In the News - Flu Shots for Tots Ineffective

When I took Willow in fer her 12 month pediatrician appointment, in addition to the normal vaccinations, she got a flu shot since it was recommended by her doctor. She will be getting a follow-up this month at the 4-week mark. I was kind of surprised to see an article this morning on ABC News called Flu Shots for Tots Ineffective. According to a recent report published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, the conclusion based on the research is that the flu shot when given to children aged five years and younger did not result in less doctors visits or hospitalization. However, researchers have explained that this may be due to the flu shots given not matching the current flu strain.

What? If you're not using the current strain then why even bother giving it? Or, maybe I am being naive.

See, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) have actually been pushing to expand the recommended age range for the flu shot to include all children from 6 months of age to 18 years of age. And if I remember correctly, Willow got one when she was 6 months old. You can see the ACIP recommendation regarding the Influenza Vaccination here (beginning on page 8).

Now let me just say this. I was reading information supplied on Generation Rescue about vaccinations and took a look at how they got their percentages when it came to neurological disorders in children who were vaccinated vs. un-vaccinated. The proper statistical analysis was not performed on the data from what I could tell. You can't just take 1000 answers from random telephone questioning and get 250 parents telling you their children have a neurological disorder of some kind and claim that 25% of vaccinated children have a neurological disorder. Well, you CAN do that but it's not the type of statistic that is meaningful to parents concerned with vaccination and possible links to Autism and other neurological disorders.

The same holds that if you question 1000 people and discover that 10 of them have cancer and ate dark chocolate But with the non-dark chocolate eaters, only 4 people in 1000 had cancer. You can't make a blanket statement based on that information that people who eat dark chocolate have a 150% better chance of getting cancer. There are too many other factors to consider. Maybe that's not a good analogy, but it gets the point across.

Now, you have this website, which is full of good information don't get me wrong, claiming that:

All vaccinated boys, compared to un-vaccinated boys:

• Vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.55)


• Vaccinated boys were 224% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.24)


• Vaccinated boys were 61% more likely to have autism (RR 1.61)
  

These numbers, when you look at the raw data, come from the survey results and algebra. This is MISLEADING because it uses only descriptive statistics, which involve the mean or average of the data collected. (You can see their complete descriptive statistical analysis of the data collected here and a copy of the questionnaire used in the survey here.)

In order to model patterns in data by accounting for randomness and drawing inferences about the larger population, you have to apply Inferential Statistics. This is the type of statistic that will tell you about a population from a random sample drawn from it or, more generally, about a random process from its observed behavior during a finite period of time. This is the type of statistic that tells you the probability that something (like vaccination leading to autism or ADHD) will occur. Okay, lesson on statistics over.

Back to the matter at hand, the influenza vaccination. The CDC is not changing their recommendation based on the study results since the vaccination for this year appears to more closely match the current influenza strain, which it did not during the study period. According to the study, only 11 percent of influenza strains across the United States were similar to those in the vaccine during the 2003 to 2004 flu season. The number increased to 36 percent in the 2004 to 2005 season. According to the article, Influenza is one of the leading causes of death among children. According to the CDC, 72 children died from the flu last year.

Even possible protection from the vaccine outweighs the risk of getting the flu, said Dr. Devang Doshi, director of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Pulmonology at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Mich.

"Our prevention is as good as our vaccines are," said Doshi. "If we can optimize [the flu vaccine], I think we'll be in better shape than we were in previous years."

One of the more compelling reasons to get the flu shot is the correlation of getting the flu to MRSA. MRSA, which stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, is a form of staph infection that is resistant to the typical antibiotics. A recent study, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (abstract here), found MRSA contributed to 30 percent of flu deaths in the 2006-2007 flu season. The studies showed an increase over the past three years in the proportion of children who both died from influenza and were infected with MRSA. I will be putting together a post on MRSA soon. Willow was in the hospital for 4 days when she was 2 weeks old because she had contracted it.

Although flu shots do not guarantee protection from MRSA pneumonia or other respiratory infections, Finelli said protection from symptoms that attract MRSA is all the more reason to get a flu shot this season.

"You can't prevent the bacteria, but if you prevent the flu, you prevent the co-infection," said Finelli. "These infections together are more fatal than one alone."

Now we all know (that is we all SHOULD know) that just because you get the flu shot doesn't mean that you will not get the flu. Just like any other vaccination including Hep B, Rotavirus, etc., just because you have been vaccinated doesn't mean you can't or won't get the disease or virus. Vaccination is a precaution.

A few years ago, Diane McGowan, featured in the CDC's video, was one mother who did not see the need for her and her family to get annual vaccinations.

"I was a parent that had the misconception that we didn't need the flu shot unless we had a chronic illness," said McGowan. That was her feeling until 2005, when her 15-year-old son, Martin, died from influenza.

Misinformation about the vaccine keeps some people from getting the flu shot. One myth, , is that a person can get the flu from getting the flu vaccine.

Because the flu shot is administered during the cold season, you may get the shot when you have already developed cold symptoms.

The CDC also recommends avoiding close contact with others, even if they do not have influenza, as well as taking antiviral medications. McGowan said, along with an annual flu shot -- which she and her family now receives -- community awareness is also an important method of prevention.

McGowan has created the nonprofit organization M.A.R.T.I.N. (May All Receive Their Immunizations Now) Flu Foundation, which she hopes will educate others about the severity of the flu and the importance of vaccinations.

"Every time I see the number of deaths from the flu, it kills me," McGowan said. "Because I know it's preventable."

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that you should take the time to educate yourself and not rely on one source for information when making important decisions (like a vaccination schedule) for your children's (and your own) health. Listen to what your doctor says and try to read about both sides of an issue before making the final decision. I try to include both sides of issues when I talk about something in here because I find it empowering to know something about the opinion or view that is opposite my own.



If you are interested in seeing the time line involved with manufacturing the Influenza Vaccination, take a gander at the following picture (click to enlarge) from Influenza.com.