(2017-12-15, 04:00 PM)berkelon Wrote: [ -> ]Linda and Paul are making too much sense...careful everyone...this is the kind of stuff that used to get people banned on the old forum!
Hmmm...considering the discussion going on in the Forum section, you might be right about that.
Linda
(2017-12-18, 11:30 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty much (for your purposes, anyway).
It depends. In some cases they are able to provide better information than RCT's and cohort studies. All three kinds of studies are used to look at the influenza vaccines, and the choice depends upon the question being asked.
No, odds ratios don't depend on the underlying incidence - they can be calculated using selected samples (one of their advantages).
No. This is the trap you can fall in to when you have no experience with clinical medicine. Diagnoses aren't made based on a list of symptoms, but by pattern recognition. The analogy I use is the Mona Lisa. If you've ever seen the Mona Lisa, I can show you some paintings of "woman with a secretive smile" and you can pick her out immediately. But if you haven't ever seen her, I can show you a painting which fits that description and claim that it is her.
Besides, if you read the description of the methodology, those patients within that 2 week window were excluded anyways.
No, again, the underlying prevalence of ILI and propensity to seek medical care do not alter the equation.
I'm not sure what you were going for with this.
Doubtful. That's why research and surveillance are done on risks and benefits.
Yes. That's why there are many different studies done to gauge benefit (and risk).
I don't know. People seem to follow the advice of their physician and public health advisors, which makes the point moot, I suspect.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you asking if we need measurement of baseline risk in various populations? Again, VE doesn't depend on incidence or risk.
That's the point of the research which answers those questions.
This sounds like a pet peeve for you?
This seems to belong in the conspiracy part of the forum.
Linda
You just stated that a correlation between flu vaccine and ILI wouldn’t falsely drive up the VE. This proves you are totally full of shit and have no clue what you’re talking about.
(2017-12-19, 02:33 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm...considering the discussion going on in the Forum section, you might be right about that.
Linda
I'm curious to know what you mean by this, and to which discussion you're referring.
Once again I must state my disapproval of this thread being hidden from view like some homeless person being driven from city centres to make it 'presentable'.
Just watch Vaxxed, warts and all, Wakefield might be a fraud and a scoundrel for all I know. The documentary shows enough good reasons for all of us to be worried, conspiracy theorist or skeptic's alike! The CDC doesn't come out of it well.
We're spiralling out of control, and such censorship is speeding up the decline.
(2017-12-19, 11:19 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Once again I must state my disapproval of this thread being hidden from view like some homeless person being driven from city centres to make it 'presentable'.
Steve, please then contribute to Chris's thread, and do what I've just asked Linda to do: suggest which forum you think this thread belongs in and how the guidelines for science-related threads and/or their interpretation be changed to that effect.
(2017-12-19, 12:53 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Steve, please then contribute to Chris's thread, and do what I've just asked Linda to do: suggest which forum you think this thread belongs in and how the guidelines for science-related threads and/or their interpretation be changed to that effect.
It was fine where it was.
Which thread by Chris?
(2017-12-19, 12:58 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]It was fine where it was.
OK, then it seems that in your view the guidelines need to be revised, because according to them, it's not fine where it was. If you want to suggest how you'd like to see them revised, then that would be great.
(2017-12-19, 12:58 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Which thread by Chris?
The one you've already responded in:
Site organisation and "view posts" lists.
(2017-12-19, 04:26 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I'm curious to know what you mean by this, and to which discussion you're referring.
What she refers to is the tactic implemented at Skeptiko against the self named "Banned of 7" We were only allowed to post on two sub-forums. Dissention from the party line was frowned upon at best barely tolerated. This tooķ place before when Alex changed to the newer Skeptiko site. Just recently during the near collapse of said forum Alex categorized those two forums I believe as the dark underbelly. He often categorized people whom didn't see the light as "stuck on stupid"
(2017-12-19, 01:04 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]What she refers to is the tactic implemented at Skeptiko against the "Banned of 7" We were only allowed to post on two sub-forums. Dissention from the party line was frowned upon. This tooķ place before when Alex changed to the newer Skeptiko site. Just recently during the near collapse of said forum Alex categorized those two forums I believe as the dark underbelly. He often categorized people whom didn't see the light as "stuck on stupid"
None of those tactics are in play here. The thread was moved solely to conform to the existing guidelines, not because of any content any particular individual posted. The guidelines and their interpretation are open - within reason - to discussion.
(2017-12-19, 01:07 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]None of those tactics are in play here. The thread was moved solely to conform to the existing guidelines, not because of any content any particular individual posted. The guidelines and their interpretation are open - within reason - to discussion.
I believe Linda wasn't being serious.
