I can imagine the outcry from the EBM community if the study treatment was a herbal lollypop but when the topic is the "flu shot" people remain silent?
This is the headline in the BMJ :
"Intranasal flu vaccine provides similar protection to injected flu vaccine, finds study"
http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4481
However, the BMJ news article continues with:
"There was no significant difference in confirmed rates of infection with influenza A or B between the non-vaccinated people living in the same communities as the vaccinated children (1.03 (0.85 to 1.24))."
The title of the original research in Annals of Internal Medicine says:
"Live Attenuated Versus Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Hutterite Children: A Cluster Randomized Blinded Trial" http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2543271
This original article doesn't even mention in their abstract that there was no significant difference between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.
To me these are clear examples of misleading use of words.
How should the (EBM) community respond to this, in view of overdiagnosis and use of study money to make misleading claims and what about, as such, abusing the study population's trust (or did the Hutterite participants receive money to be complicit?)
Dr Wouter Havinga, locum GP, NHS, UK
GMC 3578256
|