In a post yesterday, I called attention to a story in the current issue of The Atlantic questioning the value of flu vaccines.
I also linked to an anonymous, critical rebuttal in the blog Effect Measure. I made a point of noting that I don’t like to accept criticism from anonymous sources, but that I was making an exception with this blog because I thought the issues were of interest to our readers.
Shannon Brownlee, one of the authors of the Atlantic article emailed me with a response, which she said I could post here, and I have done so below.
Effect Measure also emailed the Tracker, asking for equal time to respond to any Brownlee response. I told the Effect Measure blogger that he would have to identify himself (or herself) to respond on the Tracker. I also suggested that the blogger might ask an ally to respond by name. The blogger emailed to say he (she) is considering it. I haven’t heard anything more, but if anyone responds by name, I will post the response.
In the meantime, check out the comments on my earlier post. And here is Brownlee’s response, unedited:
You might be interested to see the reply Jeanne Lenzer and I have posted to Revere on the Effect Measure site. http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/10/journalists_sink_in_the_atlant.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
The study you cite by Jefferson as showing efficacy is talking about efficacy in evoking an immune response. Jefferson TO, Rivetti D, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Demicheli V., Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001269 It is not a contradiction of what he said to us. When he and his coauthors say that vaccine is a 30% effective, or 50% effective, they mean it is effective in evoking antibody titres. The abstract and the full article say clearly that there was insufficient evidence to estimate reduction if any in clinically meaningful outcomes, like hospitalization and other serious complications. Some of the bloggers who should know better mixed up antibody response for clinical outcomes.
What’s more troubling is the fact that many of the attacks on Jefferson and our story rely on character assassination, implying that he says one thing in the literature and another to two journalists. This simply isn’t true, and they know it, or at least they should if they have read his papers carefully. Some bloggers also seem to be saying that Jeanne Lenzer and I are too stupid to know the difference between good science and bad and have simply taken the word of a crank. Not so. We did our homework.
We can’t say we’re surprised by the level of vitriol or the ad hominem nature of much of response on the web, but we are dismayed that many bloggers have decided that it’s better to attack the messengers than to consider the message. We’re simply saying that the nation’s seasonal flu strategy, which is to vaccinate the elderly and other vulnerable populations, may not be working as well as has been claimed. If we rely on vaccine during a major, deadly pandemic (which thus far this one does not appear to be, but things could change), the public may not be as well protected as we might hope or believe. We don’t say flu vaccine is worthless, we simply say nobody really knows how much protection it might offer. Better studies would help define what vaccine can and can’t do – and help us prepare for the really nasty pandemic that many experts believe is only a matter of time.
For some reason, those simple statements make some people see red.
Shannon Brownlee
Senior Research Fellow, New America Foundation; Woodrow Wilson Visiting Scholar.
– Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply