A fonzibrain.

Tout discours n’a de valeur que s’il est honnête, je pense que vous serez d’accord avec ce postulat.

Pour moi, une des premières caractéristiques de l’honnêteté est de ne pas déformer ses sources, de ne pas inventer et d’attribuer à des sommités, ou d’autres quidam ce qu’ils n’ont ni dit ni écrit. Pourtant vous le faites : 

Reprenons votre discours :

« Et n’oubliez pas que le cochrane institute dit qu’aucune étude permet de constater l’efficacité de la vaccination contre la grippe.regardez plus bas. » 

On peut pinailler et dire que c’est la Cochrane Library et pas institute, qui est effectivement un organisme sérieux en « Médecine basée sur les preuves », mais là n’est pas l’important. L’important est : ils n’ont JAMAIS écrit cela !

Je les cite :

« Influenza vaccination of elderly individuals is recommended worldwide as people aged 65 and older are at highest risk for complications, hospitalisations and deaths from influenza.


The review looked at evidence from experimental and non-experimental studies carried out over 40 years of influenza vaccination. Seventy-one studies were included and were grouped first according to study design and then to setting (community or long-term care facilities). The results of the review are mostly based on non-experimental (observational) studies, which are at greater risk of bias, as not many good quality trials were available. Trivalent inactivated are the most commonly used influenza vaccines. Best effectiveness of current vaccines in preventing clinical illness and its complications was seen in long-term care facilities (for example nursing homes) where vaccines prevented about 45% of pneumonia cases, hospital admissions and influenza-related deaths. This compared to about 25% vaccine efficacy in preventing hospitalisation from influenza or respiratory illness in open community settings. The public health safety profile of the vaccines appears to be acceptable. »

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004876.html

En clair, pour eux, la vaccination marche chez la personne âgée.

« The review authors found that in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus (82% of illnesses were prevented) than injected vaccines made from the killed virus (59%). Neither type was particularly good at preventing ’flu-like illness’ caused by other types of viruses (33% and 36% respectively). In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo. »

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html

En clair chez l’enfant de moins deux ans ça marche pas. Chez celui de plus de deux ans le vaccin pernasal est plus efficace que le vaccin injecté (qui l’est néanmoins)

« The review of trials found vaccinations against influenza avoided 80% of cases at best (in those confirmed by laboratory tests, and using vaccines directed against circulating strains), but only 50% when the vaccine did not match, and 30% against influenza-like illness, in healthy adults. It did not change the number of people needing to go to hospital or take time off work »

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html

Chez l’adulte ça marche aussi...

Je vous cite encore :

« Selon certains scientifiques,la vaccination systématique et les antiviraux préconisés favorisent les commutations à savoir la transmission du patrimoine génétique d’un virus mort ou atténué à des cellules saines qui en retour ouvre la voie à une mutation génétique de virus in vivo. »

Suivent quelques citations censées accréditer la théorie. Le problème, là encore c’est que les sources ne disent pas, mais pas du tout cette chose. Elles disent tout simplement que l’effet du vaccin s’épuise avec le temps (un peu comme le tétanos, faut revacciner sinon on peut l’attraper).

L’abstract de votre source (J Infect Dis. 1994 Jan ;169(1):77-82) :

« From January to July 1991, an outbreak of mumps occurred in Maury County, Tennessee. At the primarily affected high school, where 98% of students and all but 1 student with mumps had been vaccinated before the outbreak, 68 mumps cases occurred among 1116 students (attack rate, 6.1%). Students vaccinated before 1988 (the first year mumps vaccination was required for school attendance in Tennessee) may have been at greater risk of mumps than those vaccinated later (65[6.1%] of 1001 vs. 2[2.2%] of 89 ; risk ratio, 2.9 ; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-11.6). Of 13 persons with confirmed mumps who underwent serologic testing, 3 lacked IgM antibody in well-timed acute- and convalescent-phase serum specimens. Vaccine failure accounted for a sustained mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Most mumps cases were attributable to primary vaccine failure. It is possible that waning vaccine-induced immunity also played a role. »

Pour être sympa je vous donne aussi un article plus récent qui dit pareil : 

Vaccine. 2007 Jun 11 ;25(24):4665-70.

« From March to April 2006, an outbreak of mumps occurred in Gyeonggi, Korea. The aim of this study was to describe and discriminate between primary and secondary vaccine failure in a highly vaccinated population for mumps using IgG avidity testing. Fifteen clinical mumps cases occurred among 41 students. Among these 15 patients, 11 vaccinated patients were considered secondary vaccine failures with high IgG titers and a high avidity index (AI, > or =32%) ; an unvaccinated patient was considered to have primary infection with high IgG titers and low AI, and three vaccinated patients were considered as other infections with low IgG titers and low AI. Among 26 unaffected students, 5 vaccinated patients were retrospectively diagnosed as sub-clinical infection with high IgG titers and high AI ; the remaining students had low IgG titers and low AI except for one previously infected student. The results of this study show that secondary vaccine failure played an important role in this mumps outbreak. Therefore, booster immunization for mumps should be considered in immunized adolescents to prevent further outbreaks. »

Je ne conteste pas votre droit de dire ce qui vous chante mais ayez l’honneteté intelectuelle de le faire sous votre propre nom, n’essayez pas de donner à votre discours une solidité en trafiquant vos sources.

Au total fonzibrain dit que ça commute, dit que vacciner ça marche pas.