Originally Posted by mamakay
What do you mean by "scientists"?
In this case, we're talking about the folks at the Naval Health Research Center. Reviewing your comment here: "For example, Medimmune's Flumist is mandatory for servicemen. So there's a guaranteed market
", I have a hard time avoiding the implication that this "guaranteed market" is among the "incentives" being offered pharmaceutical companies -- which, in turn, implies that those responsible for making decisions regarding military health care policy are so heavily influenced that they are willing to place a higher priority on pharmaceutical company profits than on the actual health of soldiers, and that they are willing to go so far as to rig studies in order to get results that would make big pharma look good. Can it not simply be that they conducted the study in order to test for themselves the validity of the assumptions on which the military vaccination program is based?
|I like what they used as their placebo controls, too.
Placebo, schlameebo. The study relied on instances of laboratory confirmed influenza
Originally Posted by Plummeting
if you're going to start throwing around the idea that only scientists can understand how research is supposed to be conducted or only scientists are capable of deciding when research may be flawed, you have disqualified yourself from any further intelligent discussion of the science.
The difference is that I'm not attempting to refute what's being said by those who have
been trained in the science, and you are. The "argument from authority" is NOT a logical fallacy if the authority really is an authority speaking within his field of expertise, and if the argument is not expected to stand on its own as "proof" of a given assertion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
|Then when I point out how your "answer" to my point is to change the subject, you resort to suggesting that only the scientists who conduct the studies are capable of understanding how they should work.
I could almost accept that as an answer to my question; i.e.: "yes, I'm claiming to have a better handle on the science than do the scientists." (and I'll be happy to discuss just how good a job I think you've done). But considering the haughty way you chastised me for daring to suggest that the anti-vax position relies heavily on claims that big pharma exerts a strong influence on the scientific community and the way the results of studies are interpreted (and hence public health policy), I think it is appropriate for me to ask you again to clarify your position:
You consider yourself better able to interpret this study than are the scientists at the Naval Health Research Center. What I'm asking you to clarify is the basis for this claim. It seems to me that it can only rest on one of two possible bases: "I'm less biased", or "I'm better at the science" -- or perhaps a combination of the two: "I'm better at the science because
I'm less biased".
Now, a quick look at your interpretation of the results of the study. Your chief complaint seems to be: "Seroconversion after influenza vaccination develops an average of 7 to 14 days later, not exclusively 14 days later.
Maybe you overlooked this:
"These estimates of effectiveness were supported by results of additional analyses that would be expected to bias the outcome toward the null hypothesis. For example, a 7-day lag period before immune response was considered in an alternative analysis, and it yielded similar results: the calculated vaccine effectiveness changed only slightly, from 92% to 90%."