As with any site that picks quotes from studies, it can be dangerous to just read the blog and not the study itself.
Example:
quote from inside vaccines:
Quote:
The incidence of Hib meningitis decreased 69% during the 1-year period after initiation of Hib immunization (from 2.62 to 0.81 cases/100,000 person-years; P<.001). In contrast, the incidence for H. influenzae type a meningitis increased 8-fold.
Therefore, Hib immunization contributed to an increased risk for H. influenzae type a meningitis through selection of circulating H. influenzae type a clones. |
actual quote from the study:
Quote:
The incidence of Hib meningitis decreased 69% during the 1-year period after initiation of Hib immunization (from 2.62 to 0.81 cases/100,000 person-years; P<.001). In contrast, the incidence for H. influenzae type a meningitis increased 8-fold (from 0.02 to 0.16 cases/100,000 person-years; P=.008).
Therefore, Hib immunization contributed to an increased risk for H. influenzae type a meningitis through selection of circulating H. influenzae type a clones. The risk attributable to serotype replacement is small in comparison to the large reduction in Hib meningitis due to immunization. |
So there is a lot of meaning missed, esp those important numbers on hia-- a huge decrease in hib and a relatively very small increase in hia.
taken from:
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...ines-work/hib/
I think they are much better than other sources because you can go ahead and read the source stuff...esp if you can get full access to those studies yourself. And some insidevaccines writers will help you gain that access if you need it. bloggers are justthevax and scienceblogs will tend to do the same if you ask, so it's worth it!
I think some of their articles are better than others (due to them having lots of authors I would think). There's good quality stuff and not so much...but that's true of so many pages like this, kwim?
