Talk:Influenza vaccine

Fluzone - Merge discussion

I cannot see why Fluzone would require a separate article from the regular flu vaccines, as it seems to be mostly the same as the previous vaccines.W n C? 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fluzone is a product. It would get undue and unfair advertising if it were the only vaccine discussed in the general flu vaccine article. All or no products should be mentioned. Perhaps each product should have it's own page and be referenced here. Ocdncntx (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. There is no need for Fluzone to have a separate page. --Synaptophysin (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• No merge, enough information for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

More info on controversies to clarify the issue.

It would be nice if this article did not read like a mindless propaganda for getting the flu-vaccine, with no clear section delineating controversies. Anything negative is so buried in the article, such that the article seems only to sing the praises of the vaccines. Even if the controversies can't be "scientifically proven", neither can the flu shots be scientifically proven effective. They may possibly benefit some people in some circumstances, and possibly harm people in others. That is not a scientifically generated body of evidence proving that they are effective, and therefore can not be used as justification for stifling and hindering the other side of the story. It would be of benefit as a reader seeking information, to see a section (or perhaps a link to a new page), which can delineate the various forms of controversy that have popped up, and one by one list a general consensus of the status of any controversies, citing sources as they are found or become available, and indicating the possible merit or lack thereof of such sources. It makes me quite irritated that some see fit here to take all the power and control of the content and decide unilaterally when to delete things and give flimsy circular arguments as justification for doing so. I question the motives of such people, and wonder who they work for, and what bribes or kickbacks they are getting, so to vehemently squash opposing views. I myself have nothing to gain monetarily by people taking, or not taking vaccine shots. I have no anti-vaccine propaganda to spread, nor any alternative-quack remedies to sell. There are just so many unanswered questions and a glaring lack of information on this page, that I can only choose the safest action is to use the immune system I was born with, and be mindful of transmission vectors (damp weather, close quarters, populated areas, hand washing, coughing/sneezing, etc). To me, it seems that basic common sense is probably a hell of a lot more effective than anything when it comes to the avoid the cold or flu virus. Unfortunately, common sense can not be so easily quantified or reproduced in laboratory conditions, and therefore can not be counted as scientific evidence, ever. A generalized failure of people with the neurotic over-dependence on and gross misunderstanding of the scientific method is not justification to stop asking questions and seek facts. 108.49.84.173 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope avoiding transmission vectors works for you. Such "common sense" is also supported by studies showing diligent use of hand-hygiene and masks cuts influenza transmission in half. However, as this article is about vaccines, and rightly notes that there are also quite a few studies showing that vaccines in general are protective, and that influenza vaccines in particular help protect the recipient from influenza, and indirectly help protect those around the recipient since what a vaccine recipient doesn't catch they don't so much spread. Protection of others is especially important if you are around vulnerable persons whose immune system doesn't protect them well, e.g., newborns, HIV patients, the elderly, etc. Though there is a scientific consensus on the effectiveness of vaccines, it sounds like this article failed to convey that to you. How could it be more clearly stated or supported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point to these controversies? The fact that a minority of uninformed citizens is upset isn't really relevant, the information presented is pretty much the consensus of experts. Groups like CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and PHAC's National Advisory Committee on Immunization have weighed in on the importance of vaccination, and the science has shown that the vaccines induce protection, both in animal models and in clinical trial. If you have a credible source with some plausible controversy, I am sure it would be welcomed. If there are unanswered questions and glaring lacks of information, why not ask them (questions) and point them out (omisssions), and we'll try to patch it up? And you are incorrect in your second line - if controversies can't be supported with evidence they are not worth mentioning, and you CAN demonstrate effectiveness scientifically. Showing effectiveness is a requirement to being approved as a drug. --Synaptophysin (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

this is not the place for conspiracy theories. Remember , the definition of a conspiracy is that it has no evidence to backup the claim. 98.198.72.100 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If controversies are needed, see the following reviews: Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD001269. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4

Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Thorning S, Thomas RE. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004876. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004876.pub3

Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005187. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub3

None are particularly favorable to influenza vaccination, see my comment on the Cochrane review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.171.195.39 (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I came to this article with the intention of reading about the controversies and conspiracies, but to my surprise there is no Controversy section, and the existence of conspiracy theories isn't even acknowledged. I agree that this article should clearly address the controversies, not because I think the public should be aware of them, but because the article seems biased without them. Some quick Googling led me to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02allen.html though I'm sure you could do better. As for the conspiracy theories, this article could at least acknowledge that they are widespread and have a significant negative impact. I'm sure there are good sources for that; with luck they may even have survey results. Here's a start: https://www.google.com/#q=flu+vaccine+conspiracy&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 SheepEffect (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I too came to this article looking to read about the controversy. The fact that exploration of this topic here has effectively been suppressed does not increase my confidence in conventional medicine; it merely decreases my confidence in Wikipedia. Miconian (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Automatic archiving added

I've added an automatic archiver. Let me know if anyone disapproves. Gabbe (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs re-organization.

Discussion of effectiveness appears at several places, and should be consolidated. The article's various treatments seems at points to be self-contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it needs some work, particularly around the different types of influenza; the majority of the article is in fact on seasonal (tri- and qudrivalent vaccines) but also has information on H5N1 and H9N2, and a comment made in the past few days pointing out that there is no H17 vaccine. Perhaps a clear section for seasonal vaccines should be made, with the non-seasonal (pandemic H1N1, and the H5N1 and H9N2, for example) vaccines in a separate section (or perhaps in another article?), perhaps with a table of the types of influenza virus and whether there are vaccines approved or in development for them. --Synaptophysin (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to fix things a bit - my comments are in the edit summaries. I think a lot more rewriting is still necessary (and in the other sections as well), but I'm done for now. A few things:

• I'm not really sure that the discussion of efficacy and effectiveness is necessary for the reader to understand the section.
• The (after my edits) 2nd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs still have significant overlap in informational content. In fact, the 4th paragraph describes a source already discussed in the 2nd.
• The likely effectiveness of vaccines in a pandemic situation could have a lot more information.
• There's still no mention of the different types of flu vaccines (other than the passing reference to FluZone). Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Duration of effect

I've seen some sources say that the vaccine wears off and so it's best to get in late October or early November so as to maintain immunity during the peak. Other sources say that there is no scientific evidence that this is worthwhile, and that antibodies last 8-12 months. Everyone also seems to think that once you have immunity to a disease, you should have it for life unless it mutates. It would be helpful if the article sorted out these various claims. -- Beland (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation of rense.com amounts to advertising for rense.com, which is an unabashed commercial site that ignores safety of vaccines to attack by innuendo of risk.

A glance at http://rense.com suggests it is a blog or blog-like sales site, an unabashedly commercial, self-promotional site which seems at first glance to lean toward also being a conspiracy site.

To put it mildly, there is no reason to expect special expertise or any expertise on the part of someone who posts or re-posts on rense.com.

On the subject of vaccines, although studies show vaccines are safer than lack of vaccination, Rense omits this information and turns to innuendo to fan fears by listing vaccine ingredients to imply that there is a net risk to vaccines, contrary to studies.

http://rense.com/general59/vvac.htm

This listing of the ingredients of two injectable vaccines is currently set out in the vaccine manufacturing section.

Should rense.com , and its anti-science study-free attack be apparently endorsed by being cited as authority in Wikipedia, which tends on other issues to require not just peer-reviewed studies, but reviews of such studies?

Also, listing the ingredients of just two vaccines gives those two undeserved fame or infamy, compared to their competition in the marketplace.

--Ocdnctx (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't look like a reliable source. I've deleted the relevant bits accordingly. --GenericBob (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane review

I am worried about the tone of the article, although there are many benefits from the influenza vaccination, I cannot say there are no controversies, nor side effects. The Cochrane review, is widely accepted as a unbiased and careful, and it does not share the glowing review this article gives to influenza vaccination.

on vaccination for healthcare workers: We conclude that there is no evidence that only vaccinating healthcare workers prevents laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia, and death from pneumonia in elderly residents in long-term care facilities. Other interventions such as hand washing, masks, early detection of influenza with nasal swabs, anti-virals, quarantine, restricting visitors and asking healthcare workers with an influenza-like illness not to attend work might protect individuals over 60 in long-term care facilities and high quality randomised controlled trials testing combinations of these interventions are needed

on vaccination of health adults: "Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited."

Why not add such views in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.171.195.39 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews

Here are the eleven Cochrane reviews relating to influenza vaccines:

• Cates CJ, Jefferson TO, Rowe BH (2008). "Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD000364. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000364.pub3. PMID 18425863.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E (2010). "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (7): CD001269. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4. PMID 20614424.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Dharmaraj P, Smyth RL (2009). "Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with cystic fibrosis". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4): CD001753. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001753.pub2. PMID 19821281.
• Poole PJ, Chacko E, Wood-Baker RW, Cates CJ (2006). "Influenza vaccine for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD002733. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002733.pub2. PMID 16437444.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Thorning S, Thomas RE (2010). "Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD004876. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004876.pub3. PMID 20166072.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V, Ferroni E (2012). "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 8: CD004879. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub4. PMID 22895945.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Keller T, Weeda VB, van Dongen CJ, Levi M (2008). "Influenza vaccines for preventing coronary heart disease". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD005050. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005050.pub2. PMID 18646119.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ (2010). "Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD005187. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub3. PMID 20166073.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Thomas RE, Russell M, Lorenzetti D (2010). "Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (9): CD005188. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005188.pub2. PMID 20824843.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Chang CC, Morris PS, Chang AB (2007). "Influenza vaccine for children and adults with bronchiectasis". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD006218. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006218.pub2. PMID 17636836.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Goossen GM, Kremer LC, van de Wetering MD (2009). "Influenza vaccination in children being treated with chemotherapy for cancer". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD006484. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006484.pub2. PMID 19370636.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The following four are currently cited in the article: CD001269, CD004876, CD004879, CD005187. Gabbe (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)