NIH study questions benefit of flu shots in elderly

a href = "http://www.NewsTarget.com/022283.html"Flu Shots Don't
Reduce Flu Deaths/a

Flu Shots Don't Reduce Flu Deaths
Saturday, November 24, 2007 by: Dr Emily A Kane

NewsTarget) A new study published in the October 2007 Lancet (http://
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0d a8f9b9d8bf)
by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda,
MD, concludes that influenza vaccinations in the US have prevented
fewer deaths than indicated by previous research (Arch Intern Med
2005; 165: 265-72).

Previous research that compared death rates in vaccinated and
unvaccinated groups of elderly people have shown that flu vaccination
reduces all winter deaths by 50%. "But it's really hard to find out
who died of influenza because it's not a reportable disease and few
people are tested", says lead NIH researcher Lone Simonsen. Some
research has tested the efficacy of flu vaccines on illness but has
not evaluated the effect of flu vaccines on influenza death rates in
elderly people.

Over the past 25 years, the proportion of those aged 65 years or more
who receive flu shots has climbed from 15% to 65% in the US. Previous
research that compared death rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated
groups of elderly people concluded that flu vaccination reduces all
winter deaths by 50%. Yet current estimates of winter death causes
suggest that flu-related mortality has actually risen since 1980.

Simonsen's team took into account an ageing population and the
exceptional virulence of a flu strain prevalent in the 1990s. When her
team analyzed the available data for causes of death in the elderly
during the past 25 years, she says that about 10% of winter deaths
could be
attributable to influenza, and more during the "pandemics" of the
1990s. The older study estimating 50% reduction of deaths in the
winter was evidently "overestimating the mortality benefit of
vaccination." This is because the "endpoint" in these studies (death)
wasn't limited to death from the flu. Many winter deaths in the
elderly are from pneumonia, and getting a flu shot would have no
bearing on preventing death from pneumonia.

More older folks were getting flu shots, yet more of them were dying
of the flu. It doesn't add up.

Publication of Simonsen's new study provoked strong reactions. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reiterated its faith
in existing studies, and questioned the methodology of the NIH study.
Concerned by the impact of official disagreements on public
confidence, the CDC
and NIH released a joint statement, saying that annual vaccinations
continue to provide the best protection for elderly people.

Despite that official statement, other researchers, such as Dr. Ira
Longini (Emory University, Atlanta, GA) maintains, "it is clear that
increasing vaccination of the elderly has not resulted in a decrease
in pneumonia and influenza mortality in that age group." He points to
a mix of robust
and frail immune systems in the population as an explanation for why
some folks succumb to the flu, and why vaccination status doesn't seem
to matter. "As we increase vaccine coverage, a proportion of the
elderly do not respond to vaccination and will get sick and die from
flu whether they are vaccinated or not."

Another way of saying this is: vaccinations may not impact death rates
in the elderly at all. Further, given that the flu shot is still
preserved with a mercury product (thimerosol), and that mercury
toxicity has been linked to more rapid progression of Alzheimer's in
the elderly, one hopes that a future study will explore whether the
elderly are actually better off without flu vaccines at all.

www.DrEmilyKane.com




About the author
Dr Emily Kane is a practising naturopathic physician and licensed
acupuncturist. For more info see www.DrEmilyKane.com

"bigvince" wrote in message
...
a href = "http://www.NewsTarget.com/022283.html"Flu Shots Don't
Reduce Flu Deaths/a

Flu Shots Don't Reduce Flu Deaths
Saturday, November 24, 2007 by: Dr Emily A Kane

NewsTarget) A new study published in the October 2007 Lancet (http://
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0d a8f9b9d8bf)
by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda,
MD, concludes that influenza vaccinations in the US have prevented
fewer deaths than indicated by previous research (Arch Intern Med
2005; 165: 265-72).

Previous research that compared death rates in vaccinated and
unvaccinated groups of elderly people have shown that flu vaccination
reduces all winter deaths by 50%. "But it's really hard to find out
who died of influenza because it's not a reportable disease and few
people are tested", says lead NIH researcher Lone Simonsen. Some
research has tested the efficacy of flu vaccines on illness but has
not evaluated the effect of flu vaccines on influenza death rates in
elderly people.

Over the past 25 years, the proportion of those aged 65 years or more
who receive flu shots has climbed from 15% to 65% in the US. Previous
research that compared death rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated
groups of elderly people concluded that flu vaccination reduces all
winter deaths by 50%. Yet current estimates of winter death causes
suggest that flu-related mortality has actually risen since 1980.

Simonsen's team took into account an ageing population and the
exceptional virulence of a flu strain prevalent in the 1990s. When her
team analyzed the available data for causes of death in the elderly
during the past 25 years, she says that about 10% of winter deaths
could be
attributable to influenza, and more during the "pandemics" of the
1990s. The older study estimating 50% reduction of deaths in the
winter was evidently "overestimating the mortality benefit of
vaccination." This is because the "endpoint" in these studies (death)
wasn't limited to death from the flu. Many winter deaths in the
elderly are from pneumonia, and getting a flu shot would have no
bearing on preventing death from pneumonia.

More older folks were getting flu shots, yet more of them were dying
of the flu. It doesn't add up.

Publication of Simonsen's new study provoked strong reactions. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reiterated its faith
in existing studies, and questioned the methodology of the NIH study.
Concerned by the impact of official disagreements on public
confidence, the CDC
and NIH released a joint statement, saying that annual vaccinations
continue to provide the best protection for elderly people.

Despite that official statement, other researchers, such as Dr. Ira
Longini (Emory University, Atlanta, GA) maintains, "it is clear that
increasing vaccination of the elderly has not resulted in a decrease
in pneumonia and influenza mortality in that age group." He points to
a mix of robust
and frail immune systems in the population as an explanation for why
some folks succumb to the flu, and why vaccination status doesn't seem
to matter. "As we increase vaccine coverage, a proportion of the
elderly do not respond to vaccination and will get sick and die from
flu whether they are vaccinated or not."

Another way of saying this is: vaccinations may not impact death rates
in the elderly at all. Further, given that the flu shot is still
preserved with a mercury product (thimerosol), and that mercury
toxicity has been linked to more rapid progression of Alzheimer's in
the elderly, one hopes that a future study will explore whether the
elderly are actually better off without flu vaccines at all.

www.DrEmilyKane.com

Would not surprise me. Influenza vaccine is one of the less reliable
vaccines, because of the ability of the virus to mutate. I have the
vaccine, not so much through fear that I might die, but in the hope that
it will spare me that miserable illness in some epidemics.

PM




About the author
Dr Emily Kane is a practising naturopathic physician and licensed
acupuncturist. For more info see www.DrEmilyKane.com

Flu vaccine is one of the most cruel hoaxes there are. Most health
professionals do not take it, and this should already be enough to know what
we're dealing with here... Most health professionals are not very bright, of
course, but _even they_ can see through the hoax!

The Pharma activists in these ngs OTOH seem to be all happy to be injected
with fluvax, which, again, should tell you all you need to know about
them...

Regards,

Yuri.

"bigvince" wrote in message
...
a href = "http://www.NewsTarget.com/022283.html"Flu Shots Don't
Reduce Flu Deaths/a

Flu Shots Don't Reduce Flu Deaths
Saturday, November 24, 2007 by: Dr Emily A Kane

NewsTarget) A new study published in the October 2007 Lancet (http://
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0d a8f9b9d8bf)
by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda,
MD, concludes that influenza vaccinations in the US have prevented
fewer deaths than indicated by previous research (Arch Intern Med
2005; 165: 265-72).

Previous research that compared death rates in vaccinated and
unvaccinated groups of elderly people have shown that flu vaccination
reduces all winter deaths by 50%. "But it's really hard to find out
who died of influenza because it's not a reportable disease and few
people are tested", says lead NIH researcher Lone Simonsen. Some
research has tested the efficacy of flu vaccines on illness but has
not evaluated the effect of flu vaccines on influenza death rates in
elderly people.

Over the past 25 years, the proportion of those aged 65 years or more
who receive flu shots has climbed from 15% to 65% in the US. Previous
research that compared death rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated
groups of elderly people concluded that flu vaccination reduces all
winter deaths by 50%. Yet current estimates of winter death causes
suggest that flu-related mortality has actually risen since 1980.

Simonsen's team took into account an ageing population and the
exceptional virulence of a flu strain prevalent in the 1990s. When her
team analyzed the available data for causes of death in the elderly
during the past 25 years, she says that about 10% of winter deaths
could be
attributable to influenza, and more during the "pandemics" of the
1990s. The older study estimating 50% reduction of deaths in the
winter was evidently "overestimating the mortality benefit of
vaccination." This is because the "endpoint" in these studies (death)
wasn't limited to death from the flu. Many winter deaths in the
elderly are from pneumonia, and getting a flu shot would have no
bearing on preventing death from pneumonia.

More older folks were getting flu shots, yet more of them were dying
of the flu. It doesn't add up.

Publication of Simonsen's new study provoked strong reactions. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reiterated its faith
in existing studies, and questioned the methodology of the NIH study.
Concerned by the impact of official disagreements on public
confidence, the CDC
and NIH released a joint statement, saying that annual vaccinations
continue to provide the best protection for elderly people.

Despite that official statement, other researchers, such as Dr. Ira
Longini (Emory University, Atlanta, GA) maintains, "it is clear that
increasing vaccination of the elderly has not resulted in a decrease
in pneumonia and influenza mortality in that age group." He points to
a mix of robust
and frail immune systems in the population as an explanation for why
some folks succumb to the flu, and why vaccination status doesn't seem
to matter. "As we increase vaccine coverage, a proportion of the
elderly do not respond to vaccination and will get sick and die from
flu whether they are vaccinated or not."

Another way of saying this is: vaccinations may not impact death rates
in the elderly at all. Further, given that the flu shot is still
preserved with a mercury product (thimerosol), and that mercury
toxicity has been linked to more rapid progression of Alzheimer's in
the elderly, one hopes that a future study will explore whether the
elderly are actually better off without flu vaccines at all.

www.DrEmilyKane.com




About the author
Dr Emily Kane is a practising naturopathic physician and licensed
acupuncturist. For more info see www.DrEmilyKane.com

On Nov 27, 6:36 pm, "Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote:
Flu vaccine is one of the most cruel hoaxes there are. Most health
professionals do not take it, and this should already be enough to know what
we're dealing with here... Most health professionals are not very bright, of
course, but _even they_ can see through the hoax!

The Pharma activists in these ngs OTOH seem to be all happy to be injected
with fluvax, which, again, should tell you all you need to know about
them...

Regards,

Yuri.

One does need to learn that the elderly are so devitalized that they
cannot mount a reasonable body defense like a fever. Shooting them up
with a vaccine can, and often does, kill them.

A flu is a normal body response by a vital body to eliminating
accumulated toxins. The actions of the body is to shut down all other
sources of energy drains like movement, eating, working, etc. The
energy then provided is used to eliminate the internal crud.

We may not like it, but if we allow the body to conduct the internal
cleansing, we will get out of our sick beds to do it to ourselves
again...and again...and again.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly
Not a member of the church of modern medicine.

I'll suggest that if those elderly had been on
a regimen including vitamin D3 and melatonin
the flu vaccine induce immunity would have
been more effective.

Recall flu shots are more effective in younger
persons. In the elderly, the vaccine tends
to only make the flu less worse as their
immune systems are often weaken with age
and poor conventional advice.

On Nov 28, 6:12 am, wrote:
I'll suggest that if those elderly had been on
a regimen including vitamin D3 and melatonin
the flu vaccine induce immunity would have
been more effective.

Recall flu shots are more effective in younger
persons. In the elderly, the vaccine tends
to only make the flu less worse as their
immune systems are often weaken with age
and poor conventional advice.

Vitamin d may well be protective against the flu with or without flu
shots. Flu shots are not very effective for a variety of reasons.They
do cause serious side effects in my opinion the risk benefit ratio is
very poor. Of course I do not sell the stuff.

Thanks Vince

On Nov 28, 12:36 am, "Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote:
Flu vaccine is one of the most cruel hoaxes there are. Most health
professionals do not take it, and this should already be enough to know what
we're dealing with here... Most health professionals are not very bright, of
course, but _even they_ can see through the hoax!

I don't know where you live, but at our hospital there is almost no
healthcare professional who does not take the shot, and there work
almost 5'000 employees here.

On Nov 28, 4:03 am, wrote:

A flu is a normal body response by a vital body to eliminating
accumulated toxins. The actions of the body is to shut down all other
sources of energy drains like movement, eating, working, etc. The
energy then provided is used to eliminate the internal crud.

I wonder what that "crud" would be. Like what?

A report by the CDC on the effectiveness of the 2003-2004 influenza
vaccine showed only a 14% and 3% effectiveness. Still worse, the
person-time analysis showed that vaccinated persons had a 12.28%
chance of becoming ill (ILI), whereas non-vaccinated persons had a
11.5% (or 10.6% analysis #2) chance of becoming ill, indicating you
were more likely to become ill if you were vaccinated against
influenza.

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
A report by the CDC on the effectiveness of the 2003-2004 influenza
vaccine showed only a 14% and 3% effectiveness. Still worse, the
person-time analysis showed that vaccinated persons had a 12.28%
chance of becoming ill (ILI), whereas non-vaccinated persons had a
11.5% (or 10.6% analysis #2) chance of becoming ill, indicating you
were more likely to become ill if you were vaccinated against
influenza.

The likelihood of becoming ill isn't the only
consideration; the severity of the illness must be
included. If I have an 11.5% chance of becoming
seriously ill with flu, versus a 12.28% chance of
becoming ill with a much less severe case that is of
much shorter duration, I think I'll go with the latter.