Got my high-dose "Old Geezer" flu shot today.

[Ms. Toad]

70. So you don't believe you can trust your patients with accurate information?

You would not be my doctor for longer than the few seconds it took to discover that posture.

It IS hype, rather than hype, when (1) accurate information about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is intentionally omitted from articles or discussions about vaccination and (2) in the event it is added to the discussion, those sharing such information are labeled "anti-vax," uninformed, or malicious.

The reality is that the flu vaccine is incredibly ineffective compared to the effectiveness of other vaccines. The fact that there are scientific reasons for its ineffectiveness does not alter the fact that its peak effectiveness since 2004 is 60% (meaning it is only 60% better than no vaccine at all). The average effectiveness in that time period is 42%. Last year the effectiveness for my age range was a whopping 12% - and 0% if you look only at the late season influenza.

That track record is not dissimilar from any other year - at least since 2004. That information is information that is relevant to my personal decision about whether to get a vaccination this year. It will be weighed against a lot of other information (general risk factors, personal risk factors, etc.). Intentionally suppressing that information (and labeling people who share it anti-vax, malicious, or uninformed) in order to avoid the risk that someone might make an informaiton-based decision not to vaccinate is, indeed, hype.