Do you mind clarifying who are these "we"? It might be my old BBS habit kicking in, but I really don't appreciate a random person on the Internet taking on themselves to speak on behalf of others with no apparent reason.
And it is a single anecdote, so, no, it'd be indeed very strange to base the results of a "clinical trial" on it alone. It does however mean that in at least one case the drug worked and it worked very well. As I said above "YMMV".
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.
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.
Hey, 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.
"we" - the entire scientific establishment (a.k.a. the scientific method).
"It does however mean that in at least one case the drug worked and it worked very well." - unsubstantiated.
Ironically, you've (again) drawn a conclusion based on only your own experience. Which is why, as pointed out above, "we" don't run single patient clinical trials. Your recovery after using the drug simply cannot be attributed to the drug. In addition, it should be obvious (considering the contents of the comment chain to which you are responding) that it likely was not the drug that accelerated your recovery in this case. Does that makes sense?
This is getting meta, but as an old Internet adage goes "Try and not speak on behalf of others", meaning that throwing around "we" in a discussion is counter-productive. It automatically pits a person against this implied "we" group, be it actually applicable or not.
The above comment is the perfect example of that - by using "we" the "refurb" person put me and the rational scientific community on the opposite sides of a line, implicitly invalidating whatever it was that I said. This is not an acceptable way to phrase arguments or even to express an opinion. "We" has no place in a public discussion unless there is in fact a group of people that one's qualified to represent.
PS. And don't put words in my mouth - I've drawn no conclusions except for the fact that based on _my_ prior experience with _my_ flu infections, this case was resolved in a very prompt manner and the only difference was the presence and the timing of taking in an antiviral med.
And your conclusion mistakes coincidence and correlation, which is the cardinal sin in medical trials. Quote “in at least one case the drug worked”. This is not a valid conclusion. All you can conclude from your singular experience is that in at least one case, taking the drug was followed by speedy recovery, but other factors were not controlled for.
I really wonder why you’re so hellbent on defending “but it worked for me” if you’re acutely aware of “I tried it once and at the same time I go better” does indeed bear all hallmarks of falling into the classic human trap of mistaking correlation for causation. It’s literally one of the easiest mistake to make. We humans are just wired for it. I’m certainly guilty of making that same mistake at least a thousand times and more. I’m actually glad if people point out to me when I make that same mistake.
From context, "we" is the drug company running the clinical trial. And his first sentence did read very strangely, as you clearly weren't talking about anything other than an anecdote. :)
Having said that, his point other point seems to be valid. Tamiflu does not make a claim as to helping someone in your case, afaik.
And it is a single anecdote, so, no, it'd be indeed very strange to base the results of a "clinical trial" on it alone. It does however mean that in at least one case the drug worked and it worked very well. As I said above "YMMV".