NorTracNY
Platinum Member
OK, the thread got me to looking at studies again. Based upon the unfortunate change in the CDC website I had to search elsewhere. Of course there are several anti-vaccine sites that list research studies, but to avoid the bias, I avoided those sites.
As for the effectiveness in the elderly, this study looked at a significant population and found that there is a bias of those that get the flu shot. It appears that the healthy people may be more likely to get a flu shot, and therefore there is a bias if you only study the people during the flu season.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/articl...nce-of-bias-in-estimates-of-influenza-vaccine
Along the lines of whether healthcare people should be forced to get a shot. Well that all sounds well and good, but there doesn't appear to be science supporting it.
Health worker flu vaccine data insufficient to show protection for patients | CIDRAP
Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers: Critical Analysis of the Evidence for Patient Benefit Underpinning Policies of Enforcement
I think it's clear why many doctors are not pushing the vaccine. There certainly are a lot of studies out there...
Association between the 2 8– 9 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine and Pandemic H1N1 Illness during Spring–Summer 2 9: Four Observational Studies from Canada
Increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine. - PubMed - NCBI
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424
It's good to see you can still read good science from NIH. And as we all know, ALWAYS look for the money trail.... From the last study.
"Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). 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 favorable 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 light of this finding."
As for the effectiveness in the elderly, this study looked at a significant population and found that there is a bias of those that get the flu shot. It appears that the healthy people may be more likely to get a flu shot, and therefore there is a bias if you only study the people during the flu season.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/articl...nce-of-bias-in-estimates-of-influenza-vaccine
Along the lines of whether healthcare people should be forced to get a shot. Well that all sounds well and good, but there doesn't appear to be science supporting it.
Health worker flu vaccine data insufficient to show protection for patients | CIDRAP
Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers: Critical Analysis of the Evidence for Patient Benefit Underpinning Policies of Enforcement
I think it's clear why many doctors are not pushing the vaccine. There certainly are a lot of studies out there...
Association between the 2 8– 9 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine and Pandemic H1N1 Illness during Spring–Summer 2 9: Four Observational Studies from Canada
Increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine. - PubMed - NCBI
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424
It's good to see you can still read good science from NIH. And as we all know, ALWAYS look for the money trail.... From the last study.
"Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). 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 favorable 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 light of this finding."