Lokiare wrote:
You know, I just read the article and the only thing it mentions about not working is that it showed no difference on the elderly (65+).
Which makes sense, since if you've lived that long you have enough different antibodies that the odds are pretty decent that you have built up a natural resistance (see also the YOU ARE ALREADY IMMUNE heading of that same article).
You know, I read again and it gets even more hilarious if you take those 2 paragraphs and switch them around. Watch:
Quote:
Vaccine-acquired immunity is temporary, whereas the immunity you get by recovering from influenza is longer lasting. Look at Baby Boomers, for example. Evidence shows, if you are an aging baby boomer born prior to 1957, you are more protected and have a lower risk for pandemic H1N1 influenza that circulated in 2009 and other related influenza strains.
So if you're 63+ (at the time the article was written) you have better protection.
Quote:
After the largest flu-vaccination campaign in Canadian history, a Canadian-led study (through the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who analyze the scientific evidence, including the methodology, used in clinical trials) concluded that vaccinating nursing home workers had no effect on confirmed influenza cases among the homes' elderly residents.
Holy crap, really?
I see nothing in there regarding younger patients. And seeing how it's mostly an article talking about why it should NOT be done, and they don't take along the pretty vital group of 20-60, perhaps it works for that aging group?
That said, I do not believe that all shots have effect. And yeah, the fact that a lot of governments were focusing on the elderly was really weird. But a lot of normal, well-planned shots are just fine.
I said it before to you and I'll say it again. 68% of statistics is made up.