"There is little clinical evidence that the vaccines have an effect on things like hospital stay, time off work, death in healthy adults or even those with conditions like asthma and cystic fibrosis, he said.
Vaccines given to children under the age of two have the same effect as if they were given a dummy drug, he added."
("Практически отсутствуют клинические доказательства того, что вакцины влияют на такие вещи, как продолжительность пребывания в больнице, больничные, смертность - что у здоровых взрослых, что у тех, кто страдает астмой или кистозным фиброзом. Для детей в возрасте до двух лет эффективность вакцин такая же, как у плацебо")
Тем временем в Барнауле:
http://www.altinformburo.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=416&Itemid=51
На вскрытии - обширный инфаркт. Что они ищут на вскрытии? Перефразируя
theoretik - записку "В моей смерти прививку прошу не винить"? :(В самой статье в BMJ Джефферсон делает такие небезынтересные для медика замечания:
The large gap between policy and what the data tell us (when rigorously assembled and evaluated) is surprising. The reasons for this situation are not clear and may be complex...
Another reason may be "availability creep." In their efforts to deal with, or be seen to deal with, policy makers favour intervention with what is available—registered influenza vaccines. A similar philosophy is the "we have to make decisions and cannot wait to have perfect data" approach. This attitude may have an altruistic basis but has two important consequences. Firstly, it uses up resources that could be invested in a proper evaluation of influenza vaccines or on other health interventions of proven effectiveness. Secondly, the inception of a vaccination campaign seems to preclude the assessment of a vaccine through placebo controlled randomised trials on ethical grounds. Far from being unethical, however, such trials are desperately needed and we should invest in them without delay. A further consequence is reliance on non-randomised studies once the campaign is under way. It is debatable whether these can contribute to our understanding of the effectiveness of vaccines. Ultimately non-randomised designs cannot answer questions on the effects of influenza vaccines
The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking. The reasons are probably complex and may involve "a messy blend of truth conflicts and conflicts of interest making it difficult to separate factual disputes from value disputes" or a manifestation of optimism bias (an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of interventions).
"Availability creep" - это хорошо сказано...