or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Moya

Don't get too excited, Holly. Blessed's calculation is not accurate (and it's not her fault). That's not how the SD is (was) calculated for this data set. And unfortunately I must apologize to Blessed because there is not enough data from that article to do the actual SD. I was 'lucky' enough' to get hold of some primary data on the study. There are in fact t-tests involved and they have to do with the more primary data that goes into deciding who is HIV positive and...
I'm not sure where you got your numbers or what you did, but those are not the calculated p values. The Merck data showed a significant difference that could be attributed to the vaccine causing a small, but real increase in HIV infections.
Quote: Originally Posted by blessed There you go then. It's all settled. It is settled. It is settled as to what the Merck data actually shows. According to the methods used by Merck, they showed with statistical significance that their vaccine caused HIV infection. I'm going to say it agan because I don't want to get blamed for making some sort of wider conclusion. This is all that I'm saying: According to the methods used by Merck and...
Quote: Originally Posted by blessed I don't feel that Merck's data is incorrect. I feel that insider's conclusion about their data is incorrect. He didn't make any conclusion about Merck's data other than what was already there. You are the one trying to conclude, based on no evidence, that the 17% observed negative impact of the vaccine is not real. Vaccines have caused increased disease before, it's never been a big deal as far as...
Quote: Originally Posted by xerxes Merck's spent lots of years and money working on this vaccine and they just threw it away. I can't think of a single reason they would do that except that they believed what they were seeing. And what they saw was their vaccine causing a 17% increase in HIV infections. Exactly! All this extrapolation into what rate would please some messageboard poster is unnecessary. The harm caused by Merck's HIV vaccine...
Quote: Originally Posted by blessed If the results of the two groups were reversed, and they tried to roll out a new vaccine based on 21 out of 750 infection rate versus 24 out of 750, you'd be going nutso right now about how their conclusions about effectiveness were completely unsupported by the data. Did you miss the Gardasil information already posted in this thread. The two groups are switched in the Gardasil data. Merck claims that their...
Quote: Originally Posted by dymanic reading the cited literature, one gets the distinct impression that the IgG hypothesis was considered, and largely rejected in favor of the cytokine hypothesis. Reading your posts one gets the distinct impression that you're unfamiliar with the research. You also seem to be unfamiliar with the breadth of immune reactions, which you keep mistakenly pigeon-holing as inflammatory responses. Do you have any...
Yeah, Dymanic, you dropped the ball again. It's unknown what exactly it is about the maternal immune response that damages the fetus. The whole point is that flu vaccine was pushed for a long time when nothing was known about how flu damaged the fetus -- the manufacturers had no idea if their product could or would do the same damage as flu infection. Your fundamental error is that you think the vaccine is safe until proven dangerous. That seatbelt analogy, in its...
Thanks for the wikipedia link, Dymanic. Let's check it out: Quote: Appeal to authority An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Quote: Examples of appeals to authority Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus. And your...
Quote: Originally Posted by dymanic are you claiming to have a better handle on the science than do the scientists? This question makes an excellent point -- appealing to authority completely negates Plummeting's observations. The nerve of that girl to discuss the strength of the methodology instead of blindly accepting the conclusions. She clearly implied that she's able to read and understand information all by herself. How preposterous!
New Posts  All Forums: