What is meant here is that flu shots cannot give patients cancer, autism, Alzheimer’s, etc. There are actually misguided groups which identify themselves with the “anti-vaccine movement”, all of which make lots of false claims regarding the safety of vaccines in general.
Oh, I see, okay. Why not actually say what you mean, then? To claim “no serious adverse responses” after you listed the possibility of one, and indeed when the sheet you link to above explicitely includes advice on “What if there is a serious reaction”, makes me wonder how much I should trust the literal meaning of other statements in the article.
In the US, at least, doctor’s offices often have sheets like this which are given to patients who come in to receive a flu shot.
Huh? That sheet seems to basically tell patients “if you’re deathly allergic to flu shots, let the doctor know”. So “A healthcare professional will be able to tell you whether or not it is safe for you” (such a reassuring, comprehensive statement!) actually means “a healthcare professional may advise you not to take the flu shot if you already know and tell them that you shouldn’t”?
Added 3/25/15: I happened to reread this comment several months after writing this post, and gosh, I have to say that I wish I had worded this comment more kindly. I’ll leave the text of the original comment below. While I still stand by all of the factual claims I’ve made in this thread, I apologize if the tone of this comment hurt anypony’s feelings.
To claim “no serious adverse responses” after you listed the possibility of one
Arguments that getting flu shots can cause certain serious adverse responses like autism, Alzheimer’s, etc. tend to be comparable in quality to arguments that that the earth is 5,000 years old. Such arguments do not specifically deserve a reply.
In the same way that e.g. Dawkins has declined to debate creationists, a sensible person might refuse to debate about whether or not flu shots make people autistic. Since the hypothesis that “flu shots give people autism” is so ridiculously improbable, I didn’t even want to bring it up directly in the article. The bit about “None of the meta-reviews examined in this report found any evidence that receiving an influenza vaccine can cause serious adverse responses in patients” was supposed to be a general refutation/dismissal of the “flu shots give people autism” brand of argument.
The best source I can give you on how flu shots don’t cause people to have serious adverse responses would be the Demicheli paper cited in the references section. The Coleman paper also discusses this topic.
As noted in the paper, people with GBS, allergies to gluten, allergies to eggs, etc. can have serious adverse responses to flu shots, but I would expect people to know whether or not they had these sorts of problems before they went in to get a flu shot.
That’s fine and mostly reasonable, and you don’t need to convince me that flu shots don’t cause autism or cancer. What I’m saying is that I wasn’t able to glean what exactly you meant from the article as you worded it.
You could have addressed those autism/Alzheimer claims clearly, or refused to address them, but you somehow tried to do both. Maybe that wasn’t a good idea.
As noted in the paper, people with GBS, allergies to gluten, allergies to eggs, etc. can have serious adverse responses to flu shots, but I would expect people to know whether or not they had these sorts of problems before they went in to get a flu shot.
Maybe, but in a cost analysis I’d expect to see not what seems reasonable to you, but what the numbers say about what happens in reality. How many people actually get severe allergic reactions after a flu shot? Have there been deaths, and if so, what is the risk?
Well, apparently it’s less than 1 in a million for that first one, and nothing definite about the second if we exclude paranoia sites, so I guess that’s that.
The best source I can give you on how flu shots don’t cause people to have serious adverse responses would be the Demicheli paper cited in the references section.
It’s behind the paywall, you don’t happen to have a copy handy?
Also, it’s interesting to look at the Demicheli abstract. It says:
Twenty five reports of studies involving 59,566 people were included. The recommended live aerosol vaccines reduced the number of cases of serologically confirmed influenza by 48% (95% confidence interval (CI) 24% to 64%), whilst recommended inactivated parenteral vaccines had a vaccine efficacy of 70% (95% CI 56% to 80%). The yearly recommended vaccines had low effectiveness against clinical influenza cases: 15%(95% CI 8% to 21%) and 25% (95% CI 13% to 35%) respectively. Overall the percentage of participants experiencing clinical influenza decreased by 6%. Use of the vaccine significantly reduced time off work but only by 0.16 days for each influenza episode (95% CI 0.04 to 0.29 days); Analysis of vaccines matching the circulating strain gave higher estimates of efficacy, whilst inclusion of all other vaccines reduced the efficacy.
An interesting question is what are the “yearly” vaccines which have such low effectiveness?
Arguments that getting flu shots can cause certain serious adverse responses like autism, Alzheimer’s, etc. tend to be comparable in quality to arguments that that the earth is 5,000 years old.
While flu shots very likely cause no serious adverse responses it’s a quite different case then the earth being 5,000 (or 6,000) years old.
As noted in the paper, people with GBS, allergies to gluten, allergies to eggs, etc. can have serious adverse responses to flu shots, but I would expect people to know whether or not they had these sorts of problems before they went in to get a flu shot.
There no good reason to assume that everybody has an allergy to gluten knows about it.
If there are known conditions under which flu shots can have serious adverse reaction we can’t be as confident that we don’t miss an additional case as we are confident that the earth is older than 6000 years.
Claiming that’s the same order of confidence seems to me quite a stretch.
Oh, I see, okay. Why not actually say what you mean, then? To claim “no serious adverse responses” after you listed the possibility of one, and indeed when the sheet you link to above explicitely includes advice on “What if there is a serious reaction”, makes me wonder how much I should trust the literal meaning of other statements in the article.
Huh? That sheet seems to basically tell patients “if you’re deathly allergic to flu shots, let the doctor know”. So “A healthcare professional will be able to tell you whether or not it is safe for you” (such a reassuring, comprehensive statement!) actually means “a healthcare professional may advise you not to take the flu shot if you already know and tell them that you shouldn’t”?
Added 3/25/15: I happened to reread this comment several months after writing this post, and gosh, I have to say that I wish I had worded this comment more kindly. I’ll leave the text of the original comment below. While I still stand by all of the factual claims I’ve made in this thread, I apologize if the tone of this comment hurt anypony’s feelings.
Arguments that getting flu shots can cause certain serious adverse responses like autism, Alzheimer’s, etc. tend to be comparable in quality to arguments that that the earth is 5,000 years old. Such arguments do not specifically deserve a reply.
In the same way that e.g. Dawkins has declined to debate creationists, a sensible person might refuse to debate about whether or not flu shots make people autistic. Since the hypothesis that “flu shots give people autism” is so ridiculously improbable, I didn’t even want to bring it up directly in the article. The bit about “None of the meta-reviews examined in this report found any evidence that receiving an influenza vaccine can cause serious adverse responses in patients” was supposed to be a general refutation/dismissal of the “flu shots give people autism” brand of argument.
The best source I can give you on how flu shots don’t cause people to have serious adverse responses would be the Demicheli paper cited in the references section. The Coleman paper also discusses this topic.
As noted in the paper, people with GBS, allergies to gluten, allergies to eggs, etc. can have serious adverse responses to flu shots, but I would expect people to know whether or not they had these sorts of problems before they went in to get a flu shot.
That’s fine and mostly reasonable, and you don’t need to convince me that flu shots don’t cause autism or cancer. What I’m saying is that I wasn’t able to glean what exactly you meant from the article as you worded it.
You could have addressed those autism/Alzheimer claims clearly, or refused to address them, but you somehow tried to do both. Maybe that wasn’t a good idea.
Maybe, but in a cost analysis I’d expect to see not what seems reasonable to you, but what the numbers say about what happens in reality. How many people actually get severe allergic reactions after a flu shot? Have there been deaths, and if so, what is the risk?
Well, apparently it’s less than 1 in a million for that first one, and nothing definite about the second if we exclude paranoia sites, so I guess that’s that.
It’s behind the paywall, you don’t happen to have a copy handy?
Also, it’s interesting to look at the Demicheli abstract. It says:
An interesting question is what are the “yearly” vaccines which have such low effectiveness?
This might be the paper you’re looking for, although OP cites a 2014 version with an additional author; perhaps an update?
(ETA: Here’s the 2014 version. And here’s what appears to be the Coleman paper, just for giggles.)
Aha, thanks. As usual, the paper is more interesting and nuanced than its rendering designed to drive home a single point...
While flu shots very likely cause no serious adverse responses it’s a quite different case then the earth being 5,000 (or 6,000) years old.
There no good reason to assume that everybody has an allergy to gluten knows about it. If there are known conditions under which flu shots can have serious adverse reaction we can’t be as confident that we don’t miss an additional case as we are confident that the earth is older than 6000 years.
Claiming that’s the same order of confidence seems to me quite a stretch.