BMJ  2006;333:1021 (11 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.39023.947037.1F

Letters

Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence

Vested interests will always trump evidence

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

With reference to the article by Jefferson,¹ five years ago I asked my general practitioner what the facts were about the pros and cons of flu vaccination, and I was referred to the handouts from the Department of Health. These were long on assertion and short on facts. I embarked on a literature search and running correspondence with various civil service mandarins with the limited ambition of getting data on what actual tests—of efficacy and safety—had been done on current vaccines and with what results. After much evasive action and stalling I was informed that such information was confidential.

The Lancet published my scepticism about the extraordinary claims being made for the ability of flu vaccine to prevent not only the flu but death as well, whatever the cause.² Since then a few papers have expressed concern about the inconclusive nature of the evidence for its efficacy,^{3 4} and the public . . . [Full text of this article]

¹ Exeter EX1 2HW h.2@which.net

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Authors' reply on Cochrane reviews v industry supported meta-analyses

Anders W Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche, and Jørgen Hilden
BMJ 2006 333: 1072-1073. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence

Tom Jefferson
BMJ 2006 333: 912-915. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Shah, N. R., Jones, J. B., Aperi, J., Shemtov, R., Karne, A., Borenstein, J. (2008). Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Premenstrual Syndrome and Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder: A Meta-Analysis. Obstet Gynecol 111: 1175-1182 [Abstract] [Full text]