Thursday, November 14, 2013

What if I Told You...The Flu Vaccine INCREASES Flu Infections?

People like to play the vaccine debate a specific way. Whether you're concerned about the ingredients or the ethics or both, at least everyone agrees that vaccines help reduce infections.

(A reaching joke about the "I forgot how to cat meme" which
can be seen here: http://weknowmemes.com/2013/01/i-forgot-how-to-cat/)

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/11/13/cid.cit736.short
"Results.The 2011-2012 season was mild and peaked late, with circulation of both type A viruses and both lineages of type B. Overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36 to 56) in preventing medically-attended influenza; vaccine effectiveness was 65% (95% CI, 44 to 79) against type A (H1N1) pdm09, but only 39% (95% CI, 23 to 52) against type A (H3N2). Estimates of vaccine effectiveness against both type B lineages were similar (overall 58%, 95% CI, 35 to 73). An apparent negative effect of prior year vaccination on current year effectiveness estimates was noted, particularly for A (H3N2) outcomes."

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/03/study-getting-flu-shot-2-years-row-may-lower-protection
"The vaccine was found to be 62% effective in those who hadn't been vaccinated the previous year. That was similar to findings in the other observational studies and also to the results of a recent, rigorous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. In contrast, those who had been vaccinated 2 years in a row (before both the 2009-10 and 2010-11 seasons) got no significant protection."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/full
"We included 50 reports. Forty (59 sub-studies) were clinical trials of over 70,000 people. Eight were comparative non-RCTs and assessed serious harms. Two were reports of harms which could not be introduced in the data analysis. In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance. Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited."




Here's a similar issue related to a different disease:
http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis

"In contrast, vaccination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of mice. Though the mechanism behind this increased colonization was not specifically elucidated, it is speculated to involve specific immune responses skewed or dampened by the acellular vaccine, including cytokine and antibody production during infection. Despite this vaccine being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussisinfection."

Have fun with that game! Sounds more exciting than a coin toss!


I know! If we just keep adding more injections,
we'll break statistics and then vaccines will work!
The vaccine post list:http://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2012/07/vaccine-article-quick-list.html

No comments:

Post a Comment