On 2021-08-18 08:00:50, user Matt Huber wrote:

No it doesn't. Not in the same degree. That is false.

On 2021-06-09 19:49:55, user Emily Russell wrote:

It's important to note that a null statistical finding does not indicate that there is no evidence of association. With only 1,359 individuals who were previously infected and unvaccinated, I question that this study has enough statistical power to support the bold claims in the discussion. I would like to see a power analysis as part of the final published work.

On 2021-07-17 14:00:49, user killshot wrote:

Agree...but some of us informed practitioners were saying this long ago. Do you have a reference re the "those that recovered from COVID were at somewhat higher risk of complications from the shot."?

On 2021-09-02 10:34:11, user Sally Holdener wrote:

Your comparison of Alabama vs Ontario is only surface deep as well. Very different climates. How many people live in air conditioned homes in Ontario vs. Alabama, for instance? Your bias is quite obvious just from your tone.

On 2021-09-15 06:59:54, user Henri van Werkhoven wrote:

We're not stating that natural immunity HAS to be inferior to vaccine-induced immunity. We're arguing why the relative risks found in the study, favoring natural immunity, are strongly overestimated. There may still be a smaller difference in favor of natural immunity (which I agree would make sense). Or there may be no difference at all. We don't know because we can't correct for these biases.

On 2021-09-12 11:36:46, user 4qmmt wrote:

Read the Kentucky study carefully. It is loaded with bias. <br /> 1) It is a CDC sponsored study. i.e. conflict of interest is significant.

2) The sample sizes are very small. They admit that, "Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings."

3) Determination of previous infection was limited to a Positive NAAT test or antigen test. Positive NAAT (PCR) tests have significant potential for false positives. Why didn't they only use the antigen test?

All case-patients (reinfected) and control participants (not reinfected) had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection documented by positive NAAT or antigen test results during March–December 2020. Reinfection was defined as receipt of positive NAAT or antigen test results during May 1–June 30, 2021.

Another way to interpret their data is that they found a significant number of people who were considered previously infected for whom the Positive test was false, since they were later "re-infected" or truly infected for the first time. It would be very interesting to see what the results are for cohorts made up of only antigen test Positive cases, both first and second infection.

3) They admit they don't really know if these were "re-infections."

First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection.

Also,

Although in some cases the repeat positive test could be indicative of prolonged viral shedding or failure to clear the initial viral infection (9), given the time between initial and subsequent positive molecular tests among participants in this study, reinfection is the most likely explanation.

The report also states

persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated.

On 2021-08-28 19:52:31, user Catriona wrote:

“ individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

I’m confused. Didn’t your study show no significant difference for symptomatic infections in previously infected individuals with or without a single vaccination dose? Or did I get that wrong? The table says the previously infected and vaccinated odds ratio for symptomatic infection is 0.65 but confidence intervals were 0.34-1.25 and P value was 0.194.

In which case, exactly what were they protected against? Is there some sort of clinical significance regarding a positive PCR in the absence of any symptoms? Or are you implying that individuals can have atypical symptoms that can cause them health problems but aren’t recorded as symptoms? The study didn’t look at infectivity.

Are you claiming the vaccinated individuals were healthier in some way because they had fewer positive PCRs? Or are you claiming they did not pass on the Delta variant as often? Or was there something else that you meant by “additional protection against the Delta variant?”

Would love some clarification on these issues.

On 2021-09-03 13:37:28, user bgoo2 wrote:

More research? What is your point? 98.7% of the hospitalizations in Ontario are unvaccinated or 1-dose. Here's more for you.... Sep 2.... Ontario's numbers are even HIGHER. 865 confirmed cases. 692 of those cases are unvaccinated or 1 dose. That's 80% of the cases.

And Ontario's positivity rate holds at 3%. One of the most vaccinated population centres on planet Earth. Sep 2... 83% of citizens 12+ have 2 doses. Hmmmm... what a coincidence. So there are your facts.

The vaccines dramatically reduce transmission and hospitalizations. Nothing has changed since my original post.

And let's forget Alabama. You're correct. Let's head over to Alberta. 4.3 million people.

Sep 2.... 10.9% positivity rate. 487 in hospital. 114 in ICU.

But please... go have another shot of bourbon and another giant plate of pasta and avoid your vaccine. Since you know what is best for you....

...Against the advice of all sane health care providers across the planet.

Clearly working out well for 95% of the people who lost the Covid lottery and have a tube jammed down their throat.

On 2025-06-12 12:45:41, user Juri-Alexander Witt wrote:

The article has now been finally published in CNS Drugs:<br /> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40263-025-01196-2

On 2021-03-05 23:06:05, user Minga wrote:

Several authors omitted to declare known links of interest with pharmaceutical firms. <br /> One of them declare not least than 24 pages of links with pharmaceutical firms on this official website : https://transparence.sante...., and nothing here. Such an offense to integrity put serious doubts about this pre-print.

On 2021-08-30 16:23:11, user Miriam Sturkenboom wrote:

In their discussion the authors erroneously claim to be the first to calculate incidence rates of TTS. EMA funded the ACCESS study to calculate background rates of AESI, including TTS in Europe. ACCESS reported the rates of TTS publicly on the EncePP website on a large population including hospital based data that are of crucial relevance for these rates. (http://www.encepp.eu/phact_... "http://www.encepp.eu/phact_links.shtml)"). The authors do not reference nor compare the rates with the ACCESS data. This is of scientific and public health relevance. The rates for several conditions differ substantially between the projects both of which run in Europe. It would be appropriate that the rates reported here are compared to rates for ACCESS to put the data that is relevant to monitor COVID-19 vaccines, in proper context and to understand the source of the differences.

On 2021-10-19 12:46:17, user student N wrote:

Line 178 & 181, "Supplementary Table 4". You meaned Supplementary Table 5?

On 2020-08-24 17:34:34, user Muhammad Shoaib Akhtar wrote:

Seems good work. However, biochemical analysis of remedesivir inside body is an important aspect and must be focused as well.

On 2020-04-26 15:47:52, user DaveSezThings wrote:

The analysis has made a significant, basic error in handling the uncertainty associated with the specificity of the test. Leaving aside concerns regarding the applicability of the delta method, the mistake arises in that computing the standard error the values for Var(s) and Var(r) should be divided by the sample numbers used in the studies to establish these values, not the main study sample size n=3,330, which is used across all terms in the relevant equation in the appendix (it's on the middle of page 3). We can see this as the range of specificity (95% CI 98.3% to 100%) is sufficient to explain the observed data with zero genuinely positive cases.

Basically this destroys the conclusions which should now be along the lines of "unfortunately the test used for this study was not specific enough to support any conclusions beyond setting a maximum level of infection."

Stuff happens, time is short etc... the authors should just issue a correction. It'll be quick and easy and save a lot of irrelevant speculation,

On 2020-04-19 05:26:28, user chalkful wrote:

You can talk about selection bias, and that’s valid. But nit-picking every part of this study down to the assumptions made about manufacturer specifications seems ridiculous and very hypocritical when similar assumptions were made with RT-PCR tests that were rushed to market with questionable, if any, validation, and which are relied upon to make public policy decisions which dictate the lives of millions, even billions.

Did you apply precisely the same level of detailed, critical analysis and nitpick every minute inconsistency in all the other COVID-related “peer reviewed” studies which were rushed to print, and which were gloom-and-doom?

Why choose to write off all conclusions drawn by a study with such a substantial effect size because of minor statistical errors? As a non-academic, the study appears largely methodologically sound, despite a few flaws, and it is not logical to throw the baby out with the bath water. Even assuming the infection rate is half of what is concluded, that is still significant and the first study, and conclusion, of its kind.

I suspect that, with as with most things COVID-related, much of this is due more to politics than pure intellectual rigor, and that the conclusions drawn by the study shake the foundation of what many believe, which scares them.

On 2020-04-23 17:52:02, user Fiona Mulvey wrote:

Belgium is counting suspected cases of COVID-19 in official records even if it's not confirmed by tests, Sweden is not. I think probably New Zealand and Taiwan are good examples of record keeping.

On 2020-04-19 00:58:33, user dixon pinfold wrote:

If you read between the lines of the final paragraph of the Discussion, you can perhaps guess at some of the motivation behind the study.

No other antibody seroprevalence studies had been started in the US prior to this one, and the study's authors may have thought that it was high time, somewhat-dubious antibody tests and barriers to random sampling be damned.

On rare occasions, owing to a sense of urgency, the farmer may think it necessary to plant a crop despite the ground not really being prepared.

If others are white-hot with indignation at the very idea, it's their right, and from their side of it they are probably correct. For my part, I'm less than sure.

On 2020-04-18 14:03:13, user Richard Davis wrote:

Could you guys make the data and code available for other researchers to try and replicate, now that the paper is out there?

On 2020-04-20 18:43:59, user A. J. wrote:

Advertisement for this study found on Reddit:<br /> "FREE COVID-19 Testing --needed to calculate prevalence of disease in Santa Clara County<br /> What? Get tested. FDA approved antibody test for Coronavirus. To test the prevalence of disease in our county, we need 2500 residents. The antibody test differs from the swab test that measures infectious patients actively carrying the COVID-19 RNA in their nasal passages. The serum antibody test determines whether your immune system has fought off the virus and created antibodies to protect you from future exposure. Since the first cases appeared in November/December in Wuhan, China until the U.S. banned flights from China, an estimated 15,000 residents of Wuhan would have traveled to the U.S. so the disease likely entered the California in December (based on 2019 travel data). <br /> Who? HEALTHY volunteer who lives in Santa Clara County. ONE PERSON per household. 2500 people to be tested.<br /> When? APRIL 3rd and 4th. THIS WEEK. 7AM-5PM. <br /> How? (link)<br /> Why get tested? (1) Knowledge - Peace of mind. You will know if you are immune. If you have antibodies against the virus, you are FREE from the danger of a) getting sick or b) spreading the virus. In China and U.K. they are asking for proof of immunity before returning to work. If you know any small business owners or employees that have been laid off, let them know-- they no longer need to quarantine and can return to work without fear. If you don't want to know the results, we don't need to send you the results. (2) Research - Contribute to knowledge of the prevalence of virus spread in Santa Clara County. This allows researchers to plan hospital bed needs and forecasting where to allocate public health resources. This will help your neighbors and family members."

On 2020-04-18 22:21:57, user derp wrote:

Age distribution of Diamond Princess was not even remotely close to the age distribution for general population, and you would need to do is perform serological tests on all 4000 passengers to know how many more than 700 people were actually infected with the virus at some point.

Taking those things into account yes its likely somewhere around 0.2% mortality in general public. Although age is such a huge factor, I think it's misleading to even give a single mortality rate for the virus.

On 2021-05-12 11:20:59, user Rajesh K. Pandey, MD wrote:

Our arsenal of treatment options against COVID-19 remains very limited. For this reason re-exploration of the use of anti-inflammatory medications is imperative. A case in point is the use of colchicine against COVID-19. There is abundant data demonstrating colchicine's effects on lowering hs-crp in turn lowering risk of ACS. As supported by LoDoCo2 and Colchicine-PCI trials, Colchicine halved the risk of CV events vs placebo. In the COLCOT trial we saw a decrease in the combined primary endpoint of stroke; MI; CV death, CV arrest and resuscitation. In the COPS study, a benefit was seen in patients within 3 days of an MI. Overall amongst the above studies colchicine showed a benefit in CV outcomes. Therefore we take issue regarding the claim that colchicine increases the risk of PE. In our combined 50-60 years in practice, we have not had any incidents of PE in our 100's of patients treated with colchicine. Dr. Tracy Hampton's publication on February 2nd, 2021 in JAMA described the phenomenon that autoantibodies may drive COVID-19 blood clots, similar to patients with Anti-phospholipid syndrome. The statistical analysis of the COLCORONA trial may have done an injustice to known benefits of colchicine. We should continue to remain open minded on colchicine's potential therapeutic applications. Thank you.

On 2020-08-02 00:11:16, user Michael Verstraeten wrote:

I would like to make also a suggestion. <br /> 1. Calculate the amount of people infected in the whole population on the highest result of your research, by age category. (That's a simplification since there are also other relevant factors then age, like comorbidity factors but ok). <br /> 2. Add to this amount the results from the positive PCR-tests in the hospitals until that moment (Also a problem since there is a % of false negative results, but ok) <br /> 3. Estimate the amount of patients whit a general problem who were refused to get a blood test due to a suspicion of Covid - 19 and were not admitted to the hospital (if possible). And add them to the grand total. <br /> 4. From there on you can make an estimate based on the weighted average evolution of the deaths from de date corresponding to the testdate pn (a few days later then the test dates). It seems to be a relatively good assumption to consider that de evolution of the infections will be relatively equal to the evolution of the deaths / age category. <br /> 5. There is one problem however: we are not sure about the exact amount of deaths due to Covid. 73 % of people deceased in the care homes were not diagnosed and the tests have a big error margin. And diagnoses are maybe wrong due to extended diagnose protocols. Maybe it would be a good idea to calculate an average on the evolution of deaths and hospital admissions. Even if the latter depends on the admission policy.

Even with the uncertainties and the quite big error margin, maybe it will be possible to come with such an exercise closer to the real number of the infected population.

On 2021-09-24 13:28:53, user ovi wrote:

maybe they mean in their clinic not in the whole state? really we should not guess, the authors should come back and clarify this.

On 2025-10-15 17:57:20, user Pui-Yan Kwok wrote:

This paper is now published in Nature:<br /> “Population-specific polygenic risk scores for people of Han Chinese ancestry”<br /> DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-09350-y<br /> URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09350-y

On 2020-10-18 07:14:28, user Robert Clark wrote:

A key comparison was left out of the report, the effect of HCQ on patients specifically under invasive mechanical ventilation. This is a key category beyond just being “ventilated”. This is when the lung inflammation is so severe the patients have to be intubated, i.e., given a breathing tube inserted down the throat.

HCQ is a highly effective anti-inflammatory. Then it would be this case where it would be most effective for hospitalized patients. Note that the study was primarily focused on these drugs anti-viral effects. HCQ is the only one of them that also has an anti-inflammatory effect. Indeed it may be the only drug among all those being considered for COVID-19 that has both characteristics.

Note that in the RECOVERY trial it was specifically for THIS type of ventilation that the steroid dexamethasone was found to cut mortality, via its anti-inflammatory effect.

But in Table S1 of the Supplementary file to this SOLIDARITY report it states the “ventilation” discussed includes both invasive and non-invasive types:

Table S1

The authors need to add to the report the effect of HCQ specifically for patients under invasive mechanical ventilation.

BTW, the report does show the result of Remdesivir on invasive mechanical ventilation patients in Fig. 3 of the report itself, showing null effect. But this was not a useful set of data anyway because Remdesivir does not have an anti-inflammatory effect.

The more important and relevant case of HCQ was not shown.

Robert Clark

On 2020-05-13 14:39:31, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

Main Findings <br /> - Study evaluated PBMCs of 63 italian patients with COVID-19 early after diagnosis (~5 days post-symptom start) using flow cytometry, and determined any association of inflammatory biomarkers with 28-days mortality.<br /> - Observed reduction in circulating lymphocytes (CTL, NK and NKT) and phenotypic changes in CD4+ T cells towards Th2 polarization, compared to reference intervals. Serum IL-6 levels not associated with monocyte counts, but correlated with Th2-polarized CD4+ T cell prevalence. <br /> - Detected enrichment of high-scatter atypical monocytes (in 11/14 subgrouped patients) with low CD14 and low HLA-DR MFI, but classical/non-classical monocytes abundance within normal reference range. <br /> - Lymphopenia, but also activation of T lymphocytes (defined as CD38+HLA-DR+ CTLs) reported to correlate with death within 28 days (more severe progression).

Limitations <br /> - All the analysis is using peripheral blood, which provides superficial global immune context but might not necessarily inform local inflammation in the alveoli or other organs. Concordant studies in BAL or rapid-autopsy tissue would be helpful <br /> - Activation of lymphocytes defined by CD38 and HLA-DR would need to be assayed functionally, potentially using IFN-g or Gzm-B ELISpot. <br /> - There is no breakdown of inflammatory markers across 28-day patient survival stratification in Table 3. Additionally, there is no correlation analysis shown for IL-6 levels (or other biomarkers) with the density of atypical monocytes. Such a multi-variate correlation study could tease out inflammatory biomarkers useful for prioritizing care on the hospital frontline.

Significance <br /> - Provides on-the-ground clinical report of early COVID-19 immunological characteristics from Milanese patients (despite being single-center small cohort of patients). <br /> - Results are in line with confirmed lympho-dysfunction observed in COVID-19 patients by multiple groups, and also support observations of atypical HLA-DR-low monocytes in severe disease (Giamarellos-Bourboulis et al. 2020). <br /> - Lymphocytopenia linked strongly to 28-day mortality stratification, in addition to <br /> standard clinical variates such as age, P/F ratio, LDH and CRP/Ferritin <br /> levels. Whether lymphocytopenia and associated innate-immune dysfunction<br /> is causal to adverse outcome is unclear, and will hopefully be revealed by prospective longitudinal clinical studies and potentially animal models.

Reviewed by Samarth Hegde as part of a project by students, postdocs and faculty at the Immunology Institute of the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai.

On 2020-08-12 19:17:04, user Michelle Farina wrote:

Could not that be spread by droplets on inanimate objects? We know it remains on surfaces for 24-72 hours.

On 2021-03-08 08:44:37, user CD wrote:

"Our findings highlight the importance of monitoring how members of these known 501Y lineages, and others still undiscovered, are convergently evolving similar strategies to ensure their persistence in the face of mounting infection and vaccine induced host immune recognition ..."

The statement above makes it appear as if the SARS-cov-2 chooses where to mutate to escape host immunity, which is not the case. The pressure is put on the virus and mutations occur randomly, resulting in escape variants and some resulting in weaker variants

On 2021-12-22 03:16:08, user Kimihito Ito wrote:

Page 2: “Such methods often model the frequency of lineages using multinomial logistic regression [6,7]”

Ito et al. [7] does not use multinomial logistic regression. Instead, the paper [7] formulates the selective advantage using the ratio of the effective (instantaneous) reproduction numbers, which is called relative instantaneous reproduction number (R_RI).

On 2020-04-26 12:58:30, user FeatheryHen wrote:

Interesting analysis, but I'm left wanting to know more about the source data. It would be good to see a summary of the different transmission events you analysed and what the characteristics were, other than enclosed or not. Is a link to source data available?

On 2025-06-17 22:16:28, user Mamadu Baldeh wrote:

This article has been peer-reviewed and published: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324064

On 2021-12-24 07:45:25, user Jeff H wrote:

So assume the results you like (high VE for recent vaccination) are causal, but hand wave confounders at results you don't like (negative VE for distant vaccination)? Science?

On 2022-01-04 22:41:01, user Raster wrote:

No, it doesn't.

A statistical outlier unconfirmed by any theory / case study remains a statistical outlier.

Not even the authors mentioned either ADE or negative efficacy, so it's either "sceptics" trying to find something that makes no scientific sense, or the authors and the whole scientific world is trying to hide "something".

I do believe the probability of the second being right looking at the history of science is close to zero, the first one being something that happened numerous times.

So yep, I'm calling "false" here.

On 2021-05-26 16:03:04, user japhetk wrote:

Also, what is the percentage of people who were vaccinated (by the COVID-19's vaccine) in both groups? Also, how many people in both groups received the COVID-19's vaccine before the antibody test and tested positive?<br /> If I understand correctly, Greece started vaccinating the general elderly population on January 16 and the data lock of this study was on April 28, and the antibody test should have been completed by January 28 or earlier.<br /> I would like to know if the antibody test results that showed more infections in the BCG group were affected by the vaccination of COVID-19's vaccine.

On 2024-02-22 14:38:06, user Albee Messing wrote:

Please provide more clinical information about the proband.

On 2020-02-10 13:03:42, user nCoV.su wrote:

https://ncov.su/ - this site has human-readable statistics for 2019-nCoV

On 2020-07-25 19:31:23, user ???? ??? wrote:

It reflect the PK/PD pharmacological predication of efficacy <br /> The problem of LPV is complicated PK . Strong protein binding 98 % , extensive metabolism , long list of drug interaction. Therapeutic drug monitoring is mandatory to adjust dose in clinical setting. Moreover extrapolation of in EC50 to the current dose is not prefect. It was suggested to use PBA EC90 . the base line protein binding adjusted 90 % effective concentration. There is a debate about ability of current regimen to achieve Cmax > PBA EC 90 at lung tissues in severe cases

On 2021-03-14 07:19:10, user debernardis wrote:

Congratulations for this paper! I am excited that you could confirm the outcome of our observational study on disulfiram-treated patients in Northern Italy. Now waiting for the results of those two RCTs...

On 2021-09-12 09:56:05, user Rae Phillips wrote:

The initial results seem promising. I have 2 questions: 1. It's 18 months on from the beginning of the Novavax trial, are the original participants suffering any negative long term issues?<br /> 2. The spike protein in the Novavax vaccine pass through the blood brain barrier causing any detrimental effects on organs?

On 2019-11-17 04:20:48, user GuyguyKabundi Tshima wrote:

EVOLUTION OF THE EPIDEMIC IN THE PROVINCES OF NORTH KIVU AND ITURI AS AT NOVEMBER 15, 2019<br /> Saturday, November 16, 2019<br /> • Since the beginning of the epidemic, the cumulative number of cases is 3,292, of which 3,174 are confirmed and 118 are probable. In total, there were 2,195 deaths (2077 confirmed and 118 probable) and 1070 people healed.<br /> • 517 suspected cases under investigation;<br /> • No new confirmed cases;<br /> • No new deaths of confirmed cases have been recorded;<br /> • No cured person has emerged from CTEs;<br /> • No health worker is among the new confirmed cases. The cumulative number of confirmed / probable cases among health workers is 163 (5% of all confirmed / probable cases), including 41 deaths.

NEWS

Goma opens leadership capacity building workshop for Ebola epidemic response to Ebola Virus Disease.

• The coordinator of the epidemic response to Ebola Virus Disease in North and South Kivu Province and Ituri, Prof. Steve Ahuka Mundeke, opened this Saturday, November 16, 2019 in Goma North Kivu a workshop on building the capacity of actors involved in the response against Ebola;<br /> • For four days, participants, coordinating and sub-coordinating officers from the response, the Ministry of Health, the World Health Organization (WHO), national security, CDC and DFID will be equipped with management skills epidemics before, during and after the tenth epidemic of Ebola Virus Disease, especially in the event of any outbreak;<br /> • According to Prof. Ahuka, this workshop will not only benefit this epidemic, but will help, through acquired skills, to cope with other epidemics or other crises in a collective and individual way. " Each participant will be able to use these skills in his daily life ," he concluded;<br /> • This training for the response officers, from 16 to 20 November 2019, is organized by the Ministry of Health in collaboration with WHO with funding from UKaid from the British people.

VACCINATION

• 93 people were vaccinated with the 2nd Ad26.ZEBOV / MVA-BN-Filo vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) in the two Health Zones of Karisimbi in Goma;<br /> • Since the start of vaccination on August 8, 2018 with the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine, 252,835 people have been vaccinated;<br /> • Approved October 22, 2019 by the Ethics Committee of the School of Public Health of the University of Kinshasa and October 23, 2019 by the National Ethics Committee, the second vaccine, called Ad26.ZEBOV / MVA-BN -Filo, is produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals for Johnson & Johnson;<br /> • This new vaccine complements the first, the rVSV-ZEBOV, vaccine used until then (since August 08, 2018) in this outbreak, manufactured by the pharmaceutical group Merck, after approval of the Ethics Committee on May 20, 2018. It has recently been approved.

MONITORING AT ENTRY POINTS

• Since the beginning of the epidemic, the total number of travelers checked (temperature rise) at the sanitary control points is 117,333,420 ;<br /> • To date, a total of 112 entry points (PoE) and sanitary control points (PoCs) have been set up in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri to protect the country's major cities and prevent the spread of the epidemic in neighboring countries.

As a reminder, the recommendations of the MULTISECTORAL COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONSE TO EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE are as follows:

1. Follow basic hygiene practices, including regular hand washing with soap and water or ashes;
2. If an acquaintance from an epidemic area comes to visit you and is ill, do not touch her and call the North Kivu Civil Protection toll-free number;
3. If you are identified as a contact of an Ebola patient, agree to be vaccinated and followed for 21 days;
4. If a person dies because of Ebola, follow the instructions for safe and dignified burials. It is simply a funeral method that respects funerary customs and traditions while protecting the family and community from Ebola contamination.
5. For all health professionals, observe the hygiene measures in the health centers and declare any person with symptoms of # Ebola (fever, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, anorexia, bleeding).<br /> If all citizens respect these health measures recommended by the Secretariat, it is possible to quickly end this 10th epidemic.

On 2019-09-30 05:24:02, user Guyguy wrote:

EVOLUTION OF THE EPIDEMIC IN THE PROVINCES OF NORTH KIVU AND ITURI AS AT 25 SEPTEMBER 2019

The epidemiological situation of the Ebola Virus Disease dated September 25, 2019

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Since the beginning of the epidemic, the cumulative number of cases is 3,178, of which 3,066 confirmed and 112 probable. In total, there were 2,126 deaths (2014 confirmed and 112 probable) and 981 people healed.

• 483 suspected cases under investigation; <br /> • 3 new confirmed cases, including: <br /> • No cases in North Kivu; <br /> • 3 in Ituri, including 2 in Mandima and 1 in Mambasa; <br /> • 4 new confirmed deaths, including; <br /> • 1 community death in Ituri in Mandima; <br /> • 3 deaths of confirmed cases in North Kivu, including 2 in Katwa and 1 in Beni; <br /> • 1 person cured out of CTE in North Kivu in Butembo; <br /> • No health worker is among the new confirmed cases. The cumulative number of confirmed / probable cases among health workers is 160 (5% of all confirmed / probable cases), including 41 deaths. <br /> NEWS <br /> Six people from Mambasa cured of Ebola Virus Disease out of Komanda CTE in Ituri * <br /> • The Ebola Treatment Center (ETC) in Komanda, Ituri province, unloaded on Thursday, September 26, 2019, six people cured of Ebola Virus Disease, all from Mambasa; <br /> • For the director of the Komanda CTE, Claude Banga Lonema, this treatment center receives patients from the Nyakunde and Komanda health zones, as well as from Mambasa well before the construction of its CTE, which has become functional for almost a week; <br /> • For the director of the CTE of Komanda, Dr. Claude Banga Lonema, all these cures are the work of a whole team, including medical and paramedical staff, psychosocial teams, nutritionists and hygienists and guards, to whom he is grateful for all their efforts in this day-to-day treatment center, as well as dedication and their apostolate; <br /> • The coordinator ai of the Subcommittee on Response and Chief Medical Officer of the Komanda Health Zone, Dr. Faustin Singo Ngozo, said on this occasion that the success and success of Ebola Virus Disease is an asset for everyone in the response. This success must be shared, because if surveillance does not work, there will always be notification of deaths. The presence of cures at the Komanda CTE shows that epidemiological surveillance has been successful in detecting cases in a timely manner and has enabled the care physicians to have sufficient time to treat these patients. To this end, he recommended mutual support among all the teams in the response to push him out of the way to harm the epidemic, which he said has lasted too long, to continue working with the same momentum. He also asked the six healings to help the response in sensitizing everyone in his respective environment. Military healing, he said, is a resource that can educate his colleagues to end this epidemic; <br /> • Among the Mambasa healers who were discharged from the Komanda Treatment Center were an 8-year-old girl, a man in uniform, including the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the village chief of Makoko II, a village in strong resistance. The latter two promised to raise awareness about Ebola Virus Disease in their respective communities; <br /> • This triumphal exit from the six healings of Mambasa, an area still showing resistance against EVD, was made in the presence of the few partners, namely the delegates of WHO and UNICEF: <br /> • Beginning with the prayer, this ceremony also ended with prayer and a family photo between the cures and the teams of the response in this ETC; <br /> • Immediately after, their exits from the CTE of Komanda, the cured were accompanied by the teams of the response to Mambasa, their respective health zone, where a festive atmosphere awaited them; <br /> • The Komanda CTE is located in the Mangiva Health Area, precisely in Makayanga village in the health zone of Komanda, 100 km from the Mambasa health zone.

As a reminder, the recommendations of the MULTISECTORAL COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONSE TO EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE are as follows:

1. Follow basic hygiene practices, including regular hand washing with soap and water or ashes;
2. If an acquaintance from an epidemic area comes to visit you and is ill, do not touch her and call the North Kivu Civil Protection toll-free number;
3. If you are identified as a contact of an Ebola patient, agree to be vaccinated and followed for 21 days;
4. If a person dies because of Ebola, follow the instructions for safe and dignified burials. It is simply a funeral method that respects funerary customs and traditions while protecting the family and community from Ebola contamination.
5. For all health professionals, observe the hygiene measures in the health centers and declare any person with symptoms of # Ebola (fever, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, anorexia, bleeding). <br /> If all citizens respect these health measures recommended by the Secretariat, it is possible to quickly end this 10th epidemic.

VACCINATION <br /> • Expanded ring vaccination around 2 confirmed cases in the Mataba Health Area in Kalunguta, North Kivu. In addition, two other vaccination rings, in the same health zone, are waiting to be opened in Lisasa and Kabasha Health Zones; <br /> • Since the beginning of vaccination on August 8, 2018, 228,430 people have been vaccinated; <br /> • The only vaccine to be used in this outbreak is the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine, manufactured by the pharmaceutical group Merck, following approval by the Ethics Committee in its decision of 20 May 2018.

MONITORING AT ENTRY POINTS <br /> • Since the beginning of the epidemic, the total number of travelers checked (temperature rise) at the sanitary control points is 98,818,462; <br /> • To date, a total of 111 entry points (PoE) and sanitary control points (PoCs) have been set up in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri to protect the country's major cities and prevent the spread of the epidemic in neighboring countries.

LEXICON <br /> • A community death is any death that occurs outside a #Ebola Treatment Center. <br /> • A probable case is a death for which it was not possible to obtain biological samples for confirmation in the laboratory but where the investigations revealed an epidemiological link with a confirmed or probable case.

On 2019-10-17 18:36:39, user GuyguyKabundi Tshima wrote:

EVOLUTION OF THE EPIDEMIC IN THE PROVINCES OF NORTH KIVU AND ITURI AS OF OCTOBER 15, 2019

Wednesday, October 16, 2019<br /> Since the beginning of the epidemic, the cumulative number of cases is 3,227, of which 3,113 are confirmed and 114 are probable. In total, there were 2,154 deaths (2040 confirmed and 114 probable) and 1038 people healed.<br /> 530 suspected cases under investigation;<br /> 3 new confirmed cases, including:<br /> No cases in North Kivu;<br /> 3 in Ituri in Mandima;<br /> 1 new confirmed death, of which:<br /> 1 community death in Ituri in Mandima;<br /> No confirmed deaths;<br /> 2 people healed from the CTE in Ituri in Mambasa;<br /> No health workers are among the newly confirmed cases. The cumulative number of confirmed / probable cases among health workers is 161 (5% of all confirmed / probable cases), including 41 deaths.

NEWS

The state of play of the response at the center of an interview in Goma between the Technical Secretary of the CMRE and the United Nations Emergency Coordinator for Ebola<br /> - The Technical Secretary of the Multisectoral Committee on Epidemic Response to Ebola Virus Disease (ST / CMRE), Prof. Jean Jacques Muyembe Tamfum, granted a hearing on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 in Goma to the United Nations Emergency Coordinator for Ebola;<br /> - During their meeting, the two personalities discussed the state of play of the response to the 10th Ebola Virus Disease outbreak and the security situation in the areas affected by this epidemic;<br /> - It should be noted that the 10th Ebola epidemic has been taking place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in areas of armed conflict, particularly in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri, for more than a year;<br /> - Some time before this meeting, the technical secretary of the Multisectoral Committee for the Response to the Ebola Virus Disease Epidemic (ST / CMRE), Prof. Muyembe Tamfum, who is currently staying in Goma, North Kivu to inquire about the evolution of the response, chaired the morning meeting of the general coordination of the Ebola response to the epidemic.

Pygmies at Mahombo camp in Mambasa territory in Ituri pledge to fight Ebola Virus Disease

• The pygmies residing in Mahombo camp located more than 30 minutes walk from the main road from the village Nyangwe in the territory of Mambasa in ITURI, pledged Tuesday, October 15, 2019 to fight against Ebola by raising alerts with teams of the response;<br /> This commitment is the result of awareness raising by the Community Risk and Commitment (CREC) teams for 79 pygmies about the generalities of the Ebola virus disease, its methods of prevention and contamination;<br /> Pygmies have, for this purpose, asked for hand washing kits to break the chain of transmission of the Ebola virus in their respective communities.

VACCINATION

• Since vaccination began on 8 August 2018, 238,700 people have been vaccinated;
• The only vaccine to be used in this outbreak is the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine, manufactured by the pharmaceutical group Merck, following approval by the Ethics Committee in its decision of 20 May 2018.

MONITORING AT ENTRY POINTS

• The Governor of North Kivu, Carly Nzanzu Kasivita accompanied by a strong delegation, visited Maboya Control Points (PoCs) in Kalunguta and Kangote in Butembo in North Kivu Province;
• The providers of the Mususa Point of Control (PoC) in Butembo, North Kivu, in collaboration with the Ndondo Primary School and the Kyambogho School Complex, participated in a mass sensitization session (travelers and riverside population) under the theme " All Eliminate Ebola Virus Disease "on International Handwashing Day;
• Since the beginning of the epidemic, the total number of travelers checked (temperature rise) at the sanitary control points is 106.625.956 ;
• To date, a total of 111 entry points (PoE) and sanitary control points (PoCs) have been set up in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri to protect the country's major cities and prevent the spread of the epidemic in neighboring countries.

As a reminder, the recommendations of the MULTISECTORAL COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONSE TO EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE are as follows:

1. Follow basic hygiene practices, including regular hand washing with soap and water or ashes;
2. If an acquaintance from an epidemic area comes to visit you and is ill, do not touch her and call the North Kivu Civil Protection toll-free number;
3. If you are identified as a contact of an Ebola patient, agree to be vaccinated and followed for 21 days;
4. If a person dies because of Ebola, follow the instructions for safe and dignified burials. It is simply a funeral method that respects funerary customs and traditions while protecting the family and community from Ebola contamination.
5. For all health professionals, observe the hygiene measures in the health centers and declare any person with symptoms of # Ebola (fever, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, anorexia, bleeding).<br /> If all citizens respect these health measures recommended by the Secretariat, it is possible to quickly end this 10th epidemic.

On 2021-06-19 21:00:25, user Elisabeth Bik wrote:

As pointed out on Twitter by @seqwave, in Figure 1, the 'Left orbitofrontal cortex (thickness)' and the 'Left superior insula (thickness)' plots are identical. Could the authors please check?

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 2021-06-09 13:47:00, user Angela Kelly wrote:

‘Vaccine MRNA was not found in breast milk’ did you look for the spike protein it that may have already manufactured in the mother?

On 2021-10-07 20:59:57, user Mendel Singer PhD MPH wrote:

Vaccine reduces transmission by reducing cases. Yes, if a person was vaccinated AND gets COVID, they spread like the unvaccinated COVID cases. BUT, vaccination reduces the number of people infected, thereby reducing how many can transmit - so it reduces transmission. Even with Pfizer's waning immunity, after 6 months it still reduces infections by about half - so it is reducing transmission.

On 2021-09-21 11:11:33, user 4qmmt wrote:

Would any of you agree that rate of myocarditis/pericarditis due to the vaccine in youth is a) unknown and b) higher than the available data suggest?

On 2021-09-11 13:17:40, user Adam Carmack wrote:

Except vaccination doesn't prevent infection, it only limits the severity of the infection, which is already so low among children

On 2021-09-12 23:03:02, user Irl Smith wrote:

I didn't see anything in the original paper suggesting such an extreme peak in the myoc incidence; the first paragraph in the "Design" section seemed to me to indicate that case counts were for five and a half months (1/1 – 6/18). Do you have unpublished data which shows that the myoc occurred so shortly after the vaccination?<br /> What would have helped clarify the strength of the conclusion would be to apply a Bayesian analysis with an assumed prior incidence as found in Arola. It would also have helped if you kept the denominator constant throughout the paper (i.e., not switching between per-100k and per-million).<br /> I apologize if I am not using the correct terminology; I am not an epidemiologist.

On 2021-04-14 12:02:43, user ingokeck wrote:

Dear authors!<br /> Thanks a lot for publishing these interesting results as preprint! Reading it I arrived at a few questions and comments you might be able to answer to me:

(1) You have the gold standard to detect an infection: Viral cultures with confirmation of the viral agent via test. Yet you decided to use the less reliable RT-PCR as basis. Why? RT-PCR does not measure the existence of infectious virions, it only measures the existence and concentration of specific genes as RNA and DNA in a sample. There is a big issue with old gene material still „hanging around“ after all virions have been destroyed.

(2) Using your numbers from Figure 2 and the viral cultures as basis one can calculate that RT-PCR correctly detected 69% (77 of 112) of the cultured cases as positive and wrongly claimed 31% (35 of 112) to be positive. The BD test correctly identified 93% (66 of 71) of the cultured cases as positive and 73% (30 of 41) to be negative, but wrongly claimed 27% (11 of 41) of the cultured cases to be positive and 7% (5 of 71) to be negative. You clearly should not use RT-PCR as basis for the performance estimation!

(3) You call copies/ml a „viral load“. Why? This is not the definition of viral load. What you have is a concentration of gene copies. Viral load is defined by virions per host cells in a given volume. There is no simple relationship between viral load and gene copy concentration as the number of copies produced per virion depend on the host cells and the gene.

Thanks in advance for looking into this!

On 2020-09-27 03:43:34, user LB wrote:

It is well known that magnesium absorption is an issue with elevated gastric pH from PPIs. <br /> Please evaluate the possibility that the individuals who had a history of taking PPIs might have had magnesium deficiency, which altered their immune response to SARS-CoV-2.<br /> - Linda Benskin, PhD, RN

On 2020-12-28 08:48:28, user Disqus wrote:

The study design is somewhat confusing, a cross-sectional and prospective study that appears somewhat more similar to an ecological one than others. The authors crossed<br /> data from multiple sources including some known for their unreliability. Most surprising the authors states that they were unable to find a correlation between the opening of schools and the increase in Rt (par. "School closures did not alter the rate of Rt decline in Lombardy and Campania"), a statement that appears in stark contrast to the trend of Rt<br /> in Fig.6A and 6C showing a net increase after the opening of schools from an<br /> initial pre-opening value of approximately 1 for Lombardy and 1.5 for Campania,<br /> to a peak value of approximately 2.6 (Lombardy) and 1.9 (Campania).<br /> Curiously, the authors comment only on the descending part of the two curves but avoid<br /> commenting on the ascending phase following the opening of the schools.<br /> Finally, in spite of the medRxiv warning, one wonders why the authors decided to disseminate their unverified and not and not yest reviewed results, through the italian media (see for example the facebook pages of the authors for the links), suggesting the idea of a) somewhat solid and well establisehd general conclusions and b) the review process is a purely formal matter and not of substance.

On 2020-04-02 10:24:38, user ansgarjohn wrote:

The output seems similiar to what Michael Levitt has observed. Here Netherland (growth rate slowing by 1% per day is the guesstimate) https://sinaas.blogspot.com...

On 2020-04-16 22:28:29, user Quandary wrote:

interested in states, my own and others. How to find them in this chart?

On 2020-03-28 20:30:39, user adycousins wrote:

In Table 1 the estimate for the UK peak daily Covid-19 fatalities is 260 and a peak date of 5th of April, however 260 people died in the last 24 hours in the UK. Events seem have overtaken this study before its even reached peer-review.

On 2020-03-30 23:21:41, user Brian Coyle wrote:

They use Wallinga & Kretzchmar's age-based transmission matrix to model CoV2 transmission among age groups. The Wallinga estimates are based on influenza, and show "school-aged children and young adults will experience the highest incidence of infection and will contribute most to further spread of infections". This is not a useful model for CoV2, where children are not driving spread. This paper's estimates show isolating children has the biggest impact, which is almost surely not accurate.

On 2022-03-01 03:32:44, user Michal wrote:

Dear authors, very interesting preprint. I would like to bring attention to Supplementary Table 3 columns "DALYs / 100,000" and "YLLs / 100,000" which have exact same values - was this intended?

On 2025-02-21 05:09:57, user Evan Stanbury wrote:

Re "Serological evidence of recent Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation was observed more frequently in PVS participants". EBV causes glandular fever, which often leaves sufferers with a Post-Viral syndrome similar to Long COVID (and the sick cohort). This is not directly attributable to the vaccine.

On 2020-07-17 04:24:05, user Bruce Conklin wrote:

I wrote the authors on July 12, asking if they had data on troponin levels. The authors have not responded. I tried to download the supplementary data, but found none. Investigation into direct tissue effects of the virus on tissues would be warranted to back up the claim that the disease is only immunological.

On 2023-01-15 02:42:48, user Peter lange wrote:

I agree with the other commenters. The description of training is inadequate to determine if the dogs are detecting acute and chronic stress, which canines have been trained to do with high reliability. Without further information the conclusions are unsupported by evidence presented.

On 2020-06-04 00:20:18, user wbgrant wrote:

It would be useful now or in further studies, what baseline and achieved 25OHD concentrations were. <br /> It is not clear in the text how many were given DMB prior to April 6, how many after April 6. Those given DMB prior to April 6 would be the less severe cases, thereby biasing the study.

On 2021-01-24 08:54:43, user ad4 wrote:

Can the authors please provide a list / file of all input parameters (with error intervals) used in the model and make all code publicly available.

On 2021-12-15 03:22:39, user Sean Bearly wrote:

A study of children born during the pandemic means a study of children less than two years old. It is preposterous to think we can come to consensus about the results. We might as well do studies of children born during Obama presidency vs the Trump presidency. Also, I believe our desire to get children into public indoctrination as early as possible has resulted in a desire to show that missing early in-person indoctrination is the worse thing that can happen not just to children but to the parents who then have to deal with the little monsters. Many home schoolers chose that route based on multiple studies of early childhood development which showed that a child that enters school at the 6th grade level, even with no previous home schooling, quickly comes up to speed and often outpaces the other children within one school year. There are many reasons for this but anyone interested can find that information.

The Obama administration did a study of the effectiveness of early education and promised to stop funding for the Head Start program if data showed that it wasn't money well spent. The study showed that Head Start gave most children an initial boost in education, but that it was lost within a few years and Head Start graduates by the third grade were no smarter, better behaved, etc. than the children who did not go into the program. Head Start was not cancelled though because of several reasons, one being parents had learned to depend on the program for child care, and also because the teacher's unions fought to keep the program.

This pandemic for certain has been difficult for many. But this is not the worse thing that can happen to a child. Children have weathered much worse without losing 20 points on their IQ score. I am reluctant to believe that kind of drop can even be measured in children under 2.

On 2023-12-10 17:31:49, user Scott Lear wrote:

I have several serious concerns with the study and manuscript:

1. This is an observational study and despite what is written in the manuscript, an observational study cannot lead to the clear conclusions the authors suggest the results indicate. The authors should temper their interpretation of the results and take into account the below.

2. The authors do not address their findings in the context of the 1000s of other observational studies indicating activity (and at high levels) has consistently been associated with reduce risk for premature mortality.

3. The authors state previous studies have not robustly adjusted for other lifestyle measures. This is untrue. Many of the existing observational studies have robustly adjusted for the measures the authors of this study say weren't done (and have done so for decades). Here are a few:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih...<br /> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih...<br /> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih...

All of these studies (there are many more) had more robust adjustment than the present one and found that high levels of activity either provided further risk reduction or a plateau but no reduced risk reduction. The last study had 30 years of follow-up and 15 points of LTPA assessment- a point that the authors of the current study infer that their study is the only study to have a long follow-up.

1. Self-reported questionnaires to assess LTPA are not as accurate as the authors indicate. While questionnaires are used in many studies, they tend to overestimate activity levels compared to objective measures such as accelerometers (plenty of studies to support this). They also are not accurate in distinguishing different levels of intensity of activity which is also pertinent to consider. Lastly, the study only assessed leisure time activity ignoring occupational, household and transport activities. Given the surveys were done in 1975, 1981 and 1990, this is likely to be a substantial amount of activity missed (as all jobs were more active back then, than now). There is no indication in the Methods how the participants were put into the four activity groups (sedentary to highly active).

2. The biological ageing was based only on a sub-sample of 5% of the study population. There is no description in the methods how this sub-sample<br /> was selected. Was it random, and thus possibly representative of the larger cohort, or was a convenience or selective sample that could introduce bias?

3. BMI was self-reported, and again, there is ample literature to indicate self-reported BMI underestimates true BMI and this is greatest in those with higher BMI. In addition, if one is looking to assess the true affect of LTPA, BMI should not be adjusted for as it is in the causal path between LTPA and mortality.

4. We have good quality randomized trials from the 1980s in cardiac rehab that indicate the benefit of structured exercise on <br /> reducing early death (and leading to greater lifespan) in people with heart disease. While the authors quote a single study (#5) stating RCTs <br /> have not shown activity to result in longer life, the study quoted is not a real study but rather a commentary. The advantage of the RCTs from the 1980s is the lack of pharmacological management of participants in usual care because statins and anti-hypertensives where either not around or readily prescribed at the time. More recent RCTs have control groups that are optimally medically managed.

On 2021-06-21 19:30:04, user Edward Sheppard wrote:

It's a poor graph. What should have been compared in this chart is survival after 10 days for each group. Just eye balling the data, it looks like 67% of the non-treatment group survived 10 days. In the end about 28% of those survived. That's compared to 59% of the treatment group. Still, a quite sizeable effect.

Ideally we should consider everyone though. IOW, go from day zero but consider the treatment group to include those who would have been in this treatment group but died before day 10.

On 2021-06-15 20:42:31, user Joe Grane wrote:

Wasn't the "VA" study just a review of health records without the all of the dosing analysis in this, Smith, et al. study.

Some of the main points in Smith, et al are that you have so many obese patients. Doses of HCQ and AZT need to be weight dependent.

"no Covid study has examined the effects of these differences in weight on response to HCQ therapy or HCQ adverse effects."

Furthermore they noticed that the cumulative dose had a big effect on the outcome. They explain that HCQ has a long half-life but it also takes a long time to get optimal amounts into the lungs.

"We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients...HCQ cumulative dose > 80 mg/kg works substantially better. "

"Patients receiving >3g HCQ/>1g AZM had 3.26 times lower risk of mortality than those who did not receive these doses [HR = .307,95% CI = 0.183 – 0.516, p < .001]. Patients receiving TOZ had 2.00 times lower risk of death than patients who did not receive the medicine [HR = .50, 95% CI = 0.36 – 0.69, p < .001].

Their statements about patient EKGs were striking. They were particularly critical of the FDA's April 2020 warning on the issue.

"there was no correlation between HCQ cumulative dose and QTc delta (r = -0.170).... No patient experienced torsades de pointes...given the data presented here, the studies reporting HCQ’s effect of QTc intervals need to be reevaluated."

Apparently Smith, et al were looking for ways to make HCQ helpful to Covid patients--a seemingly unusual interest.

In contrast Boulware, et al concluded HCQ was not beneficial for post exposure prophylaxis when started within 4 days. However several other groups reanalyzed the data and concluded HCQ was beneficial when started within 3 days. <br /> https://www.medrxiv.org/con...<br /> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv...<br /> https://www.longdom.org/ope...

On 2020-11-06 05:07:01, user Schneide Fu wrote:

Not sure they got the dosage correctly, as Nitazoxanide has a half life of 2.9 hrs. Should have been on divided doses, several times a day.

On 2020-05-25 11:34:54, user Rogelio Macías-Ordóñez wrote:

Even after countless revisions prior tu submission to medRxiv we found a minor mistake in the sentence (lines 375-378):

"A group of five countries (Brazil Fig 4, México, India, Peru and Russia) with IFR values below 1% and an already high death toll (above 1,000) may experience a high number of casualties if, as our estimates suggest, they experience 68-82% more deaths in the next 23 days."

It should say "...64-82% more deaths in the next 23 days." since 64% is the lowest value (for Brazil) among those countries in Table 1.

On 2020-07-11 23:36:55, user Monil Majmundar wrote:

Study showed corticosteroid was associated with lower risk of Icu transfer, intubation, mortality and higher probability of discharge.<br /> Corticosteroid was associated with 85% lower risk of primary outcome that is composite of icu transfer, intubation and death. 84% lower risk of icu transfer, 69% lower risk of intubation and 47% lower risk of mortality. 3.65 times higher probability of discharge.

On 2021-07-25 17:46:53, user Ullrich Anton Schuler wrote:

I recommend to reduce percentages to 3 significant digits. E.g. "33.76% of SARS-CoV-2 exposed children" means with 548 children: 1% is 5 children, 0,1% represents 0,5 children, 0,01% means 1/20th of a child. Therefore two digits after the decimal point in my opinion are nonsense (as it is the case in very many situations!). The unnecessary question arises as to whether the authors have a sensible feeling for numbers and sizes.

On 2020-04-01 21:11:32, user V. Cheianov, Esq. wrote:

Below I post a link to a recent publication by the Russian Institute for Economic Analysis <br /> (a typical Russian think tank, not an academic institution), which arrives at similar conclusions.

There are some methodological differences.

At the moment the publication is only available in Russian.<br /> The results are published in the form of a blog post

https://aillarionov.livejou...

On 2020-04-02 17:08:35, user Yaira Ca Ce wrote:

Interesting correlation BUT... Is it strong enough the correlation of data from countries in different stages? Being from Mexico makes me think of the lack of detection in my country. The tests haven't been applied massively, and there are MANY cases of atypical pneumonia and flu. Interesting isn't it? It might be that a low morbility and mortality is due to under developed countries in their first stages or there's not a massive testing. Still interesting to consider it. At the end it will be more realistic to make a comparison.

On 2020-05-16 22:05:44, user Chris Bagshaw wrote:

Everyone seems to be quoting the death rates in various countries but my country is placing COVID19 on death certificates for people dying from other causes "following government guidelines" so how can anyone calculate the true infection / mortality rates when the actual numbers being quoted are fatally flawed by manipulation?

On 2020-07-21 21:41:59, user Alfred_Packer wrote:

This research was done very early, and has the imperfections inherent in such an early effort- but they appear to have been pretty close to the actual IFR. At the time it was seen as impossibly low and a dozen researchers beat this study up. So how did such a flawed study get the right answer, basically?

On 2021-01-25 15:10:24, user Chip Hughes wrote:

Thank you all for this great research. It will really help OSHA target enforcement to the highest risk sectors and job classifications so that we can hope to reduce deaths among frontline workers with the highest level of COVID19 exposures on the job. Chip Hughes, USDOL-OSHA DAS

On 2023-01-07 03:30:19, user loki4loki wrote:

The authors have a new definition of effectiveness. I thought a vaccine was effective if it prevented hospitalization and death. Now they have changed the goal posts. No wonder the Browns are having a bad year.

On 2023-01-02 11:42:16, user Lance wrote:

It seems that the authors indulged in the pharma-friendly practice of starting the clock on exposure 7 days post-exposure:

"Individuals were considered bivalent vaccinated 7 days after receipt of a single dose of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine... Curves for the non-vaccinated state were based on data while the bivalent vaccination status of subjects remained “non-vaccinated”. Curves for the bivalent vaccinated state were based on data from the date the bivalent vaccination status changed to “vaccinated”. "

This is particularly egregious given the potential for these vaccines to increase infection risk in the period immediately following vaccination. What little VE is reported here for the bivalent could itself be an illusion, disappearing upon proper treatment of the data.

On 2020-04-20 11:54:22, user Larry Knight wrote:

Agreed. Usually viral load is connected to symptoms.

On 2020-04-18 20:15:52, user Tere mius wrote:

How are these results helpful if the analysis is conducted on nasopharyngeal swabs? We know that in asymptomatics the majority of viral load is present only in the upper respiratory tract, or am I not understanding what was reported in other papers? <br /> Furthermore, part of the symptoms are caused by the immune system itself, so a higher viral load will cause a different reaction anyway, am I right?<br /> Thanks if anyone can clarify this for me.

On 2021-07-16 05:35:56, user Altamir Gomes Bispo Junior wrote:

Hi, I'm one of the authors of [49].

I will make the following suggestions:

1- I see that medical doctors in several countries (India, China, South Korea etc.) are repurposing drugs and nutraceuticals and they are making huge strides on COVID-19 treatment guidelines. It will for sure be interesting to inform the general public about these possibilities, even if these possibilities are not currently acknowledged by organizations such as the WHO.

2- Many of the current COVID-19 vaccines are not sterilizing and thus cannot block transmission efficiently. Virus spread may vary due to different vaccine platforms.

3- Vaccines for respiratory viruses are known to have lower immunogenicity on older age cohorts and to have also a vanishing protection against infection and symptomatic infection. This could be added to the model.

On 2020-04-29 16:03:06, user Eugene Kutsin wrote:

1. comparing flu to covid death based on a hand-picked interval is misleading. The peak of flu distribution based on 2017-2018 CDC data comes in January and is not included in the statistics. based on 2017-2018 data, 34% of death fall into the interval, while covid peak is included, meaning that at least 50% of deaths is accounted;
2. excess death is calculated based on 2017-2019 (I guess average or mean). Based on country wide CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/da... "https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09-508.pdf)") making adjustment for New York we see deaths count fluctuates in tens of thousands. So the 13K falls into marginal error. This makes measure "excess deaths" as computed not usable;
3. statement "number of COVID-related deaths [based on excess number] is in fact greater ... as trauma and even heart attacks, appears to have decreased during the shelter-in-place period of the pandemic" is a speculative one. while it's probably true that trauma related deaths would go down during lockdown, number of death related to cases when people are not getting adequate medical help by avoiding visits or lack of resources;

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 2021-08-04 20:52:35, user johns1956 wrote:

I don't see Supplemental Table 4, can you please provide it if you have it?

On 2020-07-03 19:26:50, user Jun Wan wrote:

Dr. Anthony Fauci warned this Tuesday (https://www.youtube.com/wat... "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5l5UGS9ngc)") that a new strain of the coronavirus was found to be dominant around the world which was published the past Sunday by the Cell (https://www.cell.com/action... "https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2930820-5)"). The new strain G614 they referred is the exactly same as what this paper identified associated with the mutation A23403G (group A). In addition to the mutation on Spike (614), another mutation C14408T on ORF1ab (P4715 changed to L4715) was also reported by this paper which co-occurred with the mutation on Spike (614). Both can become the features of these strains. Indeed, the paper combined both together to name them as strain GL (G614+L4715) or DP (D614+P4715). Their results suggest "that the GL strain of SARS-CoV-2 might become much more stable and prevailing than DP identified from Wuhan-Hu-1 after 6-month evolution and transmission." Actually, when you read the paper carefully, you may find more novel interesting findings discussed in their work.

On 2021-11-19 20:32:12, user Corky Gardner wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/n...

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 2020-11-05 08:59:04, user Vishal Barot wrote:

Can I have the data of the patient as I would like to perform some prediction based on the historical data?<br /> I have trained certain model using deep learning and would like to contribute for the same.

Thank you

On 2020-12-29 15:21:15, user Claus R wrote:

Please make sure you review the Nov 5 Frontiers in Medicine commentary on the Flaxman paper, https://www.frontiersin.org.... In it, Kuhbandner & Homburg argue (for the UK) that Flaxman et al. ignored that R was already very low at the time when NPIs could have taken effect, something you seem to be confirming with your more extensive analysis here.

• Claus Rinner, Ryerson University, gis.blog.ryerson.ca

On 2022-12-09 22:42:39, user Josipa Domjanovic wrote:

This is an interesting and well-written randomized controlled trial that examined the effect of intradialytic exercise on the survival of patients undergoing treatment with intermittent hemodialysis. The main findings suggest that intradialytic exercise improves survival in this population. The methodology of this study is robust and the results are well-presented, but there are several important constraints that should be acknowledged.

Major remarks:

• Major limitation of this study is a limited sample size, including only 37 patients per group. This is evident in the results including large confidence intervals. The conducted sample size analysis is encouraging, but this is an important study limitation.
• Additionally, exercise time and follow-up was relatively short (6 months vs 1 year) so the long-term effect of intradialytic exercise remains uncertain.
• The Discussion needs elaboration on the clinical implications of this study.

Minor remarks:<br /> - The authors are encouraged to correct the typos and improve the textual flow throughout the manuscript. Paragraphs should be justified.

Nevertheless, this well-organized study warrants publication so it could act as an incentive to start similar ones on a larger sample and with a longer follow-up, which could lead to change in the treatment practice of these patients.

On 2020-06-14 14:46:08, user wbgrant wrote:

It appears that the dose of 1000 IU/d vitamin D is insufficient to raise 25(OH)D concentration significantly. See<br /> Heaney R et al. Human Serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol Response to Extended Oral Dosing With Cholecalciferol. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):204-10. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/77.1.204.<br /> and<br /> Grant WB, Baggerly CA, Lahore H. Reply: “Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths”. Nutrients 2020, 12(6), 1620; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu1...

On 2020-04-22 23:33:18, user Silander North wrote:

2020-04-20: IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France: Early treatment of 1061 COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (PDF)

Quotes:<br /> BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) are promising drugs against COVID-19.

METHODS: We conducted an uncontrolled non-comparative observational study in a cohort of 1061 infected patients treated with HCQ+AZ combination for at least three days.

RESULTS: Good clinical outcome and virological cure were obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%). Prolonged viral carriage was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) and was associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis (p < 10-2) but viral culture was negative at day 10. All but one were PCR-cleared at day 15.

A poor clinical outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3%) and 8 died (0.75%) (74-95 years old).

Mortality was lower than in patients treated with other regimens in all Marseille public hospitals (p< 10-2). Five patients are still hospitalized (98.7% of patients cured so far). Poor clinical outcome was associated to older age (OR 1.11), initial higher severity (OR 10.05) and low HCQ serum concentration. Poor clinical and virological outcomes were associated to the use of selective beta-blocking agents and angiotensin II receptor blockers (P<0.05). No cardiac toxicity was observed.

CONCLUSION: Early HCQ+AZ combination is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID19.<br />

On 2020-05-04 18:15:10, user Dr SK Gupta wrote:

High Dose Chloroquine with Poor patient selection are the culprits- not the drug <br /> Investigators were over enthusiastic in using a higher dose of chloroquine in elderly patients. In China National Health and Care Commission officially included the Chloroquine as medical agent on 19 Feb 2020 to be used in corona virus treatment plan. The dose of 500mg of chloroquine twice a day was decided following in vitro studies EC50 values, PBPK modeling and mice RLTEC data projected on Human beings (1). <br /> The initial recommended dose of 500 mg of chloroquine phosphate salt twice per day can quickly approach danger thresholds with sustained use at the maximum course of 10 days (Total chloroquine base 6gm). The lethal dose of chloroquine base in adults is about 5g. In China, On Feb 26, 2020, the treatment guidelines were revised, shortening the maximum course to 7 days to keep the total dose of chloroquine base 4.2 gm much lower than toxic dose (2). <br /> Elderly population is particularly prone to chloroquine toxicity especially at high doses. It is unfortunate in present study, that a base line ECG was not done to measure the QTc interval because the drug should be avoided if the QTc was more than 500ms especially in patients with severe disease prone to develop myocarditis due to primary disease Covid-19 per se(3). On the contrary we find that the higher dose regimen included Older age population with mean [SD] age, 54.7 [13.7] years vs 47.4 [13.3] years with more heart disease (5 of 28 [17.9%] vs 0) as compared to lower dose regimen. We in India having hige experience of using the drug would refrain from using such high doses.<br /> Gao et al reported results from more than 100 patients demonstrated that chloroquine phosphate is superior to the control treatment: in inhibiting the exacerbation of pneumonia, improving lung imaging findings, promoting a virus-negative conversion, shortening the disease course. Severe adverse reactions to chloroquine phosphate were not noted in the aforementioned patients (4). <br /> Poor patient selection and use of toxic doses of chloroquine seems to have brought disrepute to a promising drug. More studies are required before condemning the drug in present indication of Covid 19<br /> References:<br /> 1. Wang M, Cao R, Zhang L, et al. Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro. Cell Res 2020; 30:269–71<br /> 2. COVID-19: a recommendation to examine the effect of hydroxychloroquine in preventing infection and progression Dan Zhou, Sheng-Ming Dai and Qiang Tong J Antimicrob Chemother doi:10.1093/jac/dkaa114

1. Cardiovascular risks of hydroxychloroquine in treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 patients: A scientific statement from the Indian Heart Rhythm Society<br /> Aditya Kapoor, Ulhas Pandurangi,Vanita Arora, Anoop Gupta, Aparna Jaswal et al. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.i...

2. Gao J, Tian Z, Yang X. Breakthrough: chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies. Bioscience Trends 2020; 14:72–3

On 2022-01-30 23:33:36, user Leo Delahunt wrote:

Glad you two had this discussion, the cohort for the Positive SARS-CoV-2 results change the impact of this study quite a bit. I assumed that they had grouped both vaccinated and unvaccinated together, but I think it's probably a vaccinated only cohort.

From the abstract

"...self-controlled case series analysis of 42,200,614 people aged 13 years or more..."

From the Main

"Between December 1, 2020, to November 15, 2021 a total of 42,200,614 people were vaccinated with at least one dose of..."

Data Source

"We used the National Immunisation (NIMS) Database of COVID-19 vaccination to identify vaccine exposure. This includes vaccine type, date and doses for all people vaccinated in England. We linked NIMS vaccination data, at individual level, to national data for mortality (ONS), hospital admissions (HES) and SARS-CoV-2 infection data (SGSS)."

So it appears that the authors started with the vaccination database, then looked through the Hospital admission data and death certificates to identify individuals who had experienced myocarditis or who subsiquently tested positive for covid19. From there myocarditis occurrences were were allocated into categories based on which exposure period the myocarditis occurred.

On 2021-04-09 01:46:20, user Yq Zhang wrote:

Is it possible to make the data public in addition to the code?

On 2020-07-21 15:50:10, user OxImmuno Literature Initiative wrote:

https://www.immunology.ox.a...

On 2020-10-02 00:01:26, user Immunogenetics wrote:

DQA1_509 is not an accurate representation of an HLA allele.

On 2021-10-05 10:08:23, user Samantha Hester wrote:

Members of the trans community are raising questions about your new exclusion criteria that eliminated people who self-identified as unicorns. Unicorns belong to the otherkin community and their responses could be in good faith.

Please review this post from a trans advocacy organization for more details:

https://www.facebook.com/pe...

On 2021-08-27 22:26:34, user Infinite Monkeys wrote:

The number of PhD respondents has decreased from 10,969 in version one of this article to 9,975 in version two, but the number of vaccine hesitant PhD respondents has decreased from ~2,622 (23.9%) to ~1,456 (14.6%). Therefore, 994 respondents were removed, but the number of vaccine hesitant respondents, which should be a subset, decreased by 1,166. As both versions are reporting data for May 2021, there appears to be a discrepancy?

On 2020-04-15 18:26:55, user Archisman Mazumder wrote:

These predictions actually matched.

On 2021-07-09 12:15:54, user disqus_EnN4OEtF9s wrote:

Numbers for asymptomatic COVID19 cases analyzed for efficacy don't add up. Total said to be 67 while 33 in placebo group and 13 in COVAXIN group. https://twitter.com/das_see...

On 2021-10-21 14:59:55, user Aditya Bhavar wrote:

Hello,<br /> Where to find exact data of adverse reaction occurred during phase-3 trial as on provided preprint publication data is available in very short and I am specifically interested in studies of adverse reaction occurred during trial phase?

On 2021-12-22 14:03:31, user Simone Davies wrote:

I had these symptoms (vibrations for months, muscle twitching for days) after my all 3 of my vaccine shots. I had not had covid before I was vaccinated. Would be interested to know if this is true in others?

On 2021-01-30 22:31:36, user Raghu SN wrote:

It is surprising that the effect of the difference in prevalence of the infection in the general population during the two periods being compared is not accounted for. For example, if the total cases per 100,000 is 40 in the first period and 80 in the second; if 4000 of the inoculated cohort were infected in the first period. It will be statistically expected that without the vaccine 8000 of the cohort would have been infected in the second period. And if actually only 2000 were infected, then the vaccine protected 6000 out of 8000 potential infections, that is 75% efficient. For these numbers, the methodology adopted in the study would calculate only 2000 out of 4000, that is 50%.<br /> Hope my drift is clear, though rustic.

On 2021-06-03 01:36:26, user Ifonly wrote:

The count includes three outbreaks in Queensland. One was from a worker from a hotel, the other two were a doctor and nurse treating patients in hospital. Similarly, one case in NSW was a person transporting a patient to hospital. Regardless of where they are housed when they arrive, we can anticipate still needing to transport and treat the sick to hospitals.

I think it is reasonable to treat differently the best practice approach of current administrations and the the situation in Victoria at the beginning of hotel quarantine.

I believe Queensland had a policy of hospitalising all positive cases. From the Queensland experience, we can expect 2 breaches in hospital per 543 positive cases .37% or 1 in 271. It is not unreasonable to expect a similar figure for dedicated facilities.

In total there has been 3312 positive cases arrive in Australia (excluding the NT), From those there has been 14 breaches, 3 on the way to or in hospital, 2 in Victorian early days leaving 9 breaches for 3312 or .27% or 1 in 368. This of course is not entirely accurate as it includes the 543 in Queensland who spent part of their time in hotels before moving to hospital.

On 2021-10-03 16:42:16, user Luke Yaldo wrote:

The peer reviewed, published version of this article can be found here: https://link.springer.com/a...

On 2020-12-01 14:30:16, user Peter Griffiths wrote:

Published as: Griffiths, P., Saville, C., Ball, J., Culliford, D., Pattison, N., Monks, T., 2020. Performance of the Safer Nursing Care Tool to measure nurse staffing requirements in acute hospitals: a multicentre observational study. BMJ Open 10 (5), e035828.10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035828

On 2021-08-02 17:06:59, user My Pet Ocelot wrote:

You didn't even read the study, they set the Ct to 30.

On 2021-08-15 12:39:25, user Jérémy LLL wrote:

Thank you for the useful work. In your Figure 1, the green trend line does not seem to fit any data on the right half of the plot. Can you explain this? Did you exclude the negative detections (Ct 50) from the fit?

On 2022-03-05 07:28:21, user Kaiser Stobbertus wrote:

A good study!<br /> I just wonder, though, why PEM (Post-Exertional Malaise) was not taken into account - especially given the expectable long-term suffering in patients who might get prescribed excercise?<br /> On topic, see, e.g.:<br /> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

On 2020-08-17 22:58:52, user Irene Tosetti wrote:

This is the French RT-Lamp saliva test that I've mentioned, Easycov, validated by Uni of Montpellier https://www.skillcell-alcen...

On 2021-09-08 04:46:33, user Anni wrote:

Quite normal for any vaccine to affect immune responses to unrelated pathogens <br /> https://www.sciencedirect.c...<br /> ... not a bad thing, and Comirnaty has been shown to activate antibodies from past viral infections, all good signs.

Also, Don't forget to check the conflict of interest statement of the study we are commenting on.

The employer, "Trained Therapeutix and Discovery", with the motto "Don't fight the wave, ride it"!! is advertising their treatments to "dampen the ruinous hyperinflammation" in severely ill, hospitalized COVID patients.

It's clearly in their interest to reduce confidence in vaccines, as vaccinated individuals seldom need their treatments, vaccination mostly prevent the aforesaid ruinous hyperinflammation issue ...

Personally, unless you are a pharmaceutical company poised to profit off severely ill covid patients, I'd strongly suggest fighting the wave of infections with a good vaccine.

On 2021-11-08 07:37:42, user Luke wrote:

Did you look at the actual chart - t1:t2, t1:t3 ratio is around maybe 0.7-2.0 <br /> for various tests? Hardly a "it disables and reprograms your immune <br /> system"? The wide scattering in the plots seems to suggest may be dependent on <br /> many factors?

On 2021-12-16 20:52:42, user Chewbacca wrote:

Very thorough analysis. Lots of work behind that study. Well done.

On 2025-06-26 00:25:38, user Pegah Khosravi wrote:

We are pleased to share that this preprint has now been peer-reviewed and published in Biological Methods and Protocols. The final version of the article is available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomethods/bpaf032

On 2022-01-21 13:57:00, user Adam Capoferri wrote:

This work is now published in Viruses: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4...

On 2020-01-25 23:16:22, user White_Runner wrote:

There is another study that puts the R0 value in 1.4 to 2.6, still very high.<br /> However not apocaliptic levels like the one described here.<br /> Also, this R0 value can change in time as long as the adequate restrictions are taken in place.<br /> So, yeah guys, expect the best, have some precautions and happy lunar new year.

On 2021-07-10 13:39:38, user Marco Roccetti wrote:

Final version of this study available on BMJ Open: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/con...

regards<br /> The Authors

On 2020-07-23 20:34:45, user E. Taylor Stone wrote:

Just a note for the authors that in the introduction line 55, OC43 and HKU1 are listed as alphacoronaviruses, but I believe should be listed as betacoronaviruses: https://www.cdc.gov/coronav...

On 2020-11-30 01:00:57, user lbaustin wrote:

Does your hospital not routinely check vitamin D status - 25(OH)D levels? Recent studies have shown that if vitamin D is given early, it can decrease Covid-19 severity, but it is far less effective in severely ill patients.

On 2021-09-29 04:15:27, user Nikki wrote:

I work as an account Escalation Specialist/call center supervisor who takes over Escalated calls. I've never had issues with missing small details which are required to do my job. I caught covid in mid July, had a horrible experience with two weeks worth of severe vertigo, nausea, fever spikes, tons of phlegm, panic attacks. <br /> One month and a half after recovery, I've had 4 major fails which may ultimately end up costing me my job. <br /> My pcp, therapist, and boss appear to disregard this when I try to explain to them about the fogginess. <br /> As a very detail oriented person, I just don't miss those things.... never in my 15 years in callcenter experience.

On 2025-11-26 01:10:16, user Alda wrote:

Congratulations for all the colaborators!! <br /> When will be published ? (perhaps 2026)

On 2020-04-23 17:35:06, user Hugh DeWitter wrote:

PCR test the autopsy lung tissue for M.genitalium DNA. <br /> See @hughdewitter on Twitter for studies in support.

PCR your patients' first void urine, before issuing antibiotics, as a predictor of severe Covid-19. Mgen resistance to macrolides and FQNs seen at 100 and 90%, steals iron (FUR), subclinical, never found by culture, and a retroactive study found that as far back as 1974 it was found in 25% of lungs of a random cohort. Before PCR it tested out as M.pneumoniae, genetically a nearly identical pathogen. Now we only PCR for M.pneumoniae.

Mycoplasma Genitalium thrives in the lung subclinically, especially paired with smoking, pollution, or robust old biofilms. Find that Zn abates symptoms, no one under 14 gets severe disease, vertical transmission, 40pct of infected convert to chronic subclinical carriers after an azithro course, hemolytic anemia from FUR iron theft, adheres to erythrocytes, deposits antigen on erythrocytes, more male carriers/fatalities, sickle cell vulnerability, no increased risk for HIV+ patients (recent antibiotic courses), migrates through tissue, migrates hematogenously, 35 different Mgen isolates, samples vulnerable to dessication, refrigeration causes 27pct PCR false negatives. See the study compilation posted on Twitter @hughdewitter.

On 2020-06-09 13:07:31, user Fahd Al-Mulla wrote:

https://biorxiv.altmetric.c...

On 2020-09-16 17:38:21, user LB wrote:

This Causal Inference paper is brilliant. Why has this not been published?

On 2020-09-07 16:34:55, user A. Baluja wrote:

Hi! The last version for the reference [Baluja et al, 2020] has been finally peer-reviewed and published in:<br /> https://www.tandfonline.com...

The updated version of the preprint:<br /> https://www.medrxiv.org/con...<br /> Thank you for continuing research in such important topic!

On 2021-04-28 21:35:17, user Evangeline Burkholder wrote:

I'd like to know to what actual level was the viral load reduced to?

On 2023-05-05 14:25:04, user David Curtis wrote:

A number of other studies have examined the effects on common phenotypes of rare coding variants identified in exome-sequenced UK Biobank samples.

This paper examines the effect of using different annotation schemes to quantify missense variant pathogenicity, including in GCK, LDLR and PCSK9:

Curtis D. Exploration of weighting schemes based on allele frequency and annotation for weighted burden association analysis of complex phenotypes. Gene 2022 809 146039.

These papers report that rare variants can have large effects on phenotype, again including in GCK, LDLR and PCSK9:

Curtis D. Analysis of rare coding variants in 200,000 exome-sequenced subjects reveals novel genetic risk factors for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2021.

Curtis D. Analysis of 200,000 exome-sequenced UK Biobank subjects implicates genes involved in increased and decreased risk of hypertension. Pulse 2021 9 17-29.

Curtis D. Weighted burden analysis in 200,000 exome-sequenced subjects characterises rare variant effects on BMI. Int J Obes 2022 46 782-792.

Curtis D. Analysis of 200,000 exome-sequenced UK Biobank subjects illustrates the contribution of rare genetic variants to hyperlipidaemia. J Med Genet 2021.

All these papers seem very relevant and I would have thought that they ought to be cited.

On 2022-01-24 04:45:33, user Isaac Núñez wrote:

This manuscript has been published at Revista de Investigación Clínica, which can be found at the following link: https://www.clinicalandtran... .

On 2020-06-11 14:13:14, user John Mallinckrodt wrote:

The thesis of this manuscript is palpable nonsense. The seven-day cycle is very clearly a reporting anomaly. To suggest that incubation periods, times to death, or any other time associated with the development of the disease could be sharply enough defined to support an explanation like this is simply absurd.

On 2021-01-05 16:49:15, user Ania Lorenc wrote:

Hi, I was wondering - have you excluded known factors contributing to severity - sex + age?

On 2022-02-01 12:17:22, user Daniel Anthony wrote:

While the primary endpoint may have been missed, the shorter illness course and attenuation of loss of smell and taste is very interesting and warrants further investigation. It also suggests that the mode of action is unlikely to be related to the inhibition of TMPRSS2 to block SPKIE activation.

On 2020-06-05 13:21:52, user Arnar Palsson wrote:

Reference 6. Falconer D, M.T. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, (London, 1996).

Has two authors, Douglas S. Falconer and Trudy F.C. Mackay

On 2021-10-24 02:36:03, user randy tangang wrote:

The great work in the analysis of how gut microbiome BA dysregulation can increase the risk of immune or metabolic disorders. As it was pointed out in the paper, lifestyle was one of the factors that were left out in this analysis of gut microbes. One factor that I thought was very important was how the environment had an influence on these microbes. The experiment used just 3 countries and all in one continent and as I know, people in different continents are exposed to different bacteria and turn to harbor different bacteria in their guts depending on the environment they live in. someone in the western world (Europe) who has access to clean water and different antibiotics in their food will have a different gut microbiome BA from someone who lives in Africa or South America where people are exposed to many bacteria on daily basis. The paper talks about using this analysis for therapeutic targets in immune or metabolic disorders. And so if the end goal is to use this universally, I recommend studying and analyzing how different environments affect gut microbes BA in different continents.

On 2021-09-27 18:07:42, user DiogenesNJ wrote:

"early attention directed towards identifying SARS-CoV-2 in returning <br /> international travelers may have led to a failure to recognize locally<br /> circulating infections..."

And why were we limited to that? A shortage of testing capability attributable to CDC's insistence on their own test, which turned out to be flawed, and FDA's refusal to allow any of several other tests developed by the private sector or universities to be used during the crucial first months of the pandemic. A classic NIH problem (Not Invented Here, not to be confused with the National Institutes of Health).

Compare and contrast with South Korea, which called in every big pharma company in the country during their New Year holiday, approved a private-sector test in early February, and had massive testing up and running in less than a month (15k tests/day capacity by the end of February).

On 2021-06-04 15:44:32, user maria rescigno wrote:

The paper is now published at JCI: doi: 10.1172/JCI149154

On 2021-08-03 21:07:59, user Everett Nelson wrote:

All-Cause Death Rate Changes are Holy Grail; much more so than "Covid-related" deaths. The reason is that Mitigation Alternatives are complex. For example, the Death By All Cause impact of a Vaccine has legions of variables, because we don't know that adding a vaccine mitigation actually reduces or maintains the existing All-Causes Death Rate. The Vaccine (or say a mask) may afford protection in some good way, but the Mitigation itself may trip things up with side-effects that actually cause death. As one example, consider masks. Is it probable that an old person forgets to take their mask off, gets in their car, starts driving, then removes their mask, gets distracted and creams a kid stepping off the curb? Odds are overwhelming that such an incident involving a mask won't be considered as causing an increase in all-cause Death Rate, but in that case it is! It's the same issue with Lockdowns to "slow the spread". Depression and suicide at increasing rates would increase the All-Cause Death Rate and MUST be measured to assist in understanding whether a given treatment is actually useful or just kills you via side effects that you're not even measuring or capable of measuring.

On 2021-08-04 07:40:42, user Mike wrote:

I'm curious about the HIV infected patients. There were exactly 100 in both vaccine and placebo group. If you look at the co-morbidity tables, no other co-morbidity is balanced in that way. I suppose it's possible that this occurred by chance but it's a very small one if so. Also, why did they include HIV+ patients in the study at all, if they exclude them from all reporting of deaths and adverse events? The HIV+ can lead long lives these days, it's not quite clear to me why they are being treated separately here, especially as it should hopefully be clear if they died of AIDS.

On 2020-09-23 07:52:50, user Subhajit Biswas wrote:

Pleased to see other scientists are supporting with further evidences, the trend we had observed and reported as early as April 2020.

Based on non-overlap of dengue and COVID-19 global severity maps and evidences of SARS-CoV-2 serological cross-reactions with dengue, we proposed that immunization of susceptible populations in Europe, North America and Asia (China, Iran) with available live-attenuated dengue vaccines, may cue the anti-viral immune response to thwart COVID-19.

https://www.preprints.org/m...

Our publications in this area to support our proposition:<br /> 1) COVID-19 Virus Infection and Transmission are Observably Less in Highly Dengue-Endemic Countries: Is Pre-Exposure to Dengue Virus Protective Against COVID-19 Severity and Mortality? Will the Reverse Scenario Be True?

Clinical and Experimental Investigations, Volume 1(2): 2-5.<br /> https://www.sciencereposito...

1. Nath, H., Mallick, A., Roy, S., Sukla, S., & Biswas, S. (2020, June 19). Computational modelling predicts that Dengue virus antibodies can bind to SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding sites: Is pre-exposure to dengue virus protective against COVID-19 severity?. https://doi.org/10.31219/os...

2. This one in medRxiv!

Now, other scientists are observing the same trend in Brazil! Exciting!

See recent publication below and news coverage

1.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10....

1. Study suggests dengue may provide some immunity against COVID-19.<br /> https://timesofindia.indiat...

Amazing! Nature has its own ways of controlling parasite aggression! Antigenic correlation between a flavivirus and a coronavirus was unprecedented.

Existing and licensed dengue vaccines could be tested in SARS CoV2 animal models and tried in dengue non-endemic countries.

Use in dengue-endemic countries may be problematic as such vaccination can elicit antibody-dependent enhancement of subsequent dengue infections.

On 2020-05-12 18:49:56, user Anne Wyllie wrote:

Hi Sui, thanks for your kind feedback! We are continuing to optimize saliva sampling for SARS-CoV-2 detection and how to increase testing capacity. The results in our preprint are from samples which are often at room temperature for up to 12 hours as they undergo processing so that is already promising to us. We store our samples frozen and even with repeated freeze/thaws for further validation our resulting CTs remain almost identical to when we processed the sample 'fresh'.

On 2021-03-19 11:46:41, user Le Marchand de Venise wrote:

Subjective claims require no debunking; they're no more than personal opinions. Science speaks the language of facts and figures only; no place for hard feelings or personalization. Thanks.

On 2020-10-31 12:07:38, user Scandinavian Journal wrote:

One issue not talked about much is that a normal HCQ dose as per on the package is not considered lethal, has been around for 50 years with good reliability and costs a few dollars for a package. If I caught the virus would I decide that this is useless because some study say so while others say it is effective ? I would of course put myself under this treatment.<br /> If it is useless well what damage did it do. If it was effective it may have saved my life or made the disease progression milder. For a few dollars. Easy choice.

On 2021-09-26 19:41:41, user kdrl nakle wrote:

The whole paper has little valuable information.

On 2020-05-02 07:01:51, user Javier Mancilla-Galindo wrote:

I believe this manuscript is lacking work in the introduction, discussion and conclusions. Authors could try adressing: Why is it useful to have done such a study besides having available local epidemiological data? What are the lessons to be learned form the experience at your center which could be of use to the medical community? What other conditions (structure of the health system, burden of disease, demographics, etc.) make Mexico unique and should be taken into account when using this study to compare to others?

Two of the main highlights of this study are the high extubation rate and low mortality rate. However, the authors have not compared enough these two outcomes to other studies and barely commented on them. It would be important to dicuss further on these topics since it could serve as an example to improve COVID-19 care and patient outcomes in other centers.

Also, further work regarding adequate references is needed. For instance: How does reference number 2 relate at all to the statement the authors are making? "The flow of information from China, Europe and the United States could be used as a basis for our population; however, we must recognise that the Mexican population has very different social and health characteristics.(2)" 2. Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:343-346.

On 2021-10-29 19:58:57, user Taylor wrote:

This paper was peer-reviewed and published in PLOS Medicine on 8/31/21: https://journals.plos.org/p...

NIH press release: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/common-genetic-disorder-blood-test-reveals-when-benign-tumors-turn-cancerous

WUSTL press release: https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/liquid-biopsies-may-aid-diagnosis-treatment-of-bladder-nerve-tumors/

Journal commentary: https://journals.plos.org/p...