Stronger flu shots This year the newer shots contain 4 antigens instead of 3 (2 each for influenza A and influenza B), although you can get shots with 3 antigens (2 flu A and 1 flu B) also. You can also get a 4 antigen live virus vaccine sprayed up the nose (if you are aged 2-49 and not pregnant). According to Reuters
French drugmaker Sanofi, whose Sanofi Pasteur unit is the world's biggest supplier of flu vaccines, with sales of 884 million euros ($1.2 billion) in 2012, says it expects a premium of some 50 percent or more (for the 4 antigen vaccines)...
In Europe, roll out of the new vaccines will be slower as several products - including Sanofi's four-strain Vaxigrip - are still awaiting approval, although GSK's quadrivalent has a green light in Britain, Germany and France.
A competing vaccine that is sprayed into the nose rather than injected, from AstraZeneca's MedImmune unit, is also cleared in the United States but not yet in Europe...
Does "stronger" mean better? We don't know. Are there more side effects? We don't know. Why has approval been delayed in Europe? We don't know.
Flu vaccine for health care workers
Stronger than what? If you multiply something times zero it is still zero. If recent year (3 antigen) healthcare worker flu shots failed to prevent deaths and hospitalizations in elderly nursing home residents, will 4 antigen shots be any better? According to a meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration , the world's most respected organization to perform therapy meta-analyses, the older shots had ZERO benefit at preventing lab-confirmed influenza, pneumonia and hospitalizations in nursing home residents over 60 years old. And this is the target group for flu vaccinations, the group for whom death from flu is most likely. Cochrane concluded
There is no evidence that only vaccinating healthcare workers prevents laboratory-proven influenza or its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract infection) in individuals aged 60 or over in LTCIs and thus no evidence to mandate compulsory vaccination of healthcare workers...
The University of Minnesota's CIDRAP reviewed a similar study just out by CDC and an editorial that reviewed the same evidence and grudgingly concluded:
... that, for specific outcomes such as lab-confirmed influenza, the data showed little evidence of protection for patients. They agreed, though, that immunization is a good measure to take.
Why is it a good measure to take if it doesn't do what it is meant to? Because CDC is charged with working with flu vaccine manufacturers to decide how many doses should be manufactured yearly, is responsible for purchasing most of those doses, and for generating advertising and media interest to increase flu vaccine uptake, it can hardly be expected to draw independent conclusions about the net benefit, if any, of flu vaccine.
If vaccinating the elderly and their caregivers does not prevent flu infections or hospitalizations, why are we doing it, and even mandating flu shots ? Possibly the profit motive plays a part
... Contracts struck with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirm a hefty price jump for the new four-strain flu vaccine, with GSK's quadrivalent Fluarix, for example, costing $12.03 per dose against $8.08 for the standard version, according to the agency's website. Those price premiums may feed through to higher revenues and accelerated growth in a global flu vaccine market that research group Datamonitor Healthcare estimates at around $3.7 billion a year...
Flu shot safety: narcolepsy, Guillain Barre and increasing flu frequency or severity
Note that most of the reviewed studies failed to look at flu vaccine safety.
... The government U-turn (on compensation) follows a major study of four- to 18-year-olds by the Health Protection Agency which found that around one in every 55,000 jabs was associated with narcolepsy. A spokesman for GSK said it had details of around 900 people from 14 countries who had narcolepsy and were vaccinated...
Why did it take so long to make this determination? And why did the government deny it initially? Perhaps because it was the government, not the manufacturer, that was on the hook for damages. Such is the new legal regime for pandemic flu vaccines. And now such is the legal regime for all vaccines given in the US. The risk of developing narcolepsy in the UK was increased after vaccination by a factor of 10-16 (or more than 1,000%) in the six months after the shot. The legal standard to assign causality in many countries would be just a doubling of risk; this ten-fold plus risk increase should have been rapidly identified and acknowledged, especially given the "enhanced" surveillancein the US and Europe to which the pandemic vaccines were subjected in 2009.
"The vaccine safety datalink (VSD), which is the USA's principal active surveillance system, was enhanced, several active surveillance systems that were at varying stages of growth were expanded rapidly (ie, databases from Medicare and the US Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs), and new adverse event monitoring systems were developed specifically for monitoring of influenza A (H1N1) vaccination — ie, the emerging infections programme (EIP), and the post-licensure rapid immunization safety monitoring (PRISM) network."
It begs the question of the effectiveness of routine flu vaccine adverse event surveillance when enhanced surveillance took 2-3 years following the mass vaccination program to yield actionable results.
Because vaccine science is actually more art than science, and the creation of new vaccines and adjuvants remains a matter of trial and error , we don't actually know until a vaccine is given to many thousands or millions of people whether potentially serious adverse events will occur. See info on vaccine safety analysis from the American College of Physicians , CDC and FDA .