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.
-
-
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 "Again and again, we have evidence of unpublished results that, when combined with the published results, make the drugs suddenly look not only no longer effective but harmful" Fiona Godlee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 Even that poses questions re some NHS recommendations, let alone what unpublished studies might also add.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 -
You appear to concentrate on studies and I know you’re sceptical for personal reasons but look at the statistics,they speak for themselves; millions of lives saved worldwide every year due to vaccines.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think the reason I went looking is far less important in this instance than what I found when I did. And yes I concentrate on the studies. Why wouldn't I? They are the evidence in 'evidence based medicine' after all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because, IMO, the study in question was picked because it confirmed your bias, studies should align with the stats and they do - that’s when we have true EBM. Hence why ppl with health problems are offered the jab and healthy not (Bar front line staff to protect public)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nonsense, Kerrie. I've been making the same point re clinical trials being quackery for years. Partially evidence based. I picked this review (of ALL available studies) because it was the topic under discussion. I've already acknowledged your point about health problems elsewhere
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Difference between you and I is that I’ve worked in clinical research so please don’t give me the tellytubbies guide to this field of expertise.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Ad hominem eh? I think that response says more about you than me. It doesn't require qualifications to realise that selectively hiding half the evidence can corrupt the end result. It's blindingly obvious for all to see. Tellytubby maths. Sorry you don't like me pointing that out
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.