World's Leading Expert on Flu Vaccines Questions Efficacy of Flu Vaccine

[laughingliberal]

Evidence to date suggests that the “H1N1 flu is not a major threat,” and there is little evidence that flu vaccines are effective in preventing the flu, so says Tom Jefferson, MD, arguably the world’s leading expert on influenza vaccines.
Dr. Jefferson has authored 10 reviews of research on the influenza vaccine for the Cochrane Collaboration, which is a widely recognized leading international science institution that evaluates clinical research.
Jefferson notes that Australia has just completed its wintertime, and only 131 deaths related to the flu occurred this year. Because Australia’s population is 22 million people, this death rate is not significant. One does not need to predict the future when the future has already happened somewhere else.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/the-questionable-efficacy_b_311621.html


So, let the flaming begin. Or not.

[MineralMan]

1. Huffington Post article written by this person:

Dana Ullman, who calls herself a "Homeopathy Expert."

WTF? Who says this doctor is the Worlds Greatest Expert on the flu?

Not everything that appears on Huffington Post is accurate or even true.

The Cochrane Collaboration is a valid organization, but is staffed primarily by non-medical people.

Finally, this is a blog on Huffington Post, and pimps Ms. Ullman's books on homeopathy at the bottom of the blog entry. Are we reduced to relying on self-serving blogs for our information?

I don't care whether people get their H1N1 and seasonal flu shots or not. I have already gotten my seasonal flu shot, and will line up for the H1N1 vaccination as soon as it is available. So, please, don't get yours, so I can get mine sooner. Thank you very much.

[SidDithers]

3. HuffPo is becoming less and less reliable...

in their "medical" reporting. Perhaps they should stick to politics, and leave science to the people who know what they're talking about.

Sid

[MineralMan]

7. Huffington Post 'News,' like other blog sources,

needs to be examined carefully and not taken as literal truth. In this case, the author is not unbiased, given that she is openly pimping her homeopathy books with her blog. This falls under the advertorial definition more than news.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. Are you questioning the accuracy of Jim Carrey?

[Johonny]

9. Homeopathy Expert = can drink glass of water

I agree

[laughingliberal]

11. You're welcome

Vaccines always exacerbate my fibromyalgia symptoms and lay me low for at least a week and a half. I take some vaccines, like tetanus boosters, when I just have to. But I have gotten seasonal flu in years when I took a flu shot and years when I didn't. Many times, as is true with the H1N1 vaccine, the vaccine is administered after many patients are already exposed and will not prevent the illness. If they had this out in August it might be of some help but I have already been exposed to 3 known cases of H1N1 and have survived without getting the illness. As I am not in a high risk group for complications, I choose not to.

[MineralMan]

14. Don't take the vaccine, if it bothers you.

But...why post an anti-vaxxer article by a dubious source here on DU. You're not going to take the vaccine. There it is.

As for myself, I take the seasonal flu vaccine, and will take the H1N1 vaccine. I have done this every fall since 1990, and have not had the flu any of those years. I have no side effect whatsoever from the shots. That's my anecdotal evidence. Between the two of us, we have two data points. That's hardly enough data to do anything.

My point in adding to this thread is that the information you posted was written by a biased source. It adds nothing of value to the discussion of the benefits or dangers of the flu vaccine. As a biased article, it simply feeds the conspiracy theorists.

Why are people posting this crap? Take the shot or don't take the shot. I'm neither pimping the flu vaccine nor advising against it. This article, on the other hand, biased as it is, is pimping homeopathy, which is bogus on its face.

[laughingliberal]

17. Well, I just posted an article I found interesting

was not aware of the bias. I'm also not advising against it but am distressed by some of the rabid pro-vac bias I have seen on here. I take some vaccines but am not a fan of flu shots for myself. I've had flu in years I have taken the vaccine and had it in years I didn't. People in high risk groups for complications should probably take it. It is always a crap shoot of risk/benefit analysis for the individual involved.

[phantom power]

2. H1N1 is not a major threat unless it mutates.

No real way to predict that, regardless of what happens in Australia.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. So it's this doctors expert opinion...

that 131 preventable deaths are not signficant, as are the thousands of deaths to follow...

Some doctor.

[MineralMan]

6. Well, it's actually a homeopathy book writer's interpretation

of what that doctor said or wrote. And we all know that no "homeopathy expert" who pimps her books on homeopathy at the end of her blog entry would say the thing that is not, right?

Blogs on HuffPo are not a source of truth. They are simply input which must be examined, after taking the author of the post into consideration. Homeopathy is quackery, plain and simple.

[laughingliberal]

8. An Article on the Cochrane Collaboration

http://www.newsweek.com/id/205616

So I took greater interest than usual in the latest results from the Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane is, legally speaking, a charity registered in Britain. But it is also the world's largest group of volunteer scientists and physicians—about 20,000 at last count—assembled in “review groups” to study the effectiveness of different treatments. They don't conduct original research but, instead, review everything they can get their hands on that addresses the safety and efficacy of a drug or other treatment—exactly what President Obama envisions as part of health-care reform: why pay for stuff that doesn't work?

[MineralMan]

10. I'm familiar with the Cochrane Collaboration, but

it's not all scientists. Most of their volunteers are simply lay people. They do statistical studies, only.

Deaths are not the only consequences of flu. The cost of the seasonal, and H1N1 flu, also includes lost work time, medical expenses, and more. Typically, a flu victim loses several days of productivity, and spends a good deal of money on remedies, either over the counter or prescription. They spend money on doctor visits and, in a small percentage of cases, hospitalization.

Simply counting the number of deaths is not a valid way to evaluate a flu epidemic. And yet, that is all statisticians can count, so that's what they do.

As I said, take the vaccine or don't take it. It's up to you. But, the Cochrane Collaboration's figures are not the whole story of the flu, by any means.

Further, your source is suspect, due to her business of selling alternative medicine books she has written. Those very ads indicate a bias against science-based medicine. Based on that, I discard her article as biased reporting. I would look elsewhere, were I you, for more accurate and unbiased information regarding the flu vaccine. You might start with the CDC, which also keeps extensive records on epidemiology, not just statistics on deaths.

[laughingliberal]

12. Have no attachment to this source or any other

I am suspect of most sources. As an RN for 26 years I have lived long enough to see many treasured medical 'truths' turned on their head. I evaluate risk/benefit as well as I can based on current knowledge and stir in a healthy dose of skepticism about everything.

[MineralMan]

15. So, as an RN, what's your opinion of homeopathy?

Your source for this post is a "homeopathy expert." So, do you think homeopathy is a valid medical alternative? If so, how on earth did you get licensed as an RN?

[laughingliberal]

19. I have no real opinion one way or another

I know people who swear by it. I don't use it. I don't know much about it. I do think some of it seems effective for symptom control for some issues. And as for how I got licensed it could be because I had a 3.8 GPA in nursing school and passed my boards with one of the highest scores in the state. That does not mean I swallow every new medication or treatment that our medical industrial complex throws out there. I was in school in the days when ulcer patients were told to drink a lot of milk which we now know does more harm.

[Johonny]

16. because it does work

Just popping by wiki on the subject

Studies demonstrate that vaccination can be a cost-effective counter-measure to seasonal outbreaks of influenza<39>; but not perfect. A study led by Dr. David K. Shay in February, 2008 reported that
"full immunization against flu provided about a 75 percent effectiveness rate in preventing hospitalizations from influenza complications in the 2005-6 and 2006-7 influenza seasons."<40>
The group most vulnerable to flu, the elderly, is also the least affected by the vaccine, with an average efficacy rate ranging from 40-50% at age 65, and 15-30% past age 70.<41><42><43> There are multiple reasons behind this steep decline in vaccine efficacy, the most common of which are the declining immunological function and frailty associated with advanced age.<44>
In the United States a person aged 50–64 is nearly ten times more likely to die an influenza-associated death than a younger person, and a person over age 65 is over ten times more likely to die an influenza-associated death than the 50–64 age group.<45> Vaccination of those over age 65 reduces influenza-associated death by about 50%

my guess is the author is selectively quoting from the Cochrane Collaboration study because there's a lot of peer reviewed material out there on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. You'll note many of the wiki references were done after the 2006 Cochrane report asked for "large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required". In other words people did more studies and found that the flu vaccine isn't perfect but it is effective.


39 ^ CDC article Influenza (Flu) | Comparisons of LAIV and TAIV Efficacy
40 ^ New York Times article Panel Advises Flu Shots for Children Up to Age 18 Published: February 28, 2008
41 ^ Nichol, K.L., Nordin, J.D., Nelson, D.B., Mullooly, J.D., & Hak, E. (2007). Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357(14), 1373-1381.
42 ^ Vu, T., Farish, S., Jenkins, M., & Kelly, H. (2002). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of influenza vaccine in persons aged 65 years and over living in the community. Vaccine, 20, 1831-1836.
43^ Nordin, J., Mullooly, J., Poblete, S., Strikas, R., Petrucci, R., Wei, F., et al. (2001). Influenza vaccine effectiveness in preventing hospitalizations and deaths in persons 65 years or older in Minnesota, New York, and Oregon: Data from 3 health plans. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 184(6), 665-670.
44 ^ Simonsen, L., Taylor, R.J., Viboud, C., Miller, M.A., & Jackson, L.A. (2007). Mortality benefits of influenza vaccination in elderly people: An ongoing controversy. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 7, 658-666.

[kctim]

13. The flu vacs are 100% efficient

I got the vac every year for ten years while serving, got the flu immediately and then got it again later, every year.

[MineralMan]

18. More information:

Here's the wikipedia entry on Dana Ullman, who is male, just in case I called him her:

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

And here's Dana Ullman's web site, where he sells his books, remedies, and even his services on the phone or by email. Judge for yourself:

http://www.homeopathic.com/

[SidDithers]

21. Homeopathy is the biggest joke in the alt-med universe...

thanks for pointing out the biases of the author.



Sid

[MineralMan]

23. Yup. Homeopathy, has, as its only positive factor,

the fact that their remedies do no direct harm, since they do absolutely nothing.

[gkhouston]

20. A homeopath is the world's leading expert on flu vaccines? I don't think so. n/t

[MineralMan]

22. Actually, the person quoted is an MD. The author of the

misleading HuffPo article is a homeopathy promoter. The article, however, is biased, and uses selective quoting, as is typical of anti-vaxxer propaganda.