Talk:Influenza vaccine
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Guidance section reliability[edit source | reply | new]
I've just summarized what limited studies are available on the subject of flu vaccine for ME/CFS patients, but much of what follows in the "guidance" sections is speculative, anecdotal, and/or not even attributed to a specific physician. Particularly given the serious consequences of discouraging vaccination without a scientific or medical authority making that recommendation, I'm inclined to remove it. Any objection? Canele (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2019 (EST)
- I just changed quotes from 2011 information to be from doctors, both block quotes offering different information. I included author information of Alison Bested in citation for 2014 information. 2017 already has Charles Shepherd in citation who is an ME/CFS specialist. Let me know if it needs more work. Forgot time stamp: --77.111.245.105 11:26, 8 February 2019 (EST)
- Thanks for these improvements. I would suggest that next we trim these down rather than block quoting: as currently presented, the page puts substantially more emphasis on individual opinions rather than on peer-reviewed research. Additionally, it seems to me Bested and Shepherd should be cited directly in the prose, not just in the footnote, so that readers may easily see who is dispensing what advice: as I read it initially, I thought these must be broad, established guidelines from some validated agency, but they are very much not that. Lastly, I think the "Immune system involvement" section should be either deleted or moved to the immune system entry (which can also be appropriately be included in the See also section). As it stands, there's no clear explanation of how it relates to the question of immunization and given that available research says there is no such connection, it seems irresponsible to invite speculation. Canele (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2019 (EST)
- OK, whatever changes you think are best you can make. My brain hurts too much. : ( --77.111.245.105 23:25, 8 February 2019 (EST)
- Thanks for these improvements. I would suggest that next we trim these down rather than block quoting: as currently presented, the page puts substantially more emphasis on individual opinions rather than on peer-reviewed research. Additionally, it seems to me Bested and Shepherd should be cited directly in the prose, not just in the footnote, so that readers may easily see who is dispensing what advice: as I read it initially, I thought these must be broad, established guidelines from some validated agency, but they are very much not that. Lastly, I think the "Immune system involvement" section should be either deleted or moved to the immune system entry (which can also be appropriately be included in the See also section). As it stands, there's no clear explanation of how it relates to the question of immunization and given that available research says there is no such connection, it seems irresponsible to invite speculation. Canele (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2019 (EST)
