The information is filtering down...
I had breakfast this morning with a friend who has been working in the far North of Australia at one of the very large mines up there. This gentleman had just flown back home for a bit of a break and we took the opportunity to get together for a bit of a 'catch-up'.
Over coffee, he talked about the regular morning meetings that are held to give information about changes to the routes trucks take (stop signs have been moved from point A to point B, this road is now very muddy so take care when travelling on it, etc.), what accidents have occurred and any other news that the workers need to know about before going out on their shift.
Last week, it was announced that free flu vaccines were available for all staff. They could either get them on site or go into town to the facility run by a health contractor and get them there.
He was amazed! He did not hear one person (and there were hundreds in the room) saying they wanted to take up this offer. Instead, all he heard was people saying things like, "No bloody way!", and "That flu shot is a rort! It'll make you sicker than the flu would!"
I don't know what percentage actually got the shot since it was offered for free, but according to my friend, I don't think it would have been many.
Am I celebrating the fact that people are refusing to take the vaccine? Nope.
I am celebrating the fact that people are starting to ask questions instead of just taking vaccines 'because they're free'. This is a very big step in the right direction.
On a related note, an elderly woman I know got her flu shot 2 week ago. She gets one every single year. And every single year, within 10 days, she is sick with the flu.
Right on schedule, she is in bed with a sore throat, cough, bad cold and flu symptoms. Her daughter said to her, "Mum, why do you keep taking that shot? Every time you do you get so sick?"
The mother answered, "The doctor tells me to."
Maybe next year, she will find another doctor?
Last comment on the flu vaccine - and this is something that was told to me last year but I never blogged it at the time.
A couple I know are both nurses and have been for probably close to 40 years now. They work in the same aged care facility and are the only nurses in the entire place who have always refused a flu shot.
They told me that they hate the 3 weeks after the staff has been vaccinated. When I asked why, they replied, "We end up pulling one double-shift after another because all the other staff is vaccinated and for 2-3 weeks, they are all too sick to come to work so WE end up doing it all!"
I guess the information may filter into the mines and the general community before it gets through to the medical fraternity, but if enough medical journal articles come out demonstrating how incredibly useless this vaccine is, it will eventually filter down. Hopefully before my elderly friend gets her annual shot next year and in time to save my other friends working in aged care from another month of double shifts.
Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis Michael T Osterholm, Nicholas S Kelley, Alfred Sommer, Edward A Belongia
Summary
Background: No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza.
Methods: We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups).
Findings: We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51–67] in adults aged 18–65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2–17 years or adults aged 65 years or older.(emphasis added)Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69–91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8–17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60–93).
Interpretation Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality.
www.thelancet.com/infection Vol 12 January 2012
Medical reviews conclude influenza immunizations ineffective
http://digitaljournal.com/article/288946
Two separate reviews of medical data on the effectiveness of vaccinating people to prevent influenza showed there were no benefits to being vaccinated for the flu. Epidemiologist Dr. Tom Jefferson, who is with the Cochrane Vaccines Field, participated in two different reviews of medical studies related to influenza vaccines. Both reviews were published by the Cochrane Collaboration. Dr. Jefferson summarized the conclusions of the reviews in a podcast."... The reviews are very different in their content but not in their conclusions. Both ... highlight serious problems with the current evidence base. ... The implausible results of the studies are that the vaccines appear effective against those outcomes least likely to be caused by influenza viruses; such as influenza-like illness, hospitalization and death from all causes. In contrast they show only modest or no effect against influenza and hospitalization from pneumonia. ... our reviews include a number of studies funded by industry. An early systematic review of all influenza vaccine studies published between 1948 and 2007 found that industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and were cited more than other studies but their methodological quality and size were the same as the other studies. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. In conclusion we have no reliable evidence on the effects of influenza vaccines on the elderly and health care workers who work with the elderly. What we do have evidence of is widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies."
