(Note to apologists - the source of this is very mainstream publication, The Lancet!)
Flu Shots: They don't protect the elderly, new data reveals
Published on Thursday, October 11, 2007
by Healthy News Service
Flu shots for the elderly are far less effective than doctors, and governments, like to tell us. In fact, they are incapable of preventing up to half of all deaths from influenza and pneumonia in the elderly, new data suggests.
As it is, government health bodies present the annual flu vaccine as something that every elderly person should have - and yet there is virtually no evidence to support this stridently optimistic approach.
The Cochrane Vaccines Field group first alerted doctors to the ineffectiveness of the standard flu jab when it discovered that it failed to prevent deaths from flu or pneumonia.
Despite this, governments have continued to spend millions of pounds and dollars on an ineffective vaccine, and have misled the public.
The only way of resolving the issue once and for all is to carry out proper trials among the elderly - and that's something nobody will be prepared to do, the researchers fear.
A 10 years study published early this week by NEJM.
Elderly who get the flu shot are:
27 per cent less likely to be hospitalized with flu or pneumonia
48 per cent less likely to die from flu-related complications.
"Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the Community-Dwelling Elderly."
Nichol, Kristin L., Nordin, James D., Nelson, David B., Mullooly, John P., Hak, Eelko N Engl J Med 2007 357: 1373-1381
Volume 357:1373-1381, October 4, 2007, Number 14
Looks like mainstream needs to get it's stories and studies co-ordinated.
The Lancet version. published this month, 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.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases authors offer several reasons for questioning the notion that flu immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
Vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15% to 65% since 1980, but instead of declining, overall mortality due to pneumonia and influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
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.
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. Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be vaccinated than frail seniors were, 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.
Simonsen and colleagues also write that since 1968, flu has accounted for an average of about 5% of all winter deaths in older people. Yet the results of cohort studies have prompted claims that flu vaccination reduces the risk of winter death from any cause by about 50% for community-dwelling people older than 65. "That influenza vaccination can prevent ten times as many deaths as the disease itself causes is not plausible," say Simonsen et al.
Regardless of the figures and interpretations, I contend that strong natural anti-virals and immune boosters are a better choice. I have never had a flu shot and never will - not even for the so-called Avian flu. People who do not take measures to keep their immune system strong and take anti-viral natural supplements like colloidal silver, olive leaf extract, garlic, onion, echinacea, etc. would perhaps be good candidates for a flu shot.
This is what drives research and advances knowledge. It also destroys your often made claim about conspiracies and "bought" studies.
No flu shot may be good advice for strong people at their prime, but for the elderly it has been proven that they save lives and reduce hospitalizations.
Yeah, mankind has gone from the vinyl record to the MP4 player the size of a watch that will hold entire record collections, from computers the size of houses to small laptops, black and white TV's to giant high definiition color plasma screens and from a wobbly Sputnik to Mars Rovers and what has medicine done for us in that same period of time? More drugs and more managed illness that only treats symptoms and cures nothing and has side effects leading to still more drugs.
I suppose you are telling me that the the fact that studies funded by mainstream companies are five times more likely to return positive results than independent ones is just a statistical aberration? It was a mainstream study that reported the discrepancy, btw. You really need to put aside the brainwashing and blinders and take a good objective look into the history of mainstream medicine and the world pharmceutical empire. It is evil and corrupt and it has chosen profit over humanity right down the line.
Look at the corrupt early head of the AMA Morris Fishbein and what he did to bury alternative treatments that could have saved millions of lives - after first trying to blackmail them into taking him on as a partner or selling out to him. Look at what the Carnegies and Rockefellers did to destroy naturopathic and homeopathic medicine, look at the history of FDA raids where they come in like storm troopers with guns drawn to take down harmless competition to their lords and masters, look at the formation of the IG Farben cartel and their stated purpose to control the world drug market and replace all natural medicatios with their own lab created onew around the turn of last century and then what happened to the upper managers of that group at Nuremburg.
What will advance medical science and knowledge is when the scientists and doctors are freed from the yokes of those who think they own our bodies so that they can pull their heads out of Big Pharma's arses and take a look at what nature has provided all along.
Let's take a real good look at the latest study promoting flu shots for the elderly - the one just published in the NEJM and which is being used to dispute the one in the Lancet. It claims a whopping 27% reduction in hospitialiaztion for those who are vaccinated with flu shots and an even larger 48% reduction in deaths for those who are hospitialized. Now look at how the mainstream magicians worked their magic:
"The per-season hospitalization rates for unvaccinated and vaccinated people were 0.7% and 0.6%, and the corresponding death rates were 1.6% and 1.0%. The figures translated into a 27% reduction in hospitalization rate for pneumonia and flu among the vaccinated (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.77) and a 48% reduction in mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.55)."
So what they have done is take the difference between .0.7 and 0.6 percent and get a 27% reduction for hospitializations and take the difference betwee 1.6% and 1.0% and get a 48% reduction in death rates - which is true in and of itself
But look at what the figures really mean: you have a 99.3% chance of not being hospitalized without having a flu shot and risking all of it's possible side effects and a 99.4% chance of not being hospitialized if you do take the shot. A difference of 1/10th of 1 percent. And if you ARE hospitalized for the flu you have a 98.4% chance of not dying if you have not been vaccinated versus a 99% chance of not dying if you do. A difference of 4/10th of 1 percent.
The chemical cocktail that makes up the flu vaccines began life as collected mucous from sick people in three cities (this year those are Wellington, New Caledonia and Shanghia) and then was propagated in chicken eggs that may or may not have been screened for avian leucosis (bird leukemia), and then ultimately came to include mercury, formaldehyde, a spermicide from Union Carbide and anti-freeze (Polyethylene Glycol).
Is it worth subjecting yourself to that for an actual benefit of between 0.1 and 0.4%? I think not!
"The researchers found that flu vaccines, when well matched to circulating flu strains, reduced the risk of hospitalization for flu or pneumonia by 45% for elderly (65 or older) nursing home residents. For people living at home, flu vaccines were 26% effective in preventing hospitalization for flu or pneumonia...
For elderly residents of nursing homes who received vaccines well matched to circulating flu strains, the vaccines yielded risk reductions of 23% for flu-like illness, 46% for pneumonia, 45% for hospitalization for flu or pneumonia, 42% for death from flu or pneumonia, and 60% for death from any cause...risk reductions were 26% for hospitalization for flu or pneumonia and 42% for all-cause mortality. Vaccines did not reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart disease or the risk of death from respiratory disease.
However, vaccination looked somewhat more beneficial for community dwellers when the authors adjusted for confounding variables, including sex, age, smoking, and other illnesses. In that analysis, vaccines reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 47% and lowered the risk of hospitalization by 24% for heart disease and 22% for respiratory diseases...The study authors write that on the basis of their findings, "We believe efforts should be concentrated on achieving high vaccination coverage in long-term care facilities coupled with a systematic assessment of the effect of such a policy. One possible way to improve this strategy might involve the vaccination of carers [caregivers] in an effort to reduce transmission."
The federal government took steps in that direction last month, announcing that nursing homes that serve Medicare recipients would be required to offer flu shots to residents. The government also wants to increase vaccination coverage for nursing home staff members, but there are no plans to require vaccination for them."
Since the study found that flu vaccination was capable of reducing mortality among the elderly by 47-60%, the allegation that "Flu Shots don't protect the elderly" is incorrect.
The "Healthy News Service" appears to get its medical opinions from spin doctors.
"The "Healthy News Service" appears to get its medical opinions from spin doctors."
Is that frying bacon I smell? The article I posted originated from The Lancet, about as mainstream as you can get. Are you saying that The Lancet is a bunch of spin doctors? Do tell us more!
And for your edification, the RSS feed on the TBYIL Health News Page is from Medical News Today and you will see that every day it clearly contains mostly mainsteam articles. Do you EVER bother checking out what you post about instead of just grabbing the mainstream hook, line and sinker and rushing to throw their self serving propaganda into this non-mainstream forum?
The article you quoted is NOT from the Lancet, it is from a second study that also came out this month from the NEJM. The site in your post has a story that combines both studies and attempts to refute the first one with the second one. I think it is mainstream medicine who needs to get their two studies together and put a pretty pro-vaccine spin on the issue.
Regardless of the study or who funded it or what their purposes are, it has to chaff the apologists mightily when mainstream medicine itself cannot agree on vaccines. And we have seen just how much they disagree in previous posts here that debated the issue quite thoroughly. As I recall, the huge consensus was much to the discredit of the falsely hyped mainstream propaganda about vaccines.
DQ
"The winter flu shot myth is based entirely on junk science designed to serve the interests of pharmaceutical companies who sell the vaccines.
"An honest look at the science reveals the unavoidable truth about flu shots -- they're virtually worthless at preventing the flu," Adams said. "People would be much better off to skip the shots and engage in healthier exercise and dietary habits." what you have posted.
"The article I posted originated from The Lancet, about as mainstream as you can get. Are you saying that The Lancet is a bunch of spin doctors?"
The article you posted is a misleading summary posted by the "Healthy News Service", part of a fringe website devoted to various scare stories and medical misinformation.
The actual 10/07 Lancet article suggests that the benefits of flu vaccine are more modest than scientists have believed, but it certainly doesn't say that flu vaccine fails to protect the elderly. In fact, the study's authors support continued vaccination of the elderly while more data from placebo-controlled trials is gathered. They also note that the best study available to date showed a 57% reduction in confirmed flu cases among those who received the flu vaccine.
This is something the "Healthy News Service" failed to mention.
"The article you quoted is NOT from the Lancet, it is from a second study that also came out this month from the NEJM."
Check again. It's from another Lancet article by some of the same authors, with similar conclusions.
"I think it is mainstream medicine who needs to get their two studies together and put a pretty pro-vaccine spin on the issue...Regardless of the study or who funded it or what their purposes are, it has to chaff the apologists mightily when mainstream medicine itself cannot agree on vaccines."
No, actually disagreement on this issue is part of the healthy debate that occurs in the scientific community and which promotes better research and understanding of disease. Where you'll find dead certainty and extreme resistance to changing one's views is among nonscientific ideologues who have an agenda that must be adhered to at all costs.
The just-published New England Journal of Medicine article referred to earlier
is highly supportive of the benefits of the flu vaccine. Some excerpts:
"Ten years of data from three regions of the United States show that the vaccine reduces the risk of hospitalization from pneumonia or the flu by 27 percent in the elderly, and cuts the death rate in half.
The elderly make up the bulk of the 36,000 people who die from flu each year in the United States..."What we do show, definitely, is that there is a substantial benefit," said Kristin Nichol of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, leader of the team.
They found that the benefits of the vaccine varied from community to community and from year to year, depending on whether the shots were designed to combat the flu strains that occurred.
"In seasons with a poor match, vaccine effectiveness was 37 percent; in seasons with a good match, vaccine effectiveness was 52 percent" in reducing death, the researchers wrote in their report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Overall, data from more than 70,000 people per season showed that the injections are effective.
Nonetheless, only about 65 percent of people over 64 get a flu shot each year, in part because health-care providers often fail to recommend them, Nichol said."
The lack of more complete vaccine coverage is probably due in part to false information and scaremongering among antivaccine advocates.
It's puzzling to me - the stated purpose of this website is "Educating instead of Medicating". Vaccination fulfills this purpose well. Instead of having people taking drugs or handfuls of supplements to combat preventable infectious diseases, a simple shot can keep them healthy and off all medications. Of course this may not be optimal for the profits of the pharmaceutical and supplement industries, as it's more profitable to sell people pills than to prevent them from getting sick through vaccination.
But _we_ should know better.
Oh, and by the way - an author of the new Lancet study claiming a more modest role for the flu vaccine (the one you triumphantly cite), has disclosed financial connections to Big Pharma (receiving consultancy fees from the pharmaceutical giant Sanofi-Synthelabo and the Roche Corporation). In downplaying the usefulness of the flu vaccine, you're taking the word of a researcher who's funded by Big Pharma? Very strange. :)
There are, of course, some possible advantages to immunizations, but only if they are created with our health and well being in mind, and they are not. The real concern is that they tend to be contaminated by either mercury toxins, bacteria or some other poison the government comes up with to keep us unwell. Do you really trust this mass dosing of viruses and bacteria???
And now we have humor too? I mean, it really is roll-on-the-floor funny to see YOU accuse any other person or organization of spreading misinformation when by definition, your posting of the ... Sorry, we had to truncate this message! ... Click here to read it
The Center for Infectious Disease is one of Americas great fear distribution centers, pumping out fear for dollars and myths for money!
Fear sells big time, remember Y2K ? The world supply of generators sold out in weeks, now they are sitting in peoples basements and garages unused!
Since my posting privileges are being revoked (for defending immunization and expressing inconvenient opinions on other subjects), I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the few who have responded to me in a civil way and even thoughtfully.
A couple things I never had an opportunity to ask about: While the site is devoted to alternative health practices, it is considered off limits to question aspects of alternative medicine (including ineffective and/or dangerous supplements and therapies). Instead, many posters spend a great deal of time attacking evidence-based medicine and science. If there is near-universal rejection of these disciplines among CureZone users, why waste time continually attacking them? Shouldn't the supplements and treatments you _do_ use be the first priority of discussion?
Someone who mentions research showing that an alternative drug or therapy is useless or risky is bound to be met with "Well, what about Vioxx (or similar product/treatment no longer in use because of safety or effectiveness concerns). That shows how much research is worth."
It never seems to occur to these folks that when mainstream treatments fall out of favor, it's because quality _research_ was done and good Science led the way to changes in practice. Similarly, as AnticRhino noted (with unnecessary ad hominems), the folks here who profess to be anti-medicine and anti-research are quite willing to promote research others have done - even if those scientists have taken money from Big Pharma - as long as that research seems to support their opinions. The latest Lancet study on flu vaccination is a case in point.
Speaking of which, it's too bad that DonQuixote has been unwilling to respond to my posts on flu vaccination beyond ad hominems and Godwinization. I'll repeat this question, as it goes to the heart of what this site is supposed to be about: If educating not medicating is a useful goal, why are he and so many others so virulently anti-immunization? Surely _preventing_ disease in the first place with a vaccine is much better than gulping down pharma drugs and supplements, especially when many of these potions only treat symptoms, have side effects, interact badly with each other or don't work in the first place. Influenza kills 36,000 people and puts 200,000 in the hospital annually in this country. That means tons of medical procedures and drugs. Isn't it worthwhile to limit all that suffering, risk and expenditure? Isn't educating ourselves about the true value of immunization in line with the stated goals of this website?
A reponsive answer rather than pointless venom would be appreciated.
Again, thanks to those on this forum (including lurkers) who've been willing to listen.
Why would anyone revoke your posting privileges? Misquoting a study? We all make mistakes - I know I surely do. Maybe carrying on a debate in the news forum? Many of these threads that become overly long should probably be moved to a debate forum and a note left explaining that it was moved.
Personally I can see no reason for revoking your posting privileges and would never do so if it were up to me. I may disagree with you, but as far as I can see you are always civil and mostly respectful in your posts. I kind of have fun debating you actually - and probably should have taken less license with poking fun at you than I have. But I certainly do not dislike you, even when some of what you post irks me a bit!
In my opinion, educating and not medicating implies learning how to avoid medicating to the greatest and safest extent possible, and that includes flu shots if there are better alternatives - which I believe that there are.
I am a great lover of science and always have been. I just hate to see science misused for profit instead of being allowed to make truly objective studies and a system designed to prevent objective studies into natural alternatives and anything else that represents a threat to the trillion dollar industry that is big pharm and mainstream medicine.
In an ideal world, science and medicine would work hand in hand with nature for the benefit of all mankind, but it is not an ideal world. And nature is not the one to blame.
I hope that whoever told you that your privileges were being revoked re-considers (unless there is some infraction I am unaware of).
“by definition, your posting of the mainstream doctine makes YOU the one who spreads misinformation.”
By whose definition?Paranoid anti-science nuts?
“ designed purely for profit so they can continue their monopoly on our bodies,”
Another lie.There is far more profit in having people hospitalized and caring for them for weeks.
“I am sure that mainstream medicine and their minions”
Haven’t you called Lancet on many occasions part of the big pharma/gov’t conspiracy?Now that there is a flawed study whose conclusion you like, now it is a reliable paper?A bit of selective bias on your part.
“but those who seek answers beyond the control of an industry whose top managers were sent to prison at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity”
You are laying on the rhetoric really thick.It must be a record for Goodwin’s Law.
Each and every one of your points is easily debateable, and has in fact already been amply covered here in this forum. As I said, you need to take off the blinders and go make an objective research into the history of mainstream medicine and world pharma.
Apparently you also need to go back and review the many posts on the subject of vaccinations here on this forum - including the ones with reams of quotes from those in the medical profession about the truth about vaccinations.
If mainstream medicine and science were so concerned with our health and our lives then they would remove the barriers to natural alternatives and recognize that mankind has spent well over 6000 years learning how to use nature to prevent and treat illness and it is highly presumptious for them to try to assume superiority over nature with only a relative handfuls of decades of concocting creations in their labs.
Beyond that it is pointless to rehash the same debate over and over again and I have no desire to lower myself to the level of someone who resorts to calling his opponent a liar just because he disagrees with what was said.
When it comes to lying, mainstream medicine has no equal, and they admit it:
"I am part of a profession that is systematically lying to people." - Dr Mark Donohoe
"The greatest lie ever told is that vaccines are safe and effective" - Dr. Len Horowitz
"We have no real proof of the boasted effectiveness of any form of anti-toxin or vaccine or serum... If such a vaccinated or immunised person contracts the disease which he is supposed to be protected, it is pretty good evidence that such "protection" is valueless, isn't it? Surely people do contract disease against which they are supposed to be immunised, as we all know.... Well, are you satisfied that WE ARE QUACKS? In the eyes of those who are willing to forgot the present prestige of medicine, such as it is, with all its dignity, its scientific jargon, its pratings of altruism, its great endowment, its well heralded "achievements," we are most assuredly quacks, professing to do things we cannot do, and yes, taking money under this pretence." Dr. Paul M. Koonin, D.D.Sc.
"We doctors have been talking this medicine stuff into the people till they believe it." Dr. Schweningen (Physician to the late Prince Bismark)
Its obvious niether of you seem to have really taken the time to review Curezone and its other forums. From your own statements you show your ignorance to the reality of the alternative health world and why people are here instead of the their over priced ineffective and often dangerous MDs facilties! Most of the people here are here because conventional medicine has failed them miserably!
Did you think it just a whim that all these thousands of people would gather here at Curezone ??
If you feel we are being condescending to you , well we are , we been there done that and it failed! The average age of the curezone member is 45, we are not childred and also have the courage to look at the other side of the coin to find it the brighter more effective side! It's obvious neither of you have!
To us you to live in the dark ages of death, the world of cut burn and poison! Almost 99% of your medications are toxic, your treatments often deadly! Modern medicine and your so called evidence based modern medical Science is responsible for at least 750,000 deaths a year ! You can label us all you want to ,but you won't change anyones mind here, we,ve been through the propaganda mill and you two are total light weights comparitively!
So carry on , I myself get a good laugh from your narrow minded points of view!
Are you calling me a liar?
No. I said the statement was a lie, you may be ignorantly repeating it.
Each and every one of your points is easily debateable, and has in fact already been amply covered here in this forum.
You may be able to debate any point, though you can’t do it convincingly.What I have seen is much rhetoric, accusations, conspiracy notions – a lot of emotion, very little facts.
As I said, you need to take off the blinders and go make an objective research into the history of mainstream medicine and world pharma.
This is Ironic advice from someone who has the biggest blinders anywhere.You pick and choose which studies you believe based on your personal preference.I acknowledge the one study you support but when weighed to all the other studies that indicate otherwise, it makes for a very weak argument against vaccinations.
recognize that mankind has spent well over 6000 years learning how to use nature to prevent and treat illness
For most of these 6000 years disease was blamef on spirits, demons, magic or gods.It does not really inspire confidence in their ability to deal with illness.Especially when you consider that we know enjoy 2X the lifespan of the people you so admire.
I have no desire to lower myself to the level of someone who resorts to calling his opponent a liar just because he disagrees with what was said.
I won’t sink to your base level and argue your misrepresentation of my position. I called the statement a lie.I don’t think you are a liar, just unaware of the facts.
Home
Flu Shots don't protect the elderly, new data reveals 
Too much fried bacon in one day is indeed dangerous12 by Dquixote1217
6 year
2,205
Medicine's true dark ages - Facts and greed versus (science) fiction 
