The
Essentially they argue that vaccines are not scientifically tested. In their opinion and that of some medical gurus we need to test vaccines in what I thought was the normal scientific method: have a large and representative enough sample, give half the people the vaccine and half a placebo, measure the result. Well, we have not done it that way.
The way we measure the efficacy of flu vaccines is “cohort studies”. In these studies the death rate of those who choose to be vaccinated is compared to the death rate of those who do not so choose. Is this a reasonably representative sample? Are those who choose vaccination fundamentally different – in education, income, health, etc. – than those who do not? True, there is an attempt to weed out variables that might bias the result, but one never knows whether these attempts are successful or not. The article quotes studies that demonstrate that there is a meaningful difference in the subject categories.
A couple of substantiating facts. In 2004 because of production problems 40% fewer people were vaccinated, yet the death rate did not climb. In 1968 and 1977 the vaccines that were produced protected against a different form of virus that actually appeared in the flu seasons for those years, yet the death rate did not climb. In 1989 15% of the elderly population had the flu shot. Now, more than 65% do. However, death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased. We are not at all specific about identifying deaths actually caused by the flu; if it’s caused by a respiratory failure, we call it flu.
Brownlee and Lenzer also do not have kind words to say about Tamiflu and Relenza, the vaccines of today. The FDA says. “Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences… of seasonal, avian or pandemic influenza”.
Have you gotten your flu shot yet?
No comments:
Post a Comment