# 4922
A couple of days ago I posted a blog called CMAJ: Flu Vaccinations Reduce Heart Attack Risk, which gave a brief account of a study that linked the flu vaccine with a 19% reduction in heart attack risk for those over the age of 40.
When I pointed out in my final paragraph, that this `single study will not be the last word on this subject.’, I had no idea how quickly additional words would begin to appear.
Within 24 hours of its release, criticisms of this study’s methods have been voiced, and its conclusions questioned.
Robert Roos, News Editor for CIDRAP has the details in a piece that appeared on that website last night. This is an excellent review, and details the problems that some researchers see with this study.
Follow the link to read it in its entirety.
Study on flu shots and heart-attack risk questioned
Robert Roos
News Editor
Sep 21, 2010 (CIDRAP News) – A case-control study using records on tens of thousands of people in the United Kingdom suggests that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of heart attack in people older than 40, but other researchers who have studied the benefits of flu immunization have raised doubts about the findings.
Today’s example shows the folly of cherry-picking studies that support one side of a debate or another (a popular sport on the internet), or immediately accepting the latest study as proven `fact.’
While these criticisms don’t invalidate the results of this study, they do call them into question.
Perfect research projects and studies are impossible to mount, of course.
There are always going to be limitations or deficits in funding, design, size, demographics, and time – any of which can influence the results.
Which is why no single study can be viewed as the final word on a subject. Absolutes are hard to come by in science, and results are rarely conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So we rely on the preponderance of evidence, which requires weighing the results of more than one peer-reviewed study, along with their reception from the scientific community.
Imperfect? Yes. And sometimes messy, too.
Over time, peer-reviewed science does work, giving us a clearer picture of our world and how it works.
But it’s an ongoing process.
