how bout the incredible high mortality from the elderly who receive the flu vaccine, you know the one we suggest the elderly get so they dont die from the flu.
This one is a hanging curveball for me - Amongst a bazillion other things, I've had the great fortune to work very specifically in developing and implementing vaccination and flu prevention and treatment programs for the elderly for my pretty much my whole career.
Your question is very valid - and absolutely has been studied. Here's the short version of the answer:
The problem with the flu vaccine in the elderly is simply this: The weaker your immune system is to begin with, the less likely it is that the vaccine will confer immunity. In elderly populations, at best you can expect that 70% will develop full immunity within 2 weeks of receiving the injection.
This of course means that nearly a third of the "vaccinated" population will remain unprotected, and the other two thirds will still be susceptible, more or less, if exposed within 14 days of vaccination.
Since the elderly often suffer from multiple disease states, they (along with the very young with immature immune systems) are obviously at the greatest risk of dying from an influenza infection to begin with. Combine this with the "conferred immunity" problem, and you have an easy path for the conclusion that the vaccination doesnt work, or worse yet, actually causes the disease it's meant to prevent.
The reality is this: In the extensive nursing home studies that have been conducted over the years, unvaccinated populations of the elderly, when exposed to influenza, are at a wildly higher risk of death from influenza and the secondary respiratory infections that often set in. The data isnt even close - it's the Lakers vs. St. Mary's School for Girls. But as stated before, the problem is that even vaccinated, elderly patients can, will, and unfortunately do die from influenza every year.
I brushed another topic with this answer, so I might as well address it - Can the vaccine actually cause influenza? The anser is, in short, highly unlikely. Despite the fact that everyone has a relative who says they got the flu "2 days after getting the vaccine", it's extraordinarily unlikely that the vaccine itself was the source of the infection. The back-reporting that occurs with influenza vaccination in the USA is robust - there's a TON of data on this - and it's abundantly clear - the rate of infection is absolutely no higher for newly vaccinated people than it is for the general population. It's just simply likely that the newly vaccinated relative of yours was exposed a couple of days before vaccination, and became symptomatic shortly afterwards. And since people with influenza are most infectious in the 24-48 hours prior to the emergence of symptoms, they probably gave it to you, too.
Def a reasonable question, and again, it speaks directly to Mario's original point! There's healthy public skepticism in these programs, esp since they're heavily promoted by the government as a way to protect us. But really - why such skepticism? It's not like the government has ever lied to us about anything before, right??
Topic: Finally: Vaccination DOESN'T Cause Autism (Read 2562 times)
August 27, 2006, 06:38:25 PM