Influenza, or “flu”, is a viral infection similar to a
common cold (but often more severe) that is characterized by chills, fever, a
sore throat, headache, muscle pain, fatigue, coughs, and general discomfort. It
can be “caught” by aerial transmission (coughs, sneezes) or through contact
with contaminated surfaces. Good hygiene
and sunshine reduce the risk of infection[iv]. Flu strains mutate regularly, so one year’s primary
virus may be different from the primary virus the next year. In 1918, the “Spanish”
flu pandemic may have killed as many as 100 million people, with a mortality
rate of 10-20%. Surprisingly, most of those affected were young, healthy adults
because that particular flu strain caused healthy immune systems to “over-react.”[v]
Usually, it is the elderly and infirm who are most at risk of flu. Around
25,000 people each year die of flu and flu-related complications (usually
pneumonia) in the U.S., and 90% of those individuals are over 65.[vi]
Flu vaccinations increase the body’s ability to deal with
flu viruses by increasing antibodies. It is difficult, however, to measure how
effective flu vaccinations really are because they don’t necessarily prevent catching
the flu, they just help the body fight it off, and it is difficult to
differentiate between a common cold and the flu if symptoms aren’t severe. Unless
before and after blood tests are taken and examined, it is impossible to know
how much a vaccine has increased antibodies (how “effectiveness” is measured in
most flu vaccine clinical trials). If
the vaccination matches that year’s flu strain well, then it is expected that
50-70% of those who receive the vaccine will have increased protection against
that year’s flu strains. If the vaccine for that year isn’t a good match for
that year’s strain—and it IS a matter of prediction—then little if any effect
can be detected.[vii] One
recent Canadian study published in PLoS
Medicine examined the 2009 swine flu outbreak data and found that individuals
who had received flu vaccines were MORE LIKELY to have contracted swine flu
than those who had not been vaccinated[viii].
The “official” line on flu shots is that they rarely cause serious
harm and that expected side effects—soreness or redness at the injection site,
aching, and a low-grade fever—are of little consequence[ix]. Although
it is rare, flu vaccinations can cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a serious and progressive
nerve disorder where the body’s immune system attacks the body’s own nerve
cells; the odds of getting it from your flu shot are about one in a million[x]. A
severe allergic reaction—anaphylaxis—is more common (maybe 1 in 10,000[xi]),
usually occurring in people who are allergic to eggs (egg products are used in
vaccines), and resulting in rashes, hives, swollen throat and/or face,
dizziness, and/or heart rate changes. If severe and untreated, an anaphylactic reaction
can result in death. There is also a myth
circulating on the internet that past exposure to flu vaccines can increase the
risk of developing Alzheimer’s Disease. I have been unable to find a source for
this myth, but one study found that exposure to a variety of vaccines including
flu shots was correlated with a lowered—not increased—risk of developing
Alzheimer’s[xii].
Coincidentally, the New
York Times ran a story last week, Drug
Data Shouldn’t be Secret[xiii],
on the difficulty of accessing data from clinical trials of the anti-influenza
drug Tamiflu, manufactured by Roche. Tamiflu is not a vaccine, but is an oral product
for amelioration of flu symptoms. Although Roche claimed their drug “reduced
the risk of hospitalization, serious complications, and transmission” in 2009,
data to prove these claims was not released. The US government spent some US$1.5
billion building stockpiles of the drug and, if I remember correctly, there was a certain
amount of [media generated?] public hysteria that there wouldn’t be enough Tamiflu to go around in the event of a pandemic. The data that WAS released to
researchers [the article seems to imply later] showed Tamiflu to be about as
effective as aspirin at ameliorating the symptoms of flu. According to the US
Food and Drug Administration, Tamiflu “appears to shave a day off influenza
symptoms” while [unfortunately] it simultaneously “interfered with the body’s
ability to produce antibodies against influenza,” affecting an individual’s
ability to fight off future flu infections. Hmm.
Pharmaceutical companies are businesses, and their primary aim
is to make money. If they can convince you (or your company, organisation, or
government) that getting an annual flu jab is in your best interest, then that is
profitable for their business. See my next post for an expansion on this idea, and some more number crunching that's rather disconcerting.
I don’t get an annual flu shot. It seems to me that given the
limited and variable (but virtually unmeasurable) efficacy of flu vaccinations,
common minor side effects (sore arm, redness, fever), and the [admittedly small] risk
of serious major side effects, this is not a product I wish to spend my money on. Neither my fear of catching the flu nor my belief in
the power of this product to protect me is strong enough to convince me that getting a flu shot is a positive consumer choice for me.
See my next post Why we Believe the Hype About Flu Shots.
See my next post Why we Believe the Hype About Flu Shots.
[i] See http://www.fightflu.co.nz/can-i-get-a-free-vaccine/
These aren’t truly free, of course, as the government—ahem, that is, we the
people through our taxes—pay for them.
[ii]
See http://www.fightflu.co.nz/who-is-nisg/
At the bottom on the page they say “IMAC is contracted to co-ordinate a
national influenza promotional campaign.” They don’t say who, exactly, is doing
the contracting.
[vi] http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/fluvaccine.htm Also note the 25,000 deaths figure is probably misleading. See my next post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete