On 2023-12-29 17:07:05, user Brinda Gour wrote:
Hi, greetings for the day!<br /> This paper mentions that the supplementary data will be available upon request. Could you please grant access to supplementary material for me? This will be helpful for my review. Thanking you.
On 2024-01-17 12:03:28, user Leonardo Martins wrote:
This ancestral-reconstruction based phylogeographic approach has been used before by us in SARS-CoV-2 analyses: <br /> 1. for finding the number of transmission events into or outside Lebanon https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... <br /> 2. For estimating migration patterns between regions of England https://www.nature.com/arti...<br /> 3. To count the number of exports and importations into Pakistan https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...
In our case we used the mugration model as implemented in TreeTime or ASR models implemented in Castor for R (https://cran.r-project.org/... "https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/castor/index.html)")
On 2024-01-17 20:36:43, user Karen Eddleman wrote:
In the acknowledgements section, there is a sentence that appears in both paragraphs: "The All of Us Research Program would not be possible without the partnership of contributions made by its participants."
Also, the correct spelling should be "principal" in this sentence: "See the supplementary information for a roster of past and present All of Us principle investigators."
On 2024-01-25 16:47:31, user tony gordon wrote:
Traits on Supp sheet 3 not fully legible
On 2024-02-15 16:26:15, user Goober68 wrote:
How does your method compare to EstiMeth by Freytag et al?
On 2024-02-23 12:22:02, user Carsten Skarke wrote:
This preprint has been published at https://www.nature.com/arti...
On 2024-04-27 21:04:36, user Christopher Ho wrote:
I'm so glad that more research is being conducted on Tsw. As a TSW sufferer myself, it gives me hope to know that there may be better ways of diagnosing and treating the condition. I hope more studies come out of this and thank the authors very much for taking a big brave step forward towards publishing this for our community. It means a lot to us that this condition is acknowledged and medical guidance for use of TCS is properly updated by pharmaceutical companies and dermatologists.
On 2024-05-13 23:39:06, user Srinidhi wrote:
So happy to see research being done in this space. Please continue- this helps TSW warriors and everyone in the skin community!
On 2024-05-19 16:23:05, user Millie Le wrote:
Five dermatologists and a referral to Johns Hopkins culminated into an informal diagnosis of “funky eczema”, launching my 12-year relationship with TCS and triamcinolone injections. No one could make sense of my eight biopsies. They all noted the same result - the possibility of a drug reaction. Because no one in the medical community equated TCS to this possibility, I continued to manage my misdiagnosis with the medication that started it all. Until it was unmanageable. From unknown hives to TSW, my journey is a familiar story. “Although no formal diagnostic criteria for TSW exist, reports of patients experiencing TSW are very common online.” Yes. Sadly, this. I am forever thankful to the Internet which led me to ITSAN and a global community who understood what I was experiencing. My entire world changed with this knowledge and four years later, I no longer have “funky eczema”. I am grateful to researchers who did not cast a whole community aside as overzealous medical sleuths quarterbacking the medical community from their desks. With continued research such as this, we are equipped with the tools to educate and prevent others from making the same unnecessary TSW journey where, “The only way out is through.” Thank you for your dedicated work which further validates and acknowledges the existence of TSW. More research to understand TSW, diagnose it, and treat it, please.
On 2024-05-06 14:16:22, user DocLee wrote:
How about you break it down by infection versus reinfection? I would think you have the relevant data as you seem to have the history of those previously infected and not infected. But, for some reason, you don't seem to be putting it in these papers of yours.
If you're using the entire population which includes all persons previously infected and those not previously infected, claiming that the number of doses correlates to an increase in infection doesn't make any sense as a good portion of your population has already been infected. Without breaking it down into infection versus reinfection, you really can't make that claim as you're actually looking at initial infection versus reinfection. If the rate of initial infection increases with each dose among those that have not been previously infected, you'd have an argument.
On 2024-05-31 06:11:53, user LM 't Hart wrote:
Now published in Endocrine https://doi.org/10.1007/s12...
On 2024-07-09 12:41:39, user Peter A McCullough wrote:
Binkhorst and Goldstein have used a small sample size which is insufficient to find the signal of COVID-19 vaccination, subclinical myocarditis, and sudden death in athletes triggered by catecholamines during exertion. In June 2021 the US FDA and CDC issued a warning on mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis as a serious adverse event. Binkhorst and Daniels are advised to be cautious and conservative on new genetic biotechnology that has clear cardiac safety concerns in the published literature and by regulatory authorities.
We have found it takes a vaccinated population of ~2 million to readily observe the vaccine effect of increasing cardiac arrests. See Hulscher, N.; Cook, M.; Stricker, R.; McCullough, P. A. Excess Cardiopulmonary Arrest and Mortality after COVID-19 Vaccination in King County, Washington. Preprints 2024, 2024051665. https://doi.org/10.20944/pr...
On 2024-07-10 21:16:54, user Nicolas Hulscher wrote:
This study inadequately addresses the role of vaccination by failing to account for the documented adverse events associated with mRNA vaccines. According to Polykretis et al ( https://doi.org/10.1111/sji.13242 ), there is substantial evidence of serious adverse events following mRNA vaccination, including myocarditis, which is known to increase the risk of SCD. Their analysis highlights that the incidence of myocarditis post-vaccination is significantly higher than post-SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in young males. Additionally, their findings show a concerning rise in athlete deaths due to cardiovascular complications since the rollout of mRNA vaccines, far exceeding pre-pandemic averages. Thus, Binkhorst and Goldstein's conclusion that there is no evidence of a link between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and SCD in athletes is unsubstantiated and overlooks critical data suggesting otherwise .
On 2024-08-14 07:26:35, user Christina Dahm wrote:
Hi there!<br /> Since posting here, our paper has been published. Could you add this information to the preprint listing? Thanks!<br /> 10.1007/s00394-023-03090-3<br /> bw Christina
On 2024-08-22 14:42:59, user Gabriel Baldanzi wrote:
This paper is now published in EBioMedicine https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.104989
On 2024-08-23 00:32:16, user julioplazadaz wrote:
The preprint is now published in Nutrients. 2022 Dec 28;15(1):147. doi: 10.3390/nu15010147.
On 2024-10-12 19:53:15, user Alan Olan wrote:
Method of combining multiple research to find Non-Infectious DISEASE CAUSES can be found in a BOOK "Medical Research and Its Applications Vol. 5, 31 May 2024 , Page 81-128" (available at https://stm.bookpi.org/MRIA-V5/article/view/14802 ) <br /> doi: https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/mria/v5/368
On 2024-10-14 17:14:18, user muschellij2 wrote:
Is the code for the fitted model actually released anywhere or is the link just to the general nnUNET repo?
On 2024-10-18 20:47:08, user CDSL JHSPH wrote:
First of all, thank you very much for writing this preprinted paper. This article has provided me with a number of ways to assess the duration of treatment with tuberculosis therapy. This paper provides a robust framework for comparing the effectiveness of different approaches through rigorous simulation studies. By carefully modeling a variety of regimen-response relationships and testing various methods under a variety of sample sizes and conditions, the authors provide a comprehensive assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method, making a valuable contribution to the field of clinical trial design. These findings have the potential to improve the efficiency and accuracy of trials for infectious diseases (especially tuberculosis) and can be generalized to other therapeutic areas. This paper opens up promising new research directions and provides a solid foundation for future work in the field. From my personal perspective, one limitation that needs to be mentioned is the risk of underestimating the Minimum Effective Duration (MED), especially when the sample size is small. If the duration of treatment is underestimated, patients may receive suboptimal treatment, which may lead to higher recurrence rates or incomplete cure.
On 2024-11-11 04:16:52, user Christopher Penney wrote:
This preprint, "Tucaresol: A Clinical Stage Oral Candidate Drug With Two Distinct Antiviral Mechanisms", was published September 30, 2024 in the refereed journal, Journal of Clinical Review & Case Reports.
CL Penney, Ph.D.
On 2024-11-19 17:19:24, user RMD wrote:
Did you also ask women which device they would prefer if they knew that Evalyn brush has the highest accuracy?
On 2025-02-16 01:25:45, user Muhammad Ali Khan wrote:
This article has been published in the Journal of American Medical Informatics Association: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocae325
On 2025-02-27 18:33:49, user Gholamreza Farnoosh wrote:
The authors of this manuscript information and data about the people of Iran and their health and health society without documents and only based on personal opinions and mentalities, which need to be answered.<br /> In this MS, Iranian scientists, researchers, and medical personnel have been accused of becoming populists in the field of health during the Covid-19 epidemic, despite the fact that more than 400 physicians, nurses, etc. died while treating patients.<br /> The publication of more than 16,000 valuable articles in the field of Corona by Iranian researchers (Indexed in Scopus, which ranks Iran in the 15th ranking in the world) cannot be ignored.<br /> Failure to purchase vaccines from foreign countries and lack of vaccination on time were among the issues mentioned in this MS, while at first the purchase of vaccines and vaccinations were on the agenda of the managers of the Iranian Ministry of Health, but the American sanctions were an obstacle in this way. Of course, with great efforts, the purchase of vaccines from China and Russia and the continued research and production of Iranian vaccines were carried out.<br /> Attendance at religious ceremonies and its relationship with the increase in deaths in Iran are among the other issues that have been mentioned, while during the Corona epidemic, Iran's political and spiritual leaders emphasized not to hold mass ceremonies in mosques, etc., and even the shrine of Imam Reza, which is one of the holiest places for Muslims in the world and Iran, was also closed. In addition, the trends of the disease Prevalence peaks in Iran were similar to the peaks created in the world.<br /> Why is the percentage of deaths in Iran compared with countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc., where vaccination was not important? Why Iran has not been compared with advanced countries such as America, France, Brazil, Russia, India, etc., which were mostly vaccine manufacturers and whose death rate was higher than Iran?<br /> Why have Iranian researchers, who were among the creators of the vaccine, been insulted based on the false data that was published in one of the magazines? Why has the understanding and intelligence of the civilized people of Iran been insulted with the title of being populist? Were the Pfizer, AstraZeneca, etc. vaccines completely effective and safe? And many questions that can be asked to the authors of this paper.<br /> In the end, I would like to thank the administrators of the medrxiv site, who provide the basis for the publication of articles to help solve the problems of in the field of health, and I will soon present you a letter in this regard with documentation. I hope that the explanations presented can have a desired effect on the fair reaction of the medRxiv administrators in the continuation of the publication of the considered MS.
On 2025-04-09 00:40:29, user Susan Conklin wrote:
So every hospital I ever worked for required unvaccinated nurses to wear masks if they didn’t vaccinate. What was their policy? It certainly could be a confounding factor
On 2025-10-12 13:03:25, user Ceejay wrote:
There are many other plausible mechanisms than antigenic imprinting for the "counter-intuitive" result, some vaccine-related, but others such as nutritional state and prior flu or indeed C19 exposure. May be too late for this paper, but my belief is that all such investigations should include measured Vitamin D status. The effect of Vit D on respiratory tract infection resilience is well known, and particularly over the winter months covered in this study, vitamin D titre will naturally fall due to reduced sun exposure. In similar vein, those who decline flu vaccination may adopt a significantly different health regime to those accepting vaccination, obviously not terribly easy to capture. But one I think you could capture is the C19 and C19 shots status, since I would imagine many of those tested might have taken part in your earlier studies. Those declining a flu shot could easily coincide with those declining a C19 shot. It all certainly shows vaccination science is complex.
On 2022-05-12 15:22:37, user L. Collado Torres wrote:
Congrats on getting this massive project to the pre-print finish line! Kudos to you!
I specially like how you have formatted your work and made it "journal style" with embedded figure and figure legends, the two column layout, and overall it looks great. I also greatly appreciate that you shared the methods, supplementary figures, and supplementary tables on medRxiv (not everyone does so!). Furthermore, I love the tab "header_key" on your supplementary Excel file which describes all of the columns in your supplementary tables. That makes it much easier to understand the information you are providing. I also like that you mentioned the specific version numbers of the software you used, since software changes frequently in frontier fields like yours.
I might have missed it, but I could not find how to access the data you used or the code for this analysis. Not sharing data and code is detrimental to open science. For code, you could share it through GitHub, GitLab, or some other social coding platform (or directly on medRxiv: you currently have a note telling people to check the supplementary PDF file with the methods description). I would also encourage you to share your code permanently at a repository like Zenodo, Figshare, among others where you'll get a DOI. GitHub repositories can be deleted, so it's best to make the code permanently available. If you have questions about this process, I'd be happy to chat with you.
Best,<br /> Leonardo
On 2022-06-24 23:06:27, user S. W. wrote:
Can the VA data also be used to estimate the "real-world" effectiveness of treatment for mild Covid-19?
On 2022-07-14 07:17:24, user Marek Widera wrote:
This work has been published in Viruses 2021, 13(9), 1693
On 2022-07-21 10:28:03, user Matt Bottomley wrote:
Article has now been published by Frontiers in Immunology (see doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fim... "https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.901273)")
On 2022-07-28 10:00:11, user Martin Schulte-Rüther wrote:
An updated, peer-reviewed version of this manuscript has been published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Schulte-Rüther M, Kulvicius T, Stroth S, Wolff N, Roessner V, Marschik PB, Kamp-Becker I, Poustka L (2022). Using machine learning to improve diagnostic assessment of ASD in the light of specific differential and co-occurring diagnoses. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13650
On 2022-08-08 10:56:24, user ?? wrote:
The paper has been published in Frontiers in Oncology. Please see: https://www.frontiersin.org...
On 2022-09-05 01:03:26, user Mohamed Abazeed, MD, PhD wrote:
Please link this article to its corresponding in press publication: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp..... Many thanks!
On 2022-09-05 18:03:38, user Michael L. wrote:
Appreciate the close look at mechanism and the robust set of readouts. Overall an excellent study that will set a new benchmark for characterization of humoral responses to vaccination.
Am curious about the group defined as having an interval between prior infection and booster of <180 days. These were 6 out of the 11 prior-infected patients. Would it be possible to show all intervals so we can see if the 180-day cutoff makes sense, and also see the distribution of intervals within this group? For example, there may be different implications if 5 of 6 patients were infected within 30 days before boost, vs. 5 of 6 patients infected more than 170 days ago.
Thank you for the nice work.
On 2022-09-10 21:48:44, user David Curtis wrote:
That misophonia hit looks very implausible. The lead SNP has a frequency which differs dramatically between populations so most likely all we're seeing is an artefact of population stratification. <br /> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...
On 2022-09-13 12:47:02, user Yonatan Oster wrote:
The article was published in a peer-reviewed journal:
Cohen MJ, Oster Y, Moses AE, Spitzer A, Benenson S; Israeli-Hospitals 4th Vaccine Working Group. Association of Receiving a Fourth Dose of the BNT162b Vaccine With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Workers in Israel. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8):e2224657. Published 2022 Aug 1. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.24657
On 2022-09-23 18:40:11, user Andre Caldwell wrote:
This is an interesting paper, with an innovative study design which includes individuals with specific mutation and risk variants for Alzheimer's disease. <br /> I really wanted to like this paper, but after ready it in depth, just the study design is worth.<br /> 1) this study generated data in more than 1 million nuclei. After QC only 300K pass QC, meaning that more than 70% of the data was removed. when a study remove 70% of the data, it is not clear if what is left is reliable. This is very concerning indicating a large problem in nuclei extraction, batch effect or data generation.<br /> 2) the most common cell type on this study was oligodendrocytes which is totally unexpected. None of the other published studies using the technology has this finding. In fact, normally neurons is the most common cell type. This support that there is a large problem with this data.<br /> 3) the authors forgot to include a very basic comparison which is the major cell proportion vs. status. This is striking as the authors have a nice previous papers in which they do the same with deconvoluted bulk-RNA seq and single nuclei RNA-seq. No presenting this data is suspicious, as is it one the basic analyses and a good positive control.
Besides that, the paper is difficult to follow, tries to cover many things, but fails to go in any in detail or provide any interesting results, making the study very descriptive without providing clues about disease pathogenesis.
this paper have been as a preprint more than one year, suggesting that the authors are having problems to published these findings. May be the reviewers had several concerns.
On 2022-09-30 04:17:40, user Thamir Alandijany wrote:
On 2020-04-22 21:16:23, user cinnamon50 wrote:
wow, so imp to reduce bottlenecks at collection and improve safety of people collecting
can we get a transport medium like SDS that inactivztes virus, so it is BL1 sample?<br /> think that would be huge considering total effort to get reportable result
On 2020-04-23 04:46:38, user Dennis Maeder wrote:
Although flawed, this emphasizes the need for good representative sampling and antibody testing and the strong possibility that current case counts are wildly underestimated.
On 2020-04-23 05:48:38, user G.O.B. wrote:
20-25% increase in overall deaths in Santa Clara County in March 2020 compared to same time last year. We are missing a lot of covid19 deaths in our current counts.
On 2020-04-20 08:50:19, user dixon pinfold wrote:
A great many commenters assert that people worried that they'd been exposed to the virus would be over-represented in the study. This seems speculative up to a point, but certainly plausible, and I do not wish to debate it.
Some then go on to assert that anyone else would be too afraid to leave the house. Here I think they are on much less solid ground.
For one thing, not knowing what was in the recruitment ad, we don't know if they were aware that they would remain in their cars, windows rolled up till finger-prick time.
For another, it places a decisively higher estimation on fear (of infection resulting from the single excursion to the testing site) than on curiosity motivated by the desire to be rid of such fear once and for all. This must be true for some people, but for some, surely, it was the other way around.
Then there is the matter of age. Here I freely admit to the speculative element, but it has been for me very easy when out in public in recent weeks to tell by their behaviour how much less fearful younger people are, if they're fearful at all. Who could fail to notice?
On 2020-04-21 13:43:22, user Hell of a Fella wrote:
German study also reported a 50fold increase in prevalence over official numbers. <br /> https://www.nature.com/arti...
On 2020-04-22 02:45:15, user Dr. Héctor Musacchio wrote:
My main concern is about false positives. How can we define asymptomatic case? How can we differentiate a false positive from an asymptomatic only with a positive test at a precise moment only?
On 2020-04-17 21:03:35, user John Ryan wrote:
The researchers identified that 50 out of 3,300 participants tested positive for CV-19 antibodies. Spinning this as 50 to 80 times greater than current prevalence rates as determined through testing is disingenuous. The posted study does not account for the significant upward adjustment from 1.5% of participants to a 2.4% to 4.2% in the general population given the study participants were a skewed convenience sample drawn from Facebook participants, many who believed they had been exposed to CV-19 and had had previously experienced symptoms consistent with CV-19.
On 2020-04-17 21:28:07, user Daniel Shanklin wrote:
This study abstract should be rewritten as follow: "A study of Facebook users who thought they might have COVID-19 resulted in a roughly 2.49% to 4.16% positive-test rate"
The fact that you've extrapolated this to an entire population is confounding.
On 2020-04-23 12:44:36, user dirk van renterghem wrote:
The problem is the absence of randomisation. Were patients given HC or HC+Azitro at admission, or because they were deteriorating? If so (in some) we cannot compare the deteriorating with the non-deteriorating population... In the HC group 17% had creatinine>5mg/dl, much worse than the no-drug group... , also more anemia an lymphopenia.
On 2020-04-21 20:33:30, user Roleigh Martin wrote:
Why was not Zinc added to the dosage, many clinical reports have been made about how critical Zinc level monitoring and Zinc supplementation is to successful use of this Rx.
On 2020-04-21 23:42:55, user deutsch wrote:
The group no HCQ had azihtromycine 31% !!!!
On 2020-04-22 02:06:38, user David B Joyce wrote:
19 patient shifted fromNo HC to HC(7) or HC+AZ(12) after ventilation. Ventilation is obviously a sign of increasing severity and greater risk of death. If all of these ventilations resulted in death, then the pre ventilation treatment fatality statistics might look like 22%(HC), 13% (HC+Az) and 21% No HC. Need the data on individual outcomes. Also not impressed with the cohorts.
SPo2 >95: 63%(HC) 57.5%(HC+Az) 73.4%(No HC)<br /> BP> 159: 19.6% 9.7% 9.5%<br /> creatinine>5 17.5% 11.5% 7.6%
On 2020-04-22 07:37:25, user Dominique Joly wrote:
Major issue: the number of days between the first symptom and the beginning of hosp/treatments is not indicated.
On 2020-04-22 17:28:38, user Gooney wrote:
You can’t expect prospective randomized placebo controlled conclusions from a retrospective study. You can conclude that the manner in which the drugs were use led in a VA setting showed no benefit and demonstrated harm. Further detailed studies with significant power would be needed for more elaborate conclusions. Why are we using the drug? Based off a study that had 30 patients and reported outcomes that were not likely to occur given the number of patients included in the study. You need 100 patients for one death. Over 70 patients in the same 100 will recover without incident. Yet people are prescribing a drug that potentially could do harm.
On 2020-04-23 13:10:03, user ABO FAN wrote:
The overwhelming majority of Japanese people who are positive for COVID-19 are seniors in their 60s or older (easily infected). On the other hand, many foreigners are in their 20s to 40s (not easily infected). Cruise ship passengers are mainly senior Japanese and foreign families. When you correct for age, the number of Japanese positives is overwhelmingly low.<br /> Now it is statistically clear that BCG is effective.<br /> Since the original data from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare provide only the number of positive individuals, the age structure of all passengers, including non-infected ones, is unknown. I suspect that an opponent wrote this paper in bad faith even if he knows the truth. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
On 2020-04-24 05:31:54, user Rajendra Kings Rayudoo wrote:
To <br /> Yang Yu, Yu-Ren Liu, Fan-Ming Luo, Wei-Wei Tu, De-Chuan Zhan, Guo Yu, Zhi-Hua Zhou
I read the paper want to know how this accurately measures the presymptomatic and asymptomatic people in populated countries like India <br /> And can you please tell how this actually works and give results to calculate<br /> And I also want to know how much percentage there will be the sucess ratio.
By my opinion the 1st case to the recent one the areas which are located the surrounding people should be Quarantine and time and tested and also tells the people who they contacted in the period of time
On 2020-04-24 12:11:44, user Mortal Wombat wrote:
Okay, you did this, but why? Is it really anything other than an overfit model?
Your original projections were off. You're never going to collect enough data for this to be falsifiable.
On 2020-04-28 05:45:23, user Dong-Ha Oh wrote:
Where are Figures 1, 2, and 3?
On 2020-04-28 14:00:55, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:
Main Findings<br /> This preprint sought to compare the daily deaths in countries using CQ/HCQ as a treatment from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to those that did not. From a list of 60 countries in descending order by number of confirmed cases, 16 countries were selected for inclusion into either the high CQ/HCQ production or use group, versus not. Countries were included if they met the criteria for having data from the day of the 3rd death in the entire country and the daily deaths for the 10 days immediately following, until both groups were populated with a list of 16 (Figure 1: Table with the CQ/HCQ group list; Figure 2: Table with the “control” group list). For each group of countries, the average daily deaths were determined, and the curves projected to illustrate trajectories. In Figure 3, the author suggests that the deaths in the countries belonging to the control group follow an exponential curve, while the progression of average daily deaths in the countries with greater use of CQ/HCQ follow a polynomial curve.
The author then applies Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), a modeling tool used for time-series forecasting (i.e., predicting the future trajectory of data over time using the data from previous time points as predictors in a linear regression). The Auto Regressive component refers to each difference between two previous time points that make the model “stationary” (current – previous); the Moving Average is the number of forecast errors from calculating these differences that should go in the model. The author uses ARIMA to predict the next 10 days of mean deaths for the CQ/HCQ list (Figure 6) and the control countries (Figure 8). In figures 9 and 10, autocorrelations of residuals are performed to determine internal validity of the model, here defined as no significant autocorrelations.<br /> In conjunction, the author argues that these findings support major differences in death rates between countries that use/mass produce CQ/HCQ versus those that do not.
Limitations<br /> The title of this study refers to itself as an ecological study, an observational study in which the data are defined at the population level, rather than individual. Although this study design allows for rapid hypothesis testing in large datasets, a robust ecological study should account for as many known risk-modifying factors or confounders as possible. Subsequently, any results should be reviewed under strict criteria for causality, since there is high probability of the outcomes falling under the definition of ecological fallacy, which occurs when inferences about individuals are determined from inferences about a group to which they belong.
This study conflated the use and mass production of CQ/HCQ at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in each respective country, with that country’s direct pandemic response. It is never explained whether use or production is the key output for any given country, which are vastly different metrics. The author fails to consider other reasons for having existing infrastructure for the mass production of drugs like hydroxychloroquine, whether the country was a global supplier of the medication (India), or is a region where malaria is endemic (India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea), which may correlate to both chloroquine production and use. Notably, the countries from which studies of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 have been predominantly performed (China, France, USA), are all in the control list of countries. Additionally, the data for cases and deaths were collected from reports accessed from https://www.worldometers.in... data were not selected from the top countries using a methodological approach, but rather skipping certain countries to use only the most complete death data for the timeframe of interest, allowing for bias introduced by the reporting of each individual country.
With regards to the statistical methods applied, namely ARIMA, they are non-standard practices for interpreting the results of an ecological study. The first problem with this, in my opinion, is that the message will be difficult to interpret and criticize for many scientists, as ARIMA will be unfamiliar to most in the biological sciences. Further, the models applied (Table 4) do not take into account any confounders, which is a requirement for robust analysis of an ecological study. There are only 3 variables in this type of model: p, the autoregressive coefficient, q, the moving average coefficient, and d, the difference between points in the time-series. Any flaws or bias inherent to the input data are then upheld and propagated by the model, which does not allow for any other variable that would contribute to the risk of death.
Significance<br /> The faults of the stratification of countries into the groups proposed in this study, together with the unorthodox application of ARIMA modeling, make it challenging to accept the conclusion that the author draws in this study. The apparent decrease in death rate in countries with a high production/use/either/or of CQ/HCQ could be due to any number of other factors for which this study did not account. The top 5 countries in both confirmed cases and reported deaths are all in the control list, which has no relationship to the amount of CQ/HCQ production within those countries yet skews the data to make the dynamics of death rate appear more dramatic.
Reviewed by Rachel Levantovsky as part of a project by students, postdocs and faculty at the Immunology Institute of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
On 2020-04-29 09:22:52, user eliana miller wrote:
What about the zinc?
That is the way the Hydroxychloroquine works, without it it does not work!
Get the zinc, please!
On 2020-05-05 13:21:34, user Franko Ku wrote:
Hope this is right about the mechanism and she gives some insight on HCQP <br /> https://m-jpost-com.cdn.amp...<br /> excerpt<br /> The Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), the national authority responsible for drug regulation in Italy, has an approved trial of hydroxychloroquine on 2,500 patients, which will start in early July and focus on the use of hydroxychloroquine in prophylaxis, Chiusolo said. The study, for which preliminary data would be ready within 16 weeks, will look at whether the preventive intake of the drug decreases the probability of contracting COVID-19 when one comes directly into contact with a positive patient.<br /> THE ROLE of hydroxychloroquine in the prevention and fight against coronavirus was also the subject of a study published in The International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, which describes how a healthcare worker infected with the novel coronavirus traveled freely within a hospital before being diagnosed with the virus.<br /> “It was not possible to quarantine everyone who had come into contact with the healthcare worker,” Chiusolo said. So, they treated 211 healthcare professionals and patients with hydroxychloroquine. After 10 days, nobody tested positive for the coronavirus.<br /> Furthermore, Chiusolo told the Post, the Italian Society of Rheumatology interviewed 1,200 rheumatologists throughout Italy to collect statistics on contagions. Out of an audience of 65,000 chronic lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who systematically take hydroxychloroquine, only 20 patients tested positive for the virus.
Then we have a questionable prevention trial for prevention with HCQP funded by Gates Foundation at Univ of Washington where the placebo is high dose Vitamin C instead of inert pill. Why? So the results aren't as different. They should also give same amount of Vitamin C to the HCQP arm.<br /> https://clinicaltrials.gov/...<br /> excerpt<br /> This is a randomized, multi-center, placebo-equivalent (ascorbic acid) controlled, blinded study of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults exposed to the virus<br /> also see for others joing<br /> https://www.clinicaltrials....<br /> In fact here's one of the studies using Vitamin C and zinc and Vit. D with HCQ<br /> https://www.clinicaltrials....
There need to be many many more trials and studies including zinc.<br /> Here is one:<br /> https://www.clinicaltrials....
Some good news about Gilead's remdesisvir but if accurate as Dr. Fauci said will need an anti-inflammatory cohort. We have one in HCQP AND zinc.<br /> https://www.insiderbaseball...
On 2025-08-27 17:03:43, user Emma wrote:
What is the Asterix on the last bar in the graph in figure 2. I cannot find reference to it
On 2025-09-29 22:21:03, user A.O. Akinrinade wrote:
Hello,
In Figure 2 (page 8), I believe it would be helpful to have a color legend showing these archetypes you've inferred. I think at least having the archetype number annotated would make it easier to connect the figure to the text.
Best,<br /> Ayomikun
On 2025-10-07 01:44:54, user Rongxing Weng wrote:
Now published ahead of print in AIDS. Link: https://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/abstract/9900/evaluating_the_impact_of_covid_19_on_the_hiv.772.aspx
On 2025-10-16 11:36:31, user schmitzboris wrote:
This data is well inline with our previous report in PCS<br /> 10.1038/s41598-023-42615-y
On 2025-10-29 00:16:02, user Nicole V wrote:
The published peer-reviewed paper is now available here: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/advance-article/doi/10.1093/genetics/iyaf215/8276117
On 2025-11-30 07:05:45, user Ali Rahimi wrote:
Dear authors,
I have read your interesting article. I think the following revisions would strengthen the article:
Abstract<br /> Clarify that the 72.4% and 38.2% figures come from patients reporting barriers, not from the full sample, so the denominator is clear.<br /> Keep wording aligned with the design: change “barriers limit uptake of cataract surgery in Bangladesh” to “barriers were commonly reported among patients undergoing cataract surgery in Bangladesh.”<br /> Make the main statistical result consistent with the Results: state that education, income and prior surgery were associated with the number of barriers (Adj R² = 0.138).
Introduction<br /> A few sentences are long and repetitive around “accessibility” and “health inequities”. Tighten these into one concise paragraph without changing meaning.<br /> Where you describe evidence as “scarce”, add 1 sentence that positions your study among Bangladeshi work (rural children, Rohingya, etc) and makes clear that prior studies were population specific.
Methods<br /> In “Participants and data collection” clarify in one sentence that 595 patients consented, but analyses of barriers use 583 due to item non-response.<br /> Briefly describe how the “fear score (0–5)” and “barrier count” were constructed (number of items, response scale, direction).<br /> You model a count outcome with linear regression. Add one line acknowledging that barrier counts were approximately normal and that this approach was chosen for simplicity; alternatively mention that Poisson or negative binomial regression would give similar interpretation.
Results<br /> Ensure mean age is reported consistently (Abstract uses 62 years, Table 1 has 61.3). Choose one rounding rule and use it everywhere.<br /> Replace approximate p notation “p ? 0.003” and “p ? 0.221” with standard “p = 0.003” and “p = 0.221”.<br /> Table 3: the p value shown as “1” for “Afraid of surgery” under gender should be reported as “1.000” or the exact test result.<br /> Table 4: the p values for “Number of reported barriers” currently read “> 0.001”; this should be “< 0.001”.<br /> In the text for section 3.3, “The geographical barrier of transportation is predominant in our study” is misleading because cost is clearly highest. Rephrase to “an important barrier” rather than “predominant”.
Discussion<br /> Soften causal phrasing. Examples:<br /> “Patients who delay seeing an eye doctor are more likely to postpone surgery and show up with advanced cataracts” could be “Patients reporting delays in seeing an eye doctor often present with more advanced cataracts.”<br /> Any sentences that link barriers directly to “prolonging the waiting period” or “contributing to disability” should be framed as association, not cause.<br /> When you describe gender norms and decision making, keep language neutral and clearly signpost what comes from your data versus from cited literature.<br /> Consider one short sentence acknowledging that your barrier profile reflects people who ultimately accessed surgery and may under-represent those who never reach services.
Limitations<br /> Add explicit mention that the cross-sectional design and the hospital-based sample (only patients scheduled for surgery) limit causal inference and generalisability to all people with cataract in Bangladesh.<br /> You already mention possible social desirability bias; make that sentence more direct and link it to self-reported barriers.
Conclusion<br /> Tone down strength of generalisation: instead of “The study's strength lies in its inclusion of a diverse population, thereby increasing its generalizability” use “The inclusion of patients from hospital clinics and outreach camps provides some diversity, although findings still reflect one service network.”<br /> Rephrase recommendations as suggestions: “could help improve access” or “may help bridge the knowledge gap” rather than “can facilitate” or “will improve”.<br /> Keep the ending sentence tightly tied to your data: emphasis on cost, transport, time, fear, and gendered escort constraints.
Tables and Figures<br /> Check that the labels in Figure 1 and Figure 2 match exactly the barrier wording used in the questionnaire and in the text (for example “hospital too far / no transportation”).<br /> Consider adding “multiple responses allowed” to the figure legends for barriers.
On 2025-11-30 17:00:32, user Cyril Burke wrote:
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2<br /> June 27, 2022<br /> Reviewer #2: Thank-you for the opportunity to review this work which highlights the importance of monitoring serum creatinine over time and how this can be a useful tool in detecting possible CKD. This is an important topic as the use of sCr on its own is certainly under-utilized and changes are often missed because they don’t fall into a predefined category.<br /> Thank you for considering our manuscript and for your detailed comments.
MAJOR CONCERNS
A. “Choi- rates of ESRD in Black and White Veterans” doesn’t fit with the rest of the paper including the title; the introduction and conclusion also don’t adequately address this portion of the paper. It feels disjointed from the main point of discussion which is the use of sCr in screening “pre-CKD”. This section and discussion should be removed and possibly considered for another type of publication.<br /> We have attempted to clarify this inclusion. This manuscript could be divided into three or four short papers, increasing the likelihood that any one of them would be read. However, different groups tend to read papers about screening for kidney impairment, racial disparities, cofactors in modeling physiologic parameters, or policy proposals to encourage best practices. Despite the appeal of perhaps three or four publications, we decided to tell a complete story in a single paper, but we are open to suggestions.
Black Americans suffer three times the kidney failure of White Americans. Other minority groups also have excessive rates of kidney disease. However, analysis of Veterans Administration interventions can bring that ratio close to one, similar interventions might also reduce to parity the risk for Hispanic, Asian, Native Americans, and others. Within-individual referencing should allow better monitoring of all patients and help to reveal the circumstances and novel kidney toxins that lead to progressive kidney decline. The ability to identify a healthy elderly cohort with essentially normal kidneys would help to calibrate expectations for all. Better modeling of GFR should help everyone, too.
Over eight decades, anthropologists have had little scholarly success in diminishing the inappropriate use of ‘race’. Keeping these parts together may be no more successful, but we feel compelled to try.
B. Cases 1 - 3, (lines 93 – 122): where are these cases from? There is no mention of ethics to publish these patient results, which appears to be a clear ethics violation. If so, these cases should be removed and patient consent and ethical approval obtained to publish them.<br /> The authors describe the reasons for not obtaining an ethics waiver for this secondary data analysis. Despite this, the relative ease of obtaining an ethics waiver for secondary data analysis usually means that this is done regardless.<br /> We take patient privacy seriously and have completely de-identified the Case data, as required by Privacy Act regulations. We understand that no authorization or waiver was necessary. We discussed the issues with an IRB representative, reviewed the relevant regulations, and confirmed no need for formal review of a secondary analysis of already publicly available IRB-approved data or of completely de-identified clinical data collected in the course of a treating relationship.
IRBs have a critical role to play, but many (including ours) are overworked. We understand the impulse authors feel to gain IRB approval even when the regulations clearly do not required it. As we discuss in the revision, there is a more significant matter that IRBs could help to resolve if they have the resources to do so. For all of these reasons, and even though we, too, felt the urge to obtain IRB approval, we resisted adding “just a little more” to their work.
C. The message of the article and data representation is unclear: do the authors wish to show that sCr is superior to eGFR in this “pre-CKD” stage, should both be used together? Do the authors wish to convey that a “creatinine blind range” does not exist? Or is the aim to demonstrate that continuous variables should not be interpreted in a categorical manner?<br /> Our interest is detection and prevention of progression of early kidney injury at GFRs above 60 mL/min – a range in which eGFR is especially unreliable. We have advanced the best argument we can to detect changes in sCr while kidney injury is still limited and perhaps reversible. If experience reveals that some avoidable exposure(s) begins the decline, then clinicians might alert patients and thereby reduce kidney disease. How best to use longitudinal sCr remains to be determined from experience. However, our message is that early changes in sCr can provide early warning of a decline in glomerular filtration. We are confident that clinicians can learn to separate other factors that may alter sCr, as we do for many other tests.
MINOR CONCERNS<br /> ABSTRACT<br /> A. Vague. Doesn’t give a clear picture of the study<br /> We have tried to clarify the title and abstract and are open to further suggestions.
INTRODUCTION<br /> B. 51 – 57: needs to state that these stats are from e.g. the US. The authors should consider adding international statistics to complement those from the US.<br /> We have updated the statistics on death rates from kidney disease to include US and global data.
C. 68: reference KDIGO guidelines, state year<br /> We now reference the KDIGO 2012 guidelines.
D. 75 – 77: is this reference of the New York Times the most appropriate?<br /> We have expanded this section with peer-reviewed, scholarly references. However, we found Hodge’s summary of the issue succinct and hence potentially more persuasive for some than decades of scholarly references that have had limited or no effect in the clinic.
E. 82: within-individual variation not changes (this is repetition of the point made in lines 425 – 427, but should match the language)<br /> We have matched the language.
F. 82 – 84: reference? If this is a question it should be presented as such<br /> We have attempted to clarify this statement.
G. 84: “normal GFR above 60” = guidelines (including KDIGO) do not refer to 60 as normal GFR, 60 – 89 is mildly decreased. (see line 126)<br /> We agree and have corrected the language.
H. 93: avoid the use of emotive words such as apparently (also in line 428)<br /> We wanted to emphasize appearance without proof and have made these changes.
I. 94: “Not meeting KDIGO guidelines”: KDIGO 2.1.3 includes a drop in category (including those with GFR >90). This would appear to include some of the cases listed. Additionally, albuminuria should have been measured for case 2 and 3.<br /> We have clarified that cases may or may not fit KDIGO categories, though that question will frequently arise in evaluating sCr changes. Where available, we have added urine protein and/or albumin results to the Cases.
J. 97: “progressive loss of nephrons equivalent to one kidney”: this is based on a single creatinine measurement.<br /> Since the original submission, we discovered for this Case (now Patient 3) early serum creatinine results and notes indicating a six-month period off thiazide diuretic. This data clarified the baseline and showed a remarkable effect of thiazide diuretic on sCr. We have added follow-up sCr results and details of thiazide use to the ASC chart.
K. 93 – 122: Could any of these shifts be explained by changes in creatinine methodology or standardization of assays, especially over 15 – 20 years (major differences between assays existed before standardization and arguably still exist with certain methods).<br /> It would be useful to see a comparison between serial sCr and eGFR measurements on the same figure. There appears to be significant (possibly more pronounced) changes when eGFR is used. As line 87 mentions changes in eGFR may be as useful (and in some situations more useful) than changes in sCr alone.
It would be helpful to have a chronology from each local laboratory with the date of every change in creatinine assay or standardization. However, any single shift draws attention but does not necessarily indicate significant change in glomerular filtration. After one or several incremental increases, over at least three months, the sCr pattern may meet the reference change value (RCV) that signals significant change. In the future, from age 20 or so, a patient’s medical record should retain the full range of the longitudinal sCr for true baseline comparison.
As noted in the revised manuscript, Rule et al showed that there is measurable nephrosclerosis even in the youngest kidney donors, suggesting that some injuries (perhaps exposure to dietary toxins) may begin in childhood and that early preventive counseling may be worthwhile. Experience will show whether this can slow progression to CKD. As we note, quoting Delanaye, sCr accounts for virtually 100% of the variability in eGFR equations based on sCr (eGFRcr), and these equations add their own uncertainties, so no, we do not believe that eGFR is more useful than sCr when GFR is above 60 mL/min and possibly much lower as well.
We have added eGFR results to the ASC charts (in blue), though availability was somewhat limited.
L. 127 – 142: should there be separate charts for males and females, the differences in creatinine between males and females needs to be discussed somewhere in the paper.
We do not think there should be separate charts for men and women based on size. The role of sex in eGFR equations is mainly based on the presumption that the average woman has less muscle mass than the average man. Clinicians care for individuals, not averages, and this sweeping generalization that increases agreement of the average of a population introduces unacceptable inaccuracy to individual care. Within-individual comparison eliminates the need for assumptions on relative size or muscle mass. Major changes in an individual’s muscle mass will usually be evident to the clinician who can adjust for them.
However, reports suggest significant influence of sex hormones on renal function, including effects of estrogen and estrogen receptors, such as reducing kidney fibrosis, increasing lupus nephritis, and increasing CKD after bilateral oophorectomy. The mechanism of these effects and how they might be incorporated into eGFR estimating equations is unclear, but the effort may benefit from a more individualized approach with focus on a measurand rather than matching population-based averages of a quantity value (calculated from measurands).
M. Similarly, is this suitable for all ages?<br /> We think so. Another sweeping generalization based on age merely introduces another inaccuracy which complicates the task of clinicians caring for individuals. Older persons have varying health, athleticism, muscle mass, dietary preferences, etc. Rule et al reported that biopsies of about 10% of older kidney donors had no nephrosclerosis. Within-individual comparison eliminates the need for assumptions on relative muscle mass or inevitable senescent decline in nephron number. We substitute the assumption that any change in an individual’s muscle mass will be evident and can be accounted for. A seemingly ubiquitous risk factor, or factors, starts injuring kidneys at a young age, which we may yet identify.
N. 162 – 163: rephrase<br /> Done.
METHODS<br /> O. 185 – 193: aim belongs in the introduction, can be adjusted to complement paragraph 178 – 182.<br /> Reorganized and rewritten.
P. 196 – 205: reference sources
References provided.
Q. 224 – 247: not in keeping with the rest of the article or title and conclusion
We have revised and restructured this section.
RESULTS<br /> R. If eGFR is treated as a continuous variable does inverted sCr still have higher accuracy?<br /> We believe so. Serum creatinine is a measurand and reflects the total sum of physiologic processes, known and unknown. In contrast, eGFR equations yield a quantity value, calculated from a measurand and dependent on the assumptions and approximations incorporated by their authors. The eGFR equations are thus necessarily less accurate than the measurands they are derived from, in this case, sCr. In a hyperbolic relationship, as the independent variable drops below one and approaches zero, the effect is to amplify the inaccuracy of the independent variable in the dependent variable. By avoiding the mathematical inverting, the data suggest that direct use of sCr is far more practical for pre-CKD.
S. As mentioned, the section on ESRD in black and white veterans doesn’t fit in with the rest of the article.<br /> We have revised, reorganized, and rewritten. We also outlined our rationale above.
DISCUSSION<br /> T. As mentioned, section 4.1 doesn’t fit in with the rest of the article. As the authors note the correlation between illiteracy and CKD is likely not causal.<br /> See above.
U. 387: erroneous creatinine blind range. The data presented does not show this is erroneous there is still a relative blind range. A distinction must be made between a population level “blind range” and an individual patient’s serial results. The data and figure 4 in particular demonstrate the lack of predictive ability of sCr above 40ml/min compared to below 40ml/min at a population level. For an individual patient this “blind range” is more relative, and a change in sCr even within the normal range may be predictive. (Note: the terminology “blind range” is problematic).<br /> We agree. On reading closer, Shemesh et al call attention to “subtle changes” in serum creatinine even though they had access only to the uncompensated Jaffe assay, so their recommendation to monitor sCr is even more forceful, today, due to more accurate and standardized creatinine assays. We have attempted to clarify this in the manuscript.
V. 399 – 400: “rose slowly at first and then more rapidly as mGFR decreased below 60” this refers to a relative blind range. Whether these slow initial changes can be distinguished from analytical and intra-individual variation is the question that needs to be answered before we can say a “blind-range” doesn’t exist for an individual patient.
We appreciate this observation. We believe longitudinal sCr is worth adopting to gain insights into individual sCr patterns, which may reveal early changes in GFR, among other influences on sCr. This is a low-cost, potentially high-impact population health measure, and there seems little risk in trying it because many clinicians already use components of the process.
W. 425 - 432: sCr is indeed very useful when baseline measurements are available. eGFR remains useful when baseline sCr is not available or when large intervals between measurements are found.<br /> As Delanaye et al noted, virtually 100% of the variability in longitudinal eGFR is due to sCr, so we understand that the errors in eGFR can be (and usually are) greater than but cannot be less than those in sCr.
X. 425: low analytical variation- if enzymatic methods are used<br /> Lee et al suggest that even the compensated Jaffe method provides some accuracy and reproducibility, which may allow longitudinal tracking of sCr even where more modern assays are as yet unavailable.
Y. 428: avoid the use of “apparently”<br /> Done.
Z. 430: reference 56 compares sCr and sCysC with creatinine clearance NOT with mGFR, this does not prove that mGFR has greater physiologic variability. Creatinine clearance is known to be highly variable (partially due to two sources of variability in the measurements of creatinine: serum and urine).<br /> The creatinine clearance is another form of mGFR, and our understanding of it begins with the units: if the clearance or removal of creatinine were being measured, the units should be umoles/minute, but they are mL/min. “Clearance” is an old concept coined by physiologists to describe many substances, such as urea, glucose, amino acids, and other metabolites. Since creatinine is mostly not reabsorbed and is only slightly secreted in the tubules, the “creatinine clearance” became a measure of GFR. The ratio of urine Creatinine to serum Creatinine is simply a factor for how much the original glomerular filtrate then gets concentrated (typically about 100-fold) by the kidney. Since the assumption is that the timed urine was once the rate of glomerular filtrate production, the creatinine clearance is a measure of the GFR.
Creatinine clearance has some inaccuracies based on tubular secretion, but also has some advantages: blood concentrations are essentially constant during urine collection, no need for exogenous administration, and reliable measurements in serum and urine. The methods that we often call mGFR also have problems, including unverifiable assumptions about distributions, dilutional effects, and others we cite in the text. None of these are direct measures of GFR. Due to changes in remaining nephrons, even true GFR itself is not strictly proportional to the lost number of functional nephrons, which seems the ultimate measure of CKD that Rule et al estimated from biopsy material.
AA. The limitations of sCr for screening should also be discussed: differences in performance and acceptability between enzymatic and Jaffe methods (still widely used in certain parts of the world), the effect of standardizing creatinine assays (an important initiative but one that could also produce shifts in results around the time of standardization- see cases), low InIx means that once-off values are exceedingly difficult to interpret, is a single raised creatinine value predictive (or should there be evidence of chronicity): similarly are there effects from protein rich meals, etc (The influence of a cooked-meat meal on estimated glomerular filtration rate. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry. 2007;44(1):35-42. doi:10.1258/000456307779595995)<br /> We have added discussion of additional references on reproducibility of sCr assays and discuss dietary meat and, in Part Three, possible dietary kidney toxins.
CONCLUSION<br /> BB. The discussion recommends using SCr above eGFR while the conclusion recommends the NKF-ASN eGFR for use in pre-CKD and ASC charts. While the use of both together in a complementary fashion is understandable- this needs to be congruent with the discussion, aims and results.<br /> We have rewritten this section. We would welcome any further recommendations.
Cyril O. Burke III, MD, FACP
On 2020-04-21 09:07:53, user Maria wrote:
At last, bravi! In Italy now they cannot say more that " coronavirus in the air" is a fake news. They ignore that humidity surrounding the membrane of the virus preserves its dimensional stability and integrity, as elementar chemistry teaches. Now I suggest to test the infectivity of Sars.CoV2 under different conditions of relative humidity of air. Since a low relative humidity favours the evaporation of water from the virus surface, I predict that the persistence of the virus decreases.
On 2020-04-22 12:29:26, user rupesh chaturvedi wrote:
Well immunity is outcome of humoral immune response. In these model authors assume that all the subjects infected with virus would generate a sustainable and durable IgG response. Where is data? Do we have data to show after infection how much immunity is generated? <br /> Please see a recent study from China. If 30% do not have antibody response then the at best case we will reach below 70%. I do not not if that will be really a Herd Immunity.<br /> Biological phenomena based models need to adjust the dynamics for the variables of biological process. A linear models should not be used to make policy decision unless backed up by understanding of biological events.<br /> Rupesh
On 2020-04-22 14:52:42, user Philippe BROUQUI wrote:
This unpublished paper raises serious doubts about the scientific value of research
Missing data <br /> This is a retrospective study on medical records carried out on 12 health care centers in the Ile de France. There is no missing data on the 19 basic variables out of the 181 patients followed in these centers which is remarkable when known that the main drawback of retrospective studies is precisely the loss of information. This is important because it can skew the reported balance in both groups. For example, it seems unlikely that the "Child B liver cirrhosis or more yes/no" data was found in retrospect in all computerized medical records in this study. It probably lacks the "I don't know." This casts doubt on the reality of the retrospective nature of the data collection.
Inclusion criteria O2 to 2l<br /> This criterion is in line with the HCSP's recommendation and included in Decree No. 2020-337. However we see oxygen was at 2l/mn in 50% of patients with extremes of 2 to 4L/mn which appears to be more of a criterion of inclusion adapted to the law than clinical reality.
Excluding patients who received HCQ 48 hours after inclusion.<br /> But above all, we have been be surprised by the fact that among the control group there are in fact 8 patients out of 97 who received hydroxychloroquine but after 48 hours. In the final analysis they are removed from this control group. This is a scientific misconduct because these patients should have been included in the treaties and not in the controls.
This likely changes the results and may even be the balance of groups in terms of comorbidity
On 2020-06-25 15:16:45, user dottore b wrote:
"Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in patients receiving invasive
mechanical ventilation (29.0% vs. 40.7%, RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.82];
p<0.001)" is misleading as this is an 11% decrease in the death rate. It's like saying the death rate went from 2% to 1% and trumpeting a "50% reduction in the rate of death".
For those interested in a very good discussion of this trial from Dr Dan Griffin an intensivist at Columbia, this is a great link and every practitioner should be a TWIV listener
On 2023-11-12 16:14:24, user Julian Gough wrote:
We have noted that in a small number of cases this work is being cited in the literature as a positive GWAS association for the ERAP2 gene, however we would like to be clear that we are making no such claim, and urge authors to take care in citing this work. We are pleased that for the majority of citations authors have not misrepresented the findings.
Analysis of subsequent genetic datasets for COVID-19 mortality [not yet published] could suggest that risk factors (reported here and elsewhere) are different at different points in time, as the virus itself has mutated, medical care has evolved, vaccination has been introduced and population vulnerability and exposure has changed. Therefore we also ask readers to take note that the conditions under which the (very early) data collected by UKbiobank during the first wave of the pandemic -- analysed in this work -- may be very different from present, future or past conditions during other waves of infection.
On 2020-07-07 14:02:12, user David Curtis wrote:
I have some concerns about rs150892504.
According to ExAC it is rare in Europeans but has an allele frequency of 0.04 in Ashkenazi Jews. <br /> https://gnomad.broadinstitu...<br /> https://gnomad.broadinstitu...
Likewise, it has an allele frequency of 0.03 or 0.04 in the IBD exomes:<br /> https://ibd.broadinstitute....
This raises the possibility that the results you obtain may be due to some kind of population stratifcation which has not been adequately corrected for.
On 2020-07-06 15:38:39, user Alexander Pearlman wrote:
why is placebo sterile saline soln.--and not formulated with lipids as the mRNA-LNP (scrambled) drug product? is this a safety concern? or expect immunog. sig. from a scrambled construct?
On 2020-07-07 20:43:11, user Dr. David Ludwig wrote:
The final peer-reviewed manuscript is now published, with free full text available at Journal of Nutrition: https://academic.oup.com/jn...
On 2020-07-08 18:28:20, user Paul Gordon wrote:
Hi, thanks for posting. Have the new Italian genomes described been posted to a public repository? A quick search of the paper and both GenBank/GISAID didn't reveal these identifiers or entries matching the metadata provided in Table S1. Thanks!
On 2024-06-16 14:15:45, user Praba wrote:
Dear Authors, this paper is interesting. Congratulations to all authors. Could you please give complete details about the FnCas9 purification (How much vol of culture was used to purify the proteins that was shown in Suppl Fig 9 and what was the yield obtained at the end. These information are not trivial and they are important for the researchers who follow the paper. Hope you will append the details.
On 2020-07-12 18:19:53, user Doug Vaughan wrote:
Very interesting study. PAI-1 provides a site of convergence for risk (age, obesity, diabetes) and mechanisms driving thrombosis (inflammation, activated renin-angiotensin system, endothelial dysfunction) in patients with COVID-19. Failure of the endogenous clot-dissolving system is most likely a key contributor to morbidity and mortality as demonstrated here. Just last week, we secured an IND from the FDA to begin testing of a novel orally-active inhibitor of PAI-1 (TM5614) in high-risk patients with COVID-19. This Phase 2 study will enable the first use of this drug in USA.
On 2024-10-23 00:08:01, user Shuo Shen wrote:
An updated version with more experiments, data, and analysis has been published. Please refer to the peer-reviewed version here: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.04248-23 <br /> "Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants by molecular-clamping technology-based RT-qPCR."
On 2025-03-30 21:44:30, user Simon binakter48 wrote:
This paper has been published to an IEEE conference.
2023 26th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), 13-15 December, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh
doi: 10.1109/ICCIT60459.2023.10441480
On 2020-07-17 11:16:47, user ADisquietingSuggestion wrote:
This paper puts the global burden of COVID-19 at 4.3 million YLL. The WHO tables on disease burden put this in context: all of the top 20 diseases by YLL are above 25 million. How would you characterize this comparison?
On 2020-07-17 15:36:12, user Mathieu Perrin wrote:
Dear authors,
thank you for raising awareness that a low FPR does not per se translate into a high significance of a positive result. Hopefully, this will encourage labs to make an EQA for SARS-CoV-2.
1) Is it possible that the FPR actually depends on the prevalence rate? For instance, if the prevalence is high, there is a greater risk to contaminate a negative sample.<br /> 2) Should the FPR be lower if two tests are conducted on the same person? I expect this to be the case unless a negative patient always give positive results for some reason. If so, the practice of double testing should be generalized. I understand you have trouble determining precisely how each country defines a positive result, whether it is on a sample basis or if samples are pooled or if an individual gets tested several times.
Regards,<br /> Mathieu
On 2020-07-18 00:08:26, user dottore b wrote:
As an emergency physician turned co-voligist (not my choice!), this paper is one of the single most important papers of the year. Period. We need to get governments, academic institutions, payer providers and even venture capital in public-private partnerships deploying this system today
On 2020-07-18 19:23:30, user Sui Huang wrote:
Thank you for this important work. We had a similar finding in (brief report, purely computational part) that may be of interest: https://www.preprints.org/m...<br /> (medRxiv rejected our submission)
On 2020-07-19 05:03:49, user HarryDeedra Hodges wrote:
The tweet storm is quite odd. Seems like a mini-army, particularly in Spanish moving the story along. Others seems quite happy to spread the negative results. The patients seem evenly matched, but nearly all needed O2 supports implying quite ill, more HCQ patients were > 70 than the control. Dosage was 1600mg loading, 400 mg daily for 9 days, no mention of zinc. No adverse effects noted. The dosage is only slightly higher than the evolving standard which includes zinc. The study shows HCQ without zinc not useful in critically ill patients.
On 2020-07-19 10:40:10, user vsn74 wrote:
1st of July: <br /> - 5.497 covid deaths<br /> - 50,266 deaths (all causes)<br /> That was a HUGE MISTAKE, you guys did!
On 2020-07-19 22:45:26, user George wrote:
" Lettuce consumption increased COVID-19 mortality."<br /> If you lack the commonsense to see how ridiculous that is, at least put it in non-causal language next time.
On 2020-07-20 15:23:57, user Gerald Williams wrote:
I have followed your work since April NBC story.
You said you followed the Zelenko protocol (HCQ+Zn+Azithromycin) and just added Ivermectin in order to get the great results.
In a prior version of your article I recall reading that you had HCQ & Azithromycin in a large % of the Ivermectin group as well as in some of the "usual care" group. You never mention critical Zinc in your article. If I was reviewing, I would want to know the details even if they may make the study more "messy". Your results are already very significant in that adding Ivermectin to the Zelenko cocktail extends efficacy to many days later.
There is no need at this time to kill placebo group by having a DB RCT.<br /> What is needed is to repeat protocol where the the control group exactly follows the Zelenko protocol (now in preprint or via Yale's Dr. Risch review in Am. J. Epidemiology) vs the Zelenko protocol + Ivermectin. You should reference.
It is not just you, but every article on treatment should document # of days since first symptoms and # of days since hospitalization (if former isn't known).
The current hypothesis is that Zelenko protocol works great up to 5 days of symptoms and sometimes up to 7 days. Your addition of Ivermectin extends that window into many days after hospital admission, It is no coincidence that in the less severe group you did not find significance because the Zelenko protocol was adequate (except some patients didn't receive full Zelenko protocol.
Your protocol makes Remdesivir obsolete, dangerous and too expensive.
You can follow me and others on Twitter to continue discussion,.<br /> It is shameful that Big Pharma is suppressing this very important finding.
Ideally the Zelenko protocol should be followed at first signs of symptoms and if fails, around day 6, can add Ivermectin to cocktail and repeat (in outpatient or hospital setting).<br /> As you know, Doxycycline (doesn't interact w/HCQ) can be substituted for Azithromycin, so no need for outpatient cardiac monitoring. Perhaps even use the 4 drug cocktail in outpatient setting from start, if continues to prove safe.
On 2020-07-20 17:17:47, user JayTe wrote:
In the Annals of Internal Medicine, the authors demonstrated in the research article, Cloth Masks and Surgical Masks Ineffective in filtering SARS-COV-2 in COVID-19 Patients, Oberg and Brousseau demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0 and 3.1 um in diameter. As well Lee and his colleges showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 um particles can penetrate surgical masks. If we assume that the SARS-COV2 particle has a similar size to the SARS-COV1 particle even surgical masks are unlikely to effective filter the virus. In this study the primary means of the spread was via coughing. Now the author of this article claims that it is primarily via contact or droplets!?! If a person has respiratory issues due to covid-19, would it not make sense that they would be coughing? If you have persons that are not ill or asymptomatic then given the existing evidence, there is little to no chance of an individual becoming ill by the transmission of the SARS-COV2 virus. Doing a meta-study where one chooses studies that conform to their particular perspective and avoids the probability of transmission via coughing doesn't help the debate on the value of masks.
It also excludes the negative effect of wearing masks which in a 2015 study in the BMJ: “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers“ highlighted that not only are these masks 100% ineffective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, but they can actually harm you since the moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.
On 2020-07-21 13:22:43, user Evolution 321 wrote:
Preprint implies an intention to formerly publish at a later time. Where has this manuscript been submitted for peer review? What journal was this intended for?
On 2020-07-22 03:42:29, user Steven Hall wrote:
I would love to know was there any determination as to the best wearable. <br /> I run a Circulation Clinic and We have all of our Clients use wearable to help us get the best results. You feed back would be very helpful. Blessings Steven Hall Director of the Fountain of Youth Circulation Clinics 425-770-9466 https://happyheartclinic.com/
On 2020-06-22 23:00:16, user Marcus Quintilian wrote:
Some iportant words are missing: "Our machine learning analysis also showed that the two groups were linearly separable. .....incubation of COVID-19 along with previous statistical analysis. "
On 2020-07-23 05:37:54, user Greg Dingle wrote:
There is a bad typo in the abstract here:
103-105 RNA copies/min
vs
10^3-10^5 RNA copies/min
in the paper.
On 2020-07-23 15:48:06, user Joseph Psotka wrote:
a couple of factors you did not take into account: 1. Florida's population is much smaller than the official one because about a third of all "residents" leave in April and May, when it gets seriously hot. 2.) Maryland and Virginia suffer from contagion from New York which increased their Re in the peak months, so your model probably underestimated as New York declined.
On 2020-06-24 02:12:28, user Nobuhiro Sho wrote:
Non-pharmcological intervention such as wearing mask is the key strategy for novel cotagious respiratory disease. Because drug’s efficacy is not adequately proven yet. This article shows the importance of masks for preventing the transmission of covid-19.<br /> Every contagious disease is multiplicative.<br /> As everyone is wearing mask, it reduces the huge amount of infection.
On 2020-06-24 12:15:40, user Ayse Balat wrote:
I would like to congratulate the authors introducing such a beneficial model for the diagnosis of erosive-vesiculobullous diseases. I am sure it would be one of the great methods for clinicians. Professor Ayse Balat
On 2020-07-04 10:35:54, user Vincent Fokker wrote:
I was reading your publication and I had some questions: (1) how does individual predicted probability work? is this based on certainty that it is this type of cell (as with resnet ?) and what thresholds are used? are different thresholds used for different cells it detects? and how did you define your final metrics?
Definitely seems like an awesome solution to bridging the gap of knowledge and interpretation of medical personnel in assisting them to practice their job more informed and efficient. Keep up the good work!
On 2020-07-24 23:05:36, user Guest wrote:
IFR is a good thing to measure. I’d rather concentrate on Excess Deaths.
Total Deaths from any cause are way up. There is a second spike forming (first was mostly NY city)
Click: “Weekly Number of Deaths by Age,” then “Update Dashboard”
Select a Jurisdiction or Age group if you wish to change the chart
See the Weekly Deaths by jurisdiction and age group over the previous 5 years (gray) & this year (red)
Title: <br /> Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19
On 2020-07-26 03:14:51, user Mazbahul Ahamad Yuvraz wrote:
Link to Replication Data: https://dataverse.harvard.e...
On 2020-07-26 11:16:28, user Rosemary TATE wrote:
This is a very interesting paper. However, I'm not convinced of the conclusions that the lower rate of test and hospitalisation are due to gender bias. It could be just that females have milder symptoms. And indeed the analysis shows that their symptom profile is different. Have the authors considered carrying out a multivariable analysis to adjust for some of these?<br /> I would suggest changing the title and moderating the conclusions. Incidentally, this is a cross-sectional study, and this should be mentioned somewhere. I would suggest replacing the term "big data" in the title with something more meaningful - as suggested in the StROBE guidelines. where is the checklist, could you please upload.
On 2020-07-26 13:57:22, user catcarouser wrote:
I’ve read the comments criticizing the study. Since Norway adopted the study standards and opened gyms, the infection rate there — well, look it up yourselves. This has been a success.
On 2020-07-26 17:35:19, user Dude Dujmovic wrote:
Very interesting paper but I think emphasis on waning humoral immunity is misplaced in most recent papers. This infection will be controlled by memory lymphocytes not by present antibodies. .
On 2020-07-27 06:16:18, user OxImmuno Literature Initiative wrote:
On 2020-07-27 06:53:19, user OxImmuno Literature Initiative wrote:
On 2020-07-30 08:13:08, user Partho Sen wrote:
Now published in Schizophrenia Bulletin :-<br /> https://academic.oup.com/sc...
On 2020-06-30 11:48:25, user J. M. Groh wrote:
Hello, thanks for your important paper. May I suggest clarifying in the abstract the numerical effects that you saw, esp. reductions in the death rate in the treated group vs. controls (page 4, 5% mortality in the treated group vs. 45% in the control group, for groups of ~20 and ~50 patients). That is an impressive effect size. Thank you!
On 2020-08-01 22:03:19, user Pablo Richly wrote:
Could you please provide further details of the randomization of the control group?
On 2020-07-01 00:05:45, user ??? wrote:
Dear Colleagues
I'm Jaehun Jung, the corresponding author of the manuscript.
Our manuscript was published after peer-review as follows.
'Ji W, Huh K, Kang M, Hong J, Bae GH, Lee R, Na Y, Choi H, Gong SY, Choi YH, Ko KP, Im JS, Jung J. Effect of Underlying Comorbidities on the Infection and Severity of COVID-19 in Korea: a Nationwide Case-Control Study. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jun;35(25):e237. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkm...
Our published version have the following changes, please refer to the newly published paper.
1) Database changes<br /> -HIRA combines epidemiological investigations data from Korea's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and extends the database until May 15. Our published version are based on this recent database. Therefore, the results of the pre-print version and the printed version are quite different.
2) Case definition and comorbidity identification
The pre-print version was able to check past history of more than 5 years. However, due to the expansion of the DB, only the past history can be confirmed within the past three years, and there has been a methodological adjustment.
On 2020-08-03 13:49:53, user Michael wrote:
You may be interested in our research at the optimized boarding of passenger groups in times of COVID-19. We find that the consideration of groups in a pandemic scenario will significantly contribute to a faster boarding (reduction of time by about 60%) and less transmission risk (reduced by 85%), which reaches the level of boarding times in pre-pandemic scenarios.
The preprint publication “Analytical approach to solve the problem of aircraft passenger boarding during the coronavirus pandemic” is available here:<br /> https://www.researchgate.ne....
Additional information about common passenger boarding in times of COVID-19 are available here:<br /> Evaluation of Aircraft Boarding Scenarios Considering Reduced Transmissions Risks (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1... "https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5329)").
On 2020-07-03 20:49:23, user Brooke wrote:
"Asian" and "Other" are not appropriate ethnic categories. People of Chinese heritage are considered Asian. If you do not include Chinese people as Asians, then this ethnic category should be renamed "South Asian" (which includes people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.). As for applying the term "other" to an ethnic group, this term literally "others" them. It may require more words to describe, but the more appropriate category for these participants would be "participants if more than one ethnicity or an ethnicity not listed in the survey." Although this tweet thread is about gender, the same gist applies here about ethnicity: https://twitter.com/theorig...
On 2020-07-05 11:53:17, user OxImmuno Literature Initiative wrote:
On 2020-07-05 17:14:25, user Research Explained wrote:
Unfortunately this study includes a great deal of speculation and very little evidence to back up the claims. The sample sizes were far too small and the primary outcome measure lacks statistical significance. The study also does not address the obvious confounding factor of the large health disparities between African Americans and other groups in the United States.
Check out our general public friendly explanation of this study:<br /> https://www.researchexplain...
On 2020-07-05 17:53:43, user Babak Navi wrote:
The final version of this study was published in JAMA Neurology on July 2, 2020 and can be found at doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.
On 2020-07-05 18:52:28, user Kamran Kadkhoda wrote:
Neigher Abbott nor the authors used well pedigreed serum samples from patients recently infected with common coronaviruses . this means the specificity arm of the study is very well biased and essentially hundred percent is neither mathematically nor statistically possible.
On 2020-08-11 11:14:29, user One bird one cup wrote:
Limited evidence to support effectiveness of quarantine? <br /> SARS: 8,098 cases worldwide. About 5300 in China. "Most included trials had poor design, reporting and sparse events." No difference between N95 and surgical masks? <br /> I'm not buying this.
On 2020-08-11 14:13:04, user Randy Von Fistenburg wrote:
Has this type of study not already been performed in other countries before this? It was my understanding that results of such studies from countries whose initial wave hit earlier than UK, concluded no increased risk for those with HIV infection (on ARV treatment). It would seem that government health officials, NHS patient advice and statements from HIV organisations and charities were entirely wrong when, at the start of the lockdown period, they assured public the complete opposite was the case: As long as those infected with HIV were taking ARV medication then they did not have increased mortality risk compared to rest of population. I remember a small study done in Barcelona and a larger one in China both seemed to indicate no increased risk, but I find it highly irresponsible for advice from official sources that was then used to make policy on what was considered high risk groups and organisation of shielding and other provisions and protections , not be backed up by research such as this study to be absurd - Its outrageous for these for these statements and advice to have been offered in the first place!
On 2020-08-13 08:17:50, user Blanket Box wrote:
This paper fails to define what constitutes a Covid "case" and so the statistics are essentially meaningless. There are multiple problems with national "case" data, including multiple swabs from one person being counted as multiple unique "cases", and serology (antibody) tests being counted as "cases" . However the major problem with "case" counts is that PCR testing creates cases. PCR does not verify presence of viable virus. The virus is not isolated. PCR amplifies viral RNA. However, people recovered from Covid shed inactive viral fragments for around 3 months. These are detectable by PCR and create false positive results - which are counted as "cases". The test is quite literally creating the cases. The number of PCR amplification cycles selected by the operator will determine the number of positive tests. More cycles will manufacturer more RNA and result in more positive results and therefore more cases. There is no peer reviewed methodology for determining how many cycles because the PCR test is not a diagnostic test and should not be used as such. One of the foundational principles of diagnosis is that the usefulness of a lab test is measured by how frequently the test results confirm the clinical diagnosis of symptoms by a doctor. Most of these so called “cases” do not represent people diagnosed with any disease or presenting any symptoms. They are positive PCR tests and nothing more. It should not be inferred or implied that a positive PCR test represents a unique individual with an active infection because that is simply not the case.
Most of the links about PCR test including shedding of inactive virus by recovered people can be found in this article https://www.conservativerev...
Other useful links are<br /> https://vimeo.com/443416775<br /> https://twitter.com/ussuric...<br /> https://medium.com/@vernunf...
On 2020-07-08 21:52:08, user F Philibert wrote:
Faulty Data sources were used in this study.
I question the use of the GVA data, which was generated by an organization with its own agenda, rather than FBI data, which is more accurate but lags behind.
As well, NICS checks do not represent a one-to-one count against firearms purchases; In most states, <br /> 1. Multiple guns can be purchased on a single NICS background check,<br /> 2. Holders of Carry Permits may not need NICS Checks, and <br /> 3. NICS checks are also performed for other reasons, such as Purchase or Carry Permit issuance or renewal. <br /> To get a proper number for gun purchases, consult data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
The cause and effect are likely backwards here. Coinciding with the pandemic were riots and civil disturbance, which increased violence, and likely caused a surge in firearms purchases for self protection. Also, with the 2016 election cycle comes the threat of increased Gun Control, and perceived restriction on ability to purchase firearms in the future. Nothing increases a population's desire for an object more than perceived future scarcity. E.g., Toilet Paper at the outset of the pandemic.
Note also that there was a surge in firearms sales in 2013, with a corresponding DECREASE in crime.
I find the conclusions of this study to be questionable at best.
On 2020-07-09 05:04:08, user Hesham wrote:
Based on your validation data (p1 of the supplemental material), you had better sensitivity/LOD for E, N1, and N2 than you did for IP2/IP4. Therefore if you were able to detect IP2/IP4 in the March 12, 2019 samples (Fig 2A in your results), you should have been able to detect E, N1 and N2. But you didn't ! This is not consistent with the presence of SARS-Cov-2 and would never qualify as a positive result.
I would question the wisdom of publishing such tentative data, especially in the current environment. There are people such as Tom Jefferson of Oxford who are citing your work as "proof" to support outlandish claims about the origins of this virus. I fear this article is causing more harm than good.
On 2020-08-14 09:13:14, user Alexandre Júlio wrote:
Louis Pasteur taught us the importance of Pasteurization. Against air-borne epidemics, we are needing a safe indoor place to drink & eat. Up-down HEPA laminar flow is a speciality that I knew only in semiconductor clean rooms. Against Covid-19, my faith is going to UHT treated air, cooled to lower than 50ºC by heat-exchange with aspirated air. Further cooling may be provided by humidification with sterilized water and/or heat pump. What are UHT-air parameters used in Japan?
On 2020-08-14 16:20:29, user Paul Gordon wrote:
Very interesting, thanks for posting. The paper described 649 genomes, but only 253 appear to be in GISAID. Do you know if the remaining genomes will be released? Thanks!
On 2020-07-10 14:56:15, user jeromee5000 wrote:
COVID-19's lost puzzle piece: the power of domestic animal reservoir<br /> Nazli Saeedi, seyed rafat<br /> medRxiv 2020.06.16.20132464; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/202...
On 2020-07-10 16:14:28, user Copernicus wrote:
Hosting lectures with many students in an indoor environment, based on recent scientific guidance on small particles, will not be easy and the solution seems to be mostly online. virtual and tutorials. The questions then arises why should students pay high fees. best to delay until next year and let students take a gap year!
On 2020-07-13 08:59:32, user OxImmuno Literature Initiative wrote:
On 2020-07-13 10:36:22, user Jon Henrik Laake wrote:
I find no reference to brain tissue. Was this investigated?
On 2020-08-22 13:26:22, user Euan Arnott wrote:
Very valuable paper! I second the previous enquiry about crew age data, since I suspect that they might be younger than the population average in such a physically demanding job? Ditto the enquiry about WHEN the key Abbott-positive trio were actively sick. Would it be possible to screen the three who were Abbott-positive but neutralising-negative to see if they show specific antibodies to endemic coronaviruses OC43, 299E, NL63, or HKU-1? This might help to understand if a recent non-COVID coronavirus infection reduces the Positive Predictive value (PPV) of the Abbott test (via anti-Nucleoprotein antibody cross-reactivity). Even just a question to the whole crew as to who had ANY cold-type symptoms within the month before sailing might be useful data. Again, a great paper.
On 2020-09-02 08:21:04, user Roberto Piva wrote:
Still no sequences of primers used:<br /> please authors, share infos!!
On 2021-02-18 08:57:15, user Meri Tulic wrote:
Accepted for publication in Journal of Investigative Dermatology (February 2021)
On 2020-09-22 15:49:09, user Marcus Lacerda wrote:
Clever and timely manuscript. I'd rather believe in real data like these than opinions.
On 2021-05-16 08:22:03, user Kohsuke Imai wrote:
Yang Y, Shen C, Li J, Yuan J, Wei J, Huang F, Wang F, Li G, Li Y, Xing L, Peng L, Yang M, Cao M, Zheng H, Wu W, Zou R, Li D, Xu Z, Wang H, Zhang M, Zhang Z, Gao GF, Jiang C, Liu L, Liu Y. Plasma IP-10 and MCP-3 levels are highly associated with disease severity and predict the progression of COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul;146(1):119-127.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.027. Epub 2020 Apr 29. PMID: 32360286; PMCID: PMC7189843.
On 2021-05-17 17:12:31, user Cathy Crowe wrote:
Thank you for this. In Toronto, Canada we've now had over 120 shelter outbreaks with over 1500 people infected. In fact we had to take the city to court to ensure at least 2 metre (6 feet) physical distancing would be ordered. Congregate shelters continue to have outbreaks, some are on their 2nd and 3rd. Post COVID the new model of shelter delivery must be one person per room, one couple per room, one family per room while they wait for housing and the housing has to be fast tracked.
On 2021-05-20 18:34:22, user Andrew wrote:
PEER REVIEWED UPDATED PAPER:<br /> https://clinmedjournals.org....
On 2021-05-21 20:59:55, user Harold Thimbleby wrote:
From harold@thimbleby.net
I mailed the author for correspondence constructively two weeks ago but I have had no reply.
I am a professor of computer science. The Excel spreadsheet is, sadly, appalling and needs a lot of professional work to be believable. There is no useful documentation about how it is intended to work. It is obscure and impossible to check. I doubt it is correct, unless evidence can be provided. In short, the results described in this paper cannot be relied on or used for any public health purposes.
Have any of the authors carefully reviewed the spreadsheet? Any independent parties? If so I think the paper should say so.
Best wishes, though, with this important work.
-Harold
On 2021-05-25 20:24:16, user Green Ranger wrote:
The results and conclusions of this study are wrong. The authors mistook the ivermectin and control arms of one of the RCTs that they included. Look at figure 2. The results from Niaee 2020 are dramatically misreported. The actual results for that study are as follows:
Control groups: 11 deaths out of 60 patients.<br /> Ivermectin groups: 4 deaths out of 90 patients.
When this is corrected, the results of this meta-analysis confirm what other meta-analyses have found. Ivermectin use is associated with approximately 66% reduction in Covid fatalities. And this result is statistically significant.
On 2021-05-26 03:59:44, user Steve Kirsch wrote:
Why hasn't this paper been retracted yet?
They reversed the numbers for the Niaee study which was pivotal to their conclusion. See this tweet from CovidAnalysis for details on the switch. There is also a video from Niaee himself attesting to the fact ivermectin works.
When you use the correct data, it shows ivermectin works. No surprise.
On 2021-05-26 14:43:55, user Donepudi Raviteja wrote:
Sorry Sir, but this article need so much more rigorous Multivariate statistics like PCS, MANOVA etc.,. The statistics are basic and also misleading to some extant. In correlation matrix (Figure 3) the correlation between deaths per million and sanitation parameters looks identical to correlation between age >65 years and sanitation parameters. This show that the confiding factor is age distribution. If a proper multivariate analysis is done this would have been easily identified and avoided as discussion point. A simple age adjusted death-rate correlation with sanitation parameters would also be sufficient.
On 2021-05-27 14:27:10, user Michael W. Perry wrote:
This study reinforces an earlier Danish one published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which found that the result of mask wearing had so little statistical significance it could be "compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."
Results:<br /> A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was –0.3 percentage point (95% CI, –1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.<br /> https://www.acpjournals.org...
On 2021-05-29 01:46:20, user David Steadson wrote:
Why were respiratory issues etc not part of the symptoms studied? They are typically listed as frequent long covid symptoms. Ref 10 for example says -
"Insomnia (18.6%), respiratory symptoms (including pain and chest tightness) (14.7%), nasal congestion (12.4%), fatigue (10.8%), muscle (10.1%) and joint pain (6.9%), and concentration difficulties (10.1%) were the most frequently reported symptoms."
On 2021-05-30 06:25:34, user Allan Saul wrote:
I was struck by the difference in the efficacy estimates in this paper and the estimates from Israel for efficacy against the B.1.117 variant e.g., https://www.medrxiv.org/con...<br /> It would be useful if the authors could make some comment on the apparent differences in results.<br /> Also, I am a bit perplexed at the time frame for estimating efficacy following first vaccination with BNT162b2 vaccine. Paper says that the efficacy was measured "21 days or more after the first dose up to the day before the second dose" . Recommended time for the second dose IS on day 21 so how come there are ANY cases? Presumably, second doses were delayed. In view of earlier data that suggests that the BNT162b2 is substantially more effective in the 4th week following a single dose (in absence of a second dose) than in the third week, it would be useful if the authors can be more explicit about the observation windows.
On 2021-06-01 22:05:39, user st_publichealth wrote:
The article is interesting. A few questions to the authors. Did you pre-specify the definition of negative PCR?<br /> Did you compare changes in viral loads from the baseline? Since the median viral load was higher in the placebo arm, this might have affected the likelihood of viral clearance at day 6 and it should be accounted for.
On 2021-06-07 12:30:38, user UNG wrote:
Covishield vaccine is essentially spike protein, while Covaxin was whole virus. I don't understand why the antibody titre was measured against only spike protein? also one should used multiple brand kit (at least two) to get the fair idea of the antibody titre.
On 2021-06-12 09:02:36, user Daksya Siddhi wrote:
One bit of information that I did not find is the data on the age of the Vitamin D measurements. Since these measurements can span from 2 weeks to 2 years prior to hospital admission, their predictive value for Vitamin D levels at time of infection can't be judged, or at very least, won't be consistent. Can this data be provided?
Additionally, it is mentioned that the most recent Vitamin D measurement is used. For those patients for whom multiple measurements are available, what is the trend - stable, increasing or decreasing? That could affect their imputed Vitamin D level at time of infection.
On 2021-06-13 17:13:57, user artpatronforever wrote:
Quote "No drug for prevention or treatment in earlier stages of COVID-19 are yet found;" In an alternate reality certainly that could be true. In that same alternate reality likewise it could be true that a dosage of a vaccine is properly the same for a 100 pound woman as for a 300 pound man. I choose not to place confidence in wisdom offered from that alternate reality where originates such lame disinformation. Truth has no agenda but disinformation certainly does have an agenda.
On 2021-06-14 19:15:42, user Alhaji Abubakari Sadiq wrote:
Can i please get the vaccine acceptance scale for my study. I will validate it anyway. Maybe provide some information about the it for me
On 2021-07-01 02:18:40, user akcita wrote:
I was hoping that there would be obvious conflicts of Interest. Alas, it seems the Authors barely reviewed their own study and left it to a technical editor, and the viewing public to fix their bad science...
On 2021-07-05 20:17:46, user Baljeet Singh wrote:
The trial data looks good and with sufficient details for analysis.
On 2021-03-20 03:55:01, user Jean Tyan wrote:
Very inspiring and socially relevant work! Regarding your DAG, social determinants of health appear to be confounders on both the pathways between biological aging and healthspan and between biological aging and biological aging* due to the directionality of the arrows. I’m not sure I quite understand the correct analysis approach in this situation when evaluating the potential relationship between biological aging and healthspan—should regression models adjust for social determinants, even though they are conceptualized as an upstream cause? In addition, do you have any thoughts on how social determinants and weathering may be linked differently to aging, depending on the type of health outcome measured? A recent systematic review (Forde et al., 2019) reviewed studies on weathering examining a range of different health outcomes (e.g., allostatic load, mortality, telomere length, etc.) and found conflicting results—I would be interested to hear what you think of how these outcomes may relate to biological aging. Many of these variables are also available in the HRS data and could definitely be interesting to explore using the mediation analysis methods you describe here!
On 2021-03-22 19:00:50, user Trash Trashisfree wrote:
57 patients in the placebo arm, yet using 54/58 surviving in the placebo arm. Something is wrong in the math it's either 57 patients in Placebo or 58 patients in placebo.
On 2021-03-26 21:03:47, user odevinyak wrote:
The authors should use Fisher's exact test on mortality data. This leads to p-value of 0.119. The overall mortality difference is non-significant.
On 2021-03-26 17:47:12, user ayman alqunneh wrote:
On 2021-03-27 21:56:08, user Jesse Knight wrote:
Please note the following correction to the posted article (including numbers in the abstract):
In the previous version of this work, the parameters theta = [alpha, beta] were calculated incorrectly because the Kullback-Leibler divergence was defined in the wrong direction. The impact on generation time parameters and statistics is as follows (original -> fixed): shape (alpha): 1.813 -> 1.633, scale (beta): 2.199 -> 2.498, mean: 3.99 -> 4.08, SD: 2.96 -> 3.19. The qualitative interpretation of results is unchanged, and the corrected version should appear soon on the Infectious Disease Modelling journal site. We are unable to edit the version posted here. We sincerely apologize for this error.
The error correction is shown here: https://github.com/mishra-l...
On 2021-03-28 05:46:23, user Kareem Choucair wrote:
This article really shows what it is like to be a medical student and the crucial role that partaking in research has in their training. I greatly believe that the implementation of an evidence-based approach in exploring this topic has been used excellently and it has really compounded how research participation is one of the most crucial parts of generating an outstanding physician. Hopefully compulsory research modules become more prevalent as a result within medical schools globally. Well done altogether.
On 2021-04-06 18:30:59, user John Simeral wrote:
A version of this manuscript has now been peer reviewed and accepted at IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. This medRxiv page will shortly link to that version, which is also indexed at PubMed:<br /> IEEE doi: 10.1109/TBME.2021.3069119. Online ahead of print.
On 2021-04-07 03:09:47, user Jesse Baker wrote:
I think Table 1 should list, for each age group and month, the actual number of cases and the number of people who were tested for Covid, as these quantities are needed to interpret the case fatality rates (CFR) given there. It is well known that the CFR generally decreases as more people are tested for the virus; the tests discover mild infections otherwise overlooked. If younger people were becoming less likely to seek testing while older people maintained their previous testing habits, this might explain at least part of the observed increase in the CFR and the bias toward younger ages.
I’m not an expert in such matters, and concern over the new strains P.1, B.1.351 and especially B.1.1.7 extends to the USA as they begin to circulate here. The April 6 New York Times noted an increase in hospitalization among Americans under age 50 during March, but it has yet to be reflected in case fatality rates for that group.
On 2021-04-07 23:31:13, user Risham S wrote:
What about therapies like entyvio? Can anyone shed some light on that? Many thanks for the study , a great help for CID patients like me. Appreciate it.
On 2021-04-27 20:11:38, user BenSahn wrote:
I'm one of those people. I had Rituximab infusions in November for IgG4-RD. In March I got the J&J COVID vaccine while on a low dose of prednisone. Last week, after a few weeks off prednisone, blood test showed I had no COVID anti-bodies.
On 2021-04-13 23:06:29, user disqus_pagO5NCOKq wrote:
From the abstract above: "After the second vaccination, 31.3 % of the elderly had no detectable neutralizing antibodies"... does that mean the vaccination offers NO benefit to 1/3 of the "elderly"?
On 2021-04-15 16:36:59, user AYUSH YADAV wrote:
I want to ask about the validity of Data on Spectacle Wear, which you obtained from reference no. 20 of your article {Sheeladevi et. al.}, the analysis of Spectacle use was not done in that research paper; it was based on refractive errors, and also the predominant region covered by the reference 20 's study {Sheeladevi et. al.} was of Southern India, while your study takes into consideration a North Indian population, as I shall quote from the study, "Fifteen studies were included from South India, one each from Western and Central India, and one study covered 15 states across India" , I think you need a much better method to assess the Spectacle use in general population.
On 2021-04-16 16:18:49, user S Wood wrote:
Since we first posted this a couple of results from direct statistical measurements have come out that are broadly in agreement with the paper's results on incidence and its timing relative to lockdown. Figure 1 of this REACT-2 report shows the reconstructed time course of symptom onset, which lags infection by 5 to 6 days. Reported ONS incidence reconstructions from statistical infection survey data tell a similar story. This paper, now published in Biometrics, also produces similar results on incidence and R, by a different approach.
On 2021-04-19 18:28:52, user lbaustin wrote:
Has this been submitted (or accepted) in a journal yet?
On 2021-04-22 07:09:12, user Dimitar Kolev wrote:
Can somebody please explain how they give results of 18-64 years already, but generally Sweden counties still not even call (or just started to call 60+ years old only). Or those are only risk groups, doctors, law enforcement and army? Or what?
On 2021-04-24 23:50:51, user Chucky2017 wrote:
I'm not sure where to post for an expert opinion, but I have been searching and still can't find an answer. Maybe someone here could be kind enough to direct me.
If you delay the Phizer second dose for 3 months (or even 2 months) we see a fall off in antibodies. When you get your second shot what happens? Does it become less effective than if you had it in the 21 days? So basically is there a study that has someone who had it in 21 days, take their blood and compare them to a person that got it 3 months later and see what level of antibodies they have compared to the person with 21 days.
Canada is delaying the phizer shot by 4 months, would a person be better off not getting the second shot and redue the schedule again.
On 2021-04-25 15:46:55, user Annette Toledano wrote:
Congratulations on advancing the understanding of the range of symptoms in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I am surprised that pain was not a common symptom in the population you examined. I found elsewhere (Persistent neurologic symptoms and cognitive dysfunction in non-hospitalized Covid-19 “long haulers.” E. Graham, March 2021, Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology), pain afflicted 43% of "long haulers." <br /> Are you aware of a review paper on the clinical manifestations of non-hospitalized COVIS-19 patients? <br /> It appears the Cov-Sars-2 virus affinity to target organs varies in different populations. In some people, the innate immune system's initial response in endothelial cells can lead to lung or vascular symptoms. In others, infected nerve cells can lead to pain.
On 2021-04-25 20:26:35, user Steven Wouters wrote:
Since this study group consisted of health care workers, it is likely that natural immunity was acquired in these individuals. That immunity may also have been acquired asymptomatically without ever testing pcr positive.(1)
It is possible to find out whether there is naturally acquired immunity by using biomarkers. There is a difference between the antibodies elicited by natural infection compared to that from the vaccine. Since the vaccine does not have other parts besides the S-protein in contrast to wild virus.
Zhongfang Wang, Xiaoyun Yang, Jiaying Zhong, Yumin Zhou, Zhiqiang Tang, Haibo Zhou, Jun He, Xinyue Mei, Yonghong Tang, Bijia Lin, Zhenjun Chen, James McCluskey, Ji Yang, Alexandra J. Corbett & Pixin Ran https://www.nature.com/arti...
On 2021-04-26 16:44:55, user Stuart Weisberg wrote:
This article has now been published with a revised title "Distinct antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults across the COVID-19 clinical spectrum". The PMID is 33154590
On 2021-04-27 06:36:03, user Miguel Pedrera Jiménez wrote:
Hi, I'm Miguel Pedrera, from Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre in Madrid, Spain. Great job, very interesting manuscript. We have recently published an article about a methodology to obtain useful data for clinical research from EHRs, applied to COVID-19. I am sending you the link in case it is of your interest: https://www.sciencedirect.c...
On 2021-04-29 12:05:31, user Anders Julton wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual air rate change efficiency of the HVAC alone in the hospital room seems quite low. My calculations yielded about 30% using eq. 2.1.6 in a book (linked below, linking is weird) on air rate change measurements. The control room had roughly 100% efficiency.
I used C(t = 10)/C(0) ~ 0.5 for the hospital room and C(t=40)/C(0) ~ 0.2 for the control room.
On 2021-04-29 19:23:16, user ohminus wrote:
No reference to the national testing strategy? The assumption that asymptomatic people are mainly treated unter OuS is questionable, given how many are tested under the national testing strategy.
The notion that 50% is a low predictive value is likewise questionable. If anything, given the low prevalence in an asymptomatic population tested without any reason to suspect COVID infection, 80% is a questionably high positive predictive value.
On 2021-05-06 20:18:47, user Murray Stein wrote:
Important, well-conducted study. Results are puzzling. Antidepressant effects of IV ketamine are nicely replicated. Anti-PTSD effects are not. PTSD symptoms were reduced substantially after first infusion in all 3 groups (albeit statistically significantly more in the standard-dose ketamine group), and then stayed low and drifted a bit lower over the remainder of the study. Response rates were high and non-significantly different between all 3 groups (~60% for each of the ketamine groups, ~ 50% for the placebo group). This high a placebo response would not have been anticipated -- particularly given the selection of participants to have failed at least one adequate SSRI trial (although one wonders if this qualifies them as "antidepressant-resistant"). Will require some rethinking about future PTSD trial designs, including possibility that we should be measuring PTSD outcomes differently (i.e., doing something other than asking repeatedly about the 20 symptoms in DSM-5). I would be interested in hearing what others think, particularly with regard to clinical implications.
On 2021-05-11 15:46:38, user Julie McMullan wrote:
This paper has now been published and can be found at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley...
On 2021-05-13 22:21:36, user Jason wrote:
This paper should be removed for the lack of data, incorrect use of equipment as stated earlier, and improper testing conditions. Information such as flow rates, particle size concentration, and thermal conditions should have been presented, however are left out. As stated above, every other study conducted on this matter (which was done with correct equipment) shows very different results. This paper further spreads misinformation about mask efficiency and lacks any supporting scientific evidence or results to support the claims made.
On 2021-09-17 19:08:20, user 4qmmt wrote:
Seems that the higher antibody titers in previously infected persons can be easily explained by the fact that their immune system was already primed. The broader response to VOC would also reflect that condition. The more important question which this study does not address is whether the higher antibody titers reflect any benefit to the subject. Unfortunately, the study concludes that they do, but lacks any follow-up and provides no actual evidence for such a claim.
On 2021-09-18 04:47:08, user Jack Albanese wrote:
big congrats to the authors on the publication in NEJM , september 15 <br /> as well as the press on Nature News
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10...<br /> https://www.nature.com/arti...
On 2021-09-20 16:46:59, user Inga Andersdotter wrote:
This is exactly what Dr. Scott Gottleib predicted would happen (a subvariant of Delta with mutations taking over next,) so it will be very interesting to keep track of this one. There hasn't been much traction in the general media yet.
On 2021-09-21 07:44:32, user Martijn Hoogeveen wrote:
See our new preprint: Environmental factors and mobility predict COVID-19 seasonality. I.e., Solar radiation, allergens/allergies, mobility and temperature explain 87.5%(!!!) of COVID-19 reproduction number. https://www.medrxiv.org/con...
On 2021-09-21 11:26:35, user 4qmmt wrote:
Anti-spike, anti-RBD and neutralization levels dropped more than 84% over 6 months’ time in all groups irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. At 6 months post-vaccine, 70% of the infection-naive NH residents had neutralization titers at or below the lower limit of detection compared to 16% at 2 weeks after full vaccination. These data demonstrate a significant reduction in levels of antibody in all groups.
The decrease reported here for previously infected seems opposite many findings in other papers and suggests that those infected and recovered who then receive the shot lost immunity that they had. That is quite troubling.
Compare for example:<br /> https://doi.org/10.1038/s43...<br /> https://doi.org/10.1126/sci...<br /> https://doi.org/10.1016/S26...<br /> https://doi.org/10.3201/eid...
On 2021-09-22 12:36:03, user Jakefromstatefarm wrote:
So if the myocarditis rate is 1/1000 and nearly all of those that developed it were men, isn't the real number for men more around 1/500?
On 2021-09-23 11:48:38, user Arturo Tozzi cns wrote:
This is the problem with Preprints. <br /> This manuscript lacks the true denominator for the number of vaccinations, therefore it is useless. In order to get published, it requires huge improvements. <br /> However, it will the same go through the press worldwide and will become a must for No-Vaxes.
On 2021-09-24 14:10:59, user Kelly Ellis wrote:
They haven't compared any unvaccinated people in this study, yet the anti-vaxers are already claiming it proves the mRNA vaccine causes this.
On 2021-09-23 16:12:53, user kdrl nakle wrote:
Surprisingly high and in discord with most known researches so the real question here is how good is the data collection on infections.
On 2021-09-26 08:50:51, user Robert Clark wrote:
Ironically, their estimate of 1/1,000 might be right specifically for young men, in Canada, and after 2nd dose.<br /> Firstly, Israel has estimated it in young men as 1/3,000 to 1/5,000, not 1/25,000. Then oddly, by U.S. standards, according to the article, most got Moderna for 2nd dose in Canada, and Moderna the more injurious one, and with more cardiac side effects.
Robert Clark
On 2021-09-26 19:41:41, user kdrl nakle wrote:
The whole paper has little valuable information.
On 2021-09-27 10:13:38, user Clemens Hlauschek wrote:
If Covid-19 deaths have such an impact on a newborn's life expectancy today, you are computing the wrong metric.
The mortality data above 60 can be used to show that previously calculated life expectancy estimates for them have been overly optimistic, but for not much more. Does that mean we can not remain optimistic about the life expectancy of children born today? From what we know today, children very likely won't die in significant numbers from Covid-19 when they are over 60.
On 2021-09-27 19:49:44, user Awadhesh Kumar Singh wrote:
This is for your kind information that this paper is now published. Please find the link to access this paper, if you are interested. https://www.sciencedirect.c...<br /> or<br /> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.v...
On 2021-09-28 18:41:49, user Tigist Workneh wrote:
You can find the published article on EJHS journal following the link https://www.ethjhealths.org...
On 2021-09-29 05:55:21, user Maria Schilling wrote:
"Overall, our study demonstrates the potential of mRNA vaccines to induce, maintain, and shape T cell memory through vaccination and revaccination." ????
On 2021-09-30 10:12:58, user Alberto wrote:
There seems to be something wrong with the numbers. Among the vaccinated, there are 82 infections, but 168 hospitalizations. Many undetected infections? False negatives? In contrast, among those with natural infection there are 28 infections and 19 hospitalizations.
Leaving the infections aside, among the vaccinated, the rate of hospitalizations was 0.45%, while among those with natural infection it was 0.34%. That's an overall better protection against hospitalization from natural infection than from vaccination, something completely missing in the abstract. It's true that among those above 65 of age, hospitalizations are a bit higher in the natural infection group (0.52% vs. 0.43%), a less significant difference especially given the low numbers (13 hospitalized in the 65+ natural infection group).
As for deaths, the numbers are too low in all groups to draw any conclusions. The total deaths in each group are 2 (0.036%) in the natural infection group and 8 (0.021%) in the vaccinated group. Among the 65+ groups, is 2 in the natural infection group (0.08%) vs. 5 in the vaccinated group (0.03%). But then in the <65 group it's 0 deaths in the natural infection group (0%) vs 3 deaths in the vaccinated group (0.02%).
The numbers and conclusions shown in the abstract are completely at odds with these real numbers shown in the paper itself. Not to mention the strange pattern shown in the numbers where most infections/hospitalizations in the natural infection group happened in June (with very low numbers in July and August), while in the vaccinated group most infections/hospitalizations happened in July and August, with very low numbers in June. So an analysis of June alone would agree with the abstract, but an analysis of July and August alone would be the complete opposite.
On 2021-10-05 13:49:34, user helene banoun wrote:
This study does not take into account infections between dose 1 and dose 2. Indeed, the vaccinated did not produce enough antibodies during this period and are therefore not considered as vaccinated; but as the vaccination takes place during an epidemic period, we cannot afford to write off the infections taking place during this crucial period.<br /> Indeed, ADE seems to cause post-vaccination outbreaks according to other studies (e.g., https://www.medrxiv.org/con... "https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.27.21257583v1)")
On 2021-09-30 19:29:51, user Jakob Heitz wrote:
Did you account for the previous infected who died or never recovered, because of long covid?
This reminds me of a study the navy did of war planes in world war 2. They found the majority of bullet holes in returned planes were in the wing tips and central body. Therefore, they decided to reinforce those parts. What they forgot was that the planes that got shot in the engines never returned to base.
On 2021-10-16 15:36:50, user Alex wrote:
Clearly there are some very logical arguments here and whilst I think it’s absolutely logical that having had COVID is the best defence against COVID and as the virus is in the environment so we are likely to encounter it again can someone tell me why vaccines are effectively being forced on people and recommended for children even though a large number have had the virus and to date is very low risk?
On 2021-10-02 22:04:46, user Eve Wurtele wrote:
What do the following abbreviations mean? (They are labels for SRA experimental description. I can't figure this out from reading the preprint. Thanks!!<br /> HCW_0184_FUP4<br /> HCW_0184_FUP3<br /> HCW_0184_FUP2<br /> HCW_0184_FUP14<br /> HCW_0184_FUP1<br /> HCW_0184_BL<br /> HCW_0180_BL<br /> HCW_0175_FUP4<br /> HCW_0175_FUP3<br /> HCW_0036_FUP14<br /> HCW_0017_FUP1<br /> HCW_0017_BL
On 2021-10-03 09:39:18, user kdrl nakle wrote:
Associated is the key word. It really means nothing. It is like claiming that people not washing their teeth are more susceptible to COVID, which is probably true as they are likely the ones to be with poorer overall health.
On 2021-10-04 06:44:42, user Melissa wrote:
The paper has been published on August 13th in Thrombosis and Haemostasis.<br /> DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1733934<br /> https://www.thieme-connect....
On 2021-10-04 17:19:09, user Bearwallow wrote:
Thank you for this interesting study. Well done! Has it yet been peer reviewed yet? or are your conclusions too easy and cost effective to implement? The world medical industry seems to prefer complicated expensive patented experimental "solutions". I so hope your study receives the attention it deserves. <br /> The dose of honey seems quite large. 1gm/kg/day- just asking- just making sure, is this correct? I saw one other study used 0.5 gm/kg/day. Thank you and keep making your useful discoveries.
On 2021-10-07 12:29:19, user Adona Canlas wrote:
This article has now been published and can be found here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/fu...
On 2021-10-09 23:18:22, user kdrl nakle wrote:
On the contrary, this research has no practical value whatsoever as we surely won't be seeking polio vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. However it may have a theoretical value in the way to explain why the spread of one virus can inhibit the spread of another.
On 2021-10-10 04:51:38, user kdrl nakle wrote:
Your samples are too small for the sweeping conclusion you made about the variant outcome comparison.
On 2021-10-12 07:42:23, user Ralph Feltens wrote:
One conclusion that can not be drawn from this study is that vaccination (with a mRNA-based Covid-19 Vaccine) provides stronger immunity than a SARS-CoV-2 infection.<br /> In contrast to an infection with the virus, with the mRNA-based vaccine only antibodies against the spike protein are produced.
And T- and B-cell-based immunity is another topic altogether ...
On 2021-10-13 16:44:28, user mohammad yoosefi wrote:
I am looking for the dataset , but I'm not able to find it , Can someone provide me the link?
On 2022-01-28 20:26:50, user Joshua Polgar wrote:
Do you think there would be a similar relationship regarding homicidal intent?
On 2021-10-21 21:51:01, user CDSL JHSPH wrote:
Thank you for sharing your clinical study! I greatly enjoyed reading your experimental design and wanted to compliment the impeccable organizational flow of this manuscript. I also appreciated the information discussed in the introduction, since I wasn't fully aware of the details regarding BA metabolism and the link it had to the microbiome. I noticed in the section of the results discussing "age related changes in bile acid and microbiome profiles" figure 2D was mentioned twice, if I am not mistaken I believe figure 2C shows an increasing trend with age. I was also wondering whether you encountered any outliers in the P2Ab group, that may have been omitted due to an insignificant contribution, that did not show a significant decrease in conjugated bile acids over time? If there were any, could this be due to confounding lifestyle factors? Once again, this was a very interesting experiment and i'm hoping to see larger studies conducted in the future!
On 2021-10-23 19:26:47, user kdrl nakle wrote:
Not going into formulas used but the premise is good and last paragraph of conclusion in regard to boosters is also very good argument.