Something about flu shots sounds very fishy. Why are all these companies spending billions of dollars to come up with a product to reduce CVD (most recent outcomes were 7%, 15%, 19% - I think) when ONE annual flu shot can reduce CVD by supposedly (upto) 45%. Smells like BS to me.
Not only its 1 (flu) shot vs monthly (or weekly) shots (other products), the cost is $40 (flu shot) vs over $12,000 for other products.
Wouldn't every doctor that prescribes any CVD medicine mandate that all his clients get a flu shot?
Why wouldn't any company develop a flu shot like product, run tests, etc and make many billions of dollars by selling it as a CVD drug, if the efficacy was anywhere near 45%.
My guess on why they claim that it could reduce CVD by 45% is not because it really does that but because those who do these shots are generally more self conscious than those who do not.
For example, if I claim that shopping at Whole Foods can reduce the chance of getting CVD by 25%. That would be true and BS at the same time - those who shop there may be 25% less likely to get CVD, not because they shop there but because more health conscious people shop there as opposed to Walmart.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
