Study shows flu shots largely useless for seniors. Why was science so wrong on this?

[astro]

Re the article below why was it believed for so long that flu shots were an absolute necessity to prevent large numbers of senior deaths. Why was medicine so wrong on this for so long?

Why was the paradigm so screwed up?

[Flu shots don’t save seniors’ lives, study finds - Researchers say schoolchildren should be first in line for vaccine](http://www -msnbc.msn.com/id/6969077)

Led by National Institutes of Health researchers, the study challenges standard government dogma and is bound to confuse senior citizens. During last fall’s flu vaccine shortage, thousands of older Americans, heeding the government’s public health message, stood in long lines to get their shots.

“There is a sense that we’re all going to die if we don’t get the flu shot,” said the study’s lead author, Lone Simonsen, a senior epidemiologist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. “Maybe that’s a little much.”

The study should influence the nation’s flu prevention strategy, Simonsen said, perhaps by expanding vaccination to schoolchildren, the biggest spreaders of the virus.

No plans for new guidelines
However, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta plans no change in its advice on who should get flu shots, saying the NIH research isn’t enough to shift gears.

“We think the best way to help the elderly is to vaccinate them,” said CDC epidemiologist William Thompson. “These results don’t contribute to changing vaccine policy.”

.

[KarlGauss]

On the basis of one retrospective study you wonder “Why was science so wrong on this”?

Here is one reason, actually taken from the linked article “it doesn’t directly compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated elderly”. In other words, we don’t know at all that is doesn’t save lives. However, and again taken directly from the article, “Previous studies that made that comparison found the vaccine decreased the rate of all winter deaths”. (emphasis added).

In other words, this study provides very little of direct interest to the question of the utility of flu shots.

[astro]

@KarlGauss

On the basis of one retrospective study you wonder “Why was science so wrong on this”?

Here is one reason, actually taken from the linked article “it doesn’t directly compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated elderly”. In other words, we don’t know at all that is doesn’t save lives. However, and again taken directly from the article, “Previous studies that made that comparison found the vaccine decreased the rate of all winter deaths”. (emphasis added).

In other words, this study provides very little of direct interest to the question of the utility of flu shots.

Vaccination rates increase by 300% over 20 years and there is little discenable statistical impact on death rates from flu. Isn’t this data of “direct interest” to the efficacy of the fu vaccine in seniors?
Flu shots don’t save seniors’ lives, study finds
Researchers say schoolchildren should be first in line for vaccine

Yearly flu shots have been recommended for people 65 and older since the 1960s and for those 50 and older since 2000. Vaccination rates have risen among seniors from 20 percent before 1980 to 65 percent in 2001, according to the NIH study.

Simonsen and her team of researchers could find no corresponding decrease in death rates. Their analysis took into account the fact that people are living longer and that more virulent strains of flu dominated the 1990s

[Reeder]

Is that no decrease in death rates at all?

Or no decrease in deaths from the flu?

[AskNott]

Your link didn’t work for me, but the parts you quoted seem to say that the Centers for Disease Control say the NIH study is not enough to make them change policy.

It’s tempting, I know, to throw out all previous research when you see a new study. Science rarely works that way, though. Is it duplicatable? Does it really invalidate previous research? The CDC doesn’t think so, yet.

[astro]

@AskNott

Your link didn’t work for me, but the parts you quoted seem to say that the Centers for Disease Control say the NIH study is not enough to make them change policy.

It’s tempting, I know, to throw out all previous research when you see a new study. Science rarely works that way, though. Is it duplicatable? Does it really invalidate previous research? The CDC doesn’t think so, yet.

Use this link

Flu shots don’t save seniors’ lives, study finds
Researchers say schoolchildren should be first in line for vaccine
[/QUOTE]

[clairobscur]

@astro

Vaccination rates increase by 300% over 20 years and there is little discenable statistical impact on death rates from flu. Isn’t this data of “direct interest” to the efficacy of the fu vaccine in seniors?
Flu shots don’t save seniors’ lives, study finds
Researchers say schoolchildren should be first in line for vaccine

Yearly flu shots have been recommended for people 65 and older since the 1960s and for those 50 and older since 2000. Vaccination rates have risen among seniors from 20 percent before 1980 to 65 percent in 2001, according to the NIH study.

Simonsen and her team of researchers could find no corresponding decrease in death rates. Their analysis took into account the fact that people are living longer and that more virulent strains of flu dominated the 1990s

Which seems to mean that, though the total number of death stayed roughly the same, if elderly people weren’t vaccinated, there still would be many more of them dying from the flu. IOW, the decrease in the number of deaths due to vaccinations was compensated by an increase due to people living longer and strains being more virulent.

[pinkfreud]

This reminds me of the reversal of opinion on the advisability of postmenopausal women taking hormone replacement therapy.

[Arwin]

@pinkfreud

This reminds me of the reversal of opinion on the advisability of postmenopausal women taking hormone replacement therapy.

That was more complicated though, if I remember a certain Time issue correctly.

Anyway, it just so happens that yesterday I read an article which showed that not only were flu vaccins effective in protecting 65-plussers, but they are also very effective in protecting the younger. Flu generally kills most when it combines with another complicating factor. What I think they don’t take into account in either article is if giving children flu shots affects the development of the immune system. But it seems that at least all people who are at risk, through any kind of disease to which flu can be a complicating factor, benefit from flu vaccins.

The main question to the article in the OP for me is whether the deaths from complications with flu are attributed to the flu, in the research, or to the main problem? I’m thinking the latter.

[clairobscur]

@Arwin

The main question to the article in the OP for me is whether the deaths from complications with flu are attributed to the flu, in the research, or to the main problem? I’m thinking the latter.

I was that the overwhelming majority, if not all, flu-related deaths were caused by complications. Was I mistaken?

[ouryL]

The report says that mortality rates weren’t affected by vacine usage, not that vacines were not effective.

[Arwin]

@ouryL

The report says that mortality rates weren’t affected by vacine usage, not that vacines were not effective.

You’ve got a point there - in so far as it negates the relevance of my response anyway. But, if the research hasn’t actually looked at specific flue related numbers, as a secondary factor or as a primary factor, then what’s the point, I would ask.

clairobscur, sorry that was confusingly formulated. As I’ve understood it, flu in itself is a disease that can have potentially lethal complications, but it can also coincide with another problem (infections, organ failure, or who knows what) that will then accellerate, become more dangerous for instance because of coinciding with flu induced fever, because the body weakens in general, because the flu causes or accellerates dehydration, and so on - so that the flu in itself wouldn’t kill a healthy person, but an unhealthy one can die from complications. As I understood it, below 65 most people that die from flu die from something else that the coincidence of flu has made lethal (the article yesterday mentioned something like 5000 people each year, under 65, in the Netherlands, iirc). But I thought that above 65, the percentage of people that can die from flu by itself, because they are generally weaker and less fit but not generally suffering from a specific problem, goes up. I realise though that this latter could be a misconception on my part.