Dr. Minas presentation was really interesting to me. I just wanted to share my response to the assignment for that class period. I would love to hear feedback on whether or not you agree with me!

1.   I would like the students to read the nature draft paper (if anyone wants the     supplementary model stuff they can email me) and write down a few comments for why this paper should and should not be published in very high profile journal like Nature – as though they are reviewing the paper for publication. Note that this is instead of your normal synopsis – so bring a printed copy of this to turn in.

I really liked how under each results section the authors clearly identified why they were doing that test. Most papers simply state how the results support or refute the hypothesis. There is no mention as to why, initially, the experimenters decided to do that specific test in the first place. I prefer this layout because it made the results easier to follow. The figures were very helpful; specifically Figure 2. It really helped with visualization and it was not confusing. Many papers that we have read for this class had very complicated figures/tables that were hard to follow. The one thing that I think could be changed, in regards to the structure of the paper, is the order of the sections. I found it odd that the materials and methods sections came last. Personally, I prefer for the materials and methods section to come earlier in the paper. The take-away message of this paper is that flu vaccines do seem to cause higher rates of bacterial infections, but this negative effect does not outweigh the positive that vaccines do for the public.

2. Read the two news articles regarding the mBio paper and compare and contrast them.

The Greenmed info paper used the data from the paper to support anti-vaccine campaigns.  I do not feel this was the original intention of the paper. It was very biased. The authors used evidence from the paper to totally persuade people to not get vaccinated. The science now article stated the evidence from the paper, but it did not force an opinion on the public. It presents the evidence in a way that the public can use to come to an informed decision about vaccinations.  I also like how this article mentions Mina’s future research that could support or refute his original hypothesis. The first article did not credit the fact that this data is not collected in humans as of yet.

3.   I would also like them to consider the research as though they are the director of the CDC:

 I do think that this research is worth doing. The public should be fully informed of the risks so that they can come to their own educated decision.  I do think that the private sector of healthcare might get backlash. Many people may start to oppose vaccinations, but that is not up to other to decide. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Also, if Mina’s suggestions about higher rates of infections due to lower vaccination rates does hold true, the implications could be worse than expected if many people decide against vaccinations. It is the CDC’s duty to report this information to the public. Immunizations are the major weapon of public health so is only fair that all the information is available to the public.