Best evidence indicates few harms, so it's spurious to ascribe a plethora of problems to HPV vax. https://twitter.com/itsmepanda1/status/747775703920279553 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The idea is that certain types of evidence carry more weight, due to a number of factors like size, control, reliability etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @itsmePanda1
Generally speaking, systematic reviews are the 'top' form of evidence, then RCTs, case-control/cohort, lab-bench, anecdotal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @itsmePanda1
Each 'tier' generally provides stronger evidence than the one below; it's simplified but still a decent guide.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @itsmePanda1
So to provide convincing evidence against a SR, you'd probably need to either seriously discredit it or have a v. large RCT.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @itsmePanda1
In essence, a SR is thousands and thousands of scientifically verified anecdotes, so anecdotal evidence isn't v. compelling.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @itsmePanda1
And 'lab-bench' data like mice studies are generally a v. rough guide on what might be an avenue for research.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @itsmePanda1
Since there have been a number of large RCTs and SRs that have found few ill effects from the HPV vax, anecdotes...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
...and 'lab-bench' results are very unlikely to be accurate. They aren't rigorously controlled and don't provide good evidence.
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.