Finnish researchers: Children should be given flu jab

[HuckleB]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8150935/Children-should-be-given-flu-jab-researchers.html

"Young children are particularly susceptible to flu and other infections and should be routinely vaccinated, researchers said in an article in Lancet Infectious Diseases.

...

Research conducted in Finland found the match of the flu strains in the vaccine to those circulating was more important for efficacy than the age of the patient.

They found that overall the seasonal flu vaccine, which contains two A strains and a B strain of deactivated flu, was effective at preventing the disease in 66 per cent of cases.

Where the vaccine was well matched to the two A strains, this rose to 84 per cent.

..."


Much more at the link...

----------------------------------------------------


Oh, those Finns...

[kestrel91316]

1. It's not a "jab", which connotes some degree of violence. Nobody ever

"jabbed" me when I got any sort of vaccination or other medical injection.

Love how the media bends over backwards to report the news neutrally. :sarcasm:

[HuckleB]

2. If this was a US publication, I'd be right there with you.

However, in Britain, the term "jab" is very common usage for an injection.

:toast:

[kestrel91316]

37. Good point. Brits are a bit daft, IMO, lol.

[LeftishBrit]

62. Watch out, I'll give YOU a jab for that!

[LiberalEsto]

3. Shot sounds kind of violent too

when you think about it.
It's just slang.

[LeftishBrit]

13. Actually 'jab' is the common term in the UK.

At least it's less violent-sounding than the American 'shot'!

[HuckleB]

4. Ososillyococcinum and other Flu bits.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9064#more-9064

This is a long piece, covering a great deal in regard to flu vaccines, as well as phony flu cures. Still, it's very much worth the time taken to read it, IMO.

[SheilaT]

5. I do hope that the flu-vaccine promoters do

notice that it is not 100% effective.

[HuckleB]

7. Yes. In fact the article notes that reality.

This is part of the reason why it helps to get more people vaccinated.

[evirus]

8. nothing is 100% effective

you should more skeptical of people who advertise their products claiming it is rather than being skeptical of those who don't bother claiming it.

[LeftishBrit]

63. Agreed.

[mhatrw]

6. Here are the results of the study for children under 2.

4 of 96 (4.2%) vaccinated kids got laboratory confirmed Type A or B influenza vs. 21 of 172 (12.2%) unvaccinated kids.

That's http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15733718">higher than expected efficacy, which is good news.

However, the study was very small, and flu vaccines change every year. So what this study really indicates is that more studies need to be done.

Furthermore, note that the majority of cases of influenza like illnesses involve pathogens other than the influenza virus. In other words, the influenza virus is NOT the cause of most of the flu-like illnesses commonly occurring during flu season. For example, FluWatch (of Canada) reports that between 8/22/2004 and 3/12/2005, a total of 68,849 laboratory tests for influenza were reported of which 10,319 tested positive for influenza. So only 14.9% of the specimens tested showed confirmed evidence of influenza viruses. It would be interesting to determine the efficacy of the flu vaccine in reducing all flu-like illness, whether laboratory confirmed influenza or not. Since I can only see the abstract, I am not sure whether these numbers were published as part of this study.

In addition, efficacy is just one side of this coin. The other side is http://vran.org/about-vaccines/specific-vaccines/influenza-vaccine-flu-shot/safety-of-influenza-vaccines-in-children">safety.

[HuckleB]

9. Flu Shots in Children Can Help Community

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/health/10flu.html

Another study that offers evidence that flu shots might just be beneficial.

[mhatrw]

10. What a crock!

Hepatitis vaccinations were used as the control! As the fucking control!

Only in the wonderland of vaccination "science" (where one starts with the assumption that all vaccines are 100% safe by their very nature and none could possibly compromise the immune system in any way, shape or form) could one vaccine be used as the control for another vaccine!!!

Junk science at its most disturbing and disgusting.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

24. This was a good study. It was peer reviewed, and appears to be well respected.

These pieces address the study further.

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/03/flu_vaccines_herd_immunity_and.php

and...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4601

[mhatrw]

31. It's a joke and you know it....nt

[HuckleB]

34. Keep spamming the board.

Your baseless, repeat rants against a very good study won't change reality.

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/03/flu_vaccines_herd_immunity_and.php

and...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4601

[mhatrw]

42. You're the one who keeps spamming with your ready made links that say nothing about the issue.

Tell us all in your own words why this "very good study" used the Hepatitis A vaccine as its "placebo control" rather than the standard simple saline injection.

[HuckleB]

48. And another red herring.

You've lost this argument. It's over.

[mhatrw]

55. LOL. Tell us all in your own words why this "very good study" used the Hepatitis A vaccine

as its "placebo control" rather than the standard simple saline injection.

[HuckleB]

56. And the anti-vax game playing repeat shows up, as expected.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

60. Keep it up.

I love how every post you makes confirms http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=96825&mesg_id=96825">my point further.

[HuckleB]

65. And more free red herring for everyone!

Granted, it may no longer be edible, but it's free!

[ZombieHorde]

75. Hepatitis A vaccines are often used a control, but I don't know why. nt

[HuckleB]

12. Flu vaccines, herd immunity and randomized trials

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/03/flu_vaccines_herd_immunity_and.php

This is a very thorough work up on the Hutterite study.

[mhatrw]

14. In which the CONTROL was ANOTHER VACCINE!

junk in = junk out

[HuckleB]

15. The only junk on the page are your pointless, angry responses.

[mhatrw]

20. I'm not angry. I'm aghast.

I'm aghast that the state of science in the world today is such that a vaccine experiment that uses another random vaccine as a "control" for no discernible reason (except the every vaccine is so wonderful that using an actual control would be a crime against humanity?) could possibly get through any legitimate design review.

It's tragic.

[HuckleB]

23. Uh huh.

That's why you push crap science to support your propaganda, while ignoring the vast majority of good science that doesn't support your propaganda.

[mhatrw]

26. What crap science have I ever pushed?

My only agenda using my critical reasoning to uncover crap science. We can do better than designing experiments on vaccines that use other vaccines as their "control". Wouldn't you agree?

[HuckleB]

27. Why such a short memory? (Check your many recent anti-vax threads.)

And why do you think you're so much smarter than the people who did this study, than the peer reviewers, and those who reviewed it further?

[mhatrw]

29. Because they used a vaccine as the fucking placebo control in a vaccine study.

It doesn't take a fucking genius to notice that this inexplicable experimental design decision bizarrely and unnecessarily compromised the entire experiment.

Since you and everyone else reading are also smart enough to figure this out, you and everyone else reading are also smarter than "the people who did this study, the peer reviewers and those who reviewed it."

It kind of makes you wonder. Doesn't it?

[HuckleB]

33. Bzzt. Wrong again.

That happens when you keep repeating the same wrong answer over and over again.

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/03/flu_vaccines_herd_immunity_and.php

and...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4601

[mhatrw]

38. LOL. Please explain why you think it OK to use a vaccine as the control in this experiment.

I am NOT criticizing any vaccine here. I'm criticizing the wholly ridiculous design of a single experiment. Can you comprehend the difference?

[HuckleB]

49. And now you're on to the usual anti-vax games.

You have no point. You have nothing. The evidence is against your preconceived notions. Rant all you want. You can't change any of it. It does appear that your constant spamming is a very typical anti-vax attempt to keep emotions sky high, so others don't bother to look at the actual information.

That's quite despicable, but then that is the anti-vax way.

[mhatrw]

53. Dude, they used another vaccine as the fucking "placebo control" in a vaccine experiment.

Please explain in your own words to all of us why this does not compromise the experimental results.

[HuckleB]

57. More free red herring! Awesome!

As noted, I won't play your pointless anti-vax games. You aren't here to discuss anything openly and honestly. You are clearly pushing your anti-vax nonsense. You really don't care about evidence, which is what makes it even funnier when you try to use evidence to support your anti-vax religion. Nevertheless, screaming the same thins repeatedly does not make the good evidence against your anti-vax nonsense go way.

And everything you're now asking for has been provided. You keep ignoring that. That's your right, but it's my right to point that out.

On edit: I just noted, again, that I'm not the only one you ask questions that have already been answered. :rofl:

Do you ever look before you leap?

[mhatrw]

59. Why is this hard? Tell us in your own words why this experiment

used another vaccine as its "placebo control" instead of the standard inert saline injection placebo.

[HuckleB]

64. It's not difficult to refrain from playing pointless anti-vax games.

BTW, your questions have already been answered.

[trotsky]

17. I thought you said you weren't totally anti-vax?

Why do you only speak out against vaccinations then?

Which vaccines are you OK with?

[mhatrw]

18. I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm anti-shit science.

Note my reaction to the OP. I think the experiment is VERY GOOD NEWS and, once backed by other studies, has a great chance to change my current views on giving flu vaccinations to the very young (< 2). As far as this other study goes, I'm inclined to believe that herd immunity exists. But the shitty experiment being lauded by HuckleB belongs in the long illustrious garbage bin of shit science. Why on earth did the designers of this experiment use another vaccine as the "placebo" control? Can you explain that one to me?

[HuckleB]

19. Try again.

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/03/flu_vaccines_herd_immunity_and.php

and...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4601

[mhatrw]

21. Did this experiment or did it not use a Hepatitis B vaccine as its "control"?

What could possibly be the justification for this?

Answer the questions.

[HuckleB]

22. Ah, now you're back to playing pointless games.

This was a good experiment, peer reviewed, and praised by the vast majority of the scientific community that wrote about it.

Apparently you think that can sow confusion in others. Sorry, wrong crowd.

[mhatrw]

30. They used a vaccine as the "placebo control" in a vaccine study.

They used a vaccine as the "placebo control" in a vaccine study.

Let me say this again: They actually used a vaccine as the "placebo control" in a vaccine study.

Seriously. Maybe you don't understand what I said yet. They actually used another vaccine as the "placebo control" in a vaccine study!

How in the hell did this happen?

"OK. So we'll use the standard placebo control for this, a simple saline solution. Right?"

"I don't know. I realize that this is the only way not to compromise our experiment's results, but I don't care. I can't in good conscience administer a saline solution when I could be using the same opportunity to force unwitting experimental subjects to get vaccinated for Hepatitis A! Damn the scientific validity of our results! These people need their shots!"

"That's the spirit! Go Team Vaccine!"

This actually got by the design review and the peer review and the media review and nobody ever said one peep about it. Seriously?

Am I really the first one out of all these people to point out the patently obvious? Am I really the first one to point out how this utterly inexplicable and indefensible experimental design flaw would completely unnecessarily compromise the entire experiment?

Really? Just think about that for one moment.









But I'm the one sowing confusion?

[HuckleB]

35. Repeat your baseless rant all you want.

All you're doing is showing your anti-vaccine credentials for everyone to see.

So, please, keep repeating your ridiculous rant!

Thank you.

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/03/flu_vaccines_herd_immunity_and.php

and...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4601

[mhatrw]

40. Keep appealing to authority and ridicule without ever addressing the issue rationally.

Keep proving http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=96825&mesg_id=96825">my point.

[HuckleB]

51. Now that is a serious spam post.

No one needs to appeal to authority when the reality is what it is, but you can pretend you have a clue about logic, largely because others have showed you your illogical nonsense over time. Go for it. Your schtick ain't sticking, especially when it gets this juvenile.

In other words, it's clear that you're just repeating anti-vax cliches. Apparently you think others don't see this?

You can rant and rave. And I will point that out every time you do it on this thread, since I started this thread.

But that's all I will do.

Well, I will laugh. It is funny, after all.

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

36. Your baseless rant reminds me of this.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4259

It appears that you'll do anything, say anything, write anything to promote the anti-vax mantra.

The reason the vaccine was used as a placebo is explained quite thoroughly, yet you've either chosen to pretend otherwise or you haven't bothered to educate yourself.

[mhatrw]

41. Why? Explain to all of us IN YOUR OWN WORDS why a vaccine was used

as the placebo control in this study.

[HuckleB]

50. It's been explained, ad nauseum.

Again, I will not play your pointless anti-vax games. I gave you the benefit of the doubt once. You proved that I should not have done so.

[mhatrw]

54. Where has it been explained once, must less ad nauseum?

Show us. Since it has been explained so many times, surely you can cut and paste the explanation for us right below this post.

[HuckleB]

58. And another ridiculous red herring hits the board.

:rofl:

I do appreciate the kicks, btw!!!!

[trotsky]

32. Yeah but you define "shit science" as that which comes to a conclusion...

that differs from your preconceived notions.

Regarding your discombobulation over using a different vaccine as a control, did you actually read the article? Because the answer is in there. It was a double-blind study, as good studies usually are. Read and learn.

[mhatrw]

39. So they couldn't have saline injections in a double blind study?

They had to use another vaccine instead of the standard saline placebo control?

Come on!

I want you to put into words for me why the decision was made to use the Hepatitis A vaccine rather than the standard saline placebo injection in this experiment. Explain why this decision was made. Let's hear the rationale.

[trotsky]

43. No, I want you to answer first:

Why the hell that makes one bit of difference?

Seriously, it should NOT be hard to explain just why that is problematic. You are acting like it's a "GOTCHA" - you caught BIG PHARMA RED HANDED killing people with VACCINES!! OMGWTFBBQ!

I can tell you why they did this, because I read the article. But first I want you to explain why it even matters in the first place. I bet you can't.

[mhatrw]

44. Of course I can. When you do a biological experiment, you use an inert control.

That's Biology 101.

Vaccines are anything but inert. The whole idea of successful vaccination is to engender a strong immune system response.

So your "control group" in this experiment was a bunch of communities whose kids were undergoing strong immune system responses to the Hepatitis A viruses and aluminum adjuvants that had just been injected into their bloodstreams. This totally confounds the experiment's results in a completely unnecessary manner.

How do we know that the immune system response to vaccination for Hepatitis A does not temporarily reduce resistance to the influenza virus in certain children, for example? This isn't rocket science. Anyone can see the glaring experimental design problem with using a highly immunologically active "control" in an immunological study.

So now you tell me. Exactly what was the rationale for not using the standard inert saline injection placebo in this study?

Let's hear it in your own words.

[trotsky]

45. Not so!

You don't always use an inert control. And this particular study is a perfect example of why.

Any vaccine with an antigen in it (i.e., a real vaccine, not an inert placebo) stimulates the production of antibodies.

In order to help eliminate the possibility that it's *just* the stimulation of the immune system that helps prevent the spread of flu, they wanted to compare a non-flu vaccine as the control.

Very simple. I'm shocked you wouldn't realize that. Well not all that shocked, since you DO have your anti-vaccination personal agenda to carry on.

[mhatrw]

46. LOL. Then why not use two control groups?

One real and one fake? Why choose only the fake control that necessarily confounds the results?

What you are proposing is what a follow up experiment might attempt, not an initial experiment.

[trotsky]

47. I'm sorry you cannot understand.

Using an inert placebo would have confounded the results.

But like I said, you have your anti-vaccination crusade to uphold, blinding you to the facts.

Carry on. Glad to see your new threads continue to get pounded with unrecs. :)

Oh and thanks once again for supporting Gardasil!

[mhatrw]

52. How would have the use of an inert placebo "confounded" the results?

The only "advantage" of using Hepatitis A vaccine as a "control" is to concomitantly disprove the outrageously bizarre hypothesis that vaccinating for Hep A keeps people from getting influenza (at the expense of confounding the results of your experiment).

Even if this bizarre hypothesis were true in any way, you could never quantify how much protection the Hepatitis A vaccine offers against influenza without using a real, inert control.

Even if this bizarre hypothesis were true in any way, you would still be compromising your experimental results in a different manner by using the Hep A vaccine as your "control", in this case by misleadingly minimizing the herd immunity effect of getting the influenza vaccine compared to not getting it.

You are smart enough to know this. You also know the excuse you pulled out of the thin air is garbage and not the excuse offered by the experimenters themselves. If the influenza vaccine demonstrated herd immunity protection against influenza, nobody would have said, "But we need to test it against the Hepatitis A vaccine to make sure that this herd immunity protection is conferred by the influenza vaccine and not just any vaccine!"

Think about how ridiculous that sounds. And this is the only excuse anyone here has so far served up for confounding the entire experiment. It's patently absurd, and in no way justifies confounding the experimental results by using a highly immunologically active "placebo control."

[trotsky]

61. I already explained why.

And it's not a "bizarre hypothesis" that the Hep A vaccine could prevent the flu - don't you think it's reasonable to consider that maybe just jump-starting the immune system with a pathogen could improve the overall response against other pathogens? You think that's "bizarre"? Good grief, that's a basic feature of our immune system! (Hint: read up on the innate vs. adaptive immune systems.) You don't even know how it works, and you scream and rail against vaccines! LOL!

Oh and I just realized ANOTHER reason why they'd want to use another vaccine as the control: one of the things they measured and tracked in the study were ADVERSE VACCINE REACTIONS. Someone who hates vaccines would CERTAINLY want anti-vaccine reactions accounted for, hmmm? Don't you think that should be part of the analysis?

But you have already made up your mind, and you refuse to look at ANY evidence to the contrary. You'll make up bullshit if you have to.

Good luck, thanks for the support of Gardasil, and thank Koresh DUers are not falling for your nonsense!

[mhatrw]

66. Whether Hep A confers cross-protection or interference, its use

as a "control" compromises the experiment's results. Only if its relationship to influenza vaccination is assumed to completely neutral does its use a the "control" not confound the results of the experiment. This is why experiments are done with inert controls. Using active controls confounds the results.

What about this simple, basic and completely fundamental experimental design precept don't you understand?

The absurd reason you supplied (potential cross-protection) for using Hep A vaccination as the "control" is yet another clear reason not to use it as the "control." The more reasonable it is to assume that Hep A vaccination offers cross-protection against influenza, the worse of a "control" Hep A vaccination becomes. Here is your patently ridiculous argument in a nutshell:

Because there is a great chance using the Hep A vaccine as our control could confound the experimental results by offering cross-protection against influenza, we need to use the Hep A vaccine as our "control." We need to confound our own results such that we can can only quantify the difference in herd immunity between vaccination with one vaccine that confers a higher level of protection against influenza (the influenza vaccine) with another randomly selected vaccine that confers an existing but unquantifiable lower level of protection against influenza.

This is vaccination "science" absurdity at its worst.

[trotsky]

69. You are completely wrong.

However, that's never stopped you before.

Good luck, and thanks for promoting the effectiveness of Gardasil!

[mhatrw]

70. LOL. Now tell us how the experimeters themselves excused their indefensible

decision to use the Hepatitis A vaccine as their "control":

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/10/943.full



All you have done on this thread is try to confound the actual reason why the experimenters used Hepatitis A as their control: namely their assumption that the Hepatitis A vaccine is 100% beneficial and could not possibly interfere with (or cross-protect against) influenza vaccination. These "scientists" willfully compromised the results of their own "seminal" experiment because of their compulsion to act as public health officials concerned more about the vaccination rate for Hepatitis A among Hutterites than about the scientific validity of their own experiment. This the one and only explanation they themselves gave to absolve themselves for indefensibly confounding their own experiment's results.

Yet you pulled your own bizarre, ridiculous and counter-intuitive "explanation" for their equally bizarre experimental design decision out of thin air. And now you refuse to rationally defend yourself, claiming only that I am wrong and you are right, as any 4-year-old might.

In terms of confounding things, I am not sure who is worse, you or the "scientists" who designed this experiment.

[trotsky]

71. Hooray!

I'm glad you've given up on your silly conspiracy theories and finally found the reason why they used another vaccine as the control. Welcome to the world of grownups! And thanks for the Gardasil support!

[mhatrw]

72. Why do I get a feeling that they sent every scientist who objected to

using a highly immunologically active vaccine as the "control" in an experiment on vaccine efficacy to you so that each one would finally give up pointing out this glaringly obvious design flaw due to shear intellectual discouragement and exhaustion?

Why would the "scientists" who ran this experiment desire to confound their own results by using a highly immunologically active vaccine as the control in their own "seminal" experiment? Can you explain the thought processes they used to make this experimental design decision?

"OK. So we'll use the standard placebo control for this, a simple saline solution. Right?"

"I don't know. I realize that this is the only way not to compromise our experiment's results, but I don't care. I can't in good conscience administer a saline solution when I could be using the same opportunity to force unwitting experimental subjects to get vaccinated for Hepatitis A! Damn the scientific validity of our results! These people need their shots!"

"That's the spirit! Go Team Vaccine!"

More pointedly, where is the evidence that vaccinating with Hep A vaccine used in this experiment does not interfere with the influenza protection conferred by the influenza vaccine used in this experiment?

[trotsky]

78. So basically what you want everyone to believe...

is that there is a conspiracy of EPIC proportions, from the CEO of each pharmaceutical down to the lowliest grad student researchers, that is SO determined to make the tiny profit that the flu vaccine provides, that EVERYONE conspires on EVERY study and in this particular one, made sure to use a control vaccine that YOU claim (but have not one single tiny shred of evidence to back yourself up) would make someone MORE susceptible to the flu (and thus in the process intentionally put someone more at risk of harm or death).

And the most miraculous element of all is that of the thousands, maybe millions of people required to keep your conspiracy to end all conspiracies secret, NOT ONE of them had a conscience enough to spill the beans, expose this criminal conspiracy, and save untold numbers of lives?

Yeah. Right. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh, and thanks for the Gardasil support!

[mhatrw]

81. No, I believe that the results of this one study are in question because of

an absurd, inexcusable and indefensible experimental design flaw.

A standard inert saline placebo should have been used as the control instead of a highly confounding, highly immunologically active vaccine.

Perhaps you would just like to finally admit the patently obvious, cut your losses, and be done with it?

[trotsky]

82. In order for this flaw to exist, you have to propose a massive conspiracy among thousands.

Or do you really think that everyone involved with this study is SO STUPID that they just went along with it? For no good reason at all?

I think you need to admit the obvious: you have an extreme personal agenda against vaccines and you'll grasp anything - ANYTHING - at all just to cast suspicion on them and everyone involved with their design, manufacture, and testing.

[mhatrw]

87. LOL. Because incompetence doesn't exist, it must be a conspiracy!

LOL. There is an entire sewage system of shitty science out there. This is but one glaring example.

[trotsky]

89. So now you're calling every single person involved with this study incompetent?

Because you can use TEH GOOGLE?!?

Hilarious. The laughs keep on coming. No wonder no one takes you seriously! :rofl:

[mhatrw]

77. Sorry about my mistake in the last sentence of the above post.

The last sentence should read:

"More pointedly, where is the evidence that injecting young subjects with the Hep A vaccine used in this experiment does not interfere with the ability of these subjects to ward off influenza without being vaccinated for influenza?"

[trotsky]

79. I've got news for you.

The last sentence of that post was FAR from your only mistake.

[mhatrw]

83. Cute. Now show us the evidence the Hep A vaccine used in this experiment does not

interfere with children's natural resistance to the influenza virus.

Either produce the evidence or admit that using the Hep A vaccine as the "control" in this experiment was a confounding design flaw that puts the experiment's results in question.

[trotsky]

88. No, you have to show us the evidence that it DOES interfere.

You don't quite get how this works, do you?

[mhatrw]

92. Yeah, because I'M the one who used a confounder as my control!

LOL

[trotsky]

93. As I thought.

You got nuttin'.

[mhatrw]

94. LOL! Even influenza vaccines interfere with our natural defenses against influenza

if the wrong viruses are picked.

I'm shocked you wouldn't realize that. Well not all that shocked, since you DO have your pro-Big Pharma personal agenda to carry on, at any cost to the truth.

[trotsky]

95. And your evidence of this is forthcoming.....?

Ha, yeah right. Just more unsupported assertions and baloney. Good luck.

[mhatrw]

96. The evidence is already on this thread.

Just read http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf/37VolNo6Jun2008/V37N6p465.pdf">the paper.

[uppityperson]

97. LAST WORD! LAST WORD!

the link

[mhatrw]

100. Do you accept the conclusions of the paper or not?....nt

[uppityperson]

103. Can paper conclude? LAST WORD!!! LAST WORD!!!

can paper conclude?

[trotsky]

98. The paper does not make the claims you are making.

You believe the Hep A vaccine makes it more likely someone will contract the flu.

There is absolutely no research to indicate this is the case. It is purely your assertion, based on what you desperately WANT to believe. You have provided no facts whatsoever to back this up, instead insinuating that either a global conspiracy or gross incompetence by thousands of individuals is working to hide the truth about the flu vaccine.

Is it any wonder at all why no one takes you seriously?

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

99. Do you accept the conclusions of the paper or not?....nt

[trotsky]

101. Not the conclusions YOU are making. n/t

[mhatrw]

102. Do you accept the conclusions of the paper's authors or not?....nt

[trotsky]

104. Good luck with those windmills!

I'll be with everyone else, laughing at you! :rofl:

[HuckleB]

25. Another interesting piece that addresses the Hutterite study.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4601

[bemildred]

16. This makes a lot more sense than routinely jabbing old people.

But a good deal depends on the virulence of the particular variety of flu, too.

[HuckleB]

28. Here is a fair review of the literature on flu vaccine efficacy that this study adds to...

Flu Vaccine Efficacy
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040

[mhatrw]

67. LOL

Some readers of the blog are worried that the literature does not support the use of the vaccine.

“My research for good studies on the efficasy (sic) of seasonal flu vaccines so far has left me wondering if I’ve somehow missed the good research. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Institute says that Most studies are of poor methodological quality and the impact of confounders is high. I agree. Please would you refer me to some of the best studies on the efficasy (sic) of seasonal flu vaccines. After a critical appraisal of the best studies you know of I’d like to submit the same for publication in the interest of science.”

Why some readers think I am a research librarian, I do not know. It is not an uncommon request. As an aside, I have a full time job and a family to raise. Don’t be asking me to do your grunt work. It’s called Pubmed. Use it.

Wow! That is a highly persuasive review of all relevant scientific studies! This guy needs to submit this article to a peer reviewed medical journal so it can get the attention it deserves!

[HuckleB]

74. Thank you for offering nothing in response, as usual.

Have you noticed that you offer no content but blind rejection?

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

68. Here is an example of the actual text of one of the studies the author of this tripe

used to support the supposed efficacy of flu vaccination in preventing influenza like illness.

From the text of http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf/37VolNo6Jun2008/V37N6p465.pdf">the actual paper:



If this is the type of "evidence" those promoting flu vaccination use to prove that vaccination is efficacious against ILI (influenza-like illness) in HCWs (health care workers), I'd hate to see results of the studies that don't agree with the presumed conclusions of those promoting flu vaccination.

[HuckleB]

73. And another selective quote out of context.

The usual anti-vax misunderstanding and BS.

You're done, especially considering your completely anti-vax posts above.

You hate vaccines. You don't care why. We get it.

[mhatrw]

76. So the overall results of the experiment = "a selective quote out of context"?

In this experiment a higher percentage of health care workers who were vaccinated for influenza reported influenza like illness than did those who were not vaccinated for influenza:



The actual results of the experiment show a -15% efficacy for those vaccinated for influenza! And this is one of this studies you are using to prove the efficacy of influenza vaccination!

Please explain to us all how this works, other than in the magical world of vaccination "science"?

[HuckleB]

80. Thank you for proving your complete lack of honesty.

A single study is not the be all, end all.

It's amazing how much BS you continue to spray, and thank you for showing your full anti-vax stripes yet again.

I'm sure you'll try your red herring about specific vaccines. Unfortunately, you've made it clear that you despise vaccines altogether.

[mhatrw]

84. Once again, you are making patently false accusations.

I never said this study was the last word. I said that it is absurd to use this study to demonstrate the efficacy of influenza vaccination against influenza-like illness in health care workers, as the author of the blog you linked did.

Why don't you stop gainsaying every post I make with weak nonsense? It's silly and a big waste of time for both of us.

We have a lot more common ground on this subject than you think. The main difference I see is that I like to actually read the methodology and results of the experiments to figure out for myself just what these experiments showed and/or did not show. There are plenty of good experiments that demonstrate the efficacy of vaccines. Maybe you should read the experiments first, and stick to bringing just the good ones (like the one in the OP) to our attention?

[HuckleB]

85. My accusations are accurate.

Your claims in this post are complete nonsense, as anyone who reads your posts and your consistent disinformation campaign knows. The last thing you care about is methodology, or much of anything but those tiny bites that you can use out of context to support your preconceived anti-vax propaganda.

End of story.

[HuckleB]

86. Vaccine studies: Examine the evidence

http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

More on flu immunization safety:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/296/16/1990.abstract

[HuckleB]

90. "If your children are vaccinated against xyz disease, why do you care if others are, too?"

Immunizations: "If your children have been vaccinated against xyz disease, why would you care if others are NOT vaccinated"
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/08/immunizations_if_your_children.php

[HuckleB]

91. Why We Immunize

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010978.html