Slashdot Mirror
Seasonal Flu Shots Double Risk of Getting Swine Flu, Says New Study
krou writes "A Canadian study currently under peer review apparently suggests that individuals given seasonal flu shots are twice as likely to get swine flu. The 'perplexing' study has thrown influenza health plans into disarray, with Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia all suspending seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 years of age. The study appears to be confined to Canada; the US, Britain, and Australia have not reported the same problem, so some are suggesting that the research has 'study bias.' However, the research appears to be 'solid' according to Dr. Ethan Rubinstein, head of adult infectious diseases at the University of Manitoba. 'There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers. And the sample size is very large — 12 or 13 million people taken from the central reporting systems in three provinces.''
IF you have health problem, or a weak immunitary system, then you are likely to have had flu shots in the past, AND you are likely to catch swine flu now that a shot for it does not exist yet. So nothing particularly stunning here.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Don't get vaccinated for multiple strains that are more deadly because it makes you twice as likely to catch only one strain?
I can see several reasons that those who obtain flu vaccines are more likely to contract the swine flu (as well as all the other versions of the flu.) First there's the age issue. The elderly are more likely to obtain a flu vaccine and are a higher risk group to begin with. But you also have the problems of people choosing to obtain the vaccine or not. Those who have never had a problem with the flu aren't likely to vaccinate themselves while those who have are more likely to obtain the vaccination. So in general you would expect those who obtain the vaccine to have more problems with the flu than those who don't.
That said, it's entirely possible the study accounted for all that, but we have no way to know as the study hasn't been published yet . It's only been distributed for peer review at this point.Until the actual methods are available, I consider this just another example of media sensationalism regarding the swine flu.
I did a little googling, and found this via the who's article site: http://repository.searo.who.int/
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090930/h1n1_vaccine/20091001?hub=Health&s_name=
One day after the above article was published.
I think this is the case of the media reporting some scientific findings before it went completely through the peer review process. Sounds like it still isn't decided yet.
This is most likely a case of media hype driving public policy.
I heard a segment on NPR on this. Basically, it's just one study still in the very preliminary stages as studies go. Moreover, thee experts they interviewed said that there was no known biological reason why this would happen.
Given the amount of research into influenza, how to vaccinate against it, and how the bodies immune system responds to these vaccines, I think it's pretty safe to say that there won't be any medical surprises regarding the interaction between two such vaccines.
Until this is vigorously peer reviewed and at least another supporting study by other researchers is done, I call this a definite correlation (which we ALL know does not equal causation....right?).
Please consider the following from the article and the paper:
1) The vast majority of provinces have suspended vaccinations for people not over 65. These provinces likely have several individuals on their health boards with more qualifications than the average SD poster.
2) The sample size was 12 to 13 million people. The paper was written by a large group of very high level names, and the initial peer review results don't involve "sampling bias" or "conditional probability" attacks.
3) The vaccination DOES NOT boost the chances of normal flu, but DOES boosts the chances of swine flu. Accounting for age group and health differences, the trend still remains. People who have gotten vaccinated up to two years ago still show a statistically significant difference in their chance of catching swine flu.
4) Before the bandwagon leaves on the "people who are more likely to get sick are more likely to get vaccinated, accounting for the 100% increase", people who get vaccinations aren't twice as likely to catch flu as people who don't get vaccinations. There's definitely something going on here.
TLDR: This isn't some crackpot study or some anti-vaccination study. They noticed something weird, and like a good pack of scientists, are investigating it.
Signatures are the new names.
This is not necessarily surprising or a new idea. A researcher at Rice University (Michael Deem, whom I have heard speak on this) studies the genetic basis for the vaccine and the resulting efficacy in any given year and there are MANY years in which getting a flu vaccine the previous year will actually increase your chances of getting the flu the next, or make it worse. You can find an interesting calculator here: http://www.mwdeem.rice.edu/pepitope/, where there is also a link to his most important paper on it at the bottom (no registration req.). Here is an excerpt:
Vaccine efficacy can even be negative, however, due to original antigenic sin [7-9], the tendency for antibodies produced in response to exposure to infl uenza vaccine antigens to suppress the creation of new, different antibodies in response to exposure to new versions of the infl uenza virus. The efficacy of the annual in fluenza vaccine, and whether original antigenic sin may occur, depends sensitively on how similar the vaccine and circulating viral strains are. Current state of the art measures of antigenic distance are based on ferret antisera hemagglutinin inhibition assays [10-12], and these distances are assumed to correlate well with vaccine efficacies in humans. However, to our knowledge no such good correlation has ever been shown for an experimental or theoretical measure of antigenic distance.
Ever since I heard this talk, and learned that the flu vaccine is actually a random guess each year, I don't bother with it. I'm young, strong, and tough and very very unlikely to die, I figure.
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
Actually, a blanket statement that surgery had no placebo-controlled trials is false. Googling for 'surgery placebo trial' results in a first page full of links to double-blind studies done of various surgical techniques, including a trial indicating arthroscopy of the knee is essentially pointless, and several talking about tests of specific drugs during and after surgery. It may be true that some surgeries haven't received a double-blind test in full. I certainly wouldn't wish my name attached to a double-blind study involving kidney transplants for end-stage renal disease patients, on humanitarian grounds alone.
Secondly, it is not true that the flu vaccine has not received double-blind testing. Just last year, Australia ran a study to determine the effectiveness of the flu vaccine for the strains common in 2008. The mechanism of flu vaccines has been quite well studied and tested. The specific variant of the flu vaccine that affects the swine flu has also been individually studied. I haven't read of any placebo-controlled studies for it, but it would certainly be unusual if that hadn't occurred. Of the half-dozen tests a cursory search was able to dig up, all indicated a positive result with very low side-effects. It would be preposterous for any researcher to publicize the results of a trial without a control group, so I think that railing against the vaccine because of a presumed lack of placebo-controlled tests is, simply, inane.
And as a final dig, if you continue to get your medical news from the NY Times, you'll live in a constant state of near-panic from whatever health scare they've dug up to boost ratings this month. They begin by talking about the elderly, then reference a study 'not designed to look at this age group' as their supporting evidence to disparage vaccines for the elderly. They may have a point that vaccines for octogenarians are not as powerfully protective as previously believed. However, spreading FUD about our best weapon against the flu is irresponsible at the very least, and slanders the doctors and researchers who've spent their lives doing good.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
1. Look up Rhinovirus and Influenza.
2. Notice that they are not the same thing.
And as we all well know, the plural of anecdote is "a population-controlled double-blind study"!
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
This might have something to do with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
The idea is that if your immune system learns to recognize an antigen similar to, but not sufficiently similar to, the antigen of a new threat, then your body may mount a less effective immune defense against the variant than it already knows. In other words, your body learns to fight seasonal strain of flu, then encounters similar H1N1. Now your body produces antibodies to the original flu, which bind more weakly to H1N1 proteins than an antibody that would have been made especially for H1N1, leading to an overall more severe infection than you otherwise would have had.
~Ben
the onion?
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
Flu shots are for people with weak immune systems and old people that are at higher risk to "die" from it.
Where do those people with weak immune systems get the flu from? Could it be from us healthier people don't get shots because we can handle the flu?
Never get one done if you don't _need it_. I've see more people almost die due to allergic reactions to shots than i have due to a bad case of the flu.
Well the only real serious allergic reaction I'm aware of is Guillain-Barré syndrome, which literally affects 1 in a million people who get the shot and has a mortality rate of 2-3% and 5-10% of recovery with a severe disability.
The flu however kills about 36,000 people in the states each year, so a little more than 1 in 10,000.
So the numbers seems to indicate that the flu shot is still a LOT less likely to kill you than the flu.
I stole this Sig
Flu shots are for people with weak immune systems and old people that are at higher risk to "die" from it. Never get one done if you don't _need it_. I've see more people almost die due to allergic reactions to shots than i have due to a bad case of the flu.
There is actually a good reason for healthy people to get vaccinated in general. We have been able to eradicate various viruses because enough of the population in the world gets vaccinated so that it makes it incredibly difficult for the viruses to spread. This phenomenon is called herd immunity. If you look at local populations where vaccination rates are poor (usually due to parents being duped by anti-vaccine pseudoscience) you see outbreaks of all kinds of viruses that have not been an issue since aggressive vaccination programs took effect.
It's also interesting that (according to the story I linked above) there has not been a placebo-controlled trial of the flu vaccine. So, anyone out there who rails against any sort of complimentary/alternative medicine and says they would never receive a treatment that can't produce placebo-controlled trials, can't get flu shots. (Of course, you also can't get surgery...)
Widespread flu shots are a great subsidy to big pharma, but as a public health measure, they're a questionable use of resources.
Utter nonsense. Unlike virtually the entirety of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vaccines work via relatively well understood mechanism. The mechanisms for most CAM modalities (such as say, homeopathy) are usually highly implausible and often would require a complete reworking of the Standard Model. Then throw in the fact that rarely is there even good scientific evidence that shows CAM modalities do anything at all and where are you left?
Moreover, there is a perfectly good reason why there is not nor will there be double-blind placebo controlled trials for vaccines. It's simply unethical. Anti-vaccine nuts love to point to the lack of placebo controlled trials for vaccines in an attempt to explain away the lack of any good evidence for their own favorite CAM modalities.
To suggest that vaccination is a plot of "Big Pharma" is to (1) have no understanding of vaccines and the incredible evidence for their general efficacy (2) have no understanding of the relationship between pharma and physicians. You are basically accusing most physicians of being corporate shills. That's a quiet a disgusting sentiment, really.
You know what the true travesty is? The fact that things like herbal supplements are more or less highly unregulated. In the USA at least we have "Big Natural" and various CAM quacks to thank for that. If you are upset about the tactics of Big Pharma I suggest you learn more about the history of the CAM movement and how exactly it has gained popularity over the last 30 years.