|
Edited on Wed Feb-02-11 09:52 PM by HuckleB
And are you referring the annual flu vaccine or the H1N1 vaccine?
This study's authors actually acknowledge much more than in the quote in your post above:
"Several studies from Australia <22>, Mexico <23>,<24>, and the US <25>,<26> have instead reported null or protective effects of 2008–09 TIV against pH1N1 illness based on test-negative case-control <22>–<25>, case-cohort <25>, or ILI outbreak investigations <26>. One other test-negative case-control analysis from a US outbreak found a statistically significant increased risk, with an unadjusted OR of 2.9 (95% CI 1.8–4.69) for pH1N1 illness among military beneficiaries who received influenza vaccine within the previous 12 months <27>. Unlike in Canada, however, this association was driven primarily by receipt of live attenuated vaccine. Discrepant results across studies may reflect either differences in methods or real variation in the effect of specific vaccines, immunization programs, or population immunity. Most of the studies published to date, however, have not presented sufficient participant characteristics to properly assess methodological issues, sources of bias or confounding, or the validity of results. As previously highlighted, the importance of the public health and scientific implications requires that analyses of TIV effect on pH1N1 risk be more rigorous <28>,<29>. At a minimum, a detailed profile of cases and controls specifically included in vaccine effectiveness analyses should be displayed by vaccine status, age, and chronic conditions, as well as timeliness of specimen collection and other recognized influences. Where participant characteristics have been presented by investigators, conspicuous evidence of selection bias can be seen to explain opposite findings of TIV protection against pH1N1 <23>,<28>. In the detailed participant profiles we display for each of the four studies we report, evidence for this type of bias is not obvious, but that does not rule it out. We also cannot rule out the possibility that the increased risk of pH1N1 found in Canada was an effect specific to the Canadian vaccine: it is noteworthy that ORs were highest in Quebec, where a greater proportion of domestically produced vaccine is distributed than in the rest of Canada. However, even if our findings are considered a “Canadian problem,” if causal in nature they would still have wider implications for our understanding of influenza immunopathogenesis."
Thus, several studies came up with different conclusions. The authors of this study are honest enough to note that. They know the value of a single study is minimal. Oddly this is the study that the creator of the OP chose to post, as if no other studies had been done on the matter.
Further, in the author's exploration of possible causes for this possible effect, there is no supposition about the vaccine itself having a problem. Of course, supposition is just supposition, as the authors recognize.
|