Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the gonna-need-more-tissues dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:58PM

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:58PM (#367273)

    That article make no such suggestion.

    --
    I am a crackpot
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 29 2016, @06:48PM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 29 2016, @06:48PM (#367683) Journal

    Yes it does.

    Sexual transmission of pesticide damage by people never subjected to the pesticide rules out pesticides.
    Mosquito born transmission of pesticide damage by people never subjected to the pesticide rules out pesticides.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday June 30 2016, @10:36AM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday June 30 2016, @10:36AM (#367935)

      They only talk about transmission of the Zika virus by sexual transmission. But they don't say there's any cases of sexually-transmitted Zika causing microcephaly. So, no, it doesn't.

      --
      I am a crackpot