Does the Inactivated Influenza Vaccine Even Work In the Recommended Age Bracket?

35 Comments on Does the Inactivated Influenza Vaccine Even Work In the Recommended Age Bracket?

momof2 on Tue, 4th Nov 2008 6:26 am


And if all of those unvaccinated children under 5 aren’t seeking medical care for the flu, then clearly, it must not be that dangerous, if that is their assumption.
Thank you so much for posting this link. I cannot believe that this information is not more widely disseminated. You’d think that this should be on the front page of the news, emailed to all the doctors right away, etc., stop giving this flu shot, it doesn’t even work.

wallacesmum on Tue, 4th Nov 2008 6:00 pm


Well, I suspect that the push to give kids the live vaccine (which isn’t approved in little kids) is next.

Science Mom on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 10:37 am


Does the fact that circulating strains and vaccine antigens were not well-matched and that the authors called for studies during an optimal vaccine/wild-type matched influenza season make your conclusion a bit hasty?

wallacesmum on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 11:52 am


Hi ScienceMom, I assume you are the same ScienceMom I have “met” on other boards?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my reading of the column and the study, that fact is pretty obvious. Which conclusion are you referring to? I don’t see the conclusion of the article as being that the vaccine never works in kids under 5 – certainly if that were the conclusion I would see your point.

But it seems to me that the final paragraph of the blog post points to multiple issues with the flu vax, in contrast to the study’s suggestion that unvaccinating parents are to blame for inaccurate data.

Have you seen a better study, that could contradict this one? Perhaps the IV folks could follow up.

Oresme on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 2:36 pm


SM, does the CDC only recommend the flu vaccine when the antigens are well-matched?

Science Mom on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 9:52 pm


Wallacesmum, Yes I am the same Science Mom. Well reading the blog post, this quote caught my attention:
There is just one slight issue that might concern some parents. Peer-reviewed research in The Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 162 No. 10, October 2008,1 demonstrates that the vaccine is not effective under age 5!

Which is a given considering the mismatch between the vaccine antigens and circulating influenza strains. So my point is, is that it is misguided to pronounce the vaccine completely ineffective for that particular cohort given the mutational rates of influenza strains.

I also don’t see any blame being thrust upon non-vaccinating parents for skewing the results. This statement: In the conclusion, this is the ONLY factor the authors mention!
is rather disingenuous as that was most certainly not the only study limitation or confounder as they discussed the vaccine antigen mismatch, the inadequate sample sizes, inactivated vaccine inclusion only (don’t think that would have made much difference, given the strain mismatch) and propensity to seek healthcare. That is a valid observation and if you look at their supporting reference, #43, you can see why.

So, the parents of unvaccinated children are keeping deathly ill babies away from necessary emergency medical attention because they have a lower “threshold to seek medical care”. That’s the problem with the results, not an ineffective vaccine and shoddy methodology in earlier studies?

This rather feigned outrage is rather misplaced as the authors neither said nor alluded to anything of the kind. A large number of unvaccinated children with undiagnosed influenza in a sample area would most certainly skew efficacy data to the left during influenza seasons for a case-cohort study as they explained; the more robust case-control study design would not feel this affect however, also what they pointed out.

As a bit of an aside, this was a poorly executed, underpowered study so I am not quite sure what point or points it was used to demonstrate.

Oresme, rhetorical question. Do you have a specific point you wish to make?

wallacesmum on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 7:24 am


SM, it IS the only thing they mentioned in the conclusion. I assume you read it. Yes, they mentioned other factors in the body, but this was the key confounding factor in the final section.

And, sure, I see your first point. But, the comment from Oresme is relevant there. We are not talking about getting kids under 5 the shot. We are talking about a universal recommendation for whatever shot they have on hand. Thus, it should concern parents that that particular vaccine may be totally ineffective.

Science Mom on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 7:58 am


Wallacesmum, Propensity to seek healthcare was not the only study limitation in the comment section as they were listed as:
SUBOPTIMAL MATCH BETWEEN VACCINE AND CIRCULATING INFLUENZA STRAINS

SAMPLE SIZES

PROPENSITY TO SEEK HEALTHCARE

INACTIVATED VACCINE

So yes, of course I read the article and some of the supporting literature and the blog post author is blowing one valid study limitation out of proportion.

And yes, that particular vaccine or even successive years’ vaccines are mismatched; there is no secret there. I do understand the disconnect between universal influenza vaccine recommendations and the variable efficacies of those vaccines but that is not to say that when the matches are optimal that the influenza vaccine is still ineffective.

Marconi on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 10:28 am


Of course, they never mention that influenza is probably a self-inflicted disorder in the first place….

http://virologyj.com/content/pdf/1743-422X-5-29.pdf

… and they never address other influenza conundrums, which anyone who knows anything about influenza would know.

And if they did know, they wouldn’t bother nit-picking about non-essential straw-man type arguments, because they might be really interested the workable protection.

Marconi on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 10:39 am


The reason you don’t understand the disconnect between recommendations and efficacie, Science Mom, is because you don’t understand the flaws in either the basic science underlying influenza and how that impacts on the vaccine itself.

Susceptibility to influenza is not dependant on prior existing immunity, as the article I put up in the previous post indicates.

The fact is that the vaccine rarely works in any age groups because a person’s inate susceptibility will vary year to year, depending on how stupid they are. If you have all your ducks in a row, you won’t need the vaccine, because you won’t get the flu.

There are plenty of us alive, who know the facts, and who don’t get the flu, or the vaccine.

But that’s a taboo subject, which until now, wasn’t talked about.

My only concern about the paper above, is why Cannell has come out with this now, when so many people have been hammering him and others about this for nearly two decades.

Perhaps they are finally realising that their armoury is pretty bare, and maybe basics might help out when it comes to the “bird flu”/ cash cow paranoia around.

In the disastrous fiscal environment, when dollars might become scarce, just maybe they realise that cheap is good.

Study those 9 conundrums, and you will see what might happen with really workable protection, which all of us as individuals should have no trouble sorting out.

wallacesmum on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 10:40 am


This is the whole conclusions section, SM:

“Each year, US children aged 6 to 59 months experience high rates of hospitalizations, ED visits, and outpatient visits due to influenza. Despite this, we were unable across 3 large communities to demonstrate that influenza vaccination was effective in preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED visits or outpatient visits during 2 consecutive seasons (2003-2004 and 2004-2005) among 6- to 23-month-olds, 24- to 59-month-olds, or the entire age span. The case-cohort study design has important limitations in being able to annually assess influenza VE. Our experience suggests that the case-cohort design is inefficient and may insufficiently account for important factors, such as propensity to seek care. Further studies of influenza VE are needed using a variety of study designs (that adjust for confounders) to assess the yearly impact of influenza vaccination programs for children, particularly as higher rates of vaccination are achieved in the study population.”

I agree, there are other factors, and so many vaccine studies are really crappy. One of many reasons to wait, I’d say. Do you have any favorite pro-flu-vax studies, that you find comprehensive?

As for the matches being optimal, just let me know when they pull that study together. And, when in the “flu-season” they do that, so we can wait until after the boat races to act on anything.

Perhaps you and I read the post differently; maybe the author will adjust it as I find it quite clear what he or she is trying to say regarding what vax advocates choose to highlight when their own research demonstrates the limitations of, well, their own research.

But you’re the scientist.

How is that a valid limitation, btw? Are the kids dying at home? Or are lots of kids who don’t need hospitalization being treated in urgent care?

jules on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 2:14 pm


Conclusion: In 2 seasons with suboptimal antigenic match between vaccines and circulating strains, we could not demonstrate VE in preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED or outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years. Further study is needed during years with good vaccine match.

That says it all because the strains included in the vaccine are a ‘guesstimate’. That is kinda like looking for a needle in a haystack, isn’t it?

Saying flu vaccines will lower cases has yet to be shown. What happens if we have a natural cycle where flu cases are low by nature itself..are they going to then say its due to the vaccine, even if the ‘fewer cases had’ weren’t even in the vaccine?

Science Mom on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 3:10 pm


Hilary, The reason you don’t understand the disconnect between recommendations and efficacie, Science Mom, is because you don’t understand the flaws in either the basic science underlying influenza and how that impacts on the vaccine itself.
You either didn’t read my post or you are being intentionally disingenuous as I clearly stated that, “I DO understand the disconnect between universal influenza vaccine recommendations and the variable efficacies of those vaccines…”
I also see that you have wasted no time launching an ad hominem attack which makes your statement of, “They take one look at facts on InsideVaccines, and run a mile. They are too gutless to come and defend themselves using their own stats, their own studies, or logic. They hide behind dogma and “articles of faith” quite laughable, not to mention that your admittance that you “are not a methods person” puts you in a rather menial position of determining who or who doesn’t understand the science.
Susceptibility to influenza is not dependant on prior existing immunity, as the article I put up in the previous post indicates.
The fact is that the vaccine rarely works in any age groups because a person’s inate susceptibility will vary year to year, depending on how stupid they are. If you have all your ducks in a row, you won’t need the vaccine, because you won’t get the flu.
But it isn’t that simple and that article you posted proves nothing, it is a hypotheses-generating review.
Of course, they never mention that influenza is probably a self-inflicted disorder in the first place….
http://virologyj.com/content/pdf/1743-422X-5-29.pdf
… and they never address other influenza conundrums, which anyone who knows anything about influenza would know.
And if they did know, they wouldn’t bother nit-picking about non-essential straw-man type arguments, because they might be really interested the workable protection.
It takes a great deal of hubris to make these statements Hilary. It is so easy to armchair referee the works of others, quite another to set foot into the lab and/or field and generate the research that could help elucidate the many enigmas that are influenza. Perhaps you are planning to do this sometime soon to help along the multitude of scientists who are clearly floundering without your proficiency?

wallacesmum on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 5:12 pm


By the way, I also agree that the comments section lists a number of factors. I just find it strange that the conclusion doesn’t mention any of them.

wallacesmum on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 5:22 pm


Aren’t we all “arm-chair referees” in these on-line discussions? I mean, isn’t that what critical analysis of published research is?

Do you work on influenza, SM? Do you have some particular expertise on this subject that might elucidate some of the flaws in the existing research?

MinorityView on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 6:54 pm


Personally, I’d be really impressed if there was solid research in place before a vaccine protocol was recommended for a particular population. The assumption here seems to be: vaccinate first, research later. I’m not volunteering myself, or any of my friends and relations on that basis.

Do you have some research showing flu vaccine efficacy in babies and children? Based on laboratory tested cases of influenza? I’d love to see it.

MinorityView on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 7:40 pm


Picked up this comment from Age of Autism today. This is a perfect example of the way that flu vaccines are pushed on people:

“I just learned that the USAF is now requiring me to give my preschoolers (2 and 3) the flu vaccine. I am not sure when they became more informed about my kids health/well being than myself (I happen to be a nurse) and my peditrician. I am going to battle with them tomorrow but they told me that they are just following CDC recommendations. I told them that they are recommendations.”
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/10/76-of-americans.html#comment-139904894

This isn’t just an abstract argument.

Science Mom on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 8:37 pm


Aren’t we all “arm-chair referees” in these on-line discussions? I mean, isn’t that what critical analysis of published research is?
Sure, it’s one thing to discuss the issues and data, quite another to project expertise that surpasses those working in the field, particularly without ever having set foot in a laboratory or generating original research.
Do you work on influenza, SM? Do you have some particular expertise on this subject that might elucidate some of the flaws in the existing research?
I don’t work with influenzas but do work with zoonoses. For starters, I did, briefly, point out the flaws with the article used for the blog post and working with some diseases that have abhorrent epidemiological (if you will) patterns, highly variable pathogenicities and host responses between strains and probably near-impossible to develop vaccines for, I can only say that there appears to be many factors that need to be identified with regards to influenza (grossly oversimplifying).
Minority View, Personally, I’d be really impressed if there was solid research in place before a vaccine protocol was recommended for a particular population.
I happen to agree.
Do you have some research showing flu vaccine efficacy in babies and children? Based on laboratory tested cases of influenza? I’d love to see it.Oh come now, you know where I stand on vaccine efficacy and young children.

MinorityView on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 8:48 pm


“Oh come now, you know where I stand on vaccine efficacy and young children.”

Not actually. I haven’t been following your trail very closely for quite a while. You haven’t been posting on boards where I read. What is your current position on vaccine efficacy and young children?

Marconi on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 7:07 pm


Actually sciencemom, my comments under the URL weren’t related to the study authors.

They were directed straight at you.

Your comments above, at me, pale in comparison to anything I’ve said anywhere, either here or elsewhere. Which tells everyone a lot about you, but not much about me.

And just in case you think you’ve created an adrenalin rush by using my actual name, that’s fine.

Because I don’t write here.

So it’s no skin off my nose using my name.

What I really want to know is what’s eating you. As you know, i’ve followed you around enough to know your MO, so I’m not at all surprised at your attitude.

Nutmeg.

Marconi on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 7:27 pm


Sciencemom, you said “I clearly stated that, “I DO understand the disconnect between universal influenza vaccine recommendations and the variable efficacies of those vaccines…”

If you understood the (reasons for) the disconnect, as opposed to the fact that there is a disconnect, please explain this:

“it is misguided to pronounce the vaccine completely ineffective for that particular cohort given the mutational rates of influenza strains.”

You also said, “that is not to say that when the matches are optimal that the influenza vaccine is still ineffective.” Show me studies where that is actually proven to be so. Show me the years in USA, when strain matched vaccine, and the infection and death rates dropped compared to other years.

In general terms, real protection against the flu doesn’t depend on what strain it is…

And in terms of the vaccine, the evidence on the ground shows that the vaccine “doesn’t work”, just as often in years when supposedly the strains do match.

Science Mom on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 6:38 am


Minority View, The Cochrane Systematic Review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425905?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Is the best available evidence for the lack of influenza vaccine efficacy in children less than 2 years old.

Hilary,
If you understood the (reasons for) the disconnect, as opposed to the fact that there is a disconnect, please explain this:

“it is misguided to pronounce the vaccine completely ineffective for that particular cohort given the mutational rates of influenza strains.”

You can refer to the above reference but given the parameters of the study in the blog post, one cannot draw any conclusions with regards to vaccine efficacy based upon one poorly-executed study.

You also said, “that is not to say that when the matches are optimal that the influenza vaccine is still ineffective.” Show me studies where that is actually proven to be so. Show me the years in USA, when strain matched vaccine, and the infection and death rates dropped compared to other years.

Again, please refer to the reference I provided. Mortality is not the endpoint used however and doesn’t need to be in order to demonstrate efficacy.

In general terms, real protection against the flu doesn’t depend on what strain it is…

If you say so but there is evidence to the contrary and saying so doesn’t make it so.

MinorityView on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 7:56 am


Science Mom, thanks for the response. I wasn’t sure on vaccine efficacy for young children if you were referring to all vaccines or just to influenza vaccine. We are still waiting for good evidence that the flu vaccine actually works for children between 2 and 18, but the recommendations, as I commented above, seem to be shoot first, research later. And the clear lack of evidence in children under two hasn’t prevented recommendations for vaccination in this group, nor attempts to mandate this vaccine for this group. I wonder why I distrust the CDC? Must be completely unnecessary paranoia…

concerned parent on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 4:22 pm


Please, the personal sniping has no place on this website. That kind of behavior is all too common on blogs and detracts from the overall quality of information. I appreciate the differing opinions, but I lose interest when egos run rampant.

wallacesmum on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 9:24 am


Well, let’s bring it back. Where is the burden of proof here? To be terribly simplistic, the “anti-vax” position is “if repeated studies demonstrate lack of efficacy, regardless of the reasons, then the recommendations are worthless because the CDC can’t be trusted to parse the data before issuing instructions.” The “pro-vax” position is “Well, the failures of these studies are xyz, this doesn’t prove that the vaccines don’t work, sure, more and better data is needed, but in the meantime, the recommendations are reasonable.”

Forgive my run-ons, you see where I am going.
Does that seem like an accurate (if quick-and-dirty) assessment?

SM, I remember that you S/D, right, so I imagine that you don’t give a blanket endorsement to the recommendations. However, when the CDC recommends a vaccine, and that vaccine turns out not to work, for whatever reason, wouldn’t that undermine their credibility?

And Marconi, would it be accurate to say that part of the problem with the whole vaccine program is that “immunology” has come to mean “vaccinology,” to the detriment of genuine exploration of the nature of illness, the subtleties of the immune system, and the individual nature of the organism?

Science Mom on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 7:37 am


Wallacesmum, I don’t care at all for the paternalistic recommendations that the CDC is prone to making. They have become so politicised and that undermines their credibility; that is not to say that they don’t have a lot of very good information, just makes it more difficult for many to obtain.

I will weigh in on your question to Marconi, if you don’t mind. Immunology is implicit for vaccinology for those that only know immunology from a vaccine-issue standpoint. It is a vast discipline and there are so many new discoveries made and published, it is a shame if the study of immunology is pigeon-holed into one small aspect by some.

wallacesmum on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 3:36 pm


Science Mom, I am a little confused by the immunology/vaccinology part. Are you saying that vaccinologists should understand immunology, or that they do, implicitly? Are you saying that it is a problem that immunology has become so focused on vaccinology?

Science Mom on Sat, 29th Nov 2008 9:52 am


No, not at all wallacesmum, I was addressing your question:
And Marconi, would it be accurate to say that part of the problem with the whole vaccine program is that “immunology” has come to mean “vaccinology,”…

Of course vaccinologists are either immunologists or have a heavy basis in immunology amongst other disciplines. What I was trying to state was that those, i.e. anti-vax pundits seem to think that the study of immunology only encompasses vaccine technology and that is not the case at all. Does that make more sense?

wallacesmum on Sat, 29th Nov 2008 3:11 pm


Well, I guess. I will be curious to see Marconi’s response, too, since I suspect she disagrees. It seems to me that all the immunology “breakthroughs” are focused on vaccines these days. There does seem to be a whole lot more energy there than vitamin and nutrition therapy, for instance. Why might that be, or do you disagree?

Science Mom on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 7:52 am


It seems to me that all the immunology “breakthroughs” are focused on vaccines these days.

This is actually the point I was making; you are focused upon vaccines so your perception of immunology research is skewed. Just do a PubMed search for immunology and look at all of the papers generated that have nothing to do with vaccines.

As for vitamins and supplements, you may be interested in this:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/news-keeps-getting-worse-for-vitamins/?em
A considerable amount of research but not very favourable results.

wallacesmum on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 1:32 pm


I think perhaps our parameters are different. I am looking at immunology as it relates to management and prevention of disease. I agree that a review of the table of contents of any major immunology journal does not reveal much about vaccines, but I think the popular discussion of disease is all about it. I am thinking of the typical conversation in a pediatricians office.

As for how you perceive my focus, that is my fault as I was trying to draw the conversation in a particular direction. What I would like to do is to table the immunology conversation as it isn’t really that related to this particular blog post and is, as you point out, a broad topic in its own right.

What I want to come back to is the validity of the flu recommendation, given the effectiveness of the shot. You mentioned about that the issue of nonvaxing parents not taking children in for care is “valid,” and I challenge that. If the parameters of this particular study are constructed around necessary medical treatment, how is it a confounding factor that children not requiring this care are not being brought in for it? Or, are all these children that are being brought in not in need of this care?

Secondly, does it really matter why the vaccine doesn’t work, if it is the vaccine for sale? In this study, for instance, it is a bad match that supposedly causes the problem (although I do find it very curious that the authors don’t raise this point in their final paragraph – what is the hysterical obsession with non-vaxing families that these people have?), but that was the one they were selling, the one they were recommending that season. Sure, we can say that both efficacy and effectiveness must be confirmed before we will vaccinate our children, but that is completely different than what the CDC says. And you and I may be in a position to say “screw the CDC, I’ll make my own decisions about vaccines based upon the science,” but most parents are not making their decisions that way. For them, this vaccine doesn’t work.

Back to you:

wallacesmum on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 1:35 pm


BTW,, as for the vitamin and supplement studies, I haven’t read the studies, although I did read the article, so I can’t really respond. But in every study like this that I have read, the amounts given to humans that “failed,” following the successful animal trials, were nowhere near the body-weight equivalents of the murine studies. There is lots of old clinical data that this stuff does work, not to mention a little common sense. All the researchers have to do is an RCT that replicates that work, but this has yet to happen that I have read.

Flu shot for all of your children? Yes or no? - AmityMama.com on Thu, 4th Dec 2008 9:47 am


[...] in your family is getting enough vitamin D. Vitamin D is much more effective than any flu shot. Does the Inactivated Influenza Vaccine Even Work In the Recommended Age Bracket? Avoid Flu Shots With the One Vitamin that Will Stop Flu in Its Tracks – Articles [...]

wallacesmum on Tue, 13th Jan 2009 11:12 am


And it looks like we may have a mismatch again this year…

llasidog on Fri, 13th Feb 2009 2:38 pm


Food allergies have increased due to vaccines

I found the following statistics on various websites –

AUSTRALIA: Australia has one of the highest allergic incidence rates in the developed world.
CANADA: Between 3% and 4% of Canadian adults, and nearly 6 % of children suffer from food allergies
GERMANY: The prevalence in children is 3 percent to 6 percent, but can be up to 30 percent in high-risk groups, such as children with eczema.
ITALY: An estimated 6 to 8% of the Italian population has food allergies.
JAPAN: about 7% of population had some form of food allergy.
MALAYSIA: about 30% of young children are likely to develop allergic disorders in the first five years of life.
SWEDEN: one out of 15 children with reported adverse reactions to food.
US: One in every 17 children under the age of 3 has food allergy.

And really serious food reactions are not all that rare – “A study in Arch Intern Med 2001 Jan 8;161(1):15-2, Anaphylaxis in the United States: an investigation into its epidemiology, concluded with “The occurrence of anaphylaxis in the US is not as rare as is generally believed. On the basis of our figures, the problem of anaphylaxis may, in fact, affect 1.21% (1.9 million) to 15.04% (40.9 million) of the US population.” PMID 11146694″

So is this epidemic of food allergies mostly among young children caused by being too clean (hygiene theory – food allergies are unknown in undeveloped countries) in the last 5 years or something else?

1960 – children received on average one or two vaccines
1980 – children received 8-9 vaccines
1990 – children were routinely given 10 vaccines
2000 – Children now receive 33 vaccinations before they enter school
2007 – Children are now to receive 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age six and 53-56 doses of 15 or 16 vaccines by age 12.

Vaccines contain an adjuvant that increases the body’s immune response to the protein in the vaccine. Something that the public and most physicians don’t realize is that the adjuvant can also contain a mixture of vegetable and animal oils that have a trace of food protein in them. This is a protected trade secret and does not have to appear on the package insert. The ingredients of many adjuvants can only be found by reading patents. What are these oils? Soy, sesame, peanut, wheat germ, corn, shellfish, fish, etc.

Can a trace amount of food protein in a vaccine cause food allergy? Yes. This has been known since 1839, when the French physiologist Francois Magendie injected animals to create a food allergy to egg whites.

The food industry has to label food that may contain trace amounts of peanuts or nuts but the pharmaceutical industry is exempt. Shouldn’t your doctor know if he is injecting a peanut-allergic patient with peanut oil?

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.