| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| John Stone |
Posted - 01/08/2006 : 21:34:21
Recently the British Medical Journal published an interesting article by Harvard medical graduate entitled 'Are US flu death figures more PR than science', 10 December 2005, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7529/1412. I quote a few extracts:
"US data on influenza deaths are a mess. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts "predict dire outcomes" during flu seasons..."
"CDC states that the historic 1968-9 "Hong Kong flu" pandemic killed 34 000 Americans. At the same time, CDC claims 36 000 Americans annually die from flu. What is going on?
Meanwhile, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), "influenza and pneumonia" took 62 034 lives in 2001—61 777 of which were attributed to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was flu virus positively identified. Between 1979 and 2002, NCHS data show an average 1348 flu deaths per year (range 257 to 3006)..."
"If flu is in fact not a major cause of death, this public relations approach is surely exaggerated. Moreover, by arbitrarily linking flu with pneumonia, current data are statistically biased. Until corrected and until unbiased statistics are developed, the chances for sound discussion and public health policy are limited."
As a postlude to this article Hamburg journalist Torsten Engelbrecht was permitted to raise the issue of claimed flu deaths in Germany in Rapid Responses, and even wrung a response from German health officials. What was puzzling was that BMJ seemed less keen to highlight the situation in the UK where the Department of Health have recently been claiming an annual death-toll from flu of 12,000 a year (roughly 50% higher than the 36,000 figure though not quite as bad as the 62,034 of the NCHS). For whatever reason they did not publish the following letter from myself:
Can we trust blindly the figures of the Department of Health?
If the facts are conclusive why are they not clearer?
According to the Chief Medical Officer's publication 'Explaining Pandemic Flu'(1 March 2005):
"Ordinary flu occurs every year during the winter months in the UK. It affects 10-15% of the UK population, causing around 12,000 deaths every year." [1]
On the other hand according to another official publication 'Summary of flu immunisation policy' (3 October 2004):
"Even during a winter where the incidence of flu is low, 3-4000 deaths may be attributed to 'flu; this can rise much higher in epidemic years, for example there were an estimated 13,000 deaths in 1993 which were attributable to 'flu and 29,000 in 1989/90." [2]
Thus according to first statement flu causes 12,000 deaths every year, while according to the second statement in low years the figure is 3 -4,000 but unlike the 12,000 this is not even a hard figure, only "may be".
We surely need real figures, and clear criteria. It is also surely essential to know what impact the vaccination campaign has on mortality. The BBC reported that take up in the target vulnerable population last year reached of 71.5% [3]. Did this have any impact on the alleged annual death-toll of 12,000? Can it be shown that flu mortality was substantially less in the vaccinated amongst the target population, as opposed to the unvaccinated, and what was the effect on general mortality? (Straight comparison will presumably be complicated by the probablility that flu vaccinated patients are also more likely to have had a pneumococcal jab).
I wonder whether UK health officials might follow their German counterparts in trying to elucidate some of these presently foggy issues? It has been a frequent allegation against the vaccine concern lobby that we are trying to scare people, but it would obviously be helpful too if health officials treated citzens like adults and gave them real, accountable information.
In relation to the UK population the 12,000 figure is actually approximately 50% higher than US figure which met with Peter Doshi's scepticism [4]. It is excellent that BMJ should publish such an article but it plainly also has responsibilities closer to home.
[1] http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPAmpGBrowsableDocument/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4106931&MULTIPAGE_ID=5093031&chk=2UuNhx
[2] http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/Flu/FluGeneralInformation/FluGeneral/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4001688&chk=BbJebs
[3]'Q & A: Flu Jabs', 23 November 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4459140.stm
[4] Peter Doshi, 'Are US flu death figures more PR than science?' BMJ, 10 December 2005, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7529/1412
|
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Angladrion |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 09:48:43
quote:
[i]Originally posted by halacey[/i]
[br][u] we[/u] have only really been looking at flu vaccination for the last 10 years
Oh garbage. And if you are one of the "we" you should know that's a load of bunk. "You" have been looking at the influenza vaccine since 1951, and the fact is that data since then shows that the vaccine is pathetic.
quote:
do you really think our DH and the ever changing face of the NHS could get themselves together in that time.
Why not?
quote:
Influenza is a proven killer and add comorbidities into the mix and you have a guaranteed death toll.
Actually, the biggest annual proven killer in UK, which kills far more than influenza ever will, is the medical profession: Preventable medical Error, and nosocomial infections. Go see a doctor, and you too could be part of a guaranteed death toll.
My father spent 20 years in a retirement facility and it amused me that the biggest rash of deaths was always in the two weeks following the flu shot, which were done in the centre on the same day.. (You'd think they'd know not to do that, but hey...). BUT.. you know, don't you, that old people just die. Deaths couldn't possibly be the flu vaccine, which we all know can do no harm. right? Well, within that retirement facility, there was a core group of people who used their eyes and voted with their feet - no vaccine. After about 15 years, it became pretty obvious that they were outliving the others by a considerable margin, with, percentage wise, far fewer deaths. And the deaths were never in the clusters like those seen in the vaccine recipients...
BUT... of course, this is anecdotal waffle, and ... like those hospitals you talk about who can't get their linen together... neither do retirement facilies much care to research this. After all, their money is primarily made when a person dies, and the house is refurbished and put on the market... so why would you even dare report such an association? Let alone write a medical study on it... 
quote:
There are a lot of myths and misconceptions out there about influenza's potency and virulence. When our fractured PCT, SHA and foundation hospitals all pull in the same direction and ALL return their annual statistics for the DH to analyse we may know more about the protection potential of the influenza vaccination.
What an amazing raft of excuses... "The only reason the studies are no good, is because we having yet provided the cooked data to prove everyone else wrong" Sure you haven't... and sure, you probably will, after all your survival depends on it.
quote:
However, can one year be compared to the next? No I think not because the flu virus is mutating by antigenic drift and shift and each year reveals another form of the virus and another strain of flu vaccinations. Perhaps you should consider that fact in your rant.
Oh, we do. I suspect that we, along with the Cochrane Reviews on the influenza vaccine, know more than you do.
You are correct too.. because the decision has to be made out of guess work, and furthermore, each vaccine can never be tested to be sure it works. THAT it will work, is simply taken on faith. And that's in an FDA transcript discussing the partial mismatch of vaccine and viruses.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams |
| Cybertiger |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 18:22:43
quote:
Originally posted by halacey
However, can one year be compared to the next? No I think not because the flu virus is mutating by antigenic drift and shift and each year reveals another form of the virus and another strain of flu vaccinations. Perhaps you should consider that fact in your rant.
Don't be modest Ms. Lacey, don't hide your lights under a bushel - tell us the facts about antigenic shifts and drifts and the value of those annual flu shots to anyone but the vaccine makers. Of course, rant if you will - in fact I'm sure you've a wont that way. |
| halacey |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 16:42:17
An interesting view on influenza associated deaths. Yes there are several companies who currently produce influenza vaccines, so you could argue that there is a PR driven potential for saying influenza is dangerous. Are you saying that the DH and the CDC are in bed with these companies as I can see no other reason for scaremongering unless the people doing the PR are receiving some benefit?
Yes statistics in the UK for recording influenza associated deaths are poor but since we have only really been looking at flu vaccination for the last 10 years do you really think our DH and the ever changing face of the NHS could get themselves together in that time. Influenza is a proven killer and add comorbidities into the mix and you have a guaranteed death toll. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions out there about influenza's potency and virulence. When our fractured PCT, SHA and foundation hospitals all pull in the same direction and ALL return their annual statistics for the DH to analyse we may know more about the protection potential of the influenza vaccination. However, can one year be compared to the next? No I think not because the flu virus is mutating by antigenic drift and shift and each year reveals another form of the virus and another strain of flu vaccinations. Perhaps you should consider that fact in your rant. |
|
|
