Hurmanetar
New
As discussed in this thread...
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...never-made-headlines-and-what-that-mean.2688/
We've been battling some stupidity in high places regarding the flu vaccine.
This led me today to look at some of the CDC's published information on the flu vaccine and I came across this CDC presentation regarding the effectiveness of last year's (2014-2015) flu vaccine. It was a bad year for the flu vaccine since the CDC only claimed 23% vaccine effectiveness, but after looking at the numbers I think that even this paltry result is an outright fraudulent claim.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2015-06/flu-02-flannery.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1415estimates.htm#age-group-adults
Some interesting things I noted:
Am I missing something or are the CDC's own numbers indicating negative effectiveness since vaccination rates are higher than the national averages in these groups of people with flu-like and flu-confirmed disease? I can maybe imagine that the kind of people who are likely to visit the doctor due to sickness are the kind of people who are more likely to get the vaccine, but I don't know that for sure.
Does anyone with more knowledge of scientific studies and statistics see other blatant flaws in this methodology?
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...never-made-headlines-and-what-that-mean.2688/
We've been battling some stupidity in high places regarding the flu vaccine.
This led me today to look at some of the CDC's published information on the flu vaccine and I came across this CDC presentation regarding the effectiveness of last year's (2014-2015) flu vaccine. It was a bad year for the flu vaccine since the CDC only claimed 23% vaccine effectiveness, but after looking at the numbers I think that even this paltry result is an outright fraudulent claim.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2015-06/flu-02-flannery.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1415estimates.htm#age-group-adults
Some interesting things I noted:
- The vaccination rate of the enrollees with flu-like symptoms (ILI) was 53% which was higher than the national average vaccination rate of 47.1%.
- The vaccination rate of the group with confirmed flu was 49% which was higher than the national average of 47.1%.
- The vaccination rate of the enrollees with ILI of 18+ years was 59% which is higher than the national average for this age group of 43.6%.
- The vaccination rate of the group with confirmed flu and 18+ age was 57% which is higher than the national average for this age group of 43.6%.
- The vaccination rate of the enrollees with ILI and 18-49 age was 44% which is higher than the national average for this age group of 33.5%.
- The vaccination rate of the group with confirmed flu and 18-49 age was 43% which is higher than the national average for this age group of 33.5%
- Since vaccination rates among the enrollees are higher than the national averages, the CDC's own data suggests that the vaccine has negative effectiveness.
- Over 80% of the flu viruses tested were antigenically different than the vaccine.
- 378 enrollees seem to have disappeared without explanation.
- This is not a peer-reviewed published study.
- A note is repeatedly displayed: "Adjustment for study site, age, sex, race/Hispanic ethnicity, self-rated general health, days from illness onset to enrollment, and calendar time (2-week intervals)," but no explanation is ever given for how or on what basis these mysterious adjustments were made.
- It is not clear how "adjusted OR" is calculated in their effectiveness formula: VE = (1 – adjusted OR) x 100%
- Therefore it is not clear how the 6% higher average rate of vaccination in those with flu-like disease vs. the confirmed flu is transmogrified into the claimed 23% effectiveness.
Am I missing something or are the CDC's own numbers indicating negative effectiveness since vaccination rates are higher than the national averages in these groups of people with flu-like and flu-confirmed disease? I can maybe imagine that the kind of people who are likely to visit the doctor due to sickness are the kind of people who are more likely to get the vaccine, but I don't know that for sure.
Does anyone with more knowledge of scientific studies and statistics see other blatant flaws in this methodology?
Last edited: