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

[Garethaus]

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: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html

And the Lancet meta-analysis: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2811%2970295-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.

[hiddencatRN, BSN, RN]

This study is pooled over four decades of flu vaccines.

I'm aware. I read your link and understood it. I was replying to the poster who got the flu despite getting the vaccine this year. We've been seeing a lot of people with confirmed flu who were vaccinated this year, and I've read other reports that it's not a great match this year. I think you should check in to success rates for other medical treatments and other vaccinations if you think the flu vaccine is worthless. You might find, based on the way you look at statistics, that you're in the wrong field. Many, many treatments out there have similar stats when you include the population of people who DON'T get sick regardless, but when you look at the treated vs untreated ill you see a large reduction in morbidity.

[hiddencatRN, BSN, RN]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, hiddencatrn: are you saying that persons who don't get the shot are definitely going to get the flu? I've never had either in 37 years (that I'm aware of) and I worked in healthcare for 10 yrs prior to going back to school.

You are definitely misunderstanding me.

[macawake, MSN]

Reducing the risk of catching the flu by slightly over 55% is a big deal.

It means that more than twice as many people get infected in the group who do not get the flu shot.

If both the groups had been 18.797 that would translate to 221 sick people in the group that got the shot and 512 people sick in the group that didn't.

A 55% reduction of people who can pass their infection on to the very young, the very old and the immunosupressed matters.

[SummitRN, BSN, RN]

Season flu kills an estimated 3000-49000 people in the US per year depending on the year. 55% reduction in infection rates... totally useless vaccine?

CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Questions and Answers Regarding Estimating Deaths from Influenza in the United States

[tewdles, RN]

I have had influenza as a young nurse...I get my flu shot now because I definitely do not want that again.

My grade school grand daughter is recovering from influenza right now...she has a congenital heart defect and everyone was concerned.

A teen recently died from influenza.

I care for very vulnerable patients that I would prefer not to expose to influenza, as do my co-workers, so we get immunized.

I don't view getting the influenza vaccine any differently than I view getting other vaccines. They protect me, my family, and my patients.

[netglow, ASN, RN]

If we're going to get 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.

Please explain your reasoning for posting your "pathetic" stats as the basis of your argument. I think you've lost all of us.

[Enthused RN, BSN, RN]

If we're going to get 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.

Going along with your 1.5% math .... 1.5% of 300 million people is 4.5 million sick people. I think that's a pretty significant number.

In any case, I agree with the approximate 55% increase in protection mentioned by previous posters. I feel that is very significant.

[SoldierNurse22, BSN, RN]

Guys, look at the source. "Natural News"? And read the comments below the article. That should tell you all you need to know as to why the numbers were skewed to reflect "author" Mike Adams' scientifically baseless opinion.

[olddragger]

statistics can be made to be very misleading. CDC uses that to its own advantage also.

Ask yourself this--how logical is the influenza vaccination in regard to preventing influenza? Please think in terms for EVERYONE.

I accept that the influenza vaccination has a use in select groups, but for everyone I digress.

My thoughts on this is that it will have very little overall affect. The Influenza virus mutates and there are many many different types.

A vaccination that can possibly help protect agaisnt only 3 of the hundreds ( this depends on the individuals own immune systems response to the vaccination too!) imho could possibly help speed the mutation of those 3 into something not seen before? Just like the overuse of antibiotics causes new strains of bugs that are more difficult to treat ?

I seriously think that influenza can be better controlled by more attention to infection control tech--staying at home ( for a week! not one or 2 days), stigent washing of hands, stop touching your face, cough, sneezing control, dont shake hands, good diet, fresh air, exercise, maybe even a multiple vitamin and conservative use of a netii pot, than depending on a vaccination.

For example do some reading on what caused TB to become a much rarer infection in the modern world.

[RNfaster]

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%.

Agree with MunoRN. Perhaps OP might review statistics class...or take it...

[Jaade]

statistics can be made to be very misleading. CDC uses that to its own advantage also.

Ask yourself this--how logical is the influenza vaccination in regard to preventing influenza? Please think in terms for EVERYONE.

I accept that the influenza vaccination has a use in select groups, but for everyone I digress.

My thoughts on this is that it will have very little overall affect. The Influenza virus mutates and there are many many different types.

A vaccination that can possibly help protect agaisnt only 3 of the hundreds ( this depends on the individuals own immune systems response to the vaccination too!) imho could possibly help speed the mutation of those 3 into something not seen before? Just like the overuse of antibiotics causes new strains of bugs that are more difficult to treat ?

I seriously think that influenza can be better controlled by more attention to infection control tech--staying at home ( for a week! not one or 2 days), stigent washing of hands, stop touching your face, cough, sneezing control, dont shake hands, good diet, fresh air, exercise, maybe even a multiple vitamin and conservative use of a netii pot, than depending on a vaccination.

For example do some reading on what caused TB to become a much rarer infection in the modern world.

We can't even get COPD patients to quit smoking when they're on O2. How do you propose we convince people to stay home from work when they're ill? Once they have the full-blown symptoms, sure. By then they've already spread it, more likely than not. Lots of people can't afford to stay home a whole week, some even risk being fired if they do.

Having had the flu as a teenager, like another poster said, I gladly line up for a 55% decreased chance of getting that again every year.

I don't necessarily disagree that not everyone needs the shot, but I think HC workers are amongst the groups that really should strongly consider it.

[olddragger]

I agree that it would be difficult to change peoples behavior, however I believe that it should not be forgotten or placed on the shelf as "it's no use in trying" type thing. Just like children people have to be taught over and over and over. And like children some will never discipline themselves enough to do it. But some will.

I also agree that the shot should be considered but NOT mandated!

One problem I think that really exits with the influenza vaccination is people ( not hcws-at least some of them--lol) think they are protected from being infected from the influenza virus's and then do not place the proper importance on infection control techniques. I truly believe that most people do not understand the influenza vaccination, thinking it is like the other "vaccinations" that provides significant immunity in a high percentage of reciprecants.

It is a complex problem.

Importunity it has turned into something that people have unnecessarily lost their jobs over.