Originally Posted by One_Girl
What I mean about the research is that people who research tend to have fields they know a lot about and those are the fields they are most qualified to research in. Knowing about research methods helps you understand what makes a good study and what doesn't but it doesn't help you understand the terms that are common to a particular field of study. A computer scientist could tell if a piece of research is good or not by looking at the general set up (as can almost anyone) but that doesn't qualify them to interpret the study. A doctor has enough knowledge about research and a knowledge base to interpret medical research a computer analyst has knowledge about research and a knowledge base to interpret computer science related studies. I go to a doctor for medical information and I ask my friends husband (a computer science expert) for information about computers. My mother does research in the disability field and recently turned down a job researching unemployment related material for the Department of Labor because it isn't her field of expertise and she knew nothing about unemployment stuff and didn't want to do it incorrectly. Medical research is an area where I would not trust someone who isn't qualified because the way it is interpreted can really change the course of someones life or end it.
I am sorry you have had so many bad instances with doctors not qualified to study the research in regards to what they prescribe. My family and I have been fortunate enough to have had knowledgeable doctors. Do you live back east by any chance? My mother is back east now and is shocked by how inept doctors are there compared to here (which really shocked me).
I live in Canada (west coast), but I'm not only talking about my direct doctor-patient interactions. I'm talking about lots of things I've seen/read right from their own mouths (or keyboards) over the years.
Doctors may or may not be more qualified than non-doctors to analyse medical research. I don't actually agree that they necesarily are
. I think it really depends on the individual. However, doctors also have their own biases and world views. In any case, a doctor saying "people who get the vaccine are less likely to get shingles" doesn't tell me whether that doctor has actually read, let alone analyzed, anything more than a statement from a drug company representative. I'm glad you have a doctor who does that, but there is no way to know if any given statement from a doctor is based on their analysis of research or on something they heard at a cocktail party, yk?
|I haven't seen anything commenting on being exposed to kids with chicken pox giving a booster shot in any of the stuff I have read.
Also, the varicella vaccine was developed in the 1970's in Japan so I am sure research about it has been around for quite a while even though you weren't personally aware of it.
The 70s. I was born in '68, and I'm only 42. I don't know anything about the odds of someone who had the chickenpox vax getting or not getting shingles as an adult. Anybody they tested a childhood vax on in the 70s is unlikely to be much (if at all) older than I am. There can't
be sufficient research of the type necessary to determine that. We're not going to know one way or the other for a long
I don't know anything about the varicella vaccine, with respect to booster shots, etc. In my previous post, I was just trying to clarify (for myself, mostly) what the other poster meant about shingles in the vaxed/unvaxed population.
I decided a long time ago not to get the varicella vaccine for my kids, unless I can't find wild pox (which is starting to look as though it may the way it goes). I'd personally much, much rather have the wild pox, for a variety of reasons. As such, it's not something I've researched very much at all. If I don't find wild pox again within about a year, I'll start doing more digging.