Good pro-vaccination websites?

[dissonance]

I'm wondering if any of you are aware of any websites that outline nicely the many, many problems with the major anti-vaccination arguments?

I'm pregnant (my first, and she will be vaccinated barring any good reasons not to, like allergies), and I have been surfing a lot of parenting bulletin boards lately. Frankly I'm shocked at how the anti-vax types seem to be everywhere. And the problem is they are impossible to argue with, because although it's relatively easy to counter most of their arguments, they just have so damn many of them and it gets really tiresome really quickly.

What I'd really like is a website that outlines the major anti-vaccination arguments and explains, simply and clearly in lay language, why they are wrong. I'm not so concerned with convincing the die-hard anti-vax types (because those people appear to be immune to logic), but more the group of people who might be reading the anti-vaxers and falling for the faulty logic and bogus arguments. A lot of the anti-vaccine people can be very persuasive if you don't understand the problems with the arguments they are making, so it would be nice to have a decent website to refer people to.

[Chris Haynes]

I am sure that Eos will be chiming in here soon...

Well, you can start out with the "Pink" book, it explains in detail each disease and about the vaccine:
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/def_pink_full.htm

Then there is the basic info page:
http://immunizationinfo.org/ and this: http://www.immunize.org/

Then there are the anti-"anti-vax" sites that look at how information is used or "misused" on the anti-vax site:
http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm
and
http://pages.ivillage.com/vaccinesupport/antivaxsites.html

And a bunch more listed here: http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight/vaccines1.htm

And for your reading pleasure, the Ratbags Page Anti-Vax Liars pages:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/vaxliars1.htm

Good luck with your baby... your life will never be the same again.

[Chris Haynes]

Some more stuff!!!

Okay, someone on the Healthfraud list (it is part of www.quackwatch.org) just submitted this very interesting blog:
http://universalacid.blogspot.com/2005/02/mmr-vaccine-and-autism.html

Which brings up this set of interesting articles:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Sections/health/MMR/Index.htm

and this:
http://acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1008/healthissue_detail.asp

and this is very amusing:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm

[Eos of the Eons]

Awesome site on the anti-vaccine people and why what they say is wrong:

http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/vaxquotes.html

A ton of links on good vaccine information and what to look out for in bad:

http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/vaccination.html

Vaccine testing:

http://www.apologia.com/vaccines/vac_test.html


CBS on taking apart anti-vaccine arguments:

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/vaccines/miscon.html


Good site that is updated regularly:
http://www.geocities.com/issues_in_immunization/

ON MMR:
http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/news/newsitem.php?id=68

On the baby's immune system:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-01/chop-iis010802.php


Another mom on anti-vaccinators:
http://pages.ivillage.com/vaccinesupport/antivaxsites.html

A million more links starting here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-01/chop-iis010802.php


My site:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Vaccinations.html
http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Vaccine%20Quotes.html




Any questions? :D

Seriously, anything that you still need to ask after reviewing these, please fire away.

Congratulations on your new little life and good for you for allowing some prevention that will lead to your child's best step forward to realizing their full potential disease free.

I'm impressed you are putting thought into your choice to vaccinate and looking for fact based information. because although it's relatively easy to counter most of their arguments, they just have so damn many of them and it gets really tiresome really quickly.

I have given up arguing with them or trying to explain the truth even in simple terms. No amount of facts or even observation dissuades them.

Kudos to you for keeping your sanity and still presenting information. Just when I think I've heard everything, there's a new argument put forth.

Feel free to present some of the arguments here. I really do like looking up information. This is my favorite topic to address as well.

Hi HCN!

[BillHoyt]

HCN, Eos,

Thanks for those link!

[dissonance]

Thanks guys, I knew you'd come through on this! Great stuff in those links. There's seriously no way to convince a lot of anti types that they are wrong, but at least now I can post some counter-arguments and maybe keep a fence-sitter or two from falling into the anti-vax black hole.

My very favourite anti argument has got to be the 'more vaccinated people get Disease X than non-vaccinated people, proving the vaccine's ineffectiveness!' I like that one because it's easy to explain why the interpretation is wrong, and it really shows that the person using it hasn't actually thought about or researched the issue that carefully.

In my experience, eventually you can get them down to the conspiracy theory arguments (the government is covering up vaccine problems! Doctors don't report on vaccine problems because of...something!), and really what can you do with that?

[Chris Haynes]

One thing I have done recently is to use the http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us to find out what diseases are breaking out over the world.

For instance... Polio has been reported in Mecca:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/10/news/polio.html .

Anti-vax somehow do not like discussing the fact that when certain people in Nigeria started to spead propaganda on the radio how the polio vaccine was a way to sterilize Muslims, polio started to spread. Not only in the Kano state of Nigeria, but in neighboring countries.

They are also blind to the fact that measles still kills hundreds of thousands of people a year... they seem to like to ignore third world countries.

But then ignore the real consequences of an epidemic of mumps among high school and college students in the UK (I suspect there will be a significant rise of sterile men there soon).

editted to fix a link

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by dissonance

In my experience, eventually you can get them down to the conspiracy theory arguments (the government is covering up vaccine problems! Doctors don't report on vaccine problems because of...something!), and really what can you do with that?

When my kids got vaccinated it was at a clinic and done by a nurse. All the children were monitored for 15 minutes afterward. No side effects to report.

There are ways to report if something actually does show up that merits reporting...VAERS. Now, a doctor would not have seen any reactions since there weren't any there. The nurses would have had to report.

Now, what merits reporting? A fever, redness, soreness? Most parents don't worry about that since they expect it, and are happy when it doesn't happen. They are given tips on how to help the child if it does happen. There's usually nothing to report.

What if a kid gets a fever and then convulsions two days or two weeks later? The things that get reported are usually things that happened due to something other than the vaccines. Things that merit reporting aren't usually vaccine reactions, but they are things that happen after vaccination (that would have happened anyways).

VAERS Data analysis project:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15247605
We found no significant difference in the proportion of HBV-vaccinated (31%) and unvaccinated (35%) neonates dying of unexpected causes (P = 0.6). Further we could not identify a plausible causal or temporal relationship between HBV administration and death for the 22 vaccinated neonates who died unexpectedly. CONCLUSIONS: A relationship between HBV and neonatal death was not identified.

Really no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations (unless you look at the fact that there were a tiny bit fewer deaths in the vaccinated population).From 1985 (before universal HepB immunization of infants) to 1996, the total number of neonatal deaths in the United States decreased from 7.0 to 4.8 deaths per 1000 live births.16 During the years 1992
to 1996, the number of SIDS cases (the predominant cause
of infant deaths) reported to VAERS decreased by nearly
50%

http://sids-network.org/experts/poa9078.pdf


Arguing with an anti-vaxer about the conspiracy theories:

http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:msp:89894:maacgiaoljkebkahdiko

Ah, yes. Finally. The "conspiracy" angle. These people want kids to die, are getting rich off vaccines, or whatever. Conspiracy theories, the last refuge of the desperate. C'mon. Do you really think people, with kids of their own, just blithely sit by and turn a blind eye to something killing kids? If you beleive that, you haven't met many pediatricians. You ought to see a pediatrics ward when there's a kid in for protection vs child abuse--closest thing I've ever seen to a lynch mob brewing.

In fact, you'll find that people like Dr. Laider who have seen the
consequences of anti-vax lies, hysteria, and misinformation are those who tend to be most vocal because (surprise) they CARE about their patients. Heck, if we didn't vaccine we'd have a lot more sick people to take care of. Docs would make a lot more money out of treating kids in ICUs than they ever make on vaccines.

And, in the interests of full disclosure, my clinic gives vaccines, I don't make a dime off it, and I have to occasionally fight with the public health department to give us the serum for things like tetanus and the like. :-)
Vaccines almost end up _costing_ me money, and yet I wasn't about to forgo them....

Fact is, vaccines are not money makers for anyone: MDs, drug companies, no one. The only people who are money ahead is the public, since they don't pay the costs of care and rehab of those who would otherwise get vaccine preventable injuries. Quebec had TWO cases of congenital syphillis, and they started testing every pregnant woman in the province because it was cheaper than caring for even one afflicted kid for their life. I think you'll see similar economics come to the fore for, say, preventing vertical transmission of Hep B.


I'm trying to dig up a great pdf on vaccines at well that dispels a lot of the conspiracy theory angles by describing how they are made (funded, etc.)

[Eos of the Eons]

Here we go :)

http://www.unicef.org/publications/pub_sowvi_en.pdf

[Rolfe]

Possibly relevant story.

Earlier this week a labrador puppy had his first vaccination. The vet noted that he was "a little quiet", but didn't see any reason not to vaccinate. The puppy died that evening.

Fortunately a post mortem examination was requested (paid for by the vaccine manufacturers). This revealed that the puppy died because a nasty abscess in its abdomen (which must have been present for at least a week or two) had ruptured. Absolutely nothing to do with the vaccination, except that it's possible the handling of the puppy during the pre-vaccination clinical examination precipitated the rupture of the abscess.

OK, another potential vaccine horror story nipped in the bud. Or is it? How do we know the owners won't just go around posting everywhere that their apparently healthy 10-week-old puppy died a few hours after it was given its first vaccine dose? (Note, I have to information at all that the owners of this puppy are doing this, it just struck me that we couldn't prevent someone from doing it if they felt like it.)

With animals, you don't always get the post mortem done, and in that situation it would be very easy for this to turn into a vaccine horror story. I suppose, with children, there will always be a full investigation into every unexpected death. Even so, there's still scope for people to ignore the findings of the actual cause of death and go on spreading whatever misinformation they like. How many of the alleged vacine-related deaths have really been diagnosed by a pathologist as falling into this category?

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

I've seen people (like in Yurko's Case) not only blame vaccines, but claim doctors are lying about the actual cause of death. Then suddenly vaccines are being blamed for causing symptoms of shaking a baby to death. It's more than sickening. These people get an adoring public after they murder children.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rolfe
OK, another potential vaccine horror story nipped in the bud. Or is it? How do we know the owners won't just go around posting everywhere that their apparently healthy 10-week-old puppy died a few hours after it was given its first vaccine dose?

Way too on-target, Rolfe. A few years back, some pet BBs and mailing lists were circulating an anonymous story about a breeder who lost two back-to-back litters. The story wasn't written by her, but by her friend. She claimed both litters were vaccinated against parvo and that all the pups died of parvo shortly after.

I openly and hostily attacked this second- or third-hand story. To my surprise, somebody came forward, claiming to be the "friend" who authored the story. She further claimed she had a B.S. in biology, trying to assert authority on that basis. I returned fire, and asked for copies of the post mortems. Breeder didn't have them. Okay, the vet's adverse reaction reports. Nope.

Now, at this point, the more rational people are getting very angry. Not only did that original letter impugn the vaccine with no evidence to back it, it named the catalog from which it was purchased (oh? ya mean the breeder gave the shots herself?) and the vaccine's manufacturer. I contacted the catalog. They had no comment other than to state they were suing the people behind the letter. I contacted federal authorities who reported they had heard about the letter, but had yet to receive any documentation, such as veterinary reports or post mortems.

The average person's take on the story? I'm afraid it just confirmed the anti-vax position for all the anti-vaxxers. As debunked as the claim was, it mattered not to them. The more rational people were, minimally, disappointed and, more often, aghast at the whole incident.

[crimresearch]

I like the line from 'House', where the yuppie mother informs him that 'Oh, we don't vaccinate'...
after asking her if she doesn't want to help the pharmaceutical companies get rich from selling her kiddies unneeded vaccines, he says:

'And you know what else really makes a nice profit?........

Little baby coffins'.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
it named the catalog from which it was purchased (oh? ya mean the breeder gave the shots herself?) ....WHAT?????

I don't know about Merika, but here it is mandatory for a veterinary surgeon to sign a vaccination certificate, and in order to do that the vet has to do the injecting himself. Otherwise, he has no means of knowing that the vaccine was administered, even if the owner bought the vaccine from him.

I remember once doing a small animal surgery in Shepperton, and the receptionist said "your next patient's outside". Next patient was a pony, saddled and bridled, with his rider holding the reins. She'd ridden to the small animal surgery to get her pony vaccinated, and thus save on the visit fee she'd otherwise have had to pay. I gave the pony a quick once-over and vaccinated him right there on the pavement of the High Street! The owner then mounted up again and trotted off. Perfectly legit.

But buying vaccine from catalogues is not. Because there's no way you'd get a vet's signature on the certificate, and thus no way the certificate would be valid for any purpose beyond lighting the fire.

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rolfe
WHAT?????

I don't know about Merika, but here it is mandatory for a veterinary surgeon to sign a vaccination certificate, and in order to do that the vet has to do the injecting himself. Otherwise, he has no means of knowing that the vaccine was administered, even if the owner bought the vaccine from him.

I remember once doing a small animal surgery in Shepperton, and the receptionist said "your next patient's outside". Next patient was a pony, saddled and bridled, with his rider holding the reins. She'd ridden to the small animal surgery to get her pony vaccinated, and thus save on the visit fee she'd otherwise have had to pay. I gave the pony a quick once-over and vaccinated him right there on the pavement of the High Street! The owner then mounted up again and trotted off. Perfectly legit.

But buying vaccine from catalogues is not. Because there's no way you'd get a vet's signature on the certificate, and thus no way the certificate would be valid for any purpose beyond lighting the fire.

Rolfe.

Yeah, the whole claim was a pile of crap. Even down to the claimed time between vaccination and supposed onset of parvo. The woos ran with it, however, and haven't stopped since. Except, of course, for the original claimants who suddenly went silent, presumably after hearing from the catalog company's attorneys.

But, as with the Wakefield scandal, the fact that the original reports were absolute bunkum won't stop a good evil-medical-industry story.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
presumably after hearing from the catalog company's attorneys.Well, was the catalogue company operating within the law, selling prescription-only veterinary medicines to the lay public? Round here they wouldn't be, and anyone who bought from them would be breaking the law even if the web site was outside the country.

Rolfe.

[Chris Haynes]

When checking with news.google.com you can find some interesting stories... especially now that there is a mumps epidemic in the UK:
Why did I refuse MMR? (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=610965)

[Eos of the Eons]

I found the ending of the article touching. The girl who contracted the disease didn't want any more, and filled in a form for the vaccine that the school sent home. She told her parents she wanted it. She had to suffer through mumps and had had a taste of a disease that could have been prevented by the vaccine.

[Chris Haynes]

One thing I liked about it was that at first I thought is was an "anti-vax" article. Which may make someone on the fence, or even leaning anti-vax to actually read it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Excellent sources folks. While I have seen many of them, there are some new ones I'll be checking out as well.

The second page of HC's CDC link has many other excellent sites on this subject.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/home-partners.htm

I thought I'd add that adults need vaccinations as well.

And flu vaccinations are greatly misunderstood.

Flu vaccine is safe, doesn't make you sick, and flu puts many healthy children and adults in the hospital every year as well as being lethal to some. There is no reason, (except the loss of 45 million vaccine doses this season), everyone shouldn't get a flu vaccine every year.

If anyone isn't so sure of that I'd be happy to support my advice, infectious disease is my area of expertise.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
Flu vaccine is safe, doesn't make you sick, and flu puts many healthy children and adults in the hospital every year as well as being lethal to some.This is one that scares the living daylights out of me. When my mother was about 80, she had a very bad attack of flu. She was very ill for a couple of weeks, and in fact I spent a month flying 400 miles every weekend to look after her. She told me that at one point she felt so bad that she really thought she was going to die.

She recovered, and about two years later I was ill. She travelled the 400 miles in the other direction and looked after me. I don't know what I'd have done without her. Particularly since there was a huge psychological component to what ailed me, and the support of my Mum was just invaluable.

In fact I believe she had had the vaccination the year she was ill, but it was a year when there was a mis-match of strains. Even so, there was a suspicion that she'd have been even sicker if she hadn't had whatever little cross-reaction protection the vaccine had given her.

The very idea that my mother might have died of flu 8 years ago scares the hell out of me. The very idea that anyone won't take whatever precautions are necessary to minimise the chance of that happening to them is just terrifying.

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, was the catalogue company operating within the law, selling prescription-only veterinary medicines to the lay public? Round here they wouldn't be, and anyone who bought from them would be breaking the law even if the web site was outside the country.

Rolfe.

I believe so. I also did a quick check of U.K. law. It looks like the U.K. recognizes exemptions for breeders, pet store owners and the like.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I believe so. I also did a quick check of U.K. law. It looks like the U.K. recognizes exemptions for breeders, pet store owners and the like. Not as far as I'm aware, but then people are always tinkering with things when I'm not looking. Maybe BSM, who is in general practice, will have better information than I have.

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Not as far as I'm aware, but then people are always tinkering with things when I'm not looking. Maybe BSM, who is in general practice, will have better information than I have.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

I'm going by Statutory Instrument 2001, No. 1646, which seems to grant administration exemption to: "Persons who have in their charge or who maintain animals for the purposes of and in the course of carrying on a business either as their sole business activity or as a part of their business activities."


Found here (http://www.ipfsaph.org/cds_upload%5Ckopool_data%5CFAOLEX_0%5Cunknown_uk25 584.htm)

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
...If anyone isn't so sure of that I'd be happy to support my advice, infectious disease is my area of expertise.

Welcome to the forum skeptigirl! And I see we are neighbors.

You should understand why I am not too fond of the anti-vax types --- my first born had seizures as an infant, and was therefore given only the Td vaccine, because back then the DPT was not advised for kids with seizures disorders. This was a bit over 16 years ago, when King County was having a pertussis epidemic. I actually asked parents of new possible playmates if they were vaccinated. I actually came across some who said "Oh, we don't". Very scary.

Then came the national measles epidemic a year or so later, where of the 120 people who died, about 2 or 3 were from WA state.

THEN... when my son was in kindergarten his little brother's preschool had a round chicken pox, a year before the vaccine was available. Which got passed to his baby sister and to his older brother, which got passed to the school. As it turns out there are some medically sensitive kids there --- and one child in the special ed. preschool ended up in Children's with nasty flesh eating bacteria. Fortunately he recovered.

Well... this year my oldest son got his flu shot (he has a heart condition), and both hubby and I got our tetanus shots (kids are all up to date on theirs).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow, HC. What an experience. I am familiar with all of those events.

WA state had two Measles deaths, IIRC. One was a health care worker. When I say adults need vaccine too, MMR is one of them some adults need. Yet the only public health campaign to vaccinate with MMR is in colleges and for hospital employees.

As to the Pertussis, the outbreaks will continue until an adult vaccine is available. All of us lose our Pertussis immunity with time which has become a significant problem.

I have also vaccinated many people who were advised by their doctors, no less, that a vaccine was contraindicated. All successfully I might add without adverse affects. Many doctors have no clue what ACIP recommendations are.

I wrote a letter to Time's editor just last week because they had bogus information about Chicken Pox vaccinations in their last issue. It was only a paragraph but they managed to put the very damaging statement regarding the vaccine saying, "doctors fear it may be leading to an even worse disease, Shingles". Shingles may be a bother but it is only dangerous to the severely immunocompromised and vaccinating for Chicken Pox would have had no impact on those persons anyway.



*Side note, at first I thought Time had gotten it wrong about Shingles being a different disease than Chicken Pox but after re-reading their paragraph I realized these supposed doctors were speculating that continual exposure to cases of Chicken Pox boosts our antibodies thus preventing the onset of Shingles. There is no such evidence this is the case, only an hypothesis.

[Eos of the Eons]

Half of the people I talked to at work that refused the free vaccine AT work said they thought the vaccine would make them sick for a week after getting the shot. This despite the fact that the nurse herself that showed up to give the shots said this wasn't true.

To make matters more irritating, a few days earlier, on the morning show on the radio a lady called in and won a CD for whatever trivia and the announcers had been discussing the flu shot ealier. They asked the winner if she was going to get vaccinated, and she said she wouldn't because "you get sick for weeks afterwards".

I got the shot, and got a sore spot on my arm. Poor me. I was just fine and still haven't got the flu.

I'd like to know why so many people in my area are saying that. I have yet to find the source. I suspect the Chiros. A lot of people at work see them, and we have chiro offices at the most popular health spots to "maintain whole body health". At swimming pools and sports centers and all over the place are chiro offices. I have to forward calls to their cell phones when they go see them during work hours.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/vaccines/pg_one.html

When I worked for a printing company this summer, a chiro "newsletter" contained anti-vaccination information. The chiro was Hoffman.

Of course, even people I know sell oils and give out anti-vaccine information as well. The "World of Women" show had "natural health" booths with anti-vaccine booklets to read and pamphlets to give away. Not just one, but several.

It's pretty bad when people reject vaccines at their workplace for free. I can understand why though, with so much anti-vaccine misinformation stuffed in their faces wherever they turn.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't get me started on chiropractors. I have an ongoing dispute about them with Dr Barrett of Quackwatch and could post pages on what I have found in the literature supporting my position, and, about why he may treat them differently than his approach to other Quackwatch subjects.

Here are a FEW abstracts from placebo controlled flu vaccine side effect studies. There have been some side effects with certain flu vaccine strains I didn't get into here. And whole virus vaccine in some studies had more systemic side effects than split vaccine. I haven't used whole virus vaccine but it is used by some providers as in some years it may have a better immune response in the elderly.

I pasted these as they were and won't bother to delete the double spacing. Most are from PubMed or the journal site directly so I didn't add the links, again to save time. The citations are clear and the articles aren't hard to find.

Scand J Infect Dis. 1981;13(2):95-9.

Clinical trial of a subunit influenza vaccine.

Pyrhonen S, Suni J, Romo M.

A double-blind field trial was performed comparing a subunit influenza vaccine

(A/Victoria/75 and B/Hongkong/73) with placebo. A good protection against influenza was

induced by the vaccine. On the basis of serological determinations (enzyme immunoassay, EIA)

the incidences of influenza A and B infections were reduced within a period from 3 weeks up

to 5 months after the vaccination by 88 and 68%, respectively. Three weeks after the

vaccination 79% of the vaccines had acquired protective serum antibody levels (greater than

or equal to 32 x 10(2) by EIA) against influenza A and 62% against influenza B, while in the

control subjects protective antibody levels were measured in frequencies from 4 to 13% in

subsequent serum samples. With a few exceptions antibody levels were still present in

5-month samples. Side effects were recorded within the first 3 days following the

vaccination. Some minor symptoms like redness and tenderness at the vaccination site and

muscle ache were reported more frequently by the vaccines than by the controls, but no more

harmful systemic reactions.Don't see sample size there.

Pharmatherapeutica. 1982;3(3):195-200.

Comparison of the antigenicity and tolerance of an influenza aluminium oxide adsorbate

vaccine with an aqueous vaccine.

Pressler K, Peukert M, Schenk D, Borgono M.

A randomized trial was carried out in 189 adult subjects to test the antigenicity and

tolerance of two experimental influenza vaccines, one adsorbed onto aluminium oxide and the

other one aqueous, with equal antigen contents. Blood samples for antibody assays, using the

haemagglutination inhibition test and the neuraminidase inhibition test, were taken before

and 30, 90 and 180 days after vaccination. The results showed that the adsorbate influenza

vaccine had a superior immunogenic action to the aqueous vaccine at the same dose rate.

There were no significant differences between the tolerances of the two vaccines, which were

injected with a needle. About 81% of the vaccinated subjects showed no subjective or

objective signs of intolerance. Systemic reactions, which were reported by 9% of the

vaccinated subjects, were verified by the doctor in only 2% of cases.

Arch Intern Med. 1996 Jul 22;156(14):1546-50.

Side effects associated with influenza vaccination in healthy working adults. A

randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Nichol KL, Margolis KL, Lind A, Murdoch M, McFadden R, Hauge M, Magnan S, Drake M.

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, USA.

BACKGROUND: Concern about side effects is a barrier to influenza vaccination. This

randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed side effects following

vaccination among healthy working adults. METHODS: Healthy working adults were recruited

during October and November 1994 and were randomized to receive influenza vaccine or placebo

injections. Local and systemic symptoms during the week following the injection were

evaluated through structured telephone interviews. RESULTS: Of 849 subjects enrolled in the

study, 425 received a placebo and 424 received influenza vaccine. Baseline characteristics

were similar between the groups, and 99% of subjects completed interviews to assess side

effects after the study injection. No differences were seen between the 2 groups for the

systemic symptoms of fever, myalgias, fatigue, malaise, or headaches. Overall, 35.2% of

placebo and 34.1% of vaccine recipients reported at least 1 of these systemic symptoms (P =

.78, chi 2). Vaccine recipients reported a higher rate of arm soreness at the injection site

than did placebo recipients (63.8% vs 24.1%, P < .001). Local reactions were mild in both

groups and infrequently resulted in decreased use of the arm. After logistic regression,

female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.5;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.1), age younger than 40

years (OR, 1.6;95% CI, 1.2-2.2), and coincidental upper respiratory tract illness (OR, 4.6;

95% CI, 3.2-6.6) were independently associated with higher rates of systemic symptoms. In

the multivariate model, vaccine again was not associated with systemic symptoms (OR, 0.9;

95% CI, 0.7-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination of healthy working adults is not

associated with higher rates of systemic symptoms when compared with placebo injection.

These findings should be useful to physicians and other health care providers as they

counsel patients to take advantage of an important opportunity for disease prevention and

health protection.Notice how many people had systemic symptoms in both groups. People just get frequent viral illnesses during the same time as flu vaccine is given. If you get a flu shot it is often blamed for the symptoms it had nothing to do with.

Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2001 Apr;49(2):157-62.

Influenza vaccine in healthy preschool children.

Colombo C, Argiolas L, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Meloni G, Meloni T.

Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, University of Sassari, Viale San Petro 12,

07100 Sassari, Italy. colombo@uniss.it

BACKGROUND: Studies of influenza vaccination in healthy children have not definitely

answered the question of their efficacy. METHODS: We have carried out a randomized trial in

a well selected population of healthy preschool children in Sardinia, Italy. During October

1995, 344 children aged 1 to 6 years, were randomly assigned to receive influenza vaccine

(n=177) or no treatment (n=167). Two doses of a trivalent subvirion vaccine, containing 15mg

of highly purified surface antigens from the component strains A/Johannesburg/33/94-like,

A/Singapore/6/86-like and B/ Beijing/184/ 93-like were administered. Follow-up data were

collected from December 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996. RESULTS: Seroconversion was

documented in 17 out of 17 children. No specific systemic symptoms or severe local reactions

were observed after vaccination. Influenza-like episodes, defined by the presence of fever

and cough or sore throat that lasted at least 72 hours, occurred in 63 (37.7%) of

unvaccinated children and in 22 (12.4%) of vaccinated ones. The corresponding reduction in

disease incidence was 67% (95% CI: 0.59-0.74). Three episodes of otitis were observed among

children in the control group versus zero among vaccinated children (p=0.07). Mean duration

of day care center absenteism was significantly reduced by vaccination (2.3 days in

unvaccinated and 0.5 day in vaccinated children, p<0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine is

safe and effective in healthy preschool children. However the favourable implications of

vaccination on disease rate in subsequent years have to be evaluated.

Gerontology. 2001 Nov-Dec;47(6):311-4.

Side effects of influenza vaccination in healthy older people: a randomised single-blind

placebo-controlled trial.

Allsup SJ, Gosney M, Regan M, Haycox A, Fear S, Johnstone FC.

Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK. flutrial@liv.ac.uk

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency of side effects following influenza vaccination

in healthy participants aged 65-74 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-blind randomised

placebo-controlled trial was performed in general practices in central Liverpool on 729

healthy individuals (341 females and 388 males) aged 65-74 (median age 68.9) years, of whom

552 received influenza vaccine and 177 received placebo. The main outcome measures were

analysed from adverse reactions reported by the subjects on a postal questionnaire 3 days

after vaccination. RESULTS: 724 (99.3%) questionnaires were returned. 62 (11.3%)

participants who received influenza vaccination complained of local symptoms compared with 9

(5.1%) participants who received placebo (difference 6.2%; 95% CI 1.3 to 10.0%; p = 0.02).

192 (35.1%) individuals who received influenza vaccine complained of one or more systemic

side effects compared with 75 (42.4%) who received placebo (difference -7.3%; 95% CI -15.6

to 0.9%; p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Healthy people belonging to this age group can be reassured

that, when compared with placebo, influenza vaccination causes few, if any, systemic side

effects and only a low incidence of local side effects. Copyright 2001 S. Karger AG, BaselAgain a high rate of symptoms in both groups but interestingly more in the placebo group.

1: Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 Sep;73(9):876-80.
* Aviat Space Environ Med. 2003 Nov;74(11):1211; author reply 1211-2.

Impact of influenza vaccination on civilian aircrew illness and absenteeism.

Mixeu MA, Vespa GN, Forleo-Neto E, Toniolo-Neto J, Alves PM.

Ruben Berta Foundation/VARIG, Servico Medico, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.

msylvia@attglobal.net

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the general population worldwide acquires influenza

infection every year. Airline crews run a particularly high risk of contracting influenza

and influenza-like viruses because they come in contact with hundreds of potentially

infected individuals every day. Respiratory diseases are the most frequent cause of

absenteeism among flight crews in airline companies. Several studies have shown the efficacy

of influenza vaccination in the workplace of healthy, working adults leading to increased

productivity and lower absenteeism. We conducted a double blind, randomized,

placebo-controlled study on flight crews of an airline company in order to determine the

safety and efficacy of a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in reducing illness and

absences from work. METHODS: The 813 healthy members of a Brazilian airline company were

randomly assigned to receive injections of either an influenza vaccine or a placebo, with a

follow-up period of 7 mo after vaccination. Primary outcomes included influenza-like illness

episodes and absenteeism from work due to such episodes. RESULTS: Demographic

characteristics were similar in the two groups. No significant side-effects occurred in

either group. Compared to the placebo group, individuals receiving the vaccine showed 39.5%

fewer episodes of flu-like illness (p < 0.001) and 26% fewer days of work lost (p =

0.03).The vaccinated group developed 33% fewer episodes of any severe flu-like illness (p <

0.01). CONCLUSION: The data indicates that influenza vaccination is safe in airline flight

crews and may produce health-related benefits including reduced absenteeism.

Margolis KL, Nichol KL, Poland GA, Pluhar RE. Frequency of
adverse reactions to influenza vaccine in the elderly: a randomized,
placebo-controlled trial. JAMA 1990;264:1139–41.
Vol. 264 No. 9, September 5, 1990

Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 55415.

Concern about side effects constitutes a major deterrent to patient compliance with

influenza vaccination, yet there is a paucity of data about the occurrence of adverse

reactions in the population targeted for immunization. We conducted a randomized,

double-blind, crossover trial to compare the frequency of adverse reactions following

administration of 1988-1989 trivalent split-antigen influenza vaccine and saline placebo.

Outpatient veterans 65 years of age or over (n = 336) were recruited by mail and were

randomly assigned to receive vaccine followed 2 weeks later by placebo injection or placebo

followed 2 weeks later by vaccine. There was no significant difference between influenza

vaccine and placebo with respect ot the proportion of subjects reporting disability or

systemic symptoms.

174. Govaert TME, Dinant GJ, Aretz K, Masurel N, Sprenger MJW,
Knottnerus JA. Adverse reactions to influenza vaccine in elderly
people: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. BMJ
1993;307:988–90.

BMJ. 1993 Oct 16;307(6910):988-90.

Comment in:

* BMJ. 1993 Nov 6;307(6913):1213-4.

Department of General Practice, University of Limburg, Maastricht, Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the frequency and type of side effects after influenza vaccination

in elderly people. DESIGN--Randomised double blind placebo controlled study. SETTING--15

general practices in the southern Netherlands. SUBJECTS--1806 patients aged 60 or older, of

whom 904 received influenza vaccine and 902 placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Adverse

reactions reported on postal questionnaire completed four weeks after vaccination.

RESULTS--210 (23%) patients given vaccine reported one or more adverse reactions compared

with 127 (14%) given placebo. The frequency of local adverse reactions were 17.5% in the

vaccine group and 7.3% in the placebo group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in systemic

adverse reactions (11% v 9.4%; p = 0.34). In general, men reported fewer side effects than

women. CONCLUSION--Only local side effects were more common in vaccinated patients and all

side effects were mild.