Slashdot Mirror
On the Efficacy of Flu Vaccine
The Atlantic is running a major article questioning the received wisdom about flu vaccines and antivirals, for both seasonal flu and H1-N1. "When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. 'People told me, "No good can come of [asking] this,"' she says... Nonetheless, in 2004, Jackson and three colleagues set out to determine whether the mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated might be caused by a phenomenon known as the 'healthy user effect.' Jackson's findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the 'frail elderly' didn't or couldn't. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all." Read below for more excerpts from the article.
The annals of medicine are littered with treatments and tests that became medical doctrine on the slimmest of evidence, and were then declared sacrosanct and beyond scientific investigation. ...
This is the curious state of debate about the government's two main weapons in the fight against pandemic flu. At first, government officials declare that both vaccines and drugs are effective. When faced with contrary evidence, the adherents acknowledge that the science is not as crisp as they might wish. Then, in response to calls for placebo-controlled trials, which would provide clear results one way or the other, the proponents say such studies would deprive patients of vaccines and drugs that have already been deemed effective. ...
In the absence of better evidence, vaccines and antivirals must be viewed as only partial and uncertain defenses against the flu. And they may be mere talismans. By being afraid to do the proper studies now, we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science.
The annals of medicine are littered with treatments and tests that became medical doctrine on the slimmest of evidence, and were then declared sacrosanct and beyond scientific investigation. ...
This is the curious state of debate about the government's two main weapons in the fight against pandemic flu. At first, government officials declare that both vaccines and drugs are effective. When faced with contrary evidence, the adherents acknowledge that the science is not as crisp as they might wish. Then, in response to calls for placebo-controlled trials, which would provide clear results one way or the other, the proponents say such studies would deprive patients of vaccines and drugs that have already been deemed effective. ...
In the absence of better evidence, vaccines and antivirals must be viewed as only partial and uncertain defenses against the flu. And they may be mere talismans. By being afraid to do the proper studies now, we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science.
If its four or five days from two illnesses then its not Flu. Thats a cold.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The flu shot is not about preventing you from dying. It's to avoid you from getting sick and infecting other people who may have weaker immune systems and have higher risk of dying if they get sick.
I *thought* about getting a placebo, and didn't get the flu. I'm suggestible as hell.
Yes, today's placebo is almost twice as powerful as those used as little as 5 years ago.
While this does raise some questions about the efficacy of the vaccine. It doesn't prove conlusively it does nothing. Not that you would know that from the editorializing the author does.
... I became biased against any conclusion. Up here in the Pacific Northwest, the common nickname of this HMO is "Group Death". They're not exactly known for high quality care or cutting edge research - they're mainly known for denying treatments as "experimental" for years after those treatments have become the norm in most medical circles.
I remember an acquaintance (husband of a co-worker) who kept getting denied treatment for (IIRC) a persistent and very painful hydrocele. The Group Health doc told him nothing could be done - surgical correction of this was "experimental and dangerous". Finally out of desperation they consulted with an outside doc, who told them this was a very simple routine procedure! They paid out-of-pocket for the surgery, and the problem was quickly rectified.
I know nothing about the particular doctor who did this flu vaccine study - but, given her employer, I have very little confidence that she is particularly knowledgeable. I'm sure Group Health would love to save the 15 or 20 bucks per patient they're currently having to spend on this vaccine.
#DeleteChrome
The live attenuated flu vaccine, FluMist is substantially more effective than the inactivated injected vaccine (something that's blindingly obvious to those of us who've studied basic immunology). It provides a potent T-cell response, and a large pool of memory cells. Furthermore, it has been shown to be effective against viruses that have undergone some genetic drift.
For anyone who is old enough, has no respiratory problems, and who isn't immunosuppressed, the live nasal spray vaccine is a much more sensible choice.
For additional data refer here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/efficacycomparison.htm
I don't whether to laugh or cry.
Also a second situation which would lead to the similar results. That people who got the shot...*gasp* likely got the shot the previous year and *shock* have some built up immunity due to the previous years shot.
This physician... not a biologist. Sounds like shes not very good at what shes supposed to be doing. The information she presented proves nothing. She randmly concludes just 1 or many possible scenarios based on her predisposition. Poor poor science.
Randomized, controlled trials have shown the effectiveness of flu vaccines, contrary to the claims of the article. (Example: Wilde et al., "Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals.")
In addition, research into mortality reduction already takes into account comorbid conditions and age. (Example: Nordin et al., "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 article is at best poorly researched and at worst intentional FUD.
36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US. That's very nearly as many as die from car accidents.
There is a very simple way to test the effectiveness of a vaccine and that is to carry out a double blind study utilising placebos alongside the active vaccine. Any effect that is solely due to the "healthy user effect" would be virtually eliminated.
further problems: the article has no references, no real hard data from relevant studies and several studies contradict the article's assertions.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I think it's commendable that folks still challenge received wisdom, and are actually attempting to answer difficult questions, as opposed to merely sweeping them under the carpet.
However at the same time, we need to be super, super careful that we don't encourage the fringe extremist nutters in the antivax movement, who are sure to seize upon doubts of the efficacy of the swine flu vaccine as PROOF that all vaccination is bad, and that we should protect our kids by going to flu and chickenpox parties because it's "natural".
And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots. Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.
The WHO and CDC are driving the H1N1 vaccines, not the vaccine companies. No matter how good the lobbyists for the vaccine companies are, they aren't good enough to get the government to step in and bear the liability without some government agency agreeing that there is actually something there to address.
(The issue with H1N1 is not its lethality once it has infected a person, but how good a job it does of infecting those who are exposed)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I'm all for testing the conventional wisdom, and when combined with my tendency to avoid medicine where it isn't necessary it appears that I should support this kind of article. But when it comes to vaccines there's a problem - antivaxxers. Regardless of the chance that one particular vaccine might not really be worth taking, it's frankly irresponsible to put out this kind of article without firm proof. Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it. Otherwise... and I really hate to say this... shut up. There are people out there who will use this as ammunition in their irrational campaign against vaccines in general, and those people will get other people killed. Not just people who choose not to get themselves vaccinated for the flu, but their children, and the children of other people who for are unable to get the vaccine due to an allergy, or for whom the vaccine had no effect. Those people would normally be protected by group immunization that kept them from ever being in contact with the virus in question, but when there's a real movement in our country to avoid vaccines... well we start to slip below the threshold in some places.
We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another. That's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct isn't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general. If they had any sort of actual firm proof, it would be different, but this sort of conjecture *is* dangerous - and not to the person doing the conjecturing.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
You joke, but there's mounting evidence that the placebo effect is indeed getting stronger.
(Of course, conducting a double-blind test to confirm this would create numerous paradoxes)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
"Let's pray that science wins out over irrationality."
That's what the article's point is! It's not saying "vaccines don't work" it's saying "they say vaccines reduce the death rate by 50% and the numbers don't bear that out. What's the real number?"
And that's a fair question. We know the virus isn't 100% effective, it damn near killed this girl: http://www.google.com/search?pg=q&fmt=.&q=dystonia+flu+vaccine
Neither though is anybody saying the vaccine is zero percent effective or universally toxic, what happened above is a rare edge case (but as an aside it would be nice to be able to predict when this was going to happen, this is a fairly *catastrophic* edge case).
But the examples brought up in the article do suggest there is sustantive argument that the claimes reductin of 50% reduction in martaliry rate is indeed in question, that's all.
Nobody's actually measuring people who have anti-bodies of a specific type, the data gathered is fairly meaningless by lumping a lot of things (rhinovirus, coronovirus etc) as "flu", also the cohort factor and related effects do have a demonsterable non-zero effect on the mortality rate.
So, it's not a question of is the vaccine useful or nor, more like a plea for more accurate analysis and gathering of the data in question.
Need Mercedes parts ?
You seem to be confusing the current seasonal flu with the pandemic of 1918.
They are by no stretch of the imagination comparable.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Words like "global pandemic" should be reserved for something more dangerous than the sniffles"
No, it shouldn't. Pandemic refers to the number of people infected and how quickly it spreads, not how deadly it is. People should fucking learn what this term means, rather than assuming it means "AMAZING DEADLY SUPER VIRUS". We should NOT redefine it to mean "SUPER DEADLY SUPER VIRUS".
Swine flue IS a pandemic. It's not super amazingly deadly, but it IS a pandemic. The paranoia is not the fault of the government. This paranoia is the fault of the dipshit idiot populous that elects idiots into the government and then ceases to think for themselves.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Read the Atlantic article. The researchers' data set was specific to seasonal flu in people 65 and older!!! Yet did the article highlight this or confine the discussion to efficacy against seasonal flu among people 65 and older? No--it mentioned it once and then made general statements about the potential efficacy of vaccination for ALL PEOPLE for both seasonal flu and H1N1! Even if vaccination against seasonal flu doesn't reduce the death rate of people over 65 at all, H1N1 flu is demonstrably lethal to children, healthy young adults, and people under 65 with common preexisting health conditions like asthma or HIV. By getting vaccinated against H1N1, you not only reduce YOUR risk of death, but also the risk that you'll contract and pass on H1N1 to someone else who will then die of it. Get vaccinated!!! Also, look at how the article selectively hypes the credentials of the vaccine skeptics. They say Jefferson "knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet." Really? There are 7 billion people on the planet; that's a bold statement. They say the Cochrane Collaboration is "a highly respected international network." That may be true, yet they fail to apply corresponding adjectives to Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was highly respected and the director of the NIAID the last time I checked. Selective, arbitrary hyping of the credentials of skeptical researchers on one side of the debate only is a classic pop science writing technique to sell magazines and create controversy. Where have I seen this before? Cecilia Farber's horrendous Harper's magazine article promoting HIV denialism (and nearly all other HIV denialist writing, incidentally). Selective credential hyping makes me doubt the authors' impartiality and trustworthiness on the whole topic. The article also states that young, healthy people "aren’t the people who die from seasonal flu." That's a wild overgeneralization. Young, healthy people have a lower risk of dying from seasonal flu but no guarantee it won't kill them. Many will read that statement and forget that (a) it excludes pregnant women, who are young and otherwise healthy but not defined as "young, healthy people" because they are immune suppressed during their pregnancy and highly vulnerable to death from the flu, and (b) the statement is about seasonal flu, not H1N1 which is already killing healthy young people today! The researchers are reasonable in calling for more studies on this question and pointing out the problem in rolling out treatments not tested in controlled trials, but Fauci is right in pointing out that giving people a placebo in a traditional prospective, double-blinded trial could be unethical. There is a potential perfect solution to this problem alluded to already by ColdWetDog. Since we have a shortage of the H1N1 vaccine at this time anyway, set up a study that looks at the death rate of people depending on what date they are vaccinated, before and after vaccination. The people waiting for vaccination (due to the shortage) become the controls for themselves (after vaccination) as well as for the people who get vaccinated earlier. Since we're UNABLE to vaccinate everyone right away due to insufficient availability of the vaccine, there's no ethical problem. This is called a "waiting list control." This would require a large study size and more statistical care than a traditional treatment/placebo protocol, but would be an ethical way to get the data we want for H1N1. I'd fully support doing such a study. Popular magazines should either stop covering science or should get scientists to review their articles written by lay journalists for scientific and statistical accuracy before they publish. The editors at magazines like The Atlantic and Harper's clearly do not have the scientific or statistical literacy to do the job themselves. I'm sick and tired of seeing popular magazines make selective and incorrect use of data and invalid logic to draw incorrect conclusions that mislead the public and cause people to doubt that HIV is the cause of AIDS, fear and doubt vaccines when they should welcome them, etc. Creating FUD and misconceptions is harmful to public health, leads to the deaths of innocent people who can't decipher misinformation, and drives up health care costs for us all.
No matter how good the lobbyists for the vaccine companies are, they aren't good enough to get the government to step in and bear the liability without some government agency agreeing that there is actually something there to address.
Huh?
The US Government backstops liability for all vaccines, except where it grants outright immunity from lawsuits.
1986: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
The liability is otherwise so big that no private insurer will touch it.
(Same thing goes for nuclear power.)
Both the USA's dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the European Union's Parliment have granted pharmaceutical companies immunity from lawsuits relating to H1N1 vaccines. The USA's HHS Secretary went one step further and granted immunity for all future swine flu vaccines.
I'm not sure how Europe normally handles vaccine liability, but I'm sure a /.er can fill us in.
You're right though that the WHO and CDC are driving the H1N1 vaccines.
They're so desperate to get out ahead of the flu that they're accepting calculated risks.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
According to Webster's New World Medical Dictionary:
Pandemic: An epidemic (a sudden outbreak) that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world.
Influenza A Virus Subtype H1N1(commonly called the swine flu) erupted suddenly, became widespread, eventually being found on all continents(save Antarctica).
Therefore, yes, H1N1 is, by definition, a pandemic.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
Actually, if anyone bothered to look into it, rather than listening to the media outlets, 'the swine flu' is less than half as likely to kill you as the average seasonal flu. By 'average seasonal flu' I mean take the past 50 years worth of deaths related to seasonal flus and you'll find about 0.12% of the infected people die. By contrast, 0.05% of those infected with 'the swine flu' have died.
It is a pandemic, but the flu has been a pandemic forever, as is the common cold. The media just doesn't have anything else to get our attention so this is what they exaggerate into being scary.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager