What AntiVax Gets Dangerously Wrong http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/health360/posts/2015/02/06-measles-vaccines-mmr-herd-immunity-antivaxxers-patel#.VNo8VbiP18c.twitter … "w/ issue as important as vaccines, we can't afford political warfare" @kavitapmd
@dbarthjones Hang on a minute...this says 50% studies go selectively unpublished
http://www.alltrials.net/
and it doesn't exclude vaccines. >
-
-
“
@C7RKY: Says 50% studies go selectively unpublished -> http://www.alltrials.net/ & it doesn't exclude vaccines” Some %(?) probably missing 1/N -
@C7RKY But N's for unpublished studies usually much smaller. For example, it would take huge amount of missing evidence to offset this.. 2/N -
@C7RKY ...reference for vaccine meta-analysis including > 1.25 million observations. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367 … 3/N -
@dbarthjones Well firstly, this grabbed my attention: "Disagreement was resolved by consensus with another author" But more importantly, > -
@dbarthjones despite large number, it still offers no insight into how many were studied but NOT published. That matters, per BMJ Editor > -
>>
@dbarthjones "When you add together published & unpublished evidence, you get a v diff pic of the quality & effectiveness of those drugs." -
@C7RKY Epidemiology has had sensitivity methods for estimating potential impact of publication biases for decades: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias … -
@C7RKY I'm entirely confident that there isn't any scientific reason to doubt either the efficacy or high-level of safety for vaccines. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@dbarthjones So why should I not regard most of what IS published as lacking scientific credibility as a result? It's a fair question.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.