“In conclusion, we found that vaccination provided protection against medically attended influenza infection, regardless of prior vaccination history. This is consistent with randomized clinical trials of influenza vaccine efficacy [38]. However, this study raises relevant questions about the potential interference of repeated annual influenza vaccination and possible residual protection from previous season vaccination that have not been considered in most trials. Further observational studies that include simultaneous assessment of immune response, both to vaccine antigens and previously circulating viruses, and clinical protection would be helpful. In addition, we believe the results of this study and others support the need for another multiseason randomized clinical trial. Although a randomized trial cannot be conducted in the United States where influenza vaccination is universally recommended, it may be feasible in countries that do not currently recommend influenza vaccination for healthy adults. This would provide valuable new information about the impact of repeated annual influenza vaccination, and it will help guide future vaccine policy recommendations..”
我想您肯定沒看過那篇文章吧。看看作者的結論吧
所有跟帖:
• 作者為了不得罪人,做出一些政治正確的結論,這在科學研究裏是很常見的現象,很多時候,作者的結論和具體的細節基本相反,這是可以理解的 -醫者意也- ♂ (123 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 09:13:19
• 數據就是數據,怎麽說並不能改變數據,隻能誤導一些看不懂數據的人。 -吃與活- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 09:30:50
• 一樣的數據,按摩一下,就可以隨意做出任何想要的結論,那些隻看標題隻看結論的人就容易被誤導。 -醫者意也- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 09:45:25
• 獨家處理方法?:) -吃與活- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 10:00:50
• 我從來不搞這些小動作的,因為不需要申請政府經費,不需要藥廠資助。嗬嗬 -醫者意也- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 10:03:12
• 謝謝分享。你花時間找到並給出原文鏈接,感謝。 -欲千北- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 09:30:47
• 對有疑問的結論,不看原文不行啊:) -吃與活- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 10:03:19
• 完全同意,必須看原文,至少得看摘要,不然容易誤解。我找了半天找不到,謝謝你的時間。有空看原文。 -欲千北- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 10:08:52
• 看了下原文38,感覺按摩數據的可能性還是蠻明顯的。幾個數據統計的口徑變來變去。感覺是為了得到某些結論而挑些數據來用似的。 -萬山紅遍- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/01/2015 postreply 12:30:08