Quote:
Originally Posted by MSD
|
I would just like to point out that this link hardly constitutes proof of safety and effectiveness. It would be more useful if the CDC referenced the "large study" more specifically than by simply referring to it as a "large study."
According to the website, the adults in the "large study" who got sick weren't tested for influenza. Why not? Why would a study whose purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of a flu vaccine not go to the lengths required to determine if its participants actually got the flu? Perhaps there is a perfectly good reason for this, but without any more information, the conclusion that The Nasal-Spray Flu Vaccine is effective at reducing the flu rate in adults should be treated as suspect. Especially in light of the millions of dollars at stake. It isn't completely out of the question that this "large study" was paid for by the company responsible for The Nasal-Spray Flu Vaccine, which would give them veto power over how the data was interpreted, and even possibly what data the researchers got to see.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but from my understanding it's actually pretty commonplace (see Lipitor, Celebrex, Vioxx, statins, etc.)