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: 3, Insightful) by EvilSS on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:30PM
There's actually not a whole lot of money in common vaccines like the flu vaccine. Sure they don't lose money but they make more money selling a single bottle of boner pills than they would of off enough flu vaccine shots for a few dozen people.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:49PM
There's actually not a whole lot of money in common vaccines like the flu vaccine. Sure they don't lose money but they make more money selling a single bottle of boner pills than they would of off enough flu vaccine shots for a few dozen people.
Sure, the profit margins are lower for vaccines - but selling them has a lot of advantages. They make up the small profit margin with huge volume, for one thing (there were 3.4 million units of an ED pill sold in 2013 - compare that to over 175 million doses of flu vaccine). In addition, pharmaceutical companies are indemnified and held harmless for any defects or health issues caused by vaccines. You can sue the pill company if your boner goes pear-shaped, but if your daughter contracts Guillain–Barré syndrome from a vaccine, you are not allowed to seek recompense from the manufacturer.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday June 29 2016, @01:52PM
What "advantages" exactly? Sure they can't be sued (sometimes, this isn't 100%) but vaccines are labor intensive and most common ones are not covered by patents any longer. If it wasn't for the sheer volume most companies wouldn't bother with common vaccines like the flu vaccines since they can reap much larger rewards elsewhere.