Reread the part I quoted :
"Vaccine effectiveness estimates were lower than those demonstrated in other observational studies carried out during the same season."
The comparison is between other studies from the same season.
Anyone Here Getting A Flu Shot?
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
Reread the part I quoted :
"Vaccine effectiveness estimates were lower than those demonstrated in other observational studies carried out during the same season."
The comparison is between other studies from the same season.
I haven't had a flu shot in over 10 years, but when I was in Buffalo last year, I saw a "get your flu shot" sign in a shopping mall that advertised a "preservative free" version for pregnant women. It would seem everyone else gets a friendly dose of Thiomersal and whatever else goes in to make these things last longer and cheaper to manufacture.
In Canada, flu shots are "free" (really just tax payer funded), BUT I prefer to take the natural (and safe) approach to immune building, which includes eating real food and its working out great!
In Canada, flu shots are "free" (really just tax payer funded), BUT I prefer to take the natural (and safe) approach to immune building, which includes eating real food and its working out great!
I misread your post, sorry.
It is reasonable to see a variance of results when sets of populations are studied. All the studies done during the season should be taken account of regardless whether it shows a unfavorable outcome or a favorable outcome, otherwise we fall for confirmation bias. A unfavorable outcome study should not be dismissed as a outlier in error or a cherry picked study without good reason. The same goes for a favorable outcome study.
Now going back to the CDC claiming the flu shot reduces the chances of getting the flu by 70% to 90%, where is the control vs treatment studies that verifies this. When they claim such, they cannot use just one study of one population. They need to have gathered all the studies done and found for example the average reduction is 70% to 90%, so just one favorable study cannot back up this claim. However, i tried to find just one study to provide an outcome of at least 70% and I couldn't.
The WebMD article did say the CDC claimed that, but they didn't list a reference or anything.
CDC: Flu vaccine 61% effective, but too few adults get it | CIDRAP
This article cites a press conference with a named CDC employee, who stated it was looking like it was 61% last season and 52% for 2012-13.
That is study does not back up the vaccine reducing the odds of getting from 70 to 90%.
It is a highly positive outcome study that they used but those looking at the 61% effectiveness as basis for their decision making can be mislead. They used relative difference for effectiveness, which over exaggerate odds in the minds of the lay person.
When we want to see what the reduced odds are in getting flu by vaccination, we should be looking at absolute risk/odds.
From the study,
Number of vaccinated and got flu is 784(0.29) = 227
% of vaccinated and got flu from population = (227/2319)100 = 9.79%
Number of unvaccinated and got flu is 784(0.71) = 557
% of unvaccinated and got flu from population = (557/2319)100 = 24.02%
Here is what should be considered when considering odds of getting the flu with or without the flu shot as gathered from the study. What we really should care about is our odds of getting the flu with or without the vaccine:
Chances of getting the flu when vaccinated is 9.79%
Chances of getting the flu when not vaccinated is 24.02%
So the absolute reduction in odds of getting the flu by receiving the flu shot is 24.02-9.79 = 14.23%
So from the study, expect a 14.23% reduced odds of flu by vaccination. This is far from the CDC claim of 70% to 90%. As I said before, i can't find a study that backs up CDC's bold claim, and if they do in fact have a study, I am sure they used the exaggerated relative risk reduction figure which pharma typically loves using to sell their drugs. And if they just used one study for that claim, its just cherry picking also, while ignoring studies such as this one.
Here is an interesting read on the virus selection process for vaccine creation...
Selecting the Viruses in the Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine | Health Professionals | Seasonal Influenza (Flu)
It addresses the CDC's role as well as presumptive steps taken by drug makers in order to build inventory for the flu season.
The process, as described, seems sound. But it's impossible to know whether it reflects reality since incentives and disincentives - bonuses/promotions for scientists, favorable contracts for select manufacturers, etc. - aren't disclosed.
Also, the CDC references numerous studies to validate their claims. They don't provide links - and I'm not motivated to check - so it's unclear whether the studies are RCTs or RCSs.*
As always, buyer beware.
* RCT = randomized controlled trial. RCS = retrospective cohort study. The former is far more reliable than the latter for learning about (not proving) causation. Its reliability increases if it's blinded (a placebo is given to a subset of the population), and increases further if it's double-blinded (the folks who receive the placebo don't know it).
RCSs are great fodder for HuffPo and WebMD headlines, but should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Selecting the Viruses in the Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine | Health Professionals | Seasonal Influenza (Flu)
It addresses the CDC's role as well as presumptive steps taken by drug makers in order to build inventory for the flu season.
The process, as described, seems sound. But it's impossible to know whether it reflects reality since incentives and disincentives - bonuses/promotions for scientists, favorable contracts for select manufacturers, etc. - aren't disclosed.
Also, the CDC references numerous studies to validate their claims. They don't provide links - and I'm not motivated to check - so it's unclear whether the studies are RCTs or RCSs.*
As always, buyer beware.
* RCT = randomized controlled trial. RCS = retrospective cohort study. The former is far more reliable than the latter for learning about (not proving) causation. Its reliability increases if it's blinded (a placebo is given to a subset of the population), and increases further if it's double-blinded (the folks who receive the placebo don't know it).
RCSs are great fodder for HuffPo and WebMD headlines, but should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Whoa there, those would be numbers for a relatively large epidemic if applied to everyone. The people in the study were not randomly selected though, they instead were "patients who visit a doctor for treatment of an acute respiratory illness (ARI) are tested for flu and their vaccination status is determined."
There are different ways to highlight numbers. If a .150 hitter in baseball is replaced with a .300 one, the "absolute reduction in odds" might be 15%, but most people would probably just say that the new guy was twice as good.
When people have sex without birth control, the majority of the time there isn't going to be a pregnancy, but most people aren't going to think of condom effectiveness numbers in terms of absolute reduction in odds.
As I said before, WebMD didn't give a specific source for that claim, so the CDC might have never claimed it, or may have just claimed it for a particular year or whatever.
Yet that is what have been used for their quoted vaccine effectiveness.
In the context of the odds of getting the flu with or without the vaccine, you cannot deny that the absolute risk is a much better picture to base a decision (whether to get injected) on than the exaggerated relative risk. This is what people is after isn't it. The chance of getting flu with vaccine vs chance of getting flu without the vaccine. That is the bottom line.
Thiomersal is a Mercury molecule. Mercury in its "normal" state is toxic and lethal at moderate doses. Not a cool thing to inhale. In your simple minds, Thiomersal must thus be similarly evil. Because a link is a link i guess.
Because you've already decided that Mercury is evil, I'll try a couple other atoms and you might get the point. Probably not but wecan always try, right?
Hydrogen:
The good.
Water - H2O - this is the stuff you implicitly consume when you decide to binge some awful energy drink.
The bad:
H2, highly reactive (explosive)
HCl - gas, turns into acid on contact with water
many more
Oxygen:
O2 - 20% of the atmosphere, main reason you don't suffocate
O3 - just another O turns your precious life agent into ozone. Helps ward off radiation in the upper atmosphere but is a faint blue toxic gas. Stay away.
Carbon:
C6H12O6 - a common sugar. Yummy.
CO2 - carbon dioxide 1% of the atmosphere. Plants need this to breath. Not dangerous unless major doses prevent you from breathing O2. Not toxic.
CO - carbon monoxide. Don't wanna inhale this. Will kill you fast.
Chloride:
NaCl - the most common edible salt. Nothing bad here.
Cl2 - one of the infamous chemical weapons of the first world war.
And so on. You're expected to observe that the presence of a toxic Atom does not equate toxicity of the compound. Thank you very much.
despite that, thiomersal had been shelved due to retard fears. No autism for you.
The point of vaccines is to get rid of viruses. Not in the individual. We got rid of a whole bunch of really ugly diseases that way. Selectively handing them out to individuals is kind of silly. We can't kill the influenza because it's a really resistant bug that just shows up one half of the year. If you want increased protection from that, go get a shot. If not, don't get it. The flu won't kill anyone who isn't already weak.
Assuming that vaccines are injected into the bloodstream is hilarious. That would probably take you out for good. They are injected into a muscle and absorbed into the "bloodstream" over a couple days - weeks. Not really but let's keep it simple.
The very idea that vaccines weaken your immune system. To put it in your terms, that's like taking down your top ten sites expecting to finally making four figures a year.
Maybe you spend do much time thinking about the flu shot because you'd take a significant hit financially.
We take shots as insurance against the really ugly. Most people won't ever get the flu. Most of those who get it won't die to it. I don't get flu shots. What i do get is immunization against the tick transmitted meningitis. Not because it's particularly likely to ever get it. But if you do, you're pretty much done.
Ignore the flu vaccine hype. But try to do it in a non stupid sounding way. For your own sake.
If you ever have kids, don't get them basic immunization. Then take them to India. Don't mourn, just call it survival of the fittest and get back to being smart.
Because you've already decided that Mercury is evil, I'll try a couple other atoms and you might get the point. Probably not but wecan always try, right?
Hydrogen:
The good.
Water - H2O - this is the stuff you implicitly consume when you decide to binge some awful energy drink.
The bad:
H2, highly reactive (explosive)
HCl - gas, turns into acid on contact with water
many more
Oxygen:
O2 - 20% of the atmosphere, main reason you don't suffocate
O3 - just another O turns your precious life agent into ozone. Helps ward off radiation in the upper atmosphere but is a faint blue toxic gas. Stay away.
Carbon:
C6H12O6 - a common sugar. Yummy.
CO2 - carbon dioxide 1% of the atmosphere. Plants need this to breath. Not dangerous unless major doses prevent you from breathing O2. Not toxic.
CO - carbon monoxide. Don't wanna inhale this. Will kill you fast.
Chloride:
NaCl - the most common edible salt. Nothing bad here.
Cl2 - one of the infamous chemical weapons of the first world war.
And so on. You're expected to observe that the presence of a toxic Atom does not equate toxicity of the compound. Thank you very much.
despite that, thiomersal had been shelved due to retard fears. No autism for you.
The point of vaccines is to get rid of viruses. Not in the individual. We got rid of a whole bunch of really ugly diseases that way. Selectively handing them out to individuals is kind of silly. We can't kill the influenza because it's a really resistant bug that just shows up one half of the year. If you want increased protection from that, go get a shot. If not, don't get it. The flu won't kill anyone who isn't already weak.
Assuming that vaccines are injected into the bloodstream is hilarious. That would probably take you out for good. They are injected into a muscle and absorbed into the "bloodstream" over a couple days - weeks. Not really but let's keep it simple.
The very idea that vaccines weaken your immune system. To put it in your terms, that's like taking down your top ten sites expecting to finally making four figures a year.
Maybe you spend do much time thinking about the flu shot because you'd take a significant hit financially.
We take shots as insurance against the really ugly. Most people won't ever get the flu. Most of those who get it won't die to it. I don't get flu shots. What i do get is immunization against the tick transmitted meningitis. Not because it's particularly likely to ever get it. But if you do, you're pretty much done.
Ignore the flu vaccine hype. But try to do it in a non stupid sounding way. For your own sake.
If you ever have kids, don't get them basic immunization. Then take them to India. Don't mourn, just call it survival of the fittest and get back to being smart.
Relying on pure numbers from studies gives additional problems. We can't just take those results as a reflection of actual reality and try to formulate assumptions from it.
In the first step we need to track down the financing sources of the studies. So if there is some pharmaceutical company connected to the study, red light must start blinking.
The best way to track financing sources is to look up for the names of researchers that have done actual studies that are coming up with the names of pharma companies and their subcontractors (almost everyone of them and that creates next problems... because not every researcher is a piece of shit...).
In general it's "follow the money" approach.
Another problem is what you are discussing here, that is design of the studies. But this is for those who really have patience and time to thoroughly evaluate studies (which calls for evaluation of other connected studies and on and on...).
Statistics is where they do most of cons
Or to say it in a different way, in statistics they are looking for factors that may confirm their theories and desired results (results ordered by manufactures).
Design of modern studies is a perfect con in itself. Manufactures don't ask to check for possible effectiveness of a product, they are asking research centers to actually prove effectiveness of a product (and manufactures are paying for it nice dollar).
So without basic knowledge of the subject and, most often at least basic biochemistry knowledge taking any assumptions out of those studies is highly inappropriate.
In my country there is a paper that was designed by the ministry of health and it lists all the possible negative effects of using vaccines. So what conscious people do here is this. They are going to their GP with that paper and asking him to just sign up this paper. More or less, paper says that GP is aware of the negative effects vaccines can have on a health of patient but, despite this fact he is still sure about his diagnosis and is prescribing vaccines.
Guess what?
They don't want to sign it up. Why? If vaccines are soo good for us and our kids then why not?
I know... signing up paper like this open routs to abuse of the system but, why paper like this was designed in the first place? (maybe vaccines are not soo bananas?)
At one point where there was this swine flu bolox around in 2009 (excuses my words but I'm straight about it), our Polish health minister Ewa Kopacz refused to buy lot of vaccines from manufactures. She actually questioned effectiveness and necessity of those vaccines and, she did it right in front of face of other Western countries like US (primary vaccine eaters) and Germany (they like vaccines but just not that much... Maybe because of their history. BTW, I love Germans).
Of course, media killed her for that and her time as a health minister was done.
BTW, she is a GP practitioner with some good experience (decades).
But I would like you to watch this video. It's translated to English quite well and, you can see from where she is coming from.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbtA6Lz-rA0"]Polish Health Minister Ewa Kopacz on the Swine Flu Vaccine - YouTube[/ame]
P.S If you are too "smart" or intelligent to watch it all then, you should take some kind of vaccine promptly
P.P.S Vaccines will be always a touchy subject because no one wants something bad to happen to his/her kids and family. It's like with the diet. Everyone wants best for their relatives and will do everything to protect them and make them healthy. But business is business right?
In the first step we need to track down the financing sources of the studies. So if there is some pharmaceutical company connected to the study, red light must start blinking.
The best way to track financing sources is to look up for the names of researchers that have done actual studies that are coming up with the names of pharma companies and their subcontractors (almost everyone of them and that creates next problems... because not every researcher is a piece of shit...).
In general it's "follow the money" approach.
Another problem is what you are discussing here, that is design of the studies. But this is for those who really have patience and time to thoroughly evaluate studies (which calls for evaluation of other connected studies and on and on...).
Statistics is where they do most of cons
Or to say it in a different way, in statistics they are looking for factors that may confirm their theories and desired results (results ordered by manufactures).
Design of modern studies is a perfect con in itself. Manufactures don't ask to check for possible effectiveness of a product, they are asking research centers to actually prove effectiveness of a product (and manufactures are paying for it nice dollar).
So without basic knowledge of the subject and, most often at least basic biochemistry knowledge taking any assumptions out of those studies is highly inappropriate.
In my country there is a paper that was designed by the ministry of health and it lists all the possible negative effects of using vaccines. So what conscious people do here is this. They are going to their GP with that paper and asking him to just sign up this paper. More or less, paper says that GP is aware of the negative effects vaccines can have on a health of patient but, despite this fact he is still sure about his diagnosis and is prescribing vaccines.
Guess what?
They don't want to sign it up. Why? If vaccines are soo good for us and our kids then why not?
I know... signing up paper like this open routs to abuse of the system but, why paper like this was designed in the first place? (maybe vaccines are not soo bananas?)
At one point where there was this swine flu bolox around in 2009 (excuses my words but I'm straight about it), our Polish health minister Ewa Kopacz refused to buy lot of vaccines from manufactures. She actually questioned effectiveness and necessity of those vaccines and, she did it right in front of face of other Western countries like US (primary vaccine eaters) and Germany (they like vaccines but just not that much... Maybe because of their history. BTW, I love Germans).
Of course, media killed her for that and her time as a health minister was done.
BTW, she is a GP practitioner with some good experience (decades).
But I would like you to watch this video. It's translated to English quite well and, you can see from where she is coming from.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbtA6Lz-rA0"]Polish Health Minister Ewa Kopacz on the Swine Flu Vaccine - YouTube[/ame]
P.S If you are too "smart" or intelligent to watch it all then, you should take some kind of vaccine promptly
P.P.S Vaccines will be always a touchy subject because no one wants something bad to happen to his/her kids and family. It's like with the diet. Everyone wants best for their relatives and will do everything to protect them and make them healthy. But business is business right?
Ahh BTW, are you preparing already for The Ebola motherfucker? Those ones will be expensive I think
Correction - earlier I said that the swine flu vaccine is separate, but actually that was only in 2009 or whatever, and it is now suppose to also be part of the regular one.
People who want pregnancy tests are much more likely than the public to be pregnant, but they could still be looked at to gauge the effectiveness of contraceptive pills, as long as there are enough negatives to serve as a control group, etc.
People who want pregnancy tests are much more likely than the public to be pregnant, but they could still be looked at to gauge the effectiveness of contraceptive pills, as long as there are enough negatives to serve as a control group, etc.
We're not talking about pregnancy, we are talking about the likelihood of getting the flu with or without the vaccine. The question is, is the vaccine effectiveness as calculated in the previous study (using relative instead of absolute) a good stat to use when deciding on the likelihood of getting the flu with or without the vaccine?
Who here will prefer to look at this relative effectiveness or absolute odds in basing their decision?
Edit
* I am sure there are people who don't even bother looking at any odds and just inject themselves due to trust and belief just like religious people who depend on faith. I am talking about those who genuinely want to make a informed decision.
* I am sure there are people who don't even bother looking at any odds and just inject themselves due to trust and belief just like religious people who depend on faith. I am talking about those who genuinely want to make a informed decision.