All I've advised is to read the Cochrane review before settling on a decision. Does that seem unreasonable?
-
-
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 "Again and again, we have evidence of unpublished results that, when combined with the published results, make the drugs suddenly look not only no longer effective but harmful" Fiona Godlee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 -
What would be acceptable evidence to you?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
There are several facets to that answer, but a big start would be to remove the words 'selectively published'. Science demands transparency. That's what makes it science. But there are many other areas I'd like to see addressed too.
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.