CDC: Last Year’s Flu Shot Was Less Than 50 Percent Effective for Children and Adolescents
During the 2022–2023 flu season, the influenza vaccine was less than 50 percent effective at preventing emergency department/urgent care visits and hospitalizations among children and adolescents, according to a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Researchers analyzed acute respiratory illness-associated ED and UC visits or hospitalizations at 55 hospitals and 107 ED or UC sites within the VISION vaccine effectiveness network—a multistate collaboration with the CDC. Children and adolescents 6 months to 17 years were tested for influenza between October 2022 and March 2023.
According to the study, 13,547 of 44,787 qualified ED/UC visits and 263 of 1,862 hospitalizations were positive for influenza A. Among ED/UC patients, 15.2 percent of influenza-positive cases and 27.1 percent of influenza-negative cases were vaccinated.
The vaccine was 44 to 52 percent effective—or 48 percent effective “overall,” 47 to 58 percent effective among children aged 6 months to 4 years, and 30 to 45 percent effective among those aged 9 to 17 years old.
Among hospitalizations, 17.5 percent of influenza-positive cases were vaccinated compared with 33.4 percent of influenza-negative patients. Vaccine efficacy was 6 to 61 percent—or 40 percent “overall,” 23 to 75 percent among children ages 6 months to 4 years, and 2 to 70 percent among those 5 to 17 years old. Despite vaccine efficacy numbers, researchers said the influenza vaccine is a “critical tool to prevent moderate-to-severe influenza illness in children and adolescents.”
Findings Identify Associations, Not Causal or Inferred Effectiveness
Linda Wastila, professor and Parke-Davis chair of geriatric pharmacotherapy at the University of Maryland with a doctorate in health policy, told The Epoch Times in an email that she found the study a bit confusing and the authors’ claims of effectiveness against preventing emergency room and hospital admissions a “bit of a stretch.”
“The authors look at subjects who enter the hospital, although the primary (and secondary) reasons for admission are not provided or controlled for, with subjects possibly [admitted] for other conditions (e.g., pneumonia, RSV, broken limbs) and, in testing, found to be positive WITH influenza rather than admitted FOR influenza. The authors didn’t control for many factors using multivariable approaches, so there is no control in their VE [vaccine efficacy] calculations for variability by site or in the subjects themselves,” Ms. Wastila said.
“Although the authors present tabular findings (Table 2) on subjects’ health status, these are essentially descriptive or, at best, cross-tabular, NOT causal, associations between vaccine status and influenza negativity,” she added.
Ms. Wastila said another serious shortcoming the authors noted themselves is the considerable variation across and within the three healthcare systems used for enrollment.
“I dislike using the term ‘cherry pick,’ but without randomization and/or matching of cases with controls, we cannot rule out explicit and/or implicit biases made at the site, principal investigator, and provider levels in identifying subjects,” she said. “In sum, based on the lack of matched cases/controls and lack of statistical control for covariates and confounders, at best, this study’s findings reflect descriptive findings demonstrating associations, not causal or inferred effectiveness.”
CDC Redefines Vaccine Efficacy for Influenza Vaccine
According to the CDC, the agency conducts yearly studies during flu season to help determine how well the vaccine works. Vaccine effectiveness studies help assess the “value of flu vaccination as a public health intervention.” Although the test-negative design is a common method of determining vaccine efficacy, a 2021 Department of Health and Human Services study said “particular care” must be taken when using this method to determine whether a vaccination reduces disease severity in breakthrough infections.
According to CDC data, the influenza vaccine was 54 percent effective during the 2022–2023 influenza season and 36 percent effective during the 2021–2022 season. During the previous ten years, vaccine efficacy for the influenza vaccine has ranged from 19 to 52 percent effective.
This study was conducted by the CDC—which is currently marketing and promoting influenza vaccination—and its researchers and affiliates. The Epoch Times contacted the CDC for comment but has not received a response.
Source: Epoch Times
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
VOWG
| #
All flu shots are less than 30% effective, if that.
Reply
Tom
| #
For two years, (2020, 21) we didn’t see any flu cases, or more than 95% fewer than usual. Suddenly the flu has come back? What is the CDC’s valid and trustworthy explanation for this happening?
I have not had any flu shots in over 50 years and have averaged experiencing flu every 12-15 years. A few times, severe and a few times mild. Then again, I don’t believe in outside viruses so I conclude it was my body needing a more potent toxin flush instead of using the usual cold.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Reading such an article reminds me of a story our guide told us while we visited the pharaohs’ temples along the River Nile in Egypt a few years back.
The guide showed us a water well beside a temple named Nilo Meter, which is connected to the River Nile. According to the story, the water level in the well would reflect the extent of the gods’ happiness for the people. Lower water levels would indicate unhappiness, so churches and priests would suggest the King seek higher charity/tax for serving/pleasing the gods. I doubt higher water levels resulted in credits, but they might have resulted in floods and perhaps interpreted the anger of the gods for seeking even more donations.
PCR (virus testing) appears to be a modern version of Nilo Meter to please the modern-day gods and priests (easy to guess who they are). PCR criteria are adjusted to fluctuate to certain “sellable” levels to receive “donations” (big orders for vaccines) to please the “gods.”
The objective remains the same, but tactics are modernized. It is not called a Nilo Meter but a PCR or Antigen test. It sounds modern/scientific – is it not?
Reply
Steve Bashir
| #
That is such an apt analogy Dr. Qureshi. The modern prophets/oracles are now the virologists and medical “experts*. Dressed in white lab coats. Signifying their direct communication with the gods.
Reply
Itsme
| #
‘There is nothing new under the sun’
Reply