Thursday, October 11, 2007
Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
fresh support in recent weeks.

One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues

Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
immunization saves lives in the elderly population:

1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.

2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.

3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.

4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
than on the basis of flu surveillance.

COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
this in detail in my book, FOWL!

How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?

Thanks Vince

What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*

"bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...



Thursday, October 11, 2007
Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
fresh support in recent weeks.

One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues

Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
immunization saves lives in the elderly population:

1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.

2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.

3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.

4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
than on the basis of flu surveillance.

COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
this in detail in my book, FOWL!

How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?

Thanks Vince

What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms.
Define "quickly" for us. 24 hrs, 24 days, 24 wks, 24 months, or 24

The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 26, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:





"bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Thursday, October 11, 2007
Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
fresh support in recent weeks.

One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues

Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
immunization saves lives in the elderly population:

1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.

2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.

3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.

4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
than on the basis of flu surveillance.

COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
this in detail in my book, FOWL!

How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?

Thanks Vince
Peter the Moron wrote:
What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

How about eating and living a health promoting lifestyle?
How about getting some vitamin C from some citrus fruit?
How about getting some vitamin D?

Their effectiveness is shown by the success and not getting the flu.

We are not testing drug A vursus drug B here, ya know? Real world
results only are adequate.

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms.

Define "quickly" for us. 24 hrs, 24 days, 24 wks, 24 months, or 24
yrs for example?

Where is your peer reviewed and published da

A new vaccine has to be developed every year.



The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM-

On Oct 26, 1:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:





What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM-

I must admit that I had never had a flu shot until about 9 years ago.
Previous to that, I could count on catching the flu about every third
year or so.

I have received a flu shot each and every year for the last nine
years, and have not had the flu, in all that time. . .That speaks
volumes to me!

I know there will likely come a year, that the vaccine is not exactly
formulated to the anticipated virus' for that particular year. . .and
I can accept that!

Myrlhttp://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 26, 1:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:





What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM-

I must admit that I had never had a flu shot until about 9 years ago.
Previous to that, I could count on catching the flu about every third
year or so.

I have received a flu shot each and every year for the last nine
years, and have not had the flu, in all that time. . .That speaks
volumes to me!

I know there will likely come a year, that the vaccine is not exactly
formulated to the anticipated virus' for that particular year. . .and
I can accept that!

Myrlhttp://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm- Hide quoted text -

On Oct 26, 7:44 pm, Myrl <wisgroup_lea...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Oct 26, 1:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:

What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM-

I must admit that I had never had a flu shot until about 9 years ago.
Previous to that, I could count on catching the flu about every third
year or so.

I have received a flu shot each and every year for the last nine
years, and have not had the flu, in all that time. . .That speaks
volumes to me!

I know there will likely come a year, that the vaccine is not exactly
formulated to the anticipated virus' for that particular year. . .and
I can accept that!

Myrlhttp://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm-Hide quoted text -

I believe I may have had the flu once in the last 25 years . From my
view people who take the flu shots tend to get the flu alot. My lack
of getting the flu or your experience with flu vaccines are
interesting but do not prove very much. What is interesting is that
let me just requote this '

COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly

For those that do not know the Cochrane Collaboration is sort of the
gold standart in reviews.No finacial interest .Based on the principle
that medicine need to be tested for effectiveness. So why take a shot
that is no better than placebo at preventing the flu.

-

On Oct 26, 1:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:





What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM-

I must admit that I had never had a flu shot until about 9 years ago.
Previous to that, I could count on catching the flu about every third
year or so.

I have received a flu shot each and every year for the last nine
years, and have not had the flu, in all that time. . .That speaks
volumes to me!

I know there will likely come a year, that the vaccine is not exactly
formulated to the anticipated virus' for that particular year. . .and
I can accept that!

Myrlhttp://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

flu.-

On Oct 26, 7:44 pm, Myrl <wisgroup_lea...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Oct 26, 1:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:

What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM-

I must admit that I had never had a flu shot until about 9 years ago.
Previous to that, I could count on catching the flu about every third
year or so.

I have received a flu shot each and every year for the last nine
years, and have not had the flu, in all that time. . .That speaks
volumes to me!

I know there will likely come a year, that the vaccine is not exactly
formulated to the anticipated virus' for that particular year. . .and
I can accept that!

Myrlhttp://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My experience mimics yours. I skipped one year and wound up with
pneumonia and worse. I have not skipped a year since then, and have no
flu.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1193414606.834980.287040@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...



Thursday, October 11, 2007
Flu Shot Proven To Be Ineffective....Again.
In quick succession, the view that influenza shots yield life-saving
benefits for elderly people has come under serious attack and received
fresh support in recent weeks.

One group of experts, writing in the October issue of Lancet
Infectious Diseases, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots
for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias
and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies. "The
remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the
magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive
from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen,
PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues

Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study
offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu
immunization saves lives in the elderly population:

1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased
from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and
influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.

2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine
effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in
the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among
all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only
23%. There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness.

3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu
vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large
healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in
that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a
nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.

4, Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection
bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be
vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it
really was. A further problem is that cohort studies typically have
defined the flu season arbitrarily as December through March, rather
than on the basis of flu surveillance.

COMMENT: In 2005, the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed studies that
involved nearly 500,000 people and concluded that the vaccine was "no
better than placebo" in all three age groups for which the shot is
advocated: babies, middle aged adults and the elderly. I discussed
this in detail in my book, FOWL!

How many more studies will it take to prove the flu shot doesn't work
and there are better ways to stay healthy in the winter?

Thanks Vince

What better ways? And what studies do you have to show *their*
effectiveness?

It is generally accepted that influenza vaccines are amongst the least
effective vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate quickly
into many different forms. A new vaccine has to be developed every year.
The prevailing viruses in Asia are sampled and a vaccine developed to them
just in time for the flu season. There is insufficient time to test the
effectiveness of the vaccine before release, as with other vaccines. .

It is thus never known in advance how effective any batch of vaccine is
going to be. When the vaccine is a good match for the circulating viruses,
the vaccines are very effective, as Cochrane admits: "Monovalent
whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE
93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%)
against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic."

So the principle of influenza vaccination is sound, even if ineffective
vaccines dampen overall benefits when all trials are lumped together, as in
these studies.

I have the vaccine every year, accepting that in some years it will offer
little protection.

PM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From Cochrane Review Abstracts

My experience mimics yours. I skipped one year and wound up with
pneumonia and worse. I have not skipped a year since then, and have no
flu.

I have not skipped a year since then, and have no
flu.-


That explains A LOT!

My experience mimics yours. I skipped one year and wound up with
pneumonia and worse. I have not skipped a year since then, and have no
flu.

You didn't have the pneumonia shot? Seriously. Worse? Permanant lung
damage or chronic bronchitis?

long
lasting benefits against its targeted infectious microorganisms
unlike the flu shot.

Kevysmom wrote:
I have not skipped a year since then, and have no
flu.-

That explains A LOT!

True. It explains why I have not had the flu, witer colds, etc since then.