Flu Vaccine Study

[Aubrey]

This was linked on FB this AM. I tend to think this way about the flu shots anyway, so I doubt I can really read it fairly, but I'd love to discuss. :001_smile:

[jillian]

DH is required to get the shot (military) but dd and I NEVER get it. Then again I'm fairly anti-vax for our family.

[Mabeline]

We usually get the flu shot, but I don't feel strongly about it either way.

 

I think it's funny that they talk about playing with numbers when they are doing the same thing. They keep saying that the flu shot won't do anything for 99% of people when they are saying that they won't get sick anyway. So it is not that the vaccine doesn't work for 99%, instead it isn't necessary for 99% of people.

 

I don't think it's a big deal. We are generally a healthy family and we seem to not get sick as often or as bad the years we get the shot so we continue to get it. Interesting article and conversation thanks for posting.

[kiana]

Please note, before reading, that I'm not claiming that everyone should vaccinate. What I AM saying is that this article is not a good source of information.

 

Go to the source. Evaluate your risk for flu, based on exposure and other criteria. Evaluate your chances of being seriously ill if you DO get it. (For example, my SO is severely immunocompromised and I work at a university with many sniffling students. Therefore, I do get the shot, because flu could easily result in hospitalization for him. I never did before.)

 

Review of article begins here:

That article has so many problems with misuse of statistics I don't even know where to start.

 

For example, he's claiming that since most adults don't get the flu in the FIRST place, that it's 1.5% effective. In other words, he's making up his own definition of effectiveness.

 

What the 60% means is that in an unvaccinated population, you'd expect 2.7% to get the flu, whereas in the vaccinated population 1.2% got the flu. This means that there was a 60% reduction among people who WERE going to get flu.

 

For most people, does it make a difference? Probably not. For people who are constantly exposed to all sorts of germs (such as public school teachers, daycare workers, nursing home workers), who are far more likely to be exposed and thus far more likely to catch the disease, it may be worth it.

 

Secondly, he's switching back and forth between which statistic he uses depending on what he wants to prove. For example, he links to his article about Vitamin D usage. In this, he claims:

In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted

influenza over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent.

Note that this test was solely run on children, while when he claims "8 times more effective", the test was run on children and adults. In order to make the claim, you'd need to test Vitamin D on children AND adults. In that case, it would be *impossible* for it to be 8 times as effective using his numbers, as the highest number of cases it could prevent is 2.7.

 

The absolute reduction in flu for children getting flu shots is (according to his article since I don't have access to the real numbers) 12%, whereas Vit D gave an absolute reduction of 8%. He ignores this and says, essentially, "But this is a vaccine industry study so it's biased so we don't need to count that."

 

 

Furthermore, including theories such as :

 

 

Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated "public health" message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.

 

 

 

Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.

 

 

further weakens an already misleading argument.

[Perry]

This was linked on FB this AM. I tend to think this way about the flu shots anyway, so I doubt I can really read it fairly, but I'd love to discuss. :001_smile:

 

Recent thread

Mike Adams vs. the flu vaccine

[KungFuPanda]

"Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda."

 

Yeah, because polio wasn't getting the job done!

 

Wait. WHAT?

[Perry]

"Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda."

 

Yeah, because polio wasn't getting the job done!

 

Wait. WHAT?

:lol::lol::lol:

[Acorn]

This is the first year I had the kids get flu vaccines. They have had a miserable year with multiple illnesses. So far in the past 2 months, there has been croup, pneumonia and first time asthma. We really can't handle anything else this year. (My dd is already pushing the minimum attendance level required for her speech therapist. She spent a week coughing so hard she had vomiting. I really don't think that her speech class would have gone well.) While I was paying the doctor for the vaccine, both kids for whatever reason had their mouths on the edge of the counter-top. The worst part: the reception says that she doesn't understand why that happens so often. Yuck! So I figure that the statistics that calculate how likely a person would contract a virus don't account for kids that lick checkout counters.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Acorn

[kiana]

Yeah, I didn't even get that far, but Bill Gates said something about achieving population reduction with a combination of better vaccines, better health care and family planning.

 

Of course, what GATES meant is that if people in developing countries don't need to have ten children in order to make sure one of them grows up and can care for them when they're old because that's the only form of retirement planning they have, they will probably not choose to have ten children. Some still will. Most won't.

 

But somehow that gets twisted into "Bill Gates admits vaccines are a way of population reduction! The nefarious schemes are publicly admitted!"

[Mama2Many4]

Please note, before reading, that I'm not claiming that everyone should vaccinate. What I AM saying is that this article is not a good source of information.

 

Go to the source. Evaluate your risk for flu, based on exposure and other criteria. Evaluate your chances of being seriously ill if you DO get it. (For example, my SO is severely immunocompromised and I work at a university with many sniffling students. Therefore, I do get the shot, because flu could easily result in hospitalization for him. I never did before.)

 

Review of article begins here:

That article has so many problems with misuse of statistics I don't even know where to start.

 

For example, he's claiming that since most adults don't get the flu in the FIRST place, that it's 1.5% effective. In other words, he's making up his own definition of effectiveness.

 

What the 60% means is that in an unvaccinated population, you'd expect 2.7% to get the flu, whereas in the vaccinated population 1.2% got the flu. This means that there was a 60% reduction among people who WERE going to get flu.

 

For most people, does it make a difference? Probably not. For people who are constantly exposed to all sorts of germs (such as public school teachers, daycare workers, nursing home workers), who are far more likely to be exposed and thus far more likely to catch the disease, it may be worth it.

 

Secondly, he's switching back and forth between which statistic he uses depending on what he wants to prove. For example, he links to his article about Vitamin D usage. In this, he claims:

 

Note that this test was solely run on children, while when he claims "8 times more effective", the test was run on children and adults. In order to make the claim, you'd need to test Vitamin D on children AND adults. In that case, it would be *impossible* for it to be 8 times as effective using his numbers, as the highest number of cases it could prevent is 2.7.

 

The absolute reduction in flu for children getting flu shots is (according to his article since I don't have access to the real numbers) 12%, whereas Vit D gave an absolute reduction of 8%. He ignores this and says, essentially, "But this is a vaccine industry study so it's biased so we don't need to count that."

 

 

Furthermore, including theories such as :

 

 

 

further weakens an already misleading argument.

 

:iagree:. We need a clapping smiley.

[Rivka]

I don't think Natural News is a credible source of science or health information. Everything I've ever seen by them is a combination of tortured logic, manipulated statistics, and high-emotion scare tactics.

[Lady Florida.]

"Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda."

 

Yeah, because polio wasn't getting the job done!

 

Wait. WHAT?

 

 

:lol:

[Aubrey]

"Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda."

 

Yeah, because polio wasn't getting the job done!

 

Wait. WHAT?

 

:lol: Ok, ok. I skimmed too fast, mainly taking the synopsis from FB. :blushing:

[tricia]

Well that's a real shocker!! I definitely can't say it's any kind of a surprise.

[Ipsey]

Yeesh,

There's a man who doesn't have even the very basics in understanding statistics. Er, rather, he's playing on people not understanding statistics.

Daaang.

[WishboneDawn]

Please note, before reading, that I'm not claiming that everyone should vaccinate. What I AM saying is that this article is not a good source of information.

 

Go to the source. Evaluate your risk for flu, based on exposure and other criteria. Evaluate your chances of being seriously ill if you DO get it. (For example, my SO is severely immunocompromised and I work at a university with many sniffling students. Therefore, I do get the shot, because flu could easily result in hospitalization for him. I never did before.)

 

Review of article begins here:

That article has so many problems with misuse of statistics I don't even know where to start.

 

For example, he's claiming that since most adults don't get the flu in the FIRST place, that it's 1.5% effective. In other words, he's making up his own definition of effectiveness.

 

What the 60% means is that in an unvaccinated population, you'd expect 2.7% to get the flu, whereas in the vaccinated population 1.2% got the flu. This means that there was a 60% reduction among people who WERE going to get flu.

 

For most people, does it make a difference? Probably not. For people who are constantly exposed to all sorts of germs (such as public school teachers, daycare workers, nursing home workers), who are far more likely to be exposed and thus far more likely to catch the disease, it may be worth it.

 

Secondly, he's switching back and forth between which statistic he uses depending on what he wants to prove. For example, he links to his article about Vitamin D usage. In this, he claims:

 

Note that this test was solely run on children, while when he claims "8 times more effective", the test was run on children and adults. In order to make the claim, you'd need to test Vitamin D on children AND adults. In that case, it would be *impossible* for it to be 8 times as effective using his numbers, as the highest number of cases it could prevent is 2.7.

 

The absolute reduction in flu for children getting flu shots is (according to his article since I don't have access to the real numbers) 12%, whereas Vit D gave an absolute reduction of 8%. He ignores this and says, essentially, "But this is a vaccine industry study so it's biased so we don't need to count that."

 

 

Furthermore, including theories such as :

 

 

 

further weakens an already misleading argument.

 

Thank you. That was a great response to that article.

[KungFuPanda]

:lol: Ok, ok. I skimmed too fast, mainly taking the synopsis from FB. :blushing:

 

Too late! You will now be publicly and mercilessly ridiculed. Bwaaa haa ha! In all fairness, the author held in the crazy tells until near the end of the article, so you had to read the whole thing to get to the obvious Nut Job stuff.

 

I have participated in two threads today and in both I've had fun at your expense. That has GOT to be wrong. :: Dons biscuit proof helmet::

Edited November 1, 2011 by KungFuPanda

[regentrude]

Please note, before reading, that I'm not claiming that everyone should vaccinate. What I AM saying is that this article is not a good source of information.

 

Go to the source. Evaluate your risk for flu, based on exposure and other criteria. Evaluate your chances of being seriously ill if you DO get it. (For example, my SO is severely immunocompromised and I work at a university with many sniffling students. Therefore, I do get the shot, because flu could easily result in hospitalization for him. I never did before.)

 

Review of article begins here:

That article has so many problems with misuse of statistics I don't even know where to start.

 

For example, he's claiming that since most adults don't get the flu in the FIRST place, that it's 1.5% effective. In other words, he's making up his own definition of effectiveness.

 

What the 60% means is that in an unvaccinated population, you'd expect 2.7% to get the flu, whereas in the vaccinated population 1.2% got the flu. This means that there was a 60% reduction among people who WERE going to get flu.

 

For most people, does it make a difference? Probably not. For people who are constantly exposed to all sorts of germs (such as public school teachers, daycare workers, nursing home workers), who are far more likely to be exposed and thus far more likely to catch the disease, it may be worth it.

 

Secondly, he's switching back and forth between which statistic he uses depending on what he wants to prove. For example, he links to his article about Vitamin D usage. In this, he claims:

 

Note that this test was solely run on children, while when he claims "8 times more effective", the test was run on children and adults. In order to make the claim, you'd need to test Vitamin D on children AND adults. In that case, it would be *impossible* for it to be 8 times as effective using his numbers, as the highest number of cases it could prevent is 2.7.

 

The absolute reduction in flu for children getting flu shots is (according to his article since I don't have access to the real numbers) 12%, whereas Vit D gave an absolute reduction of 8%. He ignores this and says, essentially, "But this is a vaccine industry study so it's biased so we don't need to count that."

 

 

:iagree:Thanks for stating this so succinctly. The article is clearly biased (and makes no effort to hide this bias) and lacks understanding about statistics. The statements at the end take the cake and do not need to be repeated; this is utter BS.

Edited November 1, 2011 by regentrude

[Nakia]

Too late! You will now be publicly and mercilessly ridiculed. Bwaaa haa ha! In all fairness, the author held in the crazy tells until near the end of the article, so you had to read the whole thing to get to the obvious Nut Job stuff.

 

I have participated in two threads today and in both I've had fun at your expense. That has GOT to be wrong. :: Dons biscuit proof helmet::

 

 

No worries, she threw the last one at me a minute ago. :D

[i.love.lucy]

:hurray:

:iagree:. We need a clapping smiley.

[Mama2Many4]

:hurray:

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

Now we need a dunce hat one!

[linguistmama]

We don't vax. I really dislike natural news though, it's very biased and not at all scientific. Mercola is pretty bad too!

[jillian]

We don't vax. I really dislike natural news though, it's very biased and not at all scientific. Mercola is pretty bad too!

Yep.

[KungFuPanda]

No worries, she threw the last one at me a minute ago. :D

 

Oh good, I can live to snark another day !

[Aubrey]

Oh good, I can live to snark another day !

 

Yeah, the kids' Halloween candy isn't going to pack as much of a punch...and besides...I think we're all better off if I...*smack*...Halloween candy? I think Dad must have put it somewhere...

[LidiyaDawn]

So I figure that the statistics that calculate how likely a person would contract a virus don't account for kids that lick checkout counters.

 

:laugh: :D

[Joyofsixreboot]

Science Fridayhttp://www.npr.org/2011/10/28/141800408/analysis-questions-flu-shot-effectiveness last week discussed flu shots. Dh has to get it ( hospital employee). The kids and I do not but we have no chronic illnesses.