Party (?) like it's 1976 all over again
Sep. 24th, 2009 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_archfiendDavid Dobbs writes in Neuron Culture that there's at least one study that will only stimulate controversy (well-founded or otherwise) about seasonal flu vaccines and their effect on the H1N1 virus, provided that the journal it's been written for actually bothers to publish it:
Here's a sad mess. It seems a potentially important finding -- that getting a seasonal flu shot might increase risk of contracting the swine flu -- is being sat on by a journal, with the authors forbidden from talking about it, until they get through the slo-mo publishing process.
The finding may or may not be accurate. But as it regards an important issue, it needs to be vetted and discussed openly, with the data at hand, as soon as possible. But it's not.
A copy of the Canadian Press piece by Helen Branswell that Dobbs refers to is here.
(NOTE: this Livejournal page is not responsible if someone from the Loony Party has decided that this one study automatically means that you should not get a flu shot. The issue is one of unneeded academic self-censorship, not wingnuttery that jumps to conclusions without fully considering the evidence. You've been warned.)
Here's a sad mess. It seems a potentially important finding -- that getting a seasonal flu shot might increase risk of contracting the swine flu -- is being sat on by a journal, with the authors forbidden from talking about it, until they get through the slo-mo publishing process.
The finding may or may not be accurate. But as it regards an important issue, it needs to be vetted and discussed openly, with the data at hand, as soon as possible. But it's not.
A copy of the Canadian Press piece by Helen Branswell that Dobbs refers to is here.
(NOTE: this Livejournal page is not responsible if someone from the Loony Party has decided that this one study automatically means that you should not get a flu shot. The issue is one of unneeded academic self-censorship, not wingnuttery that jumps to conclusions without fully considering the evidence. You've been warned.)
