This study was based on healthy individuals John. Dangerous to advise when you do not know the medical history of the individual.
-
-
All I've advised is to read the Cochrane review before settling on a decision. Does that seem unreasonable?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes John it does because not all will understand the study and may deter them from getting a life saving vaccination. How many will read that report and miss that it’s carried out in patients with no health issues?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
If there's one thing I know about
@nw_nicholas, it's that he's not daft. I'm sure he can discern the right thing to do for himself, whether from the likely computer-generated letter he received, from the Cochrane review, or from a healthcare professional. He's a big boy.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
have no idea why you are saying this to me,my criticism was of you not him and as twitter is a public forum where casual observers may take your selective study and apply it to themselves I wished to point out how dangerous this could be.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'm going to remove
@nw_nicholas from this thread, just so we don't fill up his timeline with our debate. But he and anyone else who cares to do so can still follow it below if they wish.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I accept your point about this being a public forum. I'll consider how I present such evidence in future but present it I still shall, because the danger is relative imho. Relative to NHS's blind promotion of flu vaccine to all & sundry, regardless of lack of scientific evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
John Clarke Retweeted John Clarke
Key word there being 'scientific'. No matter what these studies show, or even the empirical reviews of them, when a similar amount of studies remain selectively hidden, it undermines the findings of those we can see. It frankly allows for scientific fraud.https://twitter.com/C7RKY/status/1026110708294012928 …
John Clarke added,
John Clarke @C7RKYReplying to @doctorcaldwell @DrUmeshPrabhu and 28 othersThe marketing con is just the final con. Big pharma, 'scientific'? "Again and again, we have evidence of unpublished results that, when combined with the published results, make the drugs suddenly look not only no longer effective but harmful" Fiona Godlee https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc295-i/uc295.pdf …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Cochrane has some questions to answer over its recent HPV vaccine review it seems, but they've always struck me as relatively objective in reviewing the studies they can see. Even that poses questions re some NHS recommendations, let alone what unpublished studies might also add.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
That somebody with COPD for example has cause to avoid catching the flu is obvious. Whether or not the flu vaccine will help them achieve that is an entirely other question. One to which we have no scientific answer. Just 6 selectively published studies, from 14+ years ago.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
If I have a soapbox subject, it's informed consent. I think these are risks about which everybody should be informed, in stark contrast to the promotional style adopted currently. I make no apology for trying to inform people, but I take your point and shall do so carefully. :)
-
-
Thanks for presenting another side to the debate John. It’s something to consider when those coercive letters drop on the doormat.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Welcome. There are risks in either choice & everyone has to weigh them for themselves, but especially in a post-Montgomery world, I think we should be hearing a far more balanced and nuanced discussion around vaccines personally. Coercive is my take on the current approach too.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.