Hi all,
That's an interesting blog article, but I think the math is way off. This falls into that category of Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics:
http://www.imassera.com/flu-vaccine-stu ... s/2414634/
The way the study authors come up with nearly 60% efficacy is by looking at the number of people who *would have* gotten the flu (in this study, 2.7% of the control population) compared to how many got the flu after the vaccine (in this study, 1.2% of the population). The drop in flu incidence (1.5%) as a percentage of the total control cases is roughly 56%.
That is to say, 56% of the people who *would have* gotten the flu were protected by the vaccine, yielding a figure of 56% *efficacy*. The efficacy number says absolutely nothing about what percentage of the population at large is protected by a vaccine, only what part of the population that would have gotten the disease was protected.
(According to the study results, of course. Sheri, I think we know your opinion on vaccine efficacy.
)
So, according to the results of this one study, it is BOTH true that the vaccine is 56% effective AND that it only protected 1.5% of the vaccinated study population. According to the results of this study, it is false, as this article claims, that the shots are only 1.5% *effective*. Yes, they only protect 1.5%, but they are 56% effective. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.
It is very interesting that the same study that found that 1.5% of the population was protected from the flu also found that 7.5% of the population suffered from neurological side effects. Russian Roulette, anyone?
Blessings,
Hart Matthews
Durham, North Carolina
--
Dynamis Homeopathic
www.TreatingPeopleNotDisease.com
higher-health.blogspot.com
TreatingPeople@gmail.com
919.286.7626
Theories are like patches on a coat, one day they just wear off.
- Tibetan saying