|
Hi Jennifer I have the same misgivings, If
you don't mind I'll post this on the Horse Science Digest to the attention of
Dr. Eleanor Kellon DVM.
Snip> The
uneducated person might assume that veterinary science and its research are
perfectly done and without bias. I (and I hope you do too) know
better. The problem is that people forget the difference between INCIDENCE
(the number of patients who actually get sick from a disease) and PREVALENCE (
the actual number of patients who have had a measurable exposure to an illness,
sick or not). The latter is hard to calculate without testing a lot of
healthy subjects, both vaccinated and non-vaccinated. My concern is that
the scientific evidence you support is biased in that healthy horses are
excluded from the calculations. Another way to put that, is there may be a lot
of healthy horses, even unvaccinated horses who are exposed to WNV and don't get
sick and we don't know it because we don't test healthy horses. I would really
be interested in how the efficacy is being calculated. Perhaps some of the
Ridecamp Vets can shed some light on that topic. Is the Prevalence of WNV
known with any accuracy? My experience is only with people vaccines.
Jennifer.
Don Pollock
Sir Thomas Fairfax's Troop of
Horse
Badge Motto: Audacter et Strenue
Mail To: <donp@xxxxxxx>
|
