarc52 likes this. - 8,291 Visits
- 4Jan 13, '13 by Orion81I think a lot of people get bad colds and think they got the flu. Only severe cases do we tend to do a culture. Many people think fever=flu but you can get a cold and low grade fever. Plus, I believe a lot of people who get the flu shot and then feel crummy (which is normal but NOT the flu) claim they got the flu, messing up statistics further
- 4Jan 13, '13 by hiddencatRNThat's one way to look at it. But if you consider that you're definitely going to be in the "gets the flu group" without a shot, by those numbers you have nearly 50% less chance of getting the flu. It's also variable by the year: some years are better matches than others.
- 2Jan 13, '13 by JZ_RNEh, myself and my family will still get them. Any protection I can get, I'll take.SoldierNurse22 and NutmeggeRN like this.
- 18Jan 13, '13 by MunoRNYou've got some horribly, disgustingly, atrociously bad math there.

If the rate of cancer in the general population is 3% and I come up with a treatment that drops that rate to 1.5% in the study group, did I decrease the rate of cancer in the study group by only 1.5%? The correct answer is 50%, this is pretty basic math skills (I realize the math flunkee here is Natural News, not necessarily you).

As the authors of the study points out, the study actually found a pooled effectiveness of 59%, not 1.5%. - 8Jan 13, '13 by KelRN215Quote from GarethausNot exactly. If your risk of getting the flu without the flu shot is 2.7% and you cut your risk to 1.2 % with the flu shot, you've cut your risk by 55%.Ok, I didn't want to hijack the other flu shot thread so......

I came across this meta-analysis from the Lancet, referred to by the NaturalNews website.

NaturalNews link here: Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

And the Lancet meta-analysis: Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis : The Lancet Infectious Diseases - hope resources are available to get the review at your health place.

It took me a minute to see which direction the article was coming from.....

Ok.....go to figure 2. Section A.

Check out the treatment group: 221 individuals out of 18,797 who recieved a flu shot got the flu. That's 1.2%.

Now check out the control group: 357 individuals out of 13,095 who (technically) recieved a placebo got the flu. That's 2.7%.

The difference is 1.5%.

So if you get the flu vaccine, it would prevent 1.5 individuals out of a 100 strong population from getting the flu.

Wow, that's a great deal. - 6Jan 13, '13 by dirtyhippiegirlQuote from MunoRNYou'd think the quintessential BSN education *with* its emphasis on both statistics and research would curb these issues, yes or no?You've got some horribly, disgustingly, atrociously bad math there.

If the rate of cancer in the general population is 3% and I come up with a treatment that drops that rate to 1.5% in the study group, did I decrease the rate of cancer in the study group by only 1.5%? The correct answer is 50%, this is pretty basic math skills (I realize the math flunkee here is Natural News, not necessarily you).

As the authors of the study points out, the study actually found a pooled effectiveness of 59%, not 1.5%. - 0Jan 13, '13 by ccweisbardAll I know is that it didn't work for me.... I suffered all of Christmas Day with the flu.....
- 0Jan 14, '13 by GarethausQuote from MunoRNIf we're going to getYou've got some horribly, disgustingly, atrociously bad math there.

If the rate of cancer in the general population is 3% and I come up with a treatment that drops that rate to 1.5% in the study group, did I decrease the rate of cancer in the study group by only 1.5%? The correct answer is 50%, this is pretty basic math skills (I realize the math flunkee here is Natural News, not necessarily you).

As the authors of the study points out, the study actually found a pooled effectiveness of 59%, not 1.5%.*pathetic*with the stats, then sure, what you say is basically correct.

And ignoring the main issue.

If we consider what mainstream media are saying all the time, that the flu vaccine prevents 60% of the population, then the stats do not say that.

The reality is that the vaccine only prevents 1.5% of the population getting the flu.

Hardly worth it.