• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flu vaccine headline misleading,... again

I think its a terrible headline. Heart patients are still at risk for the flu if they get a shot but more so if they don't get the shot! It makes it sound like the shot is somehow harmful.
People can still get Measles or Mumps if vaccinated, but are at much lower risk than those who have not been vaccinated. You can still get lung cancer if you don't smoke, you just improve the odds immensely. Just because vaccines don't provide 100% protection doesn't mean they are contra indicated.
 
It's a Yahoo news article. What the hell do you expect? It's like griping about the quality of the discourse in an AOL chatroom.
 
The problem, Dy, is how many people only see the headline, assume flu shots are bad for someone, maybe them, maybe just bad all the way around, and the myth grows that the shots are bad.

The problem is not that I know better.
 
I sent the following to the Reuter's News service editor:

Flu shots leave heart failure patients at risk
By Julie Steenhuysen Sat Mar 29, 5:47 PM ET

This headline implies the vaccine is actually harmful, not that it merely does not work as well as intended. I asked a number of people to tell me what they thought this story was about from just reading the headline and 100% of them said the story would say the vaccine harmed people with heart disease.

Given the extremely serious problem we have with people who believe flu vaccine myths that leads to many people who should get the vaccine needlessly going without it, such a headline does significant damage.

It is irresponsible though I can see that one mis-judged how the verb, "leaves" would be interpreted.

It deserves a prominent front page correction. I, my colleagues, and public health agencies around the world battle vaccine myths daily in our profession. We have many serious preventable infections because of vaccine myths. Such stories deserve more care than perhaps the author and/or editor realize.



I included my name, titles and practice name & location.
 
Title aside, the article itself gives a mixed message, starting off as though the heart failure patients contract the full flu as a result of getting the shot, then going into these patients simply not having as strong an immune development as the healthy group in the study. So which is it?
 
It's the latter. And it is not a new finding. And they still get some modification of their infection aka a milder course of disease. What isn't happening in high risk groups is outright prevention of infection. But in come cases the disease is as mild as being only detectable by blood test.

The studies can be concerned with, does the vaccine interrupt the spread, AND what does the vaccine do for the individual vaccinated. So when a vaccine makes the infection milder, it could be saving a life. But it might not slow down an epidemic. Those are two different things health care providers might be concerned about depending on what the research is focused on.

I haven't had a chance yet to see what the actual study said, but my guess is it may have said the vaccine still prevents some serious flu morbidity and mortality.
 
Last edited:
Let us know if you get a reply, skeptigirl, I'd be interested in seeing how this is dealt with.
 
What I got from the article was the flu vaccination may be giving people with heart failure a false sense of security, thus they are not adopting other preventative measures because they feel safe.

"We're not saying that patients with heart failure should not get immunized," Vardeny said. "But maybe more preventive measures should be taken," like booster shots and frequent hand washing to decrease the transmission of germs.
Click to expand...
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
What I got from the article was the flu vaccination may be giving people with heart failure a false sense of security, thus they are not adopting other preventative measures because they feel safe.
Click to expand...

So you agree that a much better (and more accurate) headline would have been something like "Flu vaccine alone not enough to protect heart patients".
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Perhaps the author was clueless how the verb, leave, comes across in this headline.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Steenhuysen is just clueless, period. Another possibility is that, appreciating the fact that her job as a reporter makes her a member of the entertainment business, she deliberately spins facts in ways intended to enhance their entertainment value.

The reveres recently addressed a PNAS article titled: "Modeling targeted layered containment of an influenza pandemic in the United States" which involved tweaking of simulation variables such as sick leave policies, school closures, workplace social distancing, and isolation of confirmed cases. Steenhuysen's report on that article was titled: "Pandemic flu plan would put Chicago on lockdown". In revere's words: The idea of Chicago in a "lockdown" is preposterous and not even remotely suggested in the [PNAS article].

See a trend here?
 
Last edited:
And what can we learn from the fact that the folks with heart disease have a different reaction to exposures to germs? Proof of an immune tie to heart disease, anyone?

My new puppy had a case of 'puppy strangles'. It's an immune system overreaction, treated with prednislone. Perhaps heart disease is caused by a cortisol abnormality?
 
Bob Klase said:
So you agree that a much better (and more accurate) headline would have been something like "Flu vaccine alone not enough to protect heart patients".
Click to expand...

Yep.

There was an even more misleading word used in an article in the Independent on Sunday newspaper. It used the word 'radioactivity' while referring to the radio frequency emissions from mobile phones.

This is what happens when you have humanities graduates writing and misinforming the public about science.
 
Bob Klase said:
So you agree that a much better (and more accurate) headline would have been something like "Flu vaccine alone not enough to protect heart patients".
Click to expand...
Yes. However, note that reporters in traditional, print media do not normally write the headlines. The reporter may not be at fault. That leaves us with, possibly, inadequate reporting compounded by incompetent headlining (is that a verb?).
 
I interpreted it correctly, but, I suspect it was phrased like that to draw attention - as it did.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
What I got from the article was the flu vaccination may be giving people with heart failure a false sense of security, thus they are not adopting other preventative measures because they feel safe.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask what you got from the article or actual story, Ivor. I asked people what they thought the headline meant and then to read the article and see how they thought it compared.

However, since you've given your assessment, it sounds like you are trying to rationalize what the study found given the reporter's poorly titled article. Nothing in the article actually says anything about a false sense of security. It says the vaccine isn't good enough. So you've been influenced by the title even after actually reading the story.
 
Last edited:
Dymanic said:
Perhaps Steenhuysen is just clueless, period. Another possibility is that, appreciating the fact that her job as a reporter makes her a member of the entertainment business, she deliberately spins facts in ways intended to enhance their entertainment value.

The reveres recently addressed a PNAS article titled: "Modeling targeted layered containment of an influenza pandemic in the United States" which involved tweaking of simulation variables such as sick leave policies, school closures, workplace social distancing, and isolation of confirmed cases. Steenhuysen's report on that article was titled: "Pandemic flu plan would put Chicago on lockdown". In revere's words: The idea of Chicago in a "lockdown" is preposterous and not even remotely suggested in the [PNAS article].

See a trend here?
Click to expand...
That one is clearly a 'market the story' headline, news as a commodity, not as a source of information.
 
fuelair said:
I interpreted it correctly, but, I suspect it was phrased like that to draw attention - as it did.
Click to expand...
So did you then get the impression the flu shots were not necessarily bad but were perhaps, worthless?

(Which they are not, BTW, even if they are only partially effective.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom