Tom Jefferson has taken a lot of heat just for saying, ‘Here’s the evidence: it’s not very good,’” says Majumdar. “The reaction has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you’d think he was advocating stealing babies.” Yet while other flu researchers may not like what Jefferson has to say, they cannot ignore the fact that he knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet. He leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. “Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it’s the term that applies.” Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.
Flu researchers have been fooled into thinking vaccine is more effective than the data suggest, in part, says Jefferson, by the imprecision of the statistics. The only way to know if someone has the flu—as opposed to influenza-like illness—is by putting a Q-tip into the patient’s throat or nose and running a test, which simply isn’t done that often. Likewise, nobody really has a handle on how many of the deaths that are blamed on flu were actually caused by a flu virus, because few are confirmed by a laboratory. “I used to be a family physician,” says Jefferson. “I’ve never seen a patient come to my office with H1N1 written on his forehead. When an old person dies of respiratory failure after an influenza-like illness, they nearly always get coded as influenza.”
There’s one other way flu researchers may be fooled into thinking flu vaccine is effective, Jefferson says. All vaccines work by delivering a dose of killed or weakened virus or bacteria, which provokes the immune system into producing antibodies. When the person is subsequently exposed to the real thing, the body is already prepared to repel the bug completely or to get rid of it after a mild illness. Flu researchers often use antibody response as a way of gauging the effectiveness of vaccine, on the assumption that levels of antibodies in the blood of people who have been vaccinated are a good predictor—although an imperfect one—of how well they can ward off the infection.
Tom Jefferson, 55, has worked for the Cochrane Collaboration for 15 years. Along with an international team of scientists, he evaluates all published flu- related studies. Before assuming his current position, he was a general practitioner in the British Army. He lives near Rome
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119,00.html
Flu researchers have been fooled into thinking vaccine is more effective than the data suggest, in part, says Jefferson, by the imprecision of the statistics. The only way to know if someone has the flu—as opposed to influenza-like illness—is by putting a Q-tip into the patient’s throat or nose and running a test, which simply isn’t done that often. Likewise, nobody really has a handle on how many of the deaths that are blamed on flu were actually caused by a flu virus, because few are confirmed by a laboratory. “I used to be a family physician,” says Jefferson. “I’ve never seen a patient come to my office with H1N1 written on his forehead. When an old person dies of respiratory failure after an influenza-like illness, they nearly always get coded as influenza.”
There’s one other way flu researchers may be fooled into thinking flu vaccine is effective, Jefferson says. All vaccines work by delivering a dose of killed or weakened virus or bacteria, which provokes the immune system into producing antibodies. When the person is subsequently exposed to the real thing, the body is already prepared to repel the bug completely or to get rid of it after a mild illness. Flu researchers often use antibody response as a way of gauging the effectiveness of vaccine, on the assumption that levels of antibodies in the blood of people who have been vaccinated are a good predictor—although an imperfect one—of how well they can ward off the infection.
Tom Jefferson, 55, has worked for the Cochrane Collaboration for 15 years. Along with an international team of scientists, he evaluates all published flu- related studies. Before assuming his current position, he was a general practitioner in the British Army. He lives near Rome
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119,00.html
Vastaukset 2
Vanhimmat
Kiitos. Tiedemies joka työnsä puolesta arvioi kaikki influenssatutkimukset seisoo paljon päällä ja vielä kun mies sanoo niitä yritysten tekemiä tutkimuksia olemattomiksi, roskaksi joilla ei ole mitään tieteellistä totuusarvoa niin olipa kova PAUKKU ja meille kansalaisille tärkeä tieto että emme luottaisi rokotefirmojen tuotteisiin ainakaan influenssan kaltaisissa tapauksissa kuten sikainfluenssa on. Uskomatonta!
Siinä suomeksi spiegelin haastattelu.
http://www.kastemato.com/tekstit/
Tom Jefferson, 55, has worked for the Cochrane Collaboration for 15 years. Along with an international team of scientists, he evaluates all published flu- related studies. Before assuming his current position, he was a general practitioner in the British Army. He lives near Rome