2 ms·
There is not strong indication that the drug worked well or even at all. It was taken long outside the window where its best applied. Chances are that in your c
by Xylakant 9y ago
There is not strong indication that the drug worked well or even at all. It was taken long outside the window where its best applied.
Chances are that in your case, the illness has run its course and the pills were taken at the time you would have gotten better anyways. I’d bet that sleeping two days had a much stronger effect on your recovery than two doses of tamiflu.
That’s why we - as a society - do not accept clinical trials that do not conform to a minimal scientific standard, statistical significance being one of the requirements.
- huhtenberg 9y agoHey, random HN poster. I too went to the kindergarten and know what statistical significance is. Surprise. So thanks a bunch, but no need for lecturing on the basics of scientific method. I am also a part of a rational part of the society, which you appear to be trying to exclude me from if I'm reading your comment correctly. > I’d bet that ... You can bet whatever you want. I had numerous flu's in my lifespan of almost 50 years. All but one were the same, and the exception ended in less than a week. It was lab-tested to confirm that it was in fact a flu virus. It was the only one when I was taking an antiviral med.
- Xylakant 9y agoHey, random HN anecdote teller. (Aren’t we all a bit random around here?) You may have learned about statistical significance in kindergarten (props for the kindergarten for great education, I didn’t get there till high school) Still you’re displaying coincidence in a single case as correlation. Neither did I question whether you had flu or not, you’re attacking a straw man there. I question that tamiflu was a strong factor in your speedy recovery.