Seasonal Flu Shots Double Risk of Getting Swine Flu, Says New Study 258
krou writes "A Canadian study currently under peer review apparently suggests that individuals given seasonal flu shots are twice as likely to get swine flu. The 'perplexing' study has thrown influenza health plans into disarray, with Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia all suspending seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 years of age. The study appears to be confined to Canada; the US, Britain, and Australia have not reported the same problem, so some are suggesting that the research has 'study bias.' However, the research appears to be 'solid' according to Dr. Ethan Rubinstein, head of adult infectious diseases at the University of Manitoba. 'There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers. And the sample size is very large — 12 or 13 million people taken from the central reporting systems in three provinces.''
As usual, correlation is not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget: (Score:2, Insightful)
And as it turns out, there's evidence that flu shots benefit to the elderly has been grossly overetimated [nytimes.com], that previous studies claiming a benefit did not control for differences in the populations that get flu vaccines versus those that don't.
It's also interesting that (according to the story I linked above) there has not been a placebo-controlled trial of the flu vaccine. So, anyone out there who rails against any sort of complimentary/alternative medicine and says they would never receive a treatment that can't produce placebo-controlled trials, can't get flu shots. (Of course, you also can't get surgery...)
Widespread flu shots are a great subsidy to big pharma, but as a public health measure, they're a questionable use of resources.
Re:No biological reason for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Fallicy (Score:4, Insightful)
"'There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers. "
You do realize, sir, that this really proves little, right? I'd say around 90+% of scientists I know are credible and excellent researchers. We all *want* to do good work and few of us would willingly or knowingly compromise that.
This doesn't stop us from making honest, hard-to-spot mistakes. It's one thing to be sloppy (and that does happen sometimes) or to be dishonest (that also happens, rarely). But in any research, there will be factors you simply didn't know about and, let's be fair, shouldn't be expected to anticipate.
So saying that these are good researchers is, at best, suggesting that you think that they didn't lie or miss something obvious that they should have noticed. At worst, it sounds dangerously like an argument from authority.
would not be surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not necessarily surprising or a new idea. A researcher at Rice University (Michael Deem, whom I have heard speak on this) studies the genetic basis for the vaccine and the resulting efficacy in any given year and there are MANY years in which getting a flu vaccine the previous year will actually increase your chances of getting the flu the next, or make it worse. You can find an interesting calculator here: http://www.mwdeem.rice.edu/pepitope/ [rice.edu], where there is also a link to his most important paper on it at the bottom (no registration req.). Here is an excerpt:
Vaccine efficacy can even be negative, however, due to original antigenic sin [7-9], the tendency for antibodies produced in response to exposure to infl uenza vaccine antigens to suppress the creation of new, different antibodies in response to exposure to new versions of the infl uenza virus. The efficacy of the annual in fluenza vaccine, and whether original antigenic sin may occur, depends sensitively on how similar the vaccine and circulating viral strains are. Current state of the art measures of antigenic distance are based on ferret antisera hemagglutinin inhibition assays [10-12], and these distances are assumed to correlate well with vaccine efficacies in humans. However, to our knowledge no such good correlation has ever been shown for an experimental or theoretical measure of antigenic distance.
Ever since I heard this talk, and learned that the flu vaccine is actually a random guess each year, I don't bother with it. I'm young, strong, and tough and very very unlikely to die, I figure.
Re:No biological reason for this (Score:1, Insightful)
Youtube is not a source.
Re:also tripple risk of normal Flu (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Notice that they are not the same thing.
Re:As usual, correlation is not... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you Dr. Quozientatore for pointing out the obvious.
However as you may not know, H1N1 is different from general flu strains as it tends to have the strongest and deadliest effect on healthy people in their prime. Who do NOT generally get the flu shot.
Unfortunately for experts like you, we don't have the original data to analyze and come to our own conclusions, we only have a general news report (which we know is always scientifically sound and full of correct facts). Researchers are reviewing the paper extensively to ensure there was no unintended bias and the research is valid. Until then, please wear your tinfoil hat and facemask. Thanks.
Re:would not be surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, but when you do get it stay home, ok? Don't try to prove how "tough" you are by going around coughing on people. Just stay home in bed until all the symptoms are gone. Or you are dead.
media bias (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget: (Score:1, Insightful)
Here in the UK they don't try and sell flu shots, they're free. The only reason they push people to have them is it costs the health services more to clean up the mess than prevent it in the first place. That says to me that flu shots actually work, not that they're just flogging medicine to people.
You probably shouldn't get it in the first place (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, with regard to TFA, this alone should not discourage people from getting the flu shot. The simple fact is that the "swine flu" is the same as the "regular flu" that we get every year. It is not particularly more infectious or deadly in any segment of the population than any other flu strain. The fear surrounding this particular strain is simply manufactured by the media. If the flu vaccine reduces the chance of getting the other 15-20 strains of flu by a significant amount, but doubles your risk of this particular strain, you still come out ahead.
However, most people should not even consider getting a flu shot in the first place. If you are between the ages of ~15 and ~60, and are in general good health, you should not get the flu shot. It terrifies me when I see flu shots being given out to students at local schools and colleges. These are the people who have absolutely zero risk of dying from the flu. None. Even if it leads to pneumonia, there is only a risk of death if proper medical treatment is not given. The worst that can happen is, well, that they catch the flu for a week or so.
The flu shot, on the other hand, can be extremely dangerous. My aunt was a nurse, and thus was required by her job to take the flu shot every year. She had been taking them for nearly a decade when, in her mid-thirties, she was paralyzed from the waist down by the side-effects of the flu shot. Had she not taken the shot, the worst that would have happened to her would have been simply getting the flu. She got a large settlement from the vaccine manufacturer and her employer. It was a rather fast process, as they knew beforehand that a certain percentage of people who take the flu shot would have this reaction. The cost of the settlements is simply rolled in to the cost of the vaccine. A couple of years later, a friend of the family suffered similar complications from the flu shot, and died. He was only 28 at the time, and in perfect health. Had he not taken the shot, the worst that would have happened to him would have been simply getting the flu.
The results of this study are interesting, but they make little difference. The vast majority of people should not be getting the flu shot in the first place. Taking it is simply rolling the dice unnecessarily. For those who are very young or old, the risks from the flu shot and the risks from the flu itself start to even out. In that case, the shot may indeed be a better idea. The results of this study do not change that fact.
Re:Don't forget: (Score:4, Insightful)
Where i live , there are not , but i can get them for free at the company i work.
Pretty much for the same reason : it costs my company more to pay me when i'm sick , than the costs of the flu shots.
On a large scale , yes , they certainly work.
Re:Don't forget: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your doctor.
This was my guess, also (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Already possibly debunked (Score:3, Insightful)
From that article:
Several infectious disease experts and researchers have suggested the study work could be flawed. A commonly heard suggestion is that there was "selection bias" at work, meaning the type of people studied were not representative of the population in general and therefore the findings can't be generalized.
It also mentions that data from every country other than Canada fails to support the claim.
My first thought after hearing this "unpublished claim" was that there's heavy selection bias here. People who get flu shots are primarily people who have higher exposure to infectious diseases, such as hospital workers and teachers. If it's true for influenza (spurring them to get a shot) it would be true for H1N1 as well.
Without hearing anything to the contrary (and esp. PaddyM's link showing other researchers see selection bias in the Canada study) the "news" here is really:
People more likely to catch the flu are more likely to catch the flu.
Stunning, isn't it?
Re:No biological reason for this (Score:1, Insightful)
Given the amount of research into influenza, how to vaccinate against it, and how the bodies immune system responds to these vaccines, I think it's pretty safe to say that there won't be any medical surprises regarding the interaction between two such vaccines.
Given the amount of research into computer viruses, how to defend against them, and how operating systems respond to these defenses, I think it's pretty safe to say that there won't be any surprises regarding the interaction between operating systems and antivirus programs.
Re:Don't forget: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flu shots are for people with weak immune systems and old people that are at higher risk to "die" from it. Never get one done if you don't _need it_.
I've see more people almost die due to allergic reactions to shots than i have due to a bad case of the flu.
Ah, the wonders of small sample size, especially when combined with selective memory. Exactly how many people have you personally seen die from allergic reactions to shots? And exactly how many have you personally seen die from a bad case of the flu?
I realize some people benefit from this sort of thinking - but they're usually older professional baseball players. They get hot for a month, and suddenly people think "they've got the magic back" - completely ignoring the steady decline they've demonstrated for the past three seasons or thereabouts. That three year decline is considered "an aberration" while the one month hot streak is seen as "their true talent level".
The part people don't consider (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just your health that you effect when you choose not to be vaccinated.
Re:You're missing one statistic (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of complaining about his lack of statistics, and following up with your own lack of statistics, why not ask Google?
"...with 63% of all hospitalizations occurring among persons aged > 65 years." (just one of Google's results [globalsecurity.org])
So, if you combine his figure of 36,000 deaths per year with that link's figure of 37% of hospitalizations being people under age 65, along with current population data, you can figure that the odds of a younger person dying are more like 1 in 23,000. So, his point remains, and your guesstimate of 1 in a million continues to suck ass.
Re:You're missing one statistic (Score:3, Insightful)
You sound convincing, but you didn't tell us the fatality rate for flu among young healthy people. I would bet it's less than 1 in a million, but I don't actually have any data - just like you. In fact, I do bet every year I don't get the shot. To repeat what the other guy said, we should vaccinate the people at higher risk. If you want an all-out public vaccination, let's aim for eradication rather than play games letting it evolve while making annual payments for that service.
That's a valid point about the personal risk, however you're counting on your health remaining good. If you get encounter some other health issue, cancer, a second illness, or a traffic accident. Suddenly you're a whole lot less healthy.
Also being young and healthy doesn't stop you from being a carrier who can infect vulnerable populations or simply knock out a significant portion of your co-workers.