SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A CDC panel has concluded that a spray version of the influenza vaccine is ineffective and shouldn't be used during the 2016-2017 flu season:
What led to the abrupt fall of FluMist — the nasal spray version of influenza vaccine — which until recently was considered the first choice for younger children? On Wednesday, an advisory panel to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the spray version was so ineffective, it shouldn't be used by anyone during the 2016-2017 flu season.
Just two years ago, that same Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] recommended FluMist as the preferred alternative for most kids ages 2-8, after reviewing several studies from 2006-2007 that suggested the spray was more effective in kids than the injectable forms of the vaccine.
What changed to make the spray so much less effective than studies had shown it to be in the past? The bottom line is that right now "we don't understand what it is," said David Kimberlin, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, who said academic researchers and those at MedImmune, the subsidiary of Astra Zeneca that makes FluMist, are working to get answers.
AstraZeneca, the maker of FluMist, says its own numbers conflict with the CDC's. The ACIP recommendation must be reviewed by the CDC's director before it can become official policy. The FluMist spray comprises 8% of the projected vaccine supply for the upcoming flu season.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @01:09PM
Maybe it is that your method of interpreting evidence is fatally flawed? All that was observed earlier was that if two groups of people were samples from exactly the same distribution, the difference observed between them would be unlikely (given an arbitrary definition of unlikely). Then after new data comes in, we find that this difference has now crossed over that magical arbitrary line to the "likely side". Never did anyone come up with a theory to explain why that difference should be the size it was, etc. No one used this info to predict a future timecourse of flu incidence or anything like that. There was nothing there to hang our hats on to begin with.
No one should have been taking any of this seriously. The entire effort is set up to waste as much money as possible while accomplishing as little as possible. I really want smart people from other fields to start looking into what these medical researchers have been spending your donations and taxes on.