Home > Preventable Diseases, Science & Research, Seasonal Flu > Friday Flu Shot: Myth Busted by MOMmunization

Friday Flu Shot: Myth Busted by MOMmunization

All I can say is thank you Alana!

Her recent blog post, entitled Myth Buster on the MOMmunizations blog, emphasizes the fact that the flu shot can not give you the flu.  Not only does she explain why it is not possible, she describes some scenarios that may cause people to mistakenly believe it does.  But please people.  Do not be fooled.

If someone says they got the flu from the flu shot consider this:

  • They may mistakenly think they are experiencing symptoms of the flu, when in fact that are sick with another ailment.
  • They may have been exposed to a flu virus before getting vaccinated, or during the two-week period it takes the body to develop full immunity after the shot is administered.
  • They may have contracted a strain of influenza that the vaccine does not offer protection from. 
  • They may not have developed immunity, despite the shot and were therefore still susceptible to flu in their environment.  This may occur when a person is elderly or has a compromised immune system, as their response to the vaccine may not be as effective, but fortunately, their symptoms will most likely be less severe, with less chance of complications. 

Alana goes into greater detail in her post, but I also recommend that you investigate the many informative flu pages of the CDC website, the Fact & Fiction section of the Families Fighting Flu site, and a detailed document provided by the Vaccine Education Center of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia here.

Each year people continue to spread misinformation about the flu vaccine and each year we must work to dispel it.  If a friend or family member chooses not to be immunized due to their misunderstanding of how this vaccine works, please share the facts with them. Encourage them to do their part to stop the flu from circulating in our communities. It doesn’t take but a moment, but it can help save someone’s life.

  1. September 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    Having suffered through several bouts of the flu over the years & now with young kids in the household, both my wife and I have been diligent in getting our flu vaccines.

    Like

  2. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Ooops, she forgot to mention that the flu vaccine is ineffective at actually preventing the flu…

    Gee, Lars, I’ve got a 2 year old and a 4 year old at home, both in preschool and none of us get the flu and none of us have been vaccinated. Anecdotal? Yes, just like your claims.

    Like

  3. Chris
    September 14, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;8:CD004879.
    Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.

    Like

  4. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Chris :
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;8:CD004879.
    Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.

    You mean the one that has yet to provide supportive research with regard to the conclusions? Or would you prefer to look at the 2010 study which showed a benefit to 1.5% of the population, a barely statistically significant figure?

    Chris, you will always lose with me because I am on the side of truth. That is why Christine is so afraid to let me be heard.

    Like

  5. Nathan
    September 15, 2012 at 1:32 am

    Ooops, she forgot to mention that the flu vaccine is ineffective at actually preventing the flu…

    Ooops, you forgot to provide evidence of this claim. Amateur dismissal of the evidence that the vaccine is effective does not constitute evidence that the vaccine is ineffective.

    You mean the one that has yet to provide supportive research with regard to the conclusions?

    Um, what? Are you trying to say that the 2012 Cochrane does not list the studies it reviewed in the full text? Can you substantiate this claim? Because it would be quite unusual for the Cochrane group to forget to include the list of studies in the full text of this one particular review. Please. if you have the full text of the 2012 Cochrane review, simply post a screenshot in photobucket or something of the end where the references would be.

    Or maybe, yet again, you are blowing smoke.

    Or would you prefer to look at the 2010 study which showed a benefit to 1.5% of the population, a barely statistically significant figure?

    The size of a decrease does not determine its statistical significance. The p-value of the study does. The 2011 Lancet study I believe you are referring to was a large meta-analysis and quite definitely statistically significant.

    Chris, you will always lose with me because I am on the side of truth.

    Everyone thinks they are on the side of truth. Unfortunately you are not on the side of math, logic, or reality.

    Like

  6. John Fryer
    September 15, 2012 at 2:33 am

    Hopefully in a perfect world those that are believers can have their yearly vaccines to protect from flu. But what about H1N1 and the research that shows the susceptibility of those who had the previous flu vaccines regularly had the greatest chance of contracting H1N1?

    Also the vaccination of pregnant mothers with the flu vaccine was studied and showed no benefit from this targetting of one group. This provided a chance to look at vaccinated versus non-vaccinated but the researchers refused to study this aspect for terminations. so we will not know if a rise from 1 termination due to vaccine induced adverse effects to nearly 200 such cases is real or not significant harm to the foetus.

    The harm to mothers and the children who got the vaccine very early in their pregancy was found and provides evidence real and obvious that while vaccines protect us they are poweful medications that need proper monitoring.

    To refuse to look at harm is therefore criminal and immoral.

    For my age group the fact is that after a vaccine you have a one chance in fifteen of being dead within the year.

    Personally I place faith in our ability and immune system to resist harm. I do get colds and or that may be flu but up to now make a full recovery;

    I am still working out why if you get vaccinated that you need another vaccine the next year?

    Also why do we tend to get the illnesses in the depths of winter when our vitamin D levels are challenged from low to critical?

    Like

  7. Steve Michaels
    September 15, 2012 at 3:37 am

    “Ooops, you forgot to provide evidence of this claim. Amateur dismissal of the evidence that the vaccine is effective does not constitute evidence that the vaccine is ineffective.”

    Oh dear, Nathan. Have you read the package insert for Flulaval? I have. Let me tell you what it says:

    “—————-USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS —————-

     Safety and effectiveness of FLULAVAL have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children.”

    Aren’t these the groups being targeted for the vaccine?

    How about this:

    “1 INDICATIONS AND USAGE
    FLULAVAL® is indicated for active immunization of adults (18 years of age and older) against influenza disease caused by influenza virus subtypes A and type B contained in the vaccine.
    This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL, and there have been no controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL

    No studies of effectiveness? Oh dear Nathan. Who’s blowing smoke?

    http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/docs/pi/vicId-58.pdf

    Like

  8. Steve Michaels
    September 15, 2012 at 3:48 am

    “Um, what? Are you trying to say that the 2012 Cochrane does not list the studies it reviewed in the full text? Can you substantiate this claim? Because it would be quite unusual for the Cochrane group to forget to include the list of studies in the full text of this one particular review. Please. if you have the full text of the 2012 Cochrane review, simply post a screenshot in photobucket or something of the end where the references would be.”

    The 2010 study included the conglomerated results of all included studies. The 2012 study only, thus far, gives the conclusions with no underlying results having been published. At least, as of two days ago that was all that was available.

    Like

  9. Steve Michaels
    September 15, 2012 at 3:50 am

    “The size of a decrease does not determine its statistical significance. The p-value of the study does. The 2011 Lancet study I believe you are referring to was a large meta-analysis and quite definitely statistically significant.”

    Only when you magically eliminate 97% of the participants and use false accounting techniques. Let’s not go down that road again. I have already made that point previously and it remains substantively uncontested.

    Like

  10. lilady
    September 15, 2012 at 3:51 am

    “Hopefully in a perfect world those that are believers can have their yearly vaccines to protect from flu. But what about H1N1 and the research that shows the susceptibility of those who had the previous flu vaccines regularly had the greatest chance of contracting H1N1?”

    Any links to that study Mr. Fryer? Any links to any of the studies that you mention?

    Let’s analyze your statements/studies, one by one, with this new study that has just been published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology:

    http://www.newsorganizer.com/article/no-risks-seen-with-flu-shot-in-7c06f10af15524df0a1d354cccc9002e/

    “Also the vaccination of pregnant mothers with the flu vaccine was studied and showed no benefit from this targetting of one group. This provided a chance to look at vaccinated versus non-vaccinated but the researchers refused to study this aspect for terminations. so we will not know if a rise from 1 termination due to vaccine induced adverse effects to nearly 200 such cases is real or not significant harm to the foetus.”

    Not so, Mr. Fryer…

    Adding to evidence that the flu shot is safe for pregnant women, a new study finds no link between the vaccine and the risk of serious birth defects. The study, of nearly 9,000 pregnant women who got the flu shot, found that about 2 percent had a baby with a major birth defect, such as a malformation in the heart or a cleft lip.That was identical to the rate among almost 77,000 pregnant women who did not get the vaccine.

    What’s more, researchers found, women who got vaccinated were less likely to suffer a stillbirth (a pregnancy loss after the 20th week): 0.3 percent did, versus 0.6 percent of unvaccinated women.

    Their newborns also had a lower death rate: 0.2 percent died soon after birth, compared with 0.4 percent of babies born to unvaccinated moms.

    “The harm to mothers and the children who got the vaccine very early in their pregancy was found and provides evidence real and obvious that while vaccines protect us they are poweful medications that need proper monitoring.”

    Not so, Mr. Fryer…

    Still, Sheffield said, many women and doctors alike still have concerns about flu vaccine safety during pregnancy – especially the first trimester, which is when birth defects form and when most miscarriages happen.But in this study, the researchers found that vaccination during the first trimester came with no increased risk of birth defects.

    “To refuse to look at harm is therefore criminal and immoral.”

    Look at the study that I have cited that shows the benefits to a pregnant woman and her unborn child in terms of morbidity and mortality. To spread false information to dissuade women who are pregnant from getting flu vaccine during their pregnancy is therefore criminal and immoral.

    “For my age group the fact is that after a vaccine you have a one chance in fifteen of being dead within the year.”

    Any links to a study, Mr. Fryer?

    Like

  11. Steve Michaels
    September 15, 2012 at 3:51 am

    “Everyone thinks they are on the side of truth. Unfortunately you are not on the side of math, logic, or reality.”

    No, the industry is on the side of profit and permanently and chronically ill customers all forced to use their products by legislative compulsion.

    Like

  12. lilady
    September 15, 2012 at 3:56 am

    O Joy, while I was posting back at John Fryer, Steve posts about Seasonal Flu Vaccine and pregnant women. Take a look at my post and my link to the new study published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Steve.

    Like

  13. lilady
    September 15, 2012 at 4:15 am

    John Fryer…”I am still working out why if you get vaccinated that you need another vaccine the next year?”

    Try looking up “antigenic shift” and “antigenic drift”

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/change.htm

    Like

  14. Steve Michaels
    September 15, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    lilady :
    O Joy, while I was posting back at John Fryer, Steve posts about Seasonal Flu Vaccine and pregnant women. Take a look at my post and my link to the new study published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Steve.

    I did take a look at your post. Since when is Reuters a peer reviewed source? I like this bit too:

    “A CDC study published last year found “no unusual patterns” of pregnancy complications or newborn health problems among U.S. women who received the flu shot between 1990 and 2009. Based on cases reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the rate of miscarriage was 1.9 per one million vaccinated pregnant women.”

    So when it suits, you accept the VAERS for evidence and when it doesn’t it’s inaccurate? You have got to be joking!! Your double standards are exceptionally obvious! Some might call this ‘dishonest’ even.

    Yes, an interesting study. Only the vaccinated results are shown….. I don’t trust conclusion drawn from incomplete data sets. Let me quote your study:

    “OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of first-trimester influenza vaccination on fetal and neonatal outcomes.”

    “RESULTS: During the 5-year study period, 10,225 women received the seasonal influenza vaccine antepartum; 8,690 of these delivered at our institution, 439 in the first trimester and 8,251 in the second and third trimesters. Women vaccinated antepartum were significantly older with higher parity than women who declined vaccination. Neonates born to mothers receiving the vaccine in any trimester did not have an increase in major malformations regardless of trimester of vaccination (2% regardless of vaccination group, P=.9). Stillbirth (0.3% compared with 0.6%, P=.006), neonatal death (0.2% compared with 0.4%, P=.01), and premature delivery (5% compared with 6%, P=.004) were significantly decreased in the vaccinated group.”

    Where are the results for the non-vaccinated group? How many were there? How many actual births? How many still births? How many miscarriages? It looks more like this was a comparison between first trimester vaccination and second and third trimester vaccination. If this is the case, as it appears, it is about as helpful as comparing Newport to Marlboro health outcomes. I am very dubious indeed.

    Like

  15. lilady
    September 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Steve you stated…

    “I did take a look at your post. Since when is Reuters a peer reviewed source?”

    Here’s the abstract of the study referred to in the Reuters article I linked, to from the peer-reviewed Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, published in their September issue:

    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of first-trimester influenza vaccination on fetal and neonatal outcomes.

    METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study examining delivery and neonatal outcomes after antepartum exposure to the seasonal trivalent inactive influenza vaccine. Data were collected and entered into an established computerized database. Outcomes by trimester of vaccination were then compared with women who did not receive the vaccine.

    RESULTS: During the 5-year study period, 10,225 women received the seasonal influenza vaccine antepartum; 8,690 of these delivered at our institution, 439 in the first trimester and 8,251 in the second and third trimesters. Women vaccinated antepartum were significantly older with higher parity than women who declined vaccination. Neonates born to mothers receiving the vaccine in any trimester did not have an increase in major malformations regardless of trimester of vaccination (2% regardless of vaccination group, P=.9). Stillbirth (0.3% compared with 0.6%, P=.006), neonatal death (0.2% compared with 0.4%, P=.01), and premature delivery (5% compared with 6%, P=.004) were significantly decreased in the vaccinated group.

    CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination in the first trimester was not associated with an increase in major malformation rates and was associated with a decrease in the overall stillbirth rate. This information will aid in counseling women regarding the safety of influenza vaccination in the first trimester.

    Did you also state this Steve?

    “I like this bit too:

    A CDC study published last year found “no unusual patterns” of pregnancy complications or newborn health problems among U.S. women who received the flu shot between 1990 and 2009. Based on cases reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the rate of miscarriage was 1.9 per one million vaccinated pregnant women.”

    You really DID NOT READ the Reuters article, because you looked at a footnote referring to a completely different study the “CDC study published last year”…which used the VAERS database

    AGAIN STEVE, DUE TO YOUR DEPLORABLE LACK OF READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS AND/OR YOUR DELIBERATE CHERRY-PICKING OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STUDY THAN THE ARTICLE THAT I LINKED TO, PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE OF THEJOURNAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, YOU HAVE INSULTED AND DEFAMED ME:

    “So when it suits, you accept the VAERS for evidence and when it doesn’t it’s inaccurate? You have got to be joking!! Your double standards are exceptionally obvious! Some might call this ‘dishonest’ even.”

    Time to pack it in Steve. Your double standard are exceptionally obvious! We all call your activities and your posts on this blog dishonest.

    (BTW Steve, don’t expect any support from John Freyer, Chemist. The citation-less Mr. Freyer is a drive-poster who, when asked to provide citations for “his studies” and “his opinions” and who, when he is provided citations from peer-reviewed journals…just slinks away, back to his friends at a notorious anti-vaccine website).

    “A CDC study published last year found “no unusual patterns” of pregnancy complications or newborn health problems among U.S. women who received the flu shot between 1990 and 2009. Based on cases reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the rate of miscarriage was 1.9 per one million vaccinated pregnant women.”

    So when it suits, you accept the VAERS for evidence and when it doesn’t it’s inaccurate? You have got to be joking!! Your double standards are exceptionally obvious! Some might call this ‘dishonest’ even.

    Like

  16. lilady
    September 15, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Poor editing on my part. The last sentence in my post above is…

    (BTW Steve, don’t expect any support from John Freyer, Chemist. The citation-less Mr. Freyer is a drive-poster who, when asked to provide citations for “his studies” and “his opinions” and
    who, when he is provided citations from peer-reviewed journals…just slinks away, back to his friends at a notorious anti-vaccine website).

    Disregard the last two paragraphs, which are redundant, in my post above.

    Like

  17. Steve Michaels
    September 15, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Lilady, how much do they pay you to be so fatuous? At least with Nathan, he provides a challenge. You are a light weight with obviously very little experience in argument or debate or logic or honesty. Please allow me to quote your unjustifiably arrogant and condescending comment:

    “You really DID NOT READ the Reuters article, because you looked at a footnote referring to a completely different study the “CDC study published last year”…which used the VAERS database”

    Ummm, take a look at comment 14. I quoted the abstract from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and debunked it. So who’s reading comprehension is lacking? It isn’t mine! And I don’t need to shout. I am sure your pharma friends have a pill to calm you down a bit.

    I was referring to YOUR reference to a Reuters article, which YOU chose to use, as not being peer reviewed. The fact that you chose the article instead of the actual abstract indicates your endorsement of it’s content. The content of the article claims that a CDC study of VAERS is valid research. VAERS also shows a distinct link between vaccines and autism and certain vaccines and GBS, however you and your colleagues who shill for pharma claim that causation or lack of causation cannot be established through the VAERS system. Even the CDC has said that VAERS, as a self reporting and under reporting system, does not provide enough data to have any value. So which is it? Can the CDC use VAERS in a way that gives valid conclusions? If so, then the case against vaccines has been proven, hands down. If it cannot be used to give a valid conclusion, then the CDC study is worthless, yet you have endorsed it.

    Which is it?

    Like

  18. Steve Michaels
    September 15, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    Oh, and just to clarify, poor editing isn’t your most obvious issue.

    Like

  19. lilady
    September 15, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    No you are conjuring things up again Steve… and trying “to spin” what you stated (post # 14)

    You touched lightly on the right retrospective study…then launched into a rant about the footnoted study…and your insults directed at me were based on that prior study.

    Let’s look what you stated about the right study Steve; from your post # 14

    “OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of first-trimester influenza vaccination on fetal and neonatal outcomes.”

    RESULTS: During the 5-year study period, 10,225 women received the seasonal influenza vaccine antepartum; 8,690 of these delivered at our institution, 439 in the first trimester and 8,251 in the second and third trimesters. Women vaccinated antepartum were significantly older with higher parity than women who declined vaccination. Neonates born to mothers receiving the vaccine in any trimester did not have an increase in major malformations regardless of trimester of vaccination (2% regardless of vaccination group, P=.9). Stillbirth (0.3% compared with 0.6%, P=.006), neonatal death (0.2% compared with 0.4%, P=.01), and premature delivery (5% compared with 6%, P=.004) were significantly decreased in the vaccinated group.”

    Then you stated “Where are the results for the non-vaccinated group?”

    Right here Steve…

    ” Neonates born to mothers receiving the vaccine in any trimester did not have an increase in major malformations regardless of trimester of vaccination (2% regardless of vaccination group, P=.9). Stillbirth (0.3% compared with 0.6%, P=.006), neonatal death (0.2% compared with 0.4%, P=.01), and premature delivery (5% compared with 6%, P=.004) were significantly decreased in the vaccinated group.”

    Comment…You do understand that stillbirths among vaccinated women (0.3 %), were half of the stillbirths among unvaccinated women (0.6 %); neonatal deaths among vaccinated women (0.2 %) were half of the neonatal deaths among unvaccinated women (0.4 %). Premature delivery (5 %) were significant decrease among vaccinated women compared to premature delivery (6 %) among unvaccinated women.

    You then stated in your comment # 14…

    “Where are the results for the non-vaccinated group? How many were there? How many actual births? How many still births? How many miscarriages? It looks more like this was a comparison between first trimester vaccination and second and third trimester vaccination. If this is the case, as it appears, it is about as helpful as comparing Newport to Marlboro health outcomes. I am very dubious indeed.”

    Steve to answer all these inane questions and your dumb conclusion “It looks more like this was a comparison between first trimester vaccination and second and third trimester vaccination.”, read the first paragraph of the link I provided to the Reuters article that discussed the retrospective study published in the September 2012 issue of the Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology:

    “NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Adding to evidence that the flu shot is safe for pregnant women, a new study finds no link between the vaccine and the risk of serious birth defects.
    The study, of nearly 9,000 pregnant women who got the flu shot, found that about 2 percent had a baby with a major birth defect, such as a malformation in the heart or a cleft lip.
    That was identical to the rate among almost 77,000 pregnant women who did not get the vaccine.

    Steve in reply to your last comment directed at me, “Oh, and just to clarify, poor editing isn’t your most obvious issue.”

    Oh, and just to clarify…your pattern of weaseling out of your prior posts, your feeble attempts to reinterpret and “to spin” what you stated in prior posts, your deplorable lack of reading comprehension, your vast amount of ignorance of basic science and immunology, your non-existent skills to understand scientific studies, your highjacking of threads to post your virulent, vicious attacks on other posters and your blatant, anti-science and anti-vaccine agenda…aren’t your most obvious issues.

    Like

  20. Nathan
    September 15, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    No studies of effectiveness? Oh dear Nathan. Who’s blowing smoke?

    Still you, Steve, as ever. And your bold type only adds to the effect.

    You have not provided evidence of your claim that “the flu vaccine is ineffective at actually preventing the flu.” At best you are feebly trying to use a single sentence from a single brand of flu shot’s package insert argue that no effectiveness studies exist, which is not the same. And this is obviously not the case, as we are citing effectiveness studies in this very thread. But even if it were the case, and you were interpreting the sentence accurately, it would not be evidence of ineffectiveness.

    Since nearly every year’s flu vaccine has different strains than previous years, flu vaccines aren’t necessarily licensed based on preclinical real-life effectiveness studies. Each previous year would not have a bearing on the next. Thus they are licensed based on preclinical immune response studies, hence “This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL.”

    I do love how you can cite an effectiveness study in one comment and then a few comments later try to claim there are none. Fascinating cognitive dissonance.

    The 2012 study only, thus far, gives the conclusions with no underlying results having been published. At least, as of two days ago that was all that was available.

    Repeating this with different words does not make it true. Please prove it. Do you actually have a copy of the full text of the Cochrane review? You do understand that it is a meta-analysis of previously published research, right? Or, as with so many things, are you using your lack of knowledge of something as evidence that the thing does not exist?

    Only when you magically eliminate 97% of the participants and use false accounting techniques.

    No such accounting techniques were done, Steve. This is simply another example of you not understanding scientific research methods. The meta-analysis eliminates no participats. The results were statistically significant within the entire population that received the flu vaccine. Had the population in the study that received the flu vaccine been several million, and only those small numbers of vaxed and unvaxed getting the flu, those results may not have been significant. The size of the study population is what allows them to determine statistical significance.

    I have already made that point previously and it remains substantively uncontested.

    Your point has been refuted time and again, Steve. It remains substantively uncontested in your mind due to a substantively uncontested Dunning-Kruger effect that lives in there as well.

    Like

  21. lilady
    September 15, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Still waiting for Steve to refute what I posted at him two hours ago, about his re-inventing the history of what he has stated in prior posts…and his unctuous weasel-like behavior.

    Like

  22. Quokka
    September 16, 2012 at 8:08 am

    Steve – I am begging you – stop while you are behind

    Like

  23. Steve Michaels
    September 16, 2012 at 11:43 am

    lilady :
    No you are conjuring things up again Steve… and trying “to spin” what you stated (post # 14)
    You touched lightly on the right retrospective study…then launched into a rant about the footnoted study…and your insults directed at me were based on that prior study.
    Let’s look what you stated about the right study Steve; from your post # 14
    “OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of first-trimester influenza vaccination on fetal and neonatal outcomes.”
    RESULTS: During the 5-year study period, 10,225 women received the seasonal influenza vaccine antepartum; 8,690 of these delivered at our institution, 439 in the first trimester and 8,251 in the second and third trimesters. Women vaccinated antepartum were significantly older with higher parity than women who declined vaccination. Neonates born to mothers receiving the vaccine in any trimester did not have an increase in major malformations regardless of trimester of vaccination (2% regardless of vaccination group, P=.9). Stillbirth (0.3% compared with 0.6%, P=.006), neonatal death (0.2% compared with 0.4%, P=.01), and premature delivery (5% compared with 6%, P=.004) were significantly decreased in the vaccinated group.”
    Then you stated “Where are the results for the non-vaccinated group?”
    Right here Steve…
    ” Neonates born to mothers receiving the vaccine in any trimester did not have an increase in major malformations regardless of trimester of vaccination (2% regardless of vaccination group, P=.9). Stillbirth (0.3% compared with 0.6%, P=.006), neonatal death (0.2% compared with 0.4%, P=.01), and premature delivery (5% compared with 6%, P=.004) were significantly decreased in the vaccinated group.”
    Comment…You do understand that stillbirths among vaccinated women (0.3 %), were half of the stillbirths among unvaccinated women (0.6 %); neonatal deaths among vaccinated women (0.2 %) were half of the neonatal deaths among unvaccinated women (0.4 %). Premature delivery (5 %) were significant decrease among vaccinated women compared to premature delivery (6 %) among unvaccinated women.
    You then stated in your comment # 14…
    “Where are the results for the non-vaccinated group? How many were there? How many actual births? How many still births? How many miscarriages? It looks more like this was a comparison between first trimester vaccination and second and third trimester vaccination. If this is the case, as it appears, it is about as helpful as comparing Newport to Marlboro health outcomes. I am very dubious indeed.”
    Steve to answer all these inane questions and your dumb conclusion “It looks more like this was a comparison between first trimester vaccination and second and third trimester vaccination.”, read the first paragraph of the link I provided to the Reuters article that discussed the retrospective study published in the September 2012 issue of the Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology:
    “NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Adding to evidence that the flu shot is safe for pregnant women, a new study finds no link between the vaccine and the risk of serious birth defects.
    The study, of nearly 9,000 pregnant women who got the flu shot, found that about 2 percent had a baby with a major birth defect, such as a malformation in the heart or a cleft lip.
    That was identical to the rate among almost 77,000 pregnant women who did not get the vaccine.
    Steve in reply to your last comment directed at me, “Oh, and just to clarify, poor editing isn’t your most obvious issue.”
    Oh, and just to clarify…your pattern of weaseling out of your prior posts, your feeble attempts to reinterpret and “to spin” what you stated in prior posts, your deplorable lack of reading comprehension, your vast amount of ignorance of basic science and immunology, your non-existent skills to understand scientific studies, your highjacking of threads to post your virulent, vicious attacks on other posters and your blatant, anti-science and anti-vaccine agenda…aren’t your most obvious issues.

    So let me get this straight. You are upset that I asked where the results are for the group who received no vaccine because it is not provided in the actual study abstract and you refer me back to a Reuters article??? What is that? We now are ignoring the PubMed citation and using a press release for results? As I said previously, without a breakdown of HOW MANY from each category from each group, the percentage incidence claims are worthless. NOWHERE in the study is there any information about how many unvaccinated women were in the group. Reuters is NOT a source, although I now see why you linked to the Reuters article instead of the actual abstract. The abstract is unreliable so you tried to avoid it. I don’t need to weasel lilady, I just need to point out how you are trying to spin my comments. Remember, I was the one using PubMed as so many shills insist. YOU are the one who is using Reuters to fill in the gaps of an incomplete study.

    Like

  24. Steve Michaels
    September 16, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Nathan: “You have not provided evidence of your claim that “the flu vaccine is ineffective at actually preventing the flu.” At best you are feebly trying to use a single sentence from a single brand of flu shot’s package insert argue that no effectiveness studies exist, which is not the same. And this is obviously not the case, as we are citing effectiveness studies in this very thread. But even if it were the case, and you were interpreting the sentence accurately, it would not be evidence of ineffectiveness. ”

    That’s really funny Nathan!! I just argued this very point with either lilady or Chris or some other shill on here. They were arguing that no study proving something was the same as proving there was no link. I am not the one trying to ‘prove’ that the vaccine works. The company says there are NO studies proving that it works. If you juxtapose that to the Cochrane Library report showing barely any benefit across the general population, the ineffectiveness becomes clear.

    Nathan: “Repeating this with different words does not make it true. Please prove it. Do you actually have a copy of the full text of the Cochrane review? You do understand that it is a meta-analysis of previously published research, right? Or, as with so many things, are you using your lack of knowledge of something as evidence that the thing does not exist?”

    I was going to just link to it, but here is the entire PubMed entry:

    “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

    First published: August 15, 2012; This version published: 2012; Review content assessed as up-to-date: November 16, 2011.
    Plain language summary

    Children (< 16 years old) and the elderly (above 65 years old) are the two age groups that appear to have the most complications following an influenza infection. Influenza has a viral origin and often results in an acute respiratory illness affecting the lower or upper parts of the respiratory tract, or both. Viruses are mainly of two subtypes (A or B) and spread periodically during the autumn‐winter months. However, many other viruses can also cause respiratory tract illnesses.

    Diffusion and severity of the disease could be very different during different epidemics. Efforts to contain epidemic diffusion rely mainly on widespread vaccination. Recent policy from several internationally‐recognised institutions, recommend immunisation of healthy children between 6 and 23 months of age (together with their contacts) as a public health measure.

    The review authors found that in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus than injected vaccines made from the killed virus. Neither type was particularly good at preventing 'flu‐like illness' caused by other types of viruses. In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo. It was not possible to analyse the safety of vaccines from the studies due to the lack of standardisation in the information given, but very little information was found on the safety of inactivated vaccines, the most commonly used vaccine in young children.
    Abstract

    Background: The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people over 65 years of age.

    Objectives: To appraise all comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in healthy children, assess vaccine efficacy (prevention of confirmed influenza) and effectiveness (prevention of influenza‐like illness (ILI)) and document adverse events associated with influenza vaccines.

    Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, OLD MEDLINE (1950 to 1965), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2011), EMBASE (1974 to November 2011), Biological Abstracts (1969 to September 2007), and Science Citation Index (1974 to September 2007).

    Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case‐control studies of any influenza vaccine in healthy children under 16 years of age.

    Data collection and analysis: Four review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

    Main results: We included 75 studies with about 300,000 observations. We included 17 RCTs, 19 cohort studies and 11 case‐control studies in the analysis of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Evidence from RCTs shows that six children under the age of six need to be vaccinated with live attenuated vaccine to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). We could find no usable data for those aged two years or younger.

    Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo. Twenty‐eight children over the age of six need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). Eight need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza‐like‐illness (ILI). We could find no evidence of effect on secondary cases, lower respiratory tract disease, drug prescriptions, otitis media and its consequences and socioeconomic impact. We found weak single‐study evidence of effect on school absenteeism by children and caring parents from work. Variability in study design and presentation of data was such that a meta‐analysis of safety outcome data was not feasible. Extensive evidence of reporting bias of safety outcomes from trials of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) impeded meaningful analysis. One specific brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine is associated with cataplexy and narcolepsy in children and there is sparse evidence of serious harms (such as febrile convulsions) in specific situations.

    Authors' conclusions: Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age. There was a difference between vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, partly due to differing datasets, settings and viral circulation patterns. No safety comparisons could be carried out, emphasising the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies. In specific cases, influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large‐scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required. The degree of scrutiny needed to identify all global cases of potential harms is beyond the resources of this review.

    This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry‐funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding."

    Firstly, there are no conglomerated numbers of participants or results. No numbers, except the number of studies being reviewed. Secondly, please note the final paragraph. Let me quote it again:

    "The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding."

    Let me quote that again:

    "The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding."

    Like

  25. Steve Michaels
    September 16, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Oh, please let me quote that again:

    “The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.”

    Are you getting the point yet? The review itself says that you should doubt it’s findings because of the widespread manipulation of conclusions within the studies being reviewed. That’s not me Nathan. Combine this disclaimer with the fact that no results were published to support the conclusion and the conclusion itself must be viewed as unsound.

    Like

  26. lilady
    September 16, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Still waiting for Steve to refute what I posted at him 18 hours ago, about his re-inventing the history of what he has stated in prior posts…and his unctuous weasel-like behavior.

    Too pompous, too devious to admit you confused the study I referred to from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology with another study that was “footnoted” and published a year ago, eh Steve?

    What’s the difference between Primary Vaccine Failure and Secondary Vaccine Failure?

    Like

  27. Chris
    September 16, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    I just argued this very point with either lilady or Chris or some other shill on here.

    And your only evidence is that we don’t fall into your step-march of “reasoning”? Seriously get a better argument than the old tired and boring Pharma Shill Gambit.

    All you have demonstrated is you have no clue how to read a scientific study, that you cherry pick and cannot understand basic mathematics, especially since the financials show that preventing disease is cheaper than treating those who require hospital care. From this we can conclude you work for “Big Hospital Supply”, perhaps a linen contractor for the NHS.

    Like

  28. Steve Michaels
    September 16, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    lilady :
    Still waiting for Steve to refute what I posted at him 18 hours ago, about his re-inventing the history of what he has stated in prior posts…and his unctuous weasel-like behavior.
    Too pompous, too devious to admit you confused the study I referred to from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology with another study that was “footnoted” and published a year ago, eh Steve?
    What’s the difference between Primary Vaccine Failure and Secondary Vaccine Failure?

    I think you should talk to your doctor about Prozac or something. I have addressed and clarified your confusion already. I don’t understand why you are harping on. For your idiiotic ‘weasel’ post, read post 23 woman! I pointed out that what you claimed I ignored was actually quoted in my reply to you in the first place. How could I have been confused when I was quoting what you were claiming I ignored. For your vaccine failure definition was already dealt with on another thread. I think you may be a bit confused, dear.

    Like

  29. Steve Michaels
    September 16, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    Oh, here you go lilady.

    https://shotofprevention.com/2012/09/11/pertussis-in-my-town-now-what/#comment-15380

    Maybe too many vaccines have affected your memory considering you replied to the link post.

    Like

  30. Nathan
    September 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm

    That’s really funny Nathan!! I just argued this very point with either lilady or Chris or some other shill on here. They were arguing that no study proving something was the same as proving there was no link.

    Gee, fantastic, Steve. If you recognize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, then why are you trying to make that very claim by using the excerpt from the package insert?

    I am not the one trying to ‘prove’ that the vaccine works.

    No, you are the one who made the claim that “the flu vaccine is ineffective at actually preventing the flu” and have yet to back that claim up with evidence.

    The company says there are NO studies proving that it works.

    No, as I explained, one company has one line in a package insert indicating there are no preclinical effectiveness studies for that brand alone. There are numerous studies on influenza vaccines in general, and you know this because we have been discussing them.

    If you juxtapose that to the Cochrane Library report showing barely any benefit across the general population, the ineffectiveness becomes clear.

    The Cochrane Reviews are quite clear that the vaccine is significantly efficacious and effective. You continue to not understand that the effectiveness of a vaccine, or any intervention for that matter, is not dependent on the percentage of the population that gets the disease.

    Oh, please let me quote that again:
    “The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.”
    Are you getting the point yet? The review itself says that you should doubt it’s findings because of the widespread manipulation of conclusions within the studies being reviewed. That’s not me Nathan.

    Yes, it is you, again misinterpreting and paraphrasing in words that do not convey the original meaning. Conclusions being manipulated is not the same thing as data being manipulated. It is well known that one should be critical of the conclusion section of any study with significant conflict of interest. Indicating that one should be aware of this is not a way of saying that the end results of a meta-analysis are unreliable. Indeed, when you have a meta-analysis of controlled studies, you have extremely strong evidence. And again, you have produced no studies that indicate that influenza vaccine does not reduce your chance of influenza.

    I was going to just link to it, but here is the entire PubMed entry… [snip the entire plain language summary and abstract because it is a waste of space and does not prove what Steve thinks it proves] …there are no conglomerated numbers of participants or results. No numbers, except the number of studies being reviewed.

    Yeah, that’s because it is not the full text. It is the plain language summary and abstract. Face, palmed.

    Like

  31. May 9, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    The post has proven useful to me. It’s really educational
    and you’re simply certainly very experienced in this field. You have got exposed my own eyes in order to varying opinion of this particular subject using intriguing and strong content material.

    Like

  32. Andrew Ovenden
    May 14, 2013 at 10:07 am

    I would like to reiterate (in case it hasn’t already been done above), that the quote “This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL, and there have been no controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL” is a big red herring that is misused by the antivaccine crowd.

    What I mean is that the sentence above refers to “influenza disease” in total, as in, in the whole population. It does NOT mean that the vaccine is ineffective in individuals. There ARE studies that show that it is effective at preventing the strains of the virus that it is designed for in INDIVIDUALS. The sentence above merely states that there have not been studies that show if it has any impact on the overall rates of influenza disease. Such studies would be unlikely to happen because of the scope of the phenomena being measured in a population where only a fraction are being immunized.

    Like

  1. September 18, 2012 at 2:44 pm
  2. November 2, 2012 at 3:29 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s