Federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose gets flu shots |
Vaccines provide 'moderate'
protection,' studies show.
So why are they pushed on the public?
So why are they pushed on the public?
Bill Tieleman’s 24
Hours Vancouver / The Tyee column
Tuesday December 2, 2014
By Bill Tieleman
"Scaring people
justifies evidence-free policies."
-
Dr. Tom Jefferson, Cochrane Respiratory Infections Group, on overstating flu deaths
As British Columbians are
encouraged, pushed and sometimes threatened in order to get a flu shot, there
are increasing questions about its effectiveness and whether the vaccine is
necessary -- or if flu deaths are as bad as claimed.
However, these uncomfortable
truths are barely being heard amidst the overwhelming and persistent health
establishment claims that the flu shot is needed and effective at saving lives.
"Between 4,000 and
8,000 Canadians can die of influenza and its complications annually, depending
on the severity of the season," Immunize Canada says on its website. It's acoalition of
pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines, health organizations and charities.
And federal Health Minister
Rona Ambrose said in a Nov. 7news release that the flu is "associated"
with 3,500 deaths in Canada annually on average.
But is all this even true?
Consider these important and contrary facts that are not well reported:
A U.S. National Vital
Statistics studyfound that in 2010 just 500 people's deaths could be directly attributed
to the flu.
Meanwhile, a new study published in November by The Journal of
Infectious Diseases found that flu shots provided only "moderate"
protection rates of 49 per cent in the 2012-13 flu season.
The study also suggested
that the flu vaccine did not significantly protect against Influenza A H3N2 --
one of three influenza viruses included in this year's flu shot -- in children
ages nine through 17, a finding that puzzled the authors.
And another University of
Minnesota study -- with an admittedly small sample -- says the
overall effectiveness of flu shots in 2012-13 was found to be just 32 per cent
-- a far cry from the still modest 59 per cent rate claimed last year in Canada.
That study also
"yielded more evidence that getting a flu shot two years in a row may
result in lower vaccine effectiveness in the second year, and also that the
effects of a flu shot may last more than one season."
Elderly most vulnerable
And a study quoted in The
Lancet Infectious Diseases found almost 90 per cent of flu deaths occur among
the elderly population. It also notes that the seniors who get the flu shot are only
28 per cent to 58 per cent less likely to get the illness.
Yet as of Dec. 1, all
frontline health care workers in B.C. -- and hospital visitors -- are forced to
either get a flu shot or wear a mask in hospitals, care homes and other
facilities. B.C. is the only province to demand such a choice but others are
eager to follow.
If the effectiveness of flu
shots is so low that only one in two or less who get it are protected from the
flu, it means patients, healthcare workers and others will have a false sense
of security.
Yet the odds are 50-50 that
your doctor, nurse, care aide, cleaner or visitor who got the flu shot is still
vulnerable to the illness. If a patient sees 10 people a day in hospital, the
likelihood is that five could still get the flu even if all had the shot.
It's one reason why a top
Canadian infection control expert now argues against -- not for -- mandatory
flu shots for health care workers.
"A few years ago, I was
also for mandatory flu shots [for health-care workers]," Dr. Michael
Gardam told The Globe and Mail newspaper in October.
"Then what happened is
I started reading and I started going back to the original studies. I don't
feel that I can sugar-coat those any more," said Gardam, who is director
of infection prevention and control at the University Health Network in Toronto.
The Globe says another
physician points out that some of the loudest medical voices arguing for
mandatory flu shots have received research and other funding from vaccine
companies. But that doctor was too concerned about backlash to be publicly
identified.
Mandatory shots or masks
Yet B.C. forced health care
workers to either get the shot or wear a mask for their entire shift --
something few can handle for four months -- and a union grievance opposing mandatory measures was lost in arbitration,
giving workers no choice.
And while the side effects
of the flu shot are said to be minimal and not seriously harmful, there are disturbing
incidents that have not been reported widely.
For example, last month
Italy suspended use of two batches of Fluad influenza
vaccine produced by giant pharmaceutical company Novartis after 11 people died
this year shortly after receiving the shot.
It's important to understand
that Novartis says that "no causal relationship" has been found
between the vaccine and the deaths and that a review of the two batches
"has confirmed that they are in conformity with all production and quality
standards."
The Italian Pharmaceutical
Agency said in a statement that: "At the moment it's not possible to
confirm that there is a direct link between taking the vaccine and the reported
deaths. More complete information is necessary and a thorough analysis of the
cases must be conducted."
Novartis was expected to
deliver 850,000 flu shot doses in Canada this year and no issues have been raised with their
quality.
UPDATE: I am pleased to update my column with news that the Italian drug authorities have cleared the two Novartis flu shot batches of being connected with 13 deaths in Italy. Here is a link to that story: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w...
I have argued previously that the flu shot is being oversold while under-performing and all these new studies and information add further evidence.
UPDATE: I am pleased to update my column with news that the Italian drug authorities have cleared the two Novartis flu shot batches of being connected with 13 deaths in Italy. Here is a link to that story: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w...
I have argued previously that the flu shot is being oversold while under-performing and all these new studies and information add further evidence.
The contradiction between
what the public is being told by health authorities and the very different
conclusions in some studies are at least confusing if not downright concerning.
The flu can indeed be deadly
for the vulnerable -- and prevention may be the best course for some.
But if you are thinking of
getting a flu shot, get all the facts first.
.
11 comments:
Assorted radio stations have been talking about the flue shot being last years strain and not very effective.
A "flue shot"? Someone needs to learn a few words.
Hi Anon. Yep you are quite right, I stuck an E in Flu. Very observant on this blog. Do you track other blogs too?
You must be kidding me, Bill.
I thought it was only the cro-magnon conservatives who disbelieved all science.
This is nutso from you.
"Hi Anon. Yep you are quite right, I stuck an E in Flu. Very observant on this blog. Do you track other blogs too?"
No this one is entertaining enough.
Most political opinion blogs are just hobbies and provide entertainment for the contributors and the readers of the contributions including this one.
There's a lot of Left Wing Cro-magnon that don't know their basic science. Many of those end up being simple worded protesters.
"A U.S. National Vital Statistics studyfound that in 2010 just 500 people's deaths could be directly attributed to the flu."
A similar thing could've been said for the pandemic during the First World War.
At that time most "flu" deaths were caused by secondary infections (I know - it was before antibiotics).
But a death is a death.
Even if there's only 20% efficacy, I'm still getting a shot.
49% efficacy is pretty, good you know, especially when there's no real risk in taking a flu shot, as you admitted. Can't see how you got the facts right but still came up with the wrong answer. Bizarre, really.
Stick to politics.
Wonder why so many health care providers chose not to take the shot, so they had to wear a face mask?
Wonder why so many health care providers chose not to take the shot, so they had to wear a face mask?
Because they want to deliver the needle not receive it.
I work in acute mental health, with patients with psychosis, paranoia, and schizophrenia. Wearing a mask, due to the mandatory mask policy during flu season, greatly inhibits my ability to establish much need therapeutic rapport, and has placed me at risk for violence. I have never been once, in my decade plus years of working in mental health, been threatened with violence, or had a patient lash out at me - until I started wearing the mask, last year, solely due to this policy. Wearing a mask agitates patients. I cannot receive the flu vaccine due to past adverse reactions, medically documented. I have a mortgage and kids to feed. My only other choice is LOA without pay. So I continue to work under these conditions.
Post a Comment