Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/694
Title: Calls by alternative medicine practitioners for vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies is not supported by evidence.
Epworth Authors: Benhamu, Joanne
Other Authors: Hawkes, David
Dunlop, Rachael
Keywords: Vaccination
Alternative Practitioners
Research Methodologies
Research Ethics
Department of Radiation Oncology, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Victoria, Australia
Issue Date: Jun-2016
Publisher: Elsevier
Citation: Vaccine. 2016 Jun 14;34(28):3223-4
Abstract: From the Letter: We were dismayed to read the letter by Turville and Golden disputing the meta-analysis by Taylor and colleagues for a number of reasons including the use of undescribed methodologies, the proposal of an unethical and intrinsically biased research approach, and undeclared conflicts of interest.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/694
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.12.031
URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X15018228
PubMed URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27288998
ISSN: 0264-410X
Journal Title: Vaccine
Type: Letter
Affiliated Organisations: Molecular Microbiology Laboratory, Victorian Cytology Service, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia
Appears in Collections:Health Administration
Radiation Oncology

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in EKB are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.