Featured

Vaccinating Healthcare Workers Doesn’t Help Patients: Cochrane Study

January 14, 2013 by admin in Vaccines with 8 Comments

A Cochrane study shows that healthcare workers’ flu vaccines do not benefit their elderly patients. Nurses are fired for refusing vaccines, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence it helps patients. Evidence-based medicine?

Nurse with Syringeby Heidi Stevenson

Healthcare workers are now being fired or forced to quit for refusing to be jabbed with influenza vaccinations. Yet, as Gaia Health reported over two years ago, there is no evidence that anyone benefits when their healthcare workers receive flu vaccines. Here’s that report: 

Healthcare workers are commonly pressed to submit to influenza vaccinations on the claim that it protects their patients. However, a recent study published by the Cochrane Collaboration demonstrates that there is no truth in the claim. Patients of vaccinated healthcare workers do not benefit from their carers’ vaccinations.

The study, entitled “Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly”, is a meta analysis. It focused on four types of events: laboratory-proven influenza, lower respiratory tract infections, admissions to hospitals, and death from pneumonia. These are each directly related to influenza.

Influenza-like illnesses, which are often lumped in with influenza statistics—most notoriously by government agencies, like the CDC—are unaffected by flu vaccines, so a focus on lab-proven flu is indicative of a study designed to find the truth, rather than a predetermined outcome.

The Study

The authors point out that only 7-10% of all influenza-like illnesses are actually caused by influenza. They also point out that:

Nurses and (in some institutions) physicians, tend to have lower influenza vaccination rates than other healthcare workers. This relatively low uptake may partly be a reflection of doubts as to the vaccine’s effectiveness (its ability to prevent influenza-like illness (ILI) and efficacy (its ability to prevent influenza).

The data they referenced for nurses’ and doctors’ low uptake of flu vaccines was from 1999. One must wonder what those doctors and nurses who were refusing the vaccine knew when they were pressing their patients to have vaccinations.

In explaining why it’s believed that healthcare workers should be vaccinated, the authors stated

Healthcare workers are the key group who enter nursing and longterm care facilities on a daily basis. Immune systems of the elderly are less responsive to vaccination, and vaccinating healthcare workers should reduce the exposure of elderly people to influenza.

The authors examined four studies of influenza vaccinations on healthcare workers, with a total of 20,300 subjects, all healthcare workers involved with the care of people aged 60 and over. They concluded:

No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia.

So, for all the concerns about protecting the health of the elderly from unvaccinated healthcare workers, what was the study’s finding? Nada. Nothing. Nil. They found that vaccinating healthcare workers did nothing to protect the elderly from flu or its effects. They found very small associations in a couple of the studies, which may reveal more about the bias of those studies’ authors than anything else.

Some small effects in vaccinating healthcare workers were found: Three studies showed a slightly reduced rate of influenza-like illnesses. One study showed that it resulted in reduced visits to GPs for influenza-like illnesses. Pooling data from three of the randomly-controlled trials showed overall mortality to be reduced. Pooled data from two of the randomly-controlled trials showed no effect on hospital admissions.

A common trick in influenza vaccine studies and governmental reporting is to report all influenza-like cases as if they were actually influenza. As the authors noted, that is far from true, with only 7-10% being flu. Those studies that reported on influenza-like diseases and connected them with flu vaccines—which have no effect on influenza-like diseases—were clearly not presenting data accurately. In fact, the authors noted that all the studies were at high risk of bias—and this conflation of flu-like illnesses with genuine influenza clearly demonstrates that fact.

Thus, this meta study is highly significant. It found that, even among studies with a bias that are likely pro-vaccine, no benefit could be shown for the patients of healthcare workers who had been vaccinated. At this point, it’s clear that the pressure to vaccinate healthcare workers is based on a false premise.

So, now in 2013, we are seeing increasing pressure on healthcare workers to get influenza vaccines—pressure to the point of coercion, with people losing their jobs if they don’t acquiesce—for absolutely no legitimate evidence-based reason.

It is now abundantly clear that the only reason these healthcare workers are losing their jobs for refusing flu vaccines is to protect the profits of Big Pharma and increase the income of doctors who go along with the coercion. It has nothing to do with the phony “evidence-based medicine” that’s routinely touted as being the unquestionable basis of modern medicine.

We have entered a new era in which our bodies are treated as the sacred territory of the God Pharma Profit. All must bow down to its insatiable appetite for ever greater pieces of our being, and anyone who dares to stand against the Profit God must lose his place in society. So sayeth the Pharma Profit Scriptures.

Source:

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • crystalblueeyes

    The author Heidi spews absolute bullshit. My advice to anyone reading this crap, DO YOUR OWN THINKING!! Do not trust the fear-mongering, mentally ill parasite who is trying to scare people with her unfounded claims and baseless bullshit. This woman has the IQ of a gnat and cannot be taken seriously. Actually, this whole site is a joke. It might be decent if it were inclusive of balanced, evidence based research instead of fantasy and completely inaccurate information. And dare to disagree with this loathe some cockroach and she’ll get mad and start insulting everyone who disagrees with her mindless drivel.

    • leigh

      You must not realize that the Cochrane Collaboration is the gold standard for analyzing research.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jjcarone John J. Carone

    Years ago, when the flu vaccine was introduced, there was a newspaper piece just a couple of sentences long which stated that although there was NO EVIDENCE that the vaccine worked, we recommend you take it anyhow. Great science.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1664364346 Cathryn Adams

    It certainly doesn’t help patients when their health care providers are dead, disabled, or made ill by these poison laden flu shots. This “herd immunity” concept is disastrous for cattle, let alone people. Please people, wake up and quit worshipping Big Pharma, and it’s profits. People are more important than profits! Please!!!!

  • Art Esuation

    Heidi, The Chocrane study did not say “They found that vaccinating healthcare workers did nothing to protect the elderly from flu or its effects.” It very clearly said “We conclude that there is no evidence from this research that vaccinating healthcare workers against influenza protects elderly people in their care” and then described in three paragraphs how to do better studies to settle the question with future research. Having no evidence and having evidence of no effect are two very different animals. I hope this is an honest mistake and not a batant error to mislead your readers.

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Not an error. No mistake. That’s effectively what they and their study said. They found no evidence that the elderly are protected when their carers are vaccinated against flu. Until such time as they can show that vaccination does protect them, then the only accurate statement is that it does not. The statement that they need further research is little more than boilerplate – a standard statement included in nearly all papers. It’s simply de rigueur.

      There is no justification for forcing – or even suggesting – healthcare workers to get flu vaccines to protect patients, since there is no evidence to show it does. And that is the real point of the article – as I’m sure you realize.

      • Art Esuation

        When a hypothesis is questioned and tested, it can be confirmed, denied, or remain unanswered. In this this case it is clearly unanswered. The only honest accurate position to have is “right now we don’t know” not “the elderly are not protected”

        The real point of the article says nothing about all patients of all ages, so why are you mischaracterizing that point as well? Infants, children, non-elderly adults, and other hospital personel may all receive protection from the flu when primary caretakes are flu vaccinated, but the review only addresses the elderly. It is not truthful to say “There is no justification for forcing – or even suggesting – healthcare workers to get flu vaccines to protect patients” based on this review alone.

        This is more evidence that your reporting is either sloppy or deliberlately misleading.

        • / Heidi Stevenson

          At this point, the only thing we know is that the attempt to find out if the elderly are helped by their carers getting flu vaccines found that they couldn’t find proof that they do. Ergo, the proper assumption at this point is that vaccinating the caregivers offers no benefit.

          You call this reporting sloppy – but I’ll bet you don’t say anything about the reports pushing hard for vaccines without any evidence – or junk science – behind it. What’s sloppy is your attacking this report on such a flimsy point.

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software