 |
 |
Thank you Richard, Glen and Kev Considering "US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which recently advised the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop vaccinating children because, for the past three flu seasons, the vaccine seemed to have little effect" http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i3546 http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0622-laiv-flu.html I was wondering, as nasal flu vaccine appears similar to homeopathy, whether any editor would accept the paper for publication if a homeopathic remedy was used in this particular study? Furthermore, I think the BMJ would not run a "News" headline saying: "this homeopathic nasal product is not giving better protection against influenza than the injected homeopathic preparation". I suspect the News headline would sound differently. I agree that the title of the study is what they describe in the paper, I disagree with implying through their use of words in the "conclusion" that the flu vaccine in general works. This, to me is deception, which seems to be condoned by the editors and peer reviewers of the Annals Int Med and is further propagated by the BMJ. I also take issue with the statistical language of the article, which is not lucid for a lay reader like me. It puts up a smoke screen with statistical use of words around the issue that both vaccines in the study didn't work. I am of the opinion that especially in studies of influenza vaccines, improper words are used, implying benefit and through the use of statistical language that commoners are not able to interpret suppress certain aspects to be clear. Overall the guardians of EBM have become complacent in these areas? The only way to check whether something works is to check with a group that doesn't take the intervention drug. As documented there are Hutterite colonies that doesn't vaccinate. I am worried that this opportunity is (deliberately?) not taken up, All these kind of things should be consistently challenged by the EBM community and editors and peer reviewers. Kev suggested that writing a letter could help but over the past nearly 2 decades I have noticed that that is easily brushed aside. I think it needs a constant re-education, through questioning, to prevent the current (wilful?) ignorance - check for example the output of the current conference 24-28 August on Control of Influenza http://2016.isirv.org @OptionsIX #OptionsIX16 How much of the presented research is devoted to actually checking with RCT (vacc compared with non-vacc) whether the flu vaccine works. Did the research use patient clinical relevant endpoints rather than calculated assumptions like TND test negative design studies, etc.