Wow. I have studied the influenza vaccine for years and I know that there is not one study that has shown the flu vaccine very effective for preventing the flu. Is this something new?
I pulled the study and read it. Here’s what I found.
The study included 5,806 healthy 6-35-months-olds. More than 5,400 were randomized to two doses of the quadrivalent vaccine (Fluzone) or placebo . The trial was conducted in Europe, Asia, South America and Africa between March 2014 and September 2016. The incidence of any laboratory-confirmed strain of influenza illness during the period from 14 days post-vaccination to the end of the flu season was 1.01% in the Fluzone group and 3.28% in those who received the placebo.
How did they get the 69% efficacy rate? They used the relative risk statistical analysis by simply dividing 1.01 into 3.28. When I lecture to health care professionals about statistics, I tell them that the relative risk analysis is used by the Big Pharma Cartel to make a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is. Relative risk analysis should never be used when making clinical decisions about whether to prescribe a drug or therapy. Sadly, most doctors and other health care professionals have no knowledge about how to properly review a medical study because they do not understand statistics.
The more accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in this study (and all other studies as well) is to use the absolute risk difference. In the Fluzone study, the absolute risk difference between the Fluzone and the placebo group was 2.27% (3.28%-1.01%). That means that Fluzone was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu as there was only a 2.27% benefit received for those who were vaccinated. In other words, this study showed that injecting Fluzone failed nearly 98%–they received no protection from the flu.