On 2021-07-29 23:48:53, user Nicholas Morrish wrote:

What if the IgG you were reading was from something else, like SV40? Anecdotal evidence of pregnant women tested in the same regions showed that roughly ~10% of the populace had a SV40 infection.

On 2021-09-10 21:38:17, user anime profile picture wrote:

This study completely misses the point of young kids getting vaccinated. COVID is infectious. Meaning when someone gets the virus, it can be passed on. Whether or not they are at high risk relative to the adverse side effects, they should be vaccinated to reduce the probability of older, more at-risk people from getting it. In short, young boys should get vaccinated to protect them, their parents, their teachers, and their grandparents. Consult with your doctor of course. I am no medical professional, but I understand that a vaccine does more than protect the person being vaccinated.

On 2021-09-12 21:59:19, user Swapnil Hiremath wrote:

<reposting with="" minor="" edits="" as="" disqus="" thought="" last="" one="" was="" spam="" for="" some="" reason=""><br /> The authors have undertaken an ambitious project: briefly, taking numerators from the VAERS database, denominators from vaccine numbers from elsewhere. They then perform a ‘harm-benefit’ analysis looking at COVID hospitalization as the only harm. The whole analysis is restricted to the 12-17 age group in whom the concern of myocarditis is admittedly higher.<br /> They report a risk which was anywhere from 1.5 to 6.1 times higher for vaccine associated myocarditis vs COVID causing hospitalization. Vaccines must be bad, surely.

However, several problems are quickly apparent.<br /> 1. The rate of myocarditis is much higher than the ones reported in Ontario: 160/million for 12-15 males compared to 72.5/million from Ontario (which includes Moderna as well - which has higher rates of myocarditis than the Pfizer/BioNTech). Why would this be so? There are many possible reasons, including the overestimation from VAERS being probable cause. On a perusal of the supplement, there are many which are other viral diseases which could be the reason; additionally many descriptions are quite vague (‘the doctor told us troponin was elevated’). It is very easy to submit cases to VAERS, so the numbers reported could be an overestimate - proper case ascertainment with source documents is necessary to be sure of the cases. Needless to say, simple arithmetic to derive 'rates' is also problematic. The VAERS website specifically suggests the numbers should *not* be used for estimating rates.

1. It was not clear why the authors chose Jan 1, when vaccines EUA for 16-17 started in March, and for 12-15 in May. In their database, there seems to be one case in March and most of the VAERS reports from May or later.

3.Next, the authors make many assumptions when it comes to who had comorbidities and who did not among the children, and multiply numbers to come up with some crude estimates. It would be useful for a pediatric diseases researcher to assess these assumptions. The 40% assumption of children hospitalized 'with COVID' and not due to COVID is a very crude untruth that the authors and others have needlessly perpetuated on social media with little foundation.

1. Most importantly, the authors assume that hospitalization is the only bad thing for children who develop COVID. Some 12-17 years olds have died due to COVID, and some may have had a 1 day hospital stay - their analysis treats these equally and incorrectly. Some teens developed MIS-C. Some developed longer term sequelae. To group them under ‘hospitalization’ seems overly simplistic. Similarly, from perusing some of the vaccine-myocarditis, many seem to have recovered with symptomatic care alone. The authors seem to be minimizing COVID and maximizing vaccine associated adverse events.

2. It should be noted that the involvement of children in the first two waves seems to be different than the one we have seen in the last 2 months with delta (for whatever reason - perhaps with lower immunization numbers in these).

3. Lastly, the pandemic is not yet done. Many more children are going to get COVID in the next few months and years. We are going to have many more hospitalization, morbidity and sadly many more deaths. There will be long term morbidity and sequalae. We do need better data to assess the risks and benefits. This study is not it.

Unfortunately this study has been picked up uncritically by media and will worsen vaccine hesitancy. This seems unwise in the face of an ongoing pandemic.

On 2022-01-30 16:41:48, user Mary Beth Baker wrote:

Am a non-medical, non-math lay person, but in the comparison with the influenza pandemic of 1918/1919, it says that 1/4 of the US population was infected whereas 1/5 has been infected with Covid-19. Doesn't that make influenza worse, so far anyway? 6 in every 1,000 died of the spanish flu in US. How many per 1,000 of Covid so far?

On 2021-01-15 14:58:17, user Lane Dedrick wrote:

What was the standard care treatment regimen? Did those in the experiment arms receive steroids? Did those in the standard care control arm receive steroids?<br /> What were the outcomes of the ivermectin only arm?

On 2020-04-16 07:46:42, user Hamdi Torun wrote:

https://uploads.disquscdn.c... The dataset in the papers is now outdated. If the authors use the new dataset in terms of the metrics they chose to use, the correlations will be poor. This graph shows an updated version of their Fig. 1 as of April 16th. More importantly, the reliability of the released data by the governments should be questioned. Even if the datasets are reliable, correlation does not imply causality.

On 2020-04-22 20:00:15, user Hamdi Torun wrote:

This is what the paper says. I did not check the policies of the countries, simply checked the correlations based on the date of a particular date.

On 2020-04-10 17:57:16, user Ciprian1979 wrote:

That's why we, in Romania, have been vaccinated 3 times with BCG: as infants and twice in the first grade!

On 2025-04-30 18:19:45, user James Pirruccello wrote:

This was published in 2024 in the EHJ at https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/45/40/4318/7731683

On 2020-04-14 19:47:35, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

Main findings:

The aim of this study was to assess an association between reduced blood lymphocyte counts at hospital admission and prognosis of COVID-19 patients (n=192). The authors found:<br /> - Patients with lymphopenia are more likely to progress to severe disease or succumb to COVID-19 (32.1% of COVID-19 patients with lymphocyte reduction died). <br /> - Reduction of lymphocytes mainly affects the elderly (> 70 years old). <br /> - Lymphocyte reduction is more prevalent in COVID-19 patients with cardiac disease and pulmonary disease, patients with increase in the chest CT score (key marker of lung injury) and a decrease in several respiratory function markers (PaCO2, SpO2, oxygenation index).

Limitations of the study:

Reduced blood lymphocyte counts with aging have been known (https://www.medrxiv.org/con... "https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.08.20031229v2)") https://onlinelibrary.wiley... "https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/sji.12413)"). Therefore, it is not unexpected that a larger fraction of COV ID-19 patients above 70 years old have lower lymphocytes counts. Since age has been reported to be a major factor that determines outcome for COVID-19, lymphocyte counts and prognosis should have been adjusted by age. Multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors is lacking.

Relevance:

Previous studies demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to a decrease of the T cell count. This study confirms these results and shows that lymphocyte reduction mainly affects the elderly. Lymphopenia was associated with disease severity as well as worse prognosis. Future studies need to address if lymphopenia is a negative predictive factor independent from age.

Review by Meriem Belabed as part of a project by students, postdocs and faculty at the Immunology Institute of the Icahn school of medicine, Mount Sinai

On 2022-04-15 17:26:22, user Young Juhn wrote:

A version of this article has been accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) published by Oxford University Press. A link will be forthcoming.

On 2022-08-14 18:37:59, user Jason wrote:

Interesting manuscript, can see how it can easily be used in practice looking at the predictive variables chosen

On 2021-07-15 07:57:35, user John Lambiase wrote:

What's truly interesting is that no one is talking about Fructose and refined sugar activating long term NLRP3 inflammasome in the Monocyte which reprograms the monocyte on a path of inflammation and upregulation of Reactive oxygen species which lowers nitric oxide in Endothelium. Sars CoV-2 seems to have a knack of exploiting and exacerbating this chronic inflammation in patients leading to an acute medical malody.

What deactivates NLRP3 inflammasome? Olive Oil, Melatonin, Vitamin D Fish Oil, Resveritrol, Quercetin etal. Been taking doses of Oleic Acid for months because of all the research I was finding. Cashews high in Oleic Acid. If this all comes down to Anti Oxidants vs Oxidants then medicine is going to have serious explaining to do. Unfortunately that would never get out.

On 2025-10-09 06:04:12, user Christiane Wesarg-Menzel wrote:

The peer-reviewed version of this article has now been published by Journal of Neural Transmission: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-025-03034-7

On 2020-04-28 05:45:23, user Dong-Ha Oh wrote:

Where are Figures 1, 2, and 3?

On 2021-02-22 02:12:28, user Sanjeev Mangrulkar wrote:

Was there a control group in this study where the neutralising antibodies developed after natural infection were tested for their efficacy against the newer mutants of the virus?

On 2021-07-29 13:25:58, user DogDays wrote:

Are there any likewise studies in relation to Nocebo and vaccine efficacy?

On 2021-07-30 13:24:50, user ALEX wrote:

No mention to side effects??

On 2021-08-04 12:24:22, user Will Helm wrote:

regarding the 29 deaths, this number seems under-rated to me. <br /> Guess what, here's a novelty, PEOPLE DO DIE, with or without Pfizer shot. <br /> 29 dead over a six months period for 44'000 people is certainly consistent with the US demographics which actually would yield 230 deaths for all causes. Something's not right here.<br /> Check mortality table

On 2021-08-06 15:18:01, user Robert Clark wrote:

It is notable that the number of deaths six months after the vaccine is not reduced. This might be because the number of deaths due to COVID overall is percentage-wise too small for a difference to show up in this trial.

A question I have is specifically for the elderly cases. Is the number of deaths or life-threatening events higher, lower of the same for that case?

Robert Clark

On 2020-03-31 22:51:51, user Ruth Etzioni wrote:

When will the actual description of the model be available?

On 2020-04-05 13:34:51, user Jon Watters wrote:

Impressive graphing. But the projections compared by date to what has actually happened in my state, the projections are laughably high.

On 2020-04-01 11:46:11, user Philip Shaw wrote:

Is there any mathematical description of the model available?

On 2021-03-23 17:35:47, user Nita Goldstein Goldband wrote:

With respect to seniors and cancer patients. Those in long term care received doses according to the manufacturers schedule. We need to closely monitor immunity in those who have just received first doses. My concern is how slowly we make decisions in Canada and how nimble our provinces can be about rescheduling second vaccines if further research supports a more rapid response

On 2021-08-16 00:29:09, user Robert Kaus wrote:

There is no Sputnik vaccine in the US, but good question about the J&J vaccine. No one seems to care about that one so it never gets looked at.

On 2021-08-14 19:03:13, user mattbianco wrote:

Extremely misleading statement. PCR is the most accurate test available. It is the antigen text that is less reliable, especially in the first few days of infection.

On 2021-08-12 19:49:26, user Steven Ramirez wrote:

From the preprint:

"Date of vaccination (bucketed). For a given individual in the mRNA-1273 cohort who<br /> received their first vaccine dose on a given date, only individuals in the BNT162b2<br /> cohort who were vaccinated on the same date or within two weeks after that date were<br /> considered for matching. This match helps to ensure that matched individuals reach their<br /> date of full vaccination (14 days after the second dose) on approximately the same date."

This seemingly addresses my point and effectively controls for diminution over time.

Perhaps an explicit sentence in the preprint would help clarify this point.

On 2020-04-19 10:43:00, user n1oftheabove wrote:

Would you share the curated data publicly, e.g. via github?

On 2025-07-21 19:05:55, user Anna Holmes wrote:

This article has been published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, published by Oxford University Press: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf265

On 2021-08-27 10:14:26, user Guy André Pelouze wrote:

I have a question: is there any further details about the AU used in this recent paper? Are WHO equivalent mentioned anywhere? <br /> Thank you.

On 2022-01-05 08:51:23, user One bird one cup wrote:

I really appreciate the discussion, but I'm a normal non-doctor/academic/researcher. And I just spent 15 minutes trying to find out what OR means.. can you help? Not trying to be snarky... I look up acronyms probably about ten times a day on any and all topics. Sometimes can't find them.. I get a little cranky

On 2021-09-03 11:57:20, user Lardo wrote:

For the sake of saving vaccine doses, sure, this study makes sense. It just seems to me, the problem is largely that not enough people are willing to take vaccines, not the shortage. Even in Israel, where the vaccination rate is among the highest in the world, it's nowhere near ~70% that's required for herd immunity.

On 2021-08-30 07:23:22, user Martijn Weterings wrote:

The point of vaccination is to *prevent* infection.

Acquiring natural immunity is *not* doing that, because it is equal to getting the infection (and thus it does not prevent infection, it only prevents future secondary infections).

With this I am not saying that vaccination of young healthy people is necessary. That is a different comparison of risks. I am arguing against the argument of 'natural infection being a good way to prevent infection'.

On 2021-09-09 14:15:40, user 4qmmt wrote:

First of all, the infection rate per 100,000 or per million is meaningless unless you know the exposure rates.

The raw numbers do tell a significant story. In all of August, 375 vaccinated died, 218 unvaccinated died. 62 of those who died had already received their third shot! 75% of the deceased were 80+. Their ages were as follows: 90+ = 197, 80-89 = 248; 70-79 = 111; 60-69 = 39; 50-59 = 17, 40-49 = 3, 30-39 = 1.

In recent years, Israel averages about 125 in deaths per day. Average life span is 83 years. So more than 70% of the deaths were among those at or well beyond the average life expectancy.

This also tells us that at least 158 people >70 were unvaccinated; at least 47 people >80 were unvaccinated. Why were 80+ year-olds not vaccinated? Are these "anti-vaxxers?" Not likely. Much more likely, they are people with poor health who would have been equally in danger from the vaccine.

More importantly, how do we know they died from Covid? Positive tests are extremely inconclusive without symptoms and even then, may be due to influenza, something that the MoH reports is responsible for an average of 16 deaths per day (496/mo) in Israel in people with co-morbidities.

In fact, of the 593 deaths in August, 57 died 30 days or more after they tested positive, 7 more than 4 months after testing positive. 67 people were already in the hospital before they ever tested positive. Did these people all really die from Covid?

In summary, there is much more going on than simply' vaccines work' because the rates/100,000 are relatively low. That is misrepresenting reality.

Saying "every legitimate analysis shows that the risks of being unvaccinated are far far far greater than any risks of vaccination" is mispresenting reality.

In what age group? In men 16-19, there are no small number of studies showing great risk from the vaccine with little to no risk from Covid. MoH's own data says chance of myocarditis, potentially deadly, is 1 in 6,347. Yet, chance of 10-19 year-olds dying from Covid is less than 1 in 40,000.

On 2021-09-10 19:28:25, user Hucello Chuyucello, PhD wrote:

I did not say that there is no comorbidities in tested model, I said INTERACTION. The group that received vaccine looks overall less healthy.

On 2022-01-04 12:51:47, user Jerry Hicks wrote:

What makes you think that mutations on the nucleocapsid are anymore stable than the mutations on the spike protein? At least with the spike protein the mutations are limited by it being able to interact with the ace2 receptor. The nucleocapsid as far as I know has more degree of freedom to change confirmation with regards to it's protien fold.

Also the T cell epitopes for alpha, Delta, and omicron have all been the same so your last comment couldn't be any more false.

On 2021-10-14 04:42:40, user gzuckier wrote:

They did not, however, match subjects according to "dead from first exposure to covid" which is what the other things are only proxies for.<br /> Given that the vaccinated group's actual test being scored is "death from first exposure to covid" you can see that this is a problem.

On 2021-09-15 17:20:34, user James Smith wrote:

No, OP is correct. It's the other way around. Fully vaccinated people are at a 6x greater risk of a breakout infection than unvaccinated people with a prior natural infection. So fully vaccinated people have a 6x greater risk of catching covid. Of course 6x is a little deceiving because both groups are much less likely to catch covid than someone who is unvaccinated and has never had covid.

On 2020-08-22 20:39:16, user Abhishek Singh wrote:

Reminds me of one of the paper we had written before COVID - https://arxiv.org/abs/1912....<br /> This looked at the physician notes instead of X-ray. A combined multi-task learning model could be more powerful.

On 2021-01-19 14:48:37, user Laura Green wrote:

The authors' inability to control for potentially important cofounders renders this paper's conclusions unreliable.

On 2020-03-05 09:13:52, user Jørgen K. Kanters wrote:

Important paper but needs to be improved to be a High flier. First around 50 % had a hypertensive history. In an American population that would mean hypertension is protective. You need an age gender matched control population from the same area to compare with. Furthermore you miss a very important point. Which medicine prescriptions had the patients before admission? ACE Inhibitors and A2 antagonists as the most interesting. Again compared to a control population

On 2020-10-07 12:44:20, user Iratxe Puebla wrote:

Review completed as part of ASAPbio’s #PreprintReviewChallenge

The study examines the incidence of heart disease deaths in the early pandemic period in the US (30 March to April 26) in areas without large COVID-19 outbreaks. The authors sought to study whether a decline in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admissions was linked to either a higher mortality rate (which would suggest avoidance of care seeking), or lower mortality (which may suggest less triggers for AMI). The authors use data from the CDC’s s National Center for Health Statistics and apply inclusion criteria requiring >97% completeness for the data.

The study includes data from a reliable source and includes controls involving a comparison to incidence of heart disease deaths in the same period in 2019 and 4 weeks earlier in 2020. While the study is observational and can only point to trends and not explain the reported decrease in incidence of heart disease death in several states during the study period, it helps surface this trend and opens lines for further research to evaluate whether the trend will sustain over a longer period and if so, look into the potential factors behind the trend. If the trend were to sustain over time and was found not to be associated with misclassification of death cause, it may provide avenues to identify factors that can reduce triggers for AMI.

Minor comments<br /> - The authors indicate ‘The primary analysis captured 747,375,188 person-weeks for the early pandemic period and 101,620,248 person-weeks for the 2019 control period’ the number of person weeks for the control period is considerably lower, can the authors provide some context for this, and whether this may have any influence on the analysis?<br /> - The abstract indicates ‘The mean incidence rate (per 100,000 person-weeks) for heart disease in states without excess deaths during the early pandemic period was 3.95 (95% CI 3.83 to 4.06) versus 4.19 (95% CI 4.14 to 4.23) during the corresponding period in 2019’, the Results section reads ‘The mean incidence rate (per 100,000 person-weeks) for heart disease in states without excess deaths during the early pandemic period was 3.95 (95% CI 3.83 to 4.06) versus 4.35 (95% CI 4.23 to 4.48)’ it appears they need to be updated to match?

Questions for the authors<br /> - Now that we have data from four additional months into the pandemic, are the authors planning an extension to the analysis?<br /> - For the states where an increase in the incidence of heart disease deaths was observed, the authors mention the possibility of harm due to avoidance of care, misclassification during a period of excess deaths and COVID-19 itself increasing cardiovascular deaths. Do the authors think that capacity at hospitals may have been a factor behind any increase in heart disease deaths? E.g. related to prioritization of COVID-19 admissions vs others.

On 2025-05-28 14:47:48, user Soroosh Solhjoo wrote:

Published in Heart Rhythm: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.08.054

On 2022-12-15 10:49:12, user Author wrote:

We would like to reply to a comment entitled “Japan preprint on myocarditis used inadequate methods to suggest COVID-19 vaccines cause more myocarditis deaths”: a review by Health Feedback (Editor: Ms. Flora Teoh). <br /> https://healthfeedback.org/...

We thank them for commenting on our paper. We understand their main points of criticism were three summarised as followings:

1. Comparison of pre-pandemic and post-pandemic rates of myocarditis death (their 2nd point)

2. No examination of history of myocarditis death and ignored COVID-19 as the cause (their 1st point)

3. Sample size was too small to discuss causality

1. comparison of pre-pandemic and post-pandemic rates of myocarditis death (their 2nd point)

Their 2nd point is based on the fundamental misunderstanding on the methods of our study. They erroneously stated "The authors' association of change in the risk of myocarditis death associated with COVID-19 vaccines was based on comparing pre-pandemic and post-pandemic rates of myocarditis death". <br /> We compared myocarditis mortality in the SARS-CoV-2 VACCINATED population with that of the 2017-2019 (pre-pandemic period: reference) population; we did NOT compare myocarditis mortality between POST-PANDEMIC and pre-pandemic periods.<br /> Because of the misunderstanding the fundamental methods of our study, the following criticism have no sense:<br /> “But this assumes that the only thing that changed between the two periods is the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines. It excludes, without justification, the possibility that COVID-19 itself could produce an increase in myocarditis deaths. No reason was given by the authors for excluding COVID-19 as a potential explanation, despite the fact that COVID-19 is a more likely explanation than COVID-19 vaccines for an increase.” “This is because we know—based on previous published studies—that COVID-19 is more likely to lead to cardiac complications than the vaccines [1,2]. Therefore, the alleged causal association rests on the assumption that only COVID-19 vaccines can explain the change in myocarditis mortality, which isn’t true.”<br /> However, we would like to comments on “COVID-19 is more likely to lead to cardiac complications than the vaccines” referring reports by Block et al [1], and Patone et al [2,3].<br /> It is important to consider following three points; vaccines are not given to dying persons and to persons with fever or other acute diseases. Hence vaccinated people are relatively healthier than the non-vaccinated (healthy vaccinee effect) [4]. Conversely, vulnerable persons (frail, suppressed immunity due to stress or sleep debt etc) are more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 (vulnerability confounding bias: VCB) [5].

Patone et al. [1] stated in the discussion section as follows: “Of note, the estimated IRRs were consistently <1 in the pre-exposure period before vaccination. ---- This was expected because events are unlikely to happen shortly before vaccination (relatively healthy people are receiving the vaccine).” This is exactly the same as the healthy vaccinee effect [4] and it is the lowest at day 0 of vaccination [2]: for example, IRR of arrhythmia at day 0 of BNT162b2 vaccination was 0.33 (0.29 to 0.37) compared with 0.72(0.70 to 0.73) during -28 to -1 days before vaccination [2]. <br /> Paton et al [1] also discussed that the estimated IRRs were consistently >1 in the pre-risk period before a SARS-CoV-2–positive test. They thought that events are more likely to happen before a SARS-CoV-2–positive test (as a standard procedure, patients admitted to the hospital are tested for SARS-CoV-2). But they missed to discuss that IRRs on day 0 of vaccination are the most prominent (with 10 times more than that in the pre-risk period, because standard testing of SARS-CoV-2 is mostly done on the day of admission). Hence, constant IRR >1 during -28 to -1 days before vaccination may be another cause. It may be explained by the vulnerability confounding bias [5].<br /> We estimated the effect of vulnerable person’s susceptibility to infection (vulnerability confounding bias: VCB) from the pre-risk period (-28 to -1 days) of the SARS-CoV-2 test-positive group: 2.84 (1.89 to 4.28) for myocarditis and 4.82 (4.68 to 4.97) for arrhythmia. When applied these data for the index of VCB, VCB-adjusted IRRs are 3.44 (2.11 to 5.59) and 1.11 (1.07 to 1.16) which are similar to or less than the healthy vaccinee effect adjusted IRRs of myocarditis (3.97: 3.05 to 5.16) and arrythmia (2.70: 2.38 to 3.05) respectively [4].<br /> It is not possible to estimate the healthy-vaccinee effect and VCB directly from the report of Block et al [3], however, post-SARS-CoV-2 infection/post-vaccination myocarditis risk ratios may be less than 1.00 in almost half of those listed when above adjustments were applied.

2. No examination of history of myocarditis death and ignored COVID-19 as the cause (their 1st point)

This point is also derived from the fundamental misunderstanding on the methods of our study. We did NOT compare myocarditis mortality between POST-PANDEMIC and pre-pandemic periods BUT compared SARS-CoV-2 VACCINATED population for 28 DAYS after vaccination with pre-pandemic periods. <br /> Therefore, as a rule, deaths following SARS-CoV-2 infection were not included in this study. In fact, none had COVID-19 listed in the death cause column of cases included in this analysis.<br /> Moreover, in the MHWL list we referred; most deaths included brief medical history as well as the cause of death. We clearly stated that “these were myocarditis death cases reported by physicians as serious adverse reactions to the vaccine” in the Methods section.<br /> Furthermore, as we stated in the discussion section, myocarditis deaths in the 2017-2019 (reference) population were also based on a doctor's diagnosis, with no other medical history known. Mevorach et al [6] also analysed using the same methodology and already published as a peer reviewed paper.

3 Sample size is too small to discuss causality

This point is also derived from the fundamental misunderstanding on the methods of our study. We compared SARS-CoV-2 VACCINATED population for 28 DAYS after vaccination with pre-pandemic periods. Hence this sample size was enough to demonstrate increased myocarditis mortality rate ratio after vaccination.<br /> As we stated in the end of the discussion section and in supplemental Table S6, all of the Modified US Surgeon General criteria for causal were satisfied.

Sincerely,<br /> Watanabe and Hama.

References<br /> [1] Block JP, Boehmer TK, Forrest CB, et al. Cardiac Complications After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination - PCORnet, United States, January 2021-January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71:517-23. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/...<br /> [2] Patone M, Mei XW, Handunnetthi L, et al. Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex. Circulation. 2022; 146(10):743-54. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970<br /> [3] Patone M, Mei XW, Handunnetthi L, et al. Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Med. 2022; 28(2):410-22. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01630-0<br /> [4] Hama R and Watanabe S. The risk of vaccination may be higher by considering “healthy vaccinee effect” Response to Husby et al: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj... (Published 16 December 2021)<br /> Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content...<br /> (Accessed 30 November 2022)<br /> [5] Hama R and Watanabe S. Vulnerability confounding bias should be taken into account in assessing risk of post SARS-CoV-2 infection: an opposite concept of healthy-vaccinee effect (Under submission)<br /> [6] Mevorach D, Anis E, Cedar N, et al. Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel. N Engl J Med. 2021; 385(23):2140-49. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2109730

On 2020-03-25 17:03:41, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

Summary: Most common chronic conditions among 25 patients that died from COVID-19 related respiratory failure were hypertension (64%) and diabetes (40%). Disease progression was marked by progressive organ failure, starting first with lung dysfunction, then heart (e.g. increased cTnI and pro-BNP), followed by kidney (e.g. increased BUN, Cr), and liver (e.g. ALT, AST). 72% of patients had neutrophilia and 88% also had lymphopenia. General markers of inflammation were also increased (e.g. PCT, D-Dimer, CRP, LDH, and SAA).

Limitations: The limitations of this study include small sample size and lack of measurements for some tests for several patients. This study would also have been stronger with comparison of the same measurements to patients suffering from less severe disease to further validate and correlate proposed biomarkers with disease severity.

Importance: This study identifies chronic conditions (i.e. hypertension and diabetes) that strongly correlates with disease severity. In addition to general markers of inflammation, the authors also identify concomitant neutrophilia and lymphopenia among their cohort of patients. This is a potentially interesting immunological finding because we would typically expect increased lymphocytes during a viral infection. Neutrophilia may also be contributing to cytokine storm. In addition, PCT was elevated in 90.5% of patients, suggesting a role for sepsis or secondary bacterial infection in COVID-19 related respiratory failure.

On 2025-06-10 14:15:34, user Mark Drakesmith wrote:

Article now published in Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Noisy and User-generated Text

https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.wnut-1.1

On 2020-07-22 03:42:29, user Steven Hall wrote:

I would love to know was there any determination as to the best wearable. <br /> I run a Circulation Clinic and We have all of our Clients use wearable to help us get the best results. You feed back would be very helpful. Blessings Steven Hall Director of the Fountain of Youth Circulation Clinics 425-770-9466 https://happyheartclinic.com/

On 2022-04-14 07:45:08, user Ross wrote:

How was first time infection defined? If it is purely based on a reported infection from previous testing this would appear to be a major confounding factor. Assuming that an unidentified asymptomatic or mild case of Delta provides moderate or better protection against subsequent Delta infection and symptoms, this may increase the chances that this is a first time delta infection and hence may bias it to being more severe than if it was a reinfection. By contrast if the same infection provides only limited protection against omicron infection but reduces symptom severity - as the vaccines designed for earlier variants are reported to do with omicron - this could be a 2nd covid infection, with the first being delta and now this one omicron. Hence it appears to be biased to being less likely to be a first covid infection for the omicron group than the delta group despite the Delta2 group added in this study.

On 2021-09-19 07:32:59, user Nomoglobalization wrote:

Because we’re not going to have long term outcomes at this point.

The mechanisms of the vaccine and natural immune response are identical.

Even if antibodies aren’t circulating 6 months post the T cells will still kick in quickly.

At some point you’ll lose those memory cells, but that’s going to occur years later, not within months.

Unless this virus is unique relative to anything we’ve vaccinated for before, there is no reason to believe we’ll lose those T cells at such an early date.

Because it’s not really at all dependent on the virus at all, it’s dependent on T cells which behave consistently regardless of the pathogen.

That said, this could be a magical virus that wipes out the memory T cells.

I should be quiet, before I give anyone new ideas.

On 2021-07-18 19:04:01, user Jewbacca wrote:

There’s a ton of studies one web search away. Here’s the most commonly cited:

https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

On 2025-02-21 05:12:28, user Evan Stanbury wrote:

Re "PVS participants also had lower anti-spike antibody titers, primarily due to fewer vaccine doses", ie the people with more vaccine doses had less PVS. This contradicts the hypothesis that vaccines cause Post-Vaccine Syndrome, since the dose-response relationship contradicts the hypothesis.

On 2021-10-27 15:17:33, user Edward Jones wrote:

I find this study very biased considering they use the 16.7% with such a small sample size, usually you'd discount that number. Also no consideration was given to the type of virus being investigated, the paper is regarding SARS COV and yet you quote 16.7% inaccuracy in Ebola virus. Furthermore, the statement saying that uninfected individuals will be in risk of exposure is nonsense. A false positive would mean they may have to isolate, having the opposite effect.

On 2020-05-20 14:45:40, user OxImmuno Literature Initiative wrote:

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

On 2020-05-07 13:34:42, user Heather Lipkind wrote:

Hoping this sparks more research. We have localized it within the placenta to the syncytiotrophoblast. Much to learn about SARS-CoV-2.

On 2021-03-14 10:34:35, user KalleMP wrote:

There are a number of data errors in this report. Having looked at 5 of the original 25 papers listed here I find that errors that are significant have been made in at least 4 of them.

The Turkey values are 75.5% deficient and 16.61nmol/l median instead of the listed 70nmol/l.

Bosnia reads 24.4% and should be 60.6% (their mean is 48.25nmol/l)

Italy reads 33.3% but a weighted average is closer to 30.7%<br /> Italy has used values from the highest performing Vitamin-D region and compared them to the national CoViD-19 figures which are accepted to be low.

Finland has used the native Finnish values and compared them to the national CoViD-19 figures which include immigrants who are more deficient yet represent a larger portion of the CoViD-19 figures.

On 2021-01-27 10:19:32, user Fred wrote:

I am not convinced of the data. Eg for Germany it is presumed that only about 1 of 10 infections is detected. The data I know from Germany say this number ist only 2-4 . So the IFR for Germany would not be O.2% but at least o.4 or even near to 1 %

On 2020-05-22 16:02:44, user Ivan Berlin wrote:

There are more health care workers among those who tested positive for SARS-CoV2 than among those who tested negative (31.14 vs 14.27 %). Health care workers are more likely to be non smokers or former smokers. Did you look at the association of current smoking prevalence and being health care worker? Being health care worker may confound the observed lower current smoking prevalence among SARS-CoV2 positive individuals.

On 2022-01-10 09:28:33, user RBNZ wrote:

How can there be 83 covid related events in the unvaccinated population (n=11)? 3 of the unvaccinated had "No chronic disease", does that mean that 8 had chronic disease? This would be a significant confounder due the small size of the unvaccinated.

On 2020-04-22 12:04:06, user Katri Jalava wrote:

Nice. You could add a figure/map 1c with the current case load or prevalence. Also, would like to know the result of how your model fits to current data. Ie. has the beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak in Africa and India followed your conclusions, that cases to Africa came through airtraffic from Europe and in India transmission has been mostly within the country.

On 2020-10-23 20:18:59, user María José wrote:

I do believe that this article is so interesting, as it combines the biological and clinical basis in once article. I just want to say congratulate them. On the other hand, I have some questions about your article, the first one, why didn't you include Anexina V? The second, the final part of the protocol why was it not controlled and why the sample size wasn´t bigger?

On 2020-08-17 14:11:29, user Aaron J. Courtney wrote:

Is the mask modeling based upon a surgical mask? Have you rerun the model assuming everyone wore N95s? Any eye protection to guard against conjunctiva infection? What factor did aerosol transmission, particularly fecal and urine aerosolization in community rest rooms, account for infectivity calculus? (recall Hong Kong high rise apartment building SARS-CoV-1 outbreak caused by faulty plumbing)

On 2020-09-19 12:32:13, user kdrl nakle wrote:

GO could be toxic to lungs so it is not all clear from this whether this can be avoided in mask design.

On 2021-08-05 20:15:56, user Ultrafiltered wrote:

I would have liked to have seen a non-biased statistical sample set with double blind quality control, n>15, to provide statistically correct results, in addition to Dimich's comments below.

On 2020-07-09 08:15:09, user Yerlan wrote:

This work has been published in the Electronic Journal of General Medicine, DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/8346

On 2020-08-24 11:06:25, user Atif Habib wrote:

An excellent paper which provided the importance of short birth intervals and the associated factors in the context of Pakistan. The results indicate that lack of contraception and illiteracy significantly contribute to the problem however it is pretty evident that priority should be given to modern contraception which is comparatively a low hanging fruit in comparison to averting illiteracy.

On 2024-02-20 15:54:40, user John wrote:

Chesekes et al (2022) utilise 2 different defibrillators in their trial.<br /> Zoll X series - rectilinear biphasic - 120,150, 200 j protocol<br /> Lifepak 15 - truncated exponential biphasic - 200, 300, 360 j protocol<br /> Both have a 15% variance in actual energy delivered.<br /> Is there consideration to be made to the range of energy delivered to the VC and DSD cohorts?<br /> VC - 200J Zoll 360J Lifepak<br /> DSD - 400J Zoll 720J Lifepak<br /> Should future trials use a single type of defibrillator to remove this as a possible confounding variable?

On 2020-05-04 06:30:08, user japhetk wrote:

This study has serious flaws and I will reject if I were a reviewer.

First, this study doesn't have a control data such as the blood sample of a few years ago. Although, the kit maker advocates the specificity of 100%, various test kits including the innovita's one which championed 100% specificity were already shown to show the inferior data compared with the maker's advocates.

Second, as pointed out,

Tests were done for randomly selected preserved serum from patients who visited outpatient clinics of the hospital and received blood testing for any reason. Patients who visited the emergency department or the designated fever consultation service were excluded to avoid the overestimation of SARS-Cov-2 infection.

SARS-COVID-19 is already known to cause atypical symptoms even in the "asymptomatic" (in terms of typical symptoms of infection) such as stroke, and various other thrombotic symptoms. So, this exclusion criteria is not enough apparently to avoid biased sampling and overestimation.

In Japan, this apparently seriously flawed study without review is reported widely and people even some doctors now say the real fatality rate of SARS-COVID-19 is 0.05%! based on this study (they seemed to have forgotten Japanese patients in the diamond princess ship showed the higher mortality rate compared with age-matched patients of westerners in the same ship). This is a nightmare for the public health of Japan.

On 2021-12-01 22:44:50, user Tom wrote:

The susceptibility of Chilrden was estimated by PCR-Testing alone and has a high variance in the 95-CI. I guess the numbers may be even lower.

On 2021-12-17 11:01:11, user Ctina wrote:

Considering that those with natural immunity have antibodies against other proteins in the virus than just the spike, wouldn’t making conclusions on effectiveness of natural immunity on Omicron based on a pseudotype containing only the highly mutated spike protein be problematic?

On 2021-02-23 15:39:35, user Paige wrote:

Very good point about the PPE! I am also worried people will ease up. I haven't received my vaccine yet, but my family members that are fully vaccinated have definitely been educated by me on how they have to keep taking strict precautions. I am hopeful we will get more answers soon that will at least support vaccinated people being able to see vaccinated people. It's been a long, hard year!

On 2025-09-23 18:11:20, user rhaphazard wrote:

Can you link to the X/twitter thread mentioned here?

On 2021-07-04 13:13:09, user Sebastian Rosemann wrote:

Dear authors,

you write: "For each country we predicted the ‘baseline’ mortality in 2020 based on the 2015–2019 data (accounting for linear trend and seasonal variation; see Methods). We then obtained excess mortality as the difference between the actual 2020 and 2021 all-cause mortality and our baseline. For each country we computed the total excess mortality from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (from March 2020) (Figure 2, Table 1)"

For Germany Table 1 shows 36.000 excess deaths, which makes up 4% increase, suggesting a baseline of 900.000 for March 2020 - Mai 23th 2021.<br /> According to destatis<br /> https://www.destatis.de/DE/...<br /> the yearly number of deaths for 2015-2019 in Germany was always above 900.000.<br /> How can your baseline for a timespan of ~14 month be lower than the actual number of deaths for 12 months within the last years?

On 2021-07-29 07:39:07, user ncn wrote:

Will this preprint be submitted to a peer-review journal? Wish the research team all the best.

On 2020-07-17 01:54:28, user Born in Akron wrote:

Is LD-RT a widely known specific therapy? This paper does not indicate the type of radiation. X-rays, Gamma rays, proton accelerator, sun lamp? The dose is 1.5 Grays = 1.5 Joules/kg = 150 rad. But the biological effect in rem or Sieverts depends on the type of radiation and duration of the exposure. Even if LD-RT is always, say, X-rays, shouldn't the effects depend on the energy of the X-rays? Unless LD-RT has a unique definition this preprint is deliberately irreproducible, perhaps to gain advantage for patent protection during a worldwide pandemic.

On 2022-01-06 21:58:54, user zlmark wrote:

The interpretation the authors give to what they have actually calculated is highly misleading.

What they compute is the probability of a single transmission event in a *specific place*, whereas in order to estimate the costs of the policy, one needs to compute the probability of a transmission in *any one of the places* of the given type, which is several orders of magnitude larger.

Moreover, they completely ignore the compounding effect, though which even minor differences in R can lead to exponentially growing difference in the number of cases.

So no - 1000 people do NOT need to be excluded to prevent one COVID case - not even close.

On 2020-08-09 16:36:55, user David Leidner wrote:

Posted article says that data are fully available, but no link to the data is provided.

On 2020-09-10 21:35:51, user Nadav Rakocz wrote:

This paper was presented as part of the KDD'20 AI for COVID-19 workshop.<br /> A short talk can be found here: https://insights.kensci.com...

Or here:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

On 2021-07-29 06:28:47, user Astrid Fuchs wrote:

The household follow up included the development of symptoms, why wasn't this evaluated?<br /> In case unvacvinated cases with symptoms contract to others this would be expected, but would enable to have respective mitigation measures like quarantine.<br /> But the open question is, if asymptomatic vaccinated can contract the virus without knowing which is higher risk to society. <br /> Would appreciate to see a split in symptomatic and asymptomatic too to adress most important question for society, esp. after CDC information this week that their data shows similar infection risk by vaccinated and unvacvinated even when in different setting.

On 2021-02-19 20:04:10, user Jacqueline J Clarke wrote:

Have you confused the symbols lesser than and greater than ? The occupying sentences don't make sense ?

On 2020-04-19 18:00:50, user Shang Tsung wrote:

This so called study is wrong all along.First i am surprised that the authors, among which supposedly there is an epidemiologist fail at the first basic premise of Epidemiology - non-linearity.Even looking back at Spanish Flu there were extremely strong non-linear occurences which do not lend itself to reasonable modeling ante factum.Same thing happened to attemtps to model SARS , then MERS , then Swine-Flu and so on.Also you claim that more elderly actually die from COVID than reported due to not testing, i claim exactly the oppositte, based on the current data.What i mean - in recent publications the lead pathologist of Hamburg , did a series of autopsies on alleged COVID deaths(tested positve post mortem) , what he found out that not a single person died solely or directly because of SARS 2 ! (https://www.mopo.de/hamburg...I "https://www.mopo.de/hamburg/rechtsmediziner--ohne-vorerkrankung-ist-in-hamburg-an-covid-19-noch-keiner-gestorben--36508928)I") strongly beleive that the case is the same for Sweden, just looking at the age structure of the deaths, the great majority of them are above 80, i would be more than curious if they do autopsies on a good number of the those alleged deaths , to check for real death cause.As of today 19.04, Stockholm reported the lowest number of new positive tests in a month, which completely support Anders Tegnell projection, that the Stockhlom peak is already due.

On 2021-01-15 20:36:01, user Yves Muscat Baron wrote:

Could changes in the airborne pollutant particulate matter acting as a viral vector have exerted selective pressure to cause COVID-19 evolution? Medical Hypotheses DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110401Reference:YMEHY

On 2025-08-27 17:03:43, user Emma wrote:

What is the Asterix on the last bar in the graph in figure 2. I cannot find reference to it

On 2020-04-25 20:17:25, user Pasquale Valente wrote:

The study show also extraordinary good news. Too bad that the <br /> authors do not underline them. So it is good, while we thank them for <br /> the work done, we make clear the positive numbers that can be glimpsed <br /> between the lines. So, as far as I intend to report, the study is based <br /> on two surveys conducted between 21 February and 7 March, which affected<br /> 85% (2812 people) and 71.5% (2343 people) of the population of Vo ' <br /> Euganeo (PD), the town of 3300 inhabitants where, on February 21, the <br /> first death from pneumonia occurred, which was attributed (by whom and <br /> on what basis?) to the SARS CoV-2 infection in Italy. The study not <br /> reported as a case of pneumonia has been defined, nothing regarding the <br /> clinical picture, nor anatomo-pathological disorders. It refers to the <br /> basis of a news item learned in the press (a man 78 years old, <br /> cardiopathic, who went through several shelters in intensive care died <br /> in that sad day. The study seems interested to elucidate, interestingly,<br /> the mechanisms of transmission of the virus and in particular the <br /> dynamics of its onward transmission, between symptomatic and <br /> asymptomatic subjects. The study produces also some useful data. The <br /> prevalence of Sars CoV-2 positive cases was 2.6% (73 positive tests / <br /> 2812 tests) in the first survey and 1.2% (29 positive tests / 2343 <br /> tests) in the second survey on 7 March. How many symptomatic cases with <br /> positive tests? The table show n. 43 symptomatic subjects/ 2812 subjects<br /> tested, equivalent to 0.015%. In the second survey 16/2343 symptomatic <br /> cases were found, that is equal to 0.0068%. Isn't this good news? Only 7<br /> -15 per 1000 inhabitants of Vo' Euganeo manifested fever or cough in <br /> the winter period in a town of Veneto. Meanwhile, the Schiavonia <br /> Hospital, where the man died, was first closed and then reopened as<br /> a COVID hospital. May be this is also a good new. We are preparing at <br /> the best, for the next pandemia. The study claims to have also collected<br /> data on the progression of symptoms and hospitalization of some <br /> subjects. Well, we will look forward to seeing them on a new <br /> paper. <br /> Best Regards

On 2020-04-09 01:55:01, user Emma McBryde wrote:

Thanks for the comment Robert. I am updating my data on imported versus local cases on a daily basis. When this preprint was made, the data were very sparse, and I had to assume undetermined cases were local. I will revise this for any peer-reviewed print. Meanwhile, I would recommend this website for the best publically available data www.covid19data.com.au

On 2021-10-16 23:35:24, user Mike New wrote:

Here is the pertinent question that I would like a straight answer on:

Does the Singapore study suggest that a vaccinated person is more likely to be "asymptomatic" with the delta strain than an unvaccinated person ? yes or no ?

On 2020-06-08 13:40:04, user bvwredux wrote:

Exine. The outer layer of the pollen, it is incredible stuff. Also the "remnants of the tapetal cells" found in the nooks and crannies of the exine layer. Either or both of them may be potently anti-viral for the corona virus -- that's my speculation. There is little pollen in bat caves. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

On 2020-08-27 11:22:55, user pto wrote:

I thought the index cases of that conference were all local residents of the Boston area. If so, that certainly wouldn't rule out a previous introduction a few weeks earlier. Say when international university students returned to Boston 3 to 4 weeks earlier.

On 2020-04-19 21:40:06, user Chuck Anesi wrote:

The article says the test had 99.5% specificity, so a very low false positive rate. Seems like a pretty good test.

On 2020-04-27 03:23:55, user buzzbree wrote:

Beyond the seroprevelance conclusions of the study which are generally consistent other reports, another very important issue that needs to be clarified by the authors is if the study fully adhered to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) standards.

To be fully compliant with GCP the Stanford IRB really needed to be informed of the the email Jay Bhattacharya's wife (https://www.buzzfeednews.co... "https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email)") sent to potential subjects. The email had several erroneous statements- that the test was FDA approved (Its not) and they would know if they were now immune from COVID-19 and would know that they were free from getting sick and could no longer spread the virus. These statements could have impacted subject safety by encouraging riskier behavior (i.e. ignoring social distancing) from the study subjects if they believed that the test was FDA approved and a positive result was definitive proof of protective immunity.

In the Buzzfeed article Dr. Bhattacharya has stated that he did not know about the email or approve of it, but he still had an ethical duty to report it to the IRB when he found out. There is only one line in manuscript stating that IRB approved the study- how the IRB addressed this email should be expounded upon in final manuscript given these new issues that have come to light.

Relevant GCP sections:

"3.3.8 Specifying that the investigator should promptly report to the IRB/IEC:(b) Changes increasing the risk to subjects and/or affecting significantly the conduct of the trial (see 4.10.2).

4.10.2 The investigator should promptly provide written reports to the sponsor, the IRB/IEC (see 3.3.8) and, where applicable, the institution on any changes significantly affecting the conduct of the trial, and/or increasing the risk to subjects.

On 2020-04-18 02:04:32, user Ngallendou Dièye wrote:

This study applies to a single county. Such studies must be conducted in representative communities across a nation or nations, before it can be said to have general relevance.

On 2020-05-15 13:19:16, user thxzetec wrote:

This is an interesting study, but not across the finish line. We need a double-blind, randomized study. Right now remdevir (sp?) has taken the lead, this is partly due to profit. I'm not saying it is a conspiracy, but you have a basically generic drug against a patented $$ drug . . . there is reason to study the latter more if you are the maker.

BTW it does not do anyone any good calling Fauci a "liar". The whole problem with our covid19 response is that it has become too politized.

On 2020-03-24 19:18:13, user Luis Cabrera wrote:

In the Extended Data 2, there is another standard curve, instead of "Primer, reporter molecules, target gene fragments, and guide RNAs used in this study. "

On 2022-01-04 08:01:45, user Cathy wrote:

It seems the only valid conclusion from this study is that immunocompromised patients who SURVIVE having covid have similar antibody levels. Not surprising, those that did not likely are the ones who died. You cannot make such a conclusion without measuring the antibody levels in both categories who died. Come on now, don't lead immunocompromised people to believe something you have NOT proven. I sure hope this gets revised before it gets released. It is dangerous.

On 2020-03-30 17:42:47, user Preci Genome wrote:

Digital PCR appears to be a very powerful tool to diagnose the infection of COVID-19.

On 2022-09-08 10:01:58, user Virgínia da Conceição wrote:

Published in the Health and Quality of Life Outcomes journal, DOI: 10.1186/s12955-022-01945-7

On 2021-10-08 15:21:09, user Marco Pellegrini wrote:

This research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal as of October 6th, 2021:

Lucchetta, M., Pellegrini, M. Drug repositioning by merging active subnetworks validated in cancer and COVID-19.

19839 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41...

On 2020-04-03 14:51:49, user Jack Debrueil wrote:

What is the biological plausibility of this association. The ABO-type is related to red blood cells. IT is important to know associaitons with leukocytes and HLA-types. Before concluding anything these reulst must be stratified by HLA-types.

On 2020-04-12 02:47:16, user Petard Stamo wrote:

I don't understand his twist in his analysis. Initially he insisted that testing is crucial to determine an aproximate value of Infection Fatality Rate. And that in his opinion was the measure which determines how dangerous was the virus. Now he has completely disregarded the number of infections in his analysis. The analysis is based only on deaths partitioned on age and sex and total number of population partitioned on age and sex. What is the difference between P(dying from Covid19 / <65) and P(dying from Covid19 / infected, <65)? How can you say that all people have been infected if we still don't have reliable data about the total number of infections? What proportion of the population has been infected?

On 2025-11-06 09:07:37, user Fulya Kirimer-Aydinli wrote:

This manuscript was published in the Current Psychology in September 2025. Here is the link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-025-08270-4

On 2020-06-05 23:05:25, user Amy E. Herr wrote:

*WARNING to READER*: Essential technical information is missing from this PDF which prohibits accurate interpretation and repeatability of the results.There is (1) insufficient evidence substantiating successful 'decontamination', (2) insufficient information on UV-C source and detector, and (3) insufficient information on UV-C dosing. We urge the authors to add these critical details which are represent the bare-minimum for accurate reporting and reproducibility, as further described below:

1. Claims of “decontamination” do not align with FDA EUA guidance/terminology. FDA guidance on requesting EUAs for respirator decontamination systems define “decontamination” and “bioburden reduction” in terms of specific log-reduction values for specific classes of microorganisms. Because 6-log or 3-log reduction was not always observed or possible to be measured in this study, and no non-enveloped viruses or bacteria were tested, the results do not fall within the FDA definitions for decontamination and bioburden reduction. We suggest adjusting terminology to align with FDA EUA guidance.

2. Critical information on UV-C source and detector is not provided. Make, model, wavelength emission spectrum, type of UV-C source (e.g., low pressure mercury lamp, LED, etc.), and dimensions of any UV-C bulbs should be reported for the source; make, model, and wavelengths detected are key parameters to report for any radiometer/dosimeter. Because UV-C decontamination equipment is not standardized and measured UV-C dose depends critically on the details of the UV-C source and detector (e.g., whether emitted and detected wavelengths match), reporting these details is critical for accuracy and reproducibility.

3. Missing details on UV-C dose distribution across the N95. For example, where was the N95 placed within the UVGI device, relative to the UV-C source? Was the ~10% dose permeation observed across all locations on all N95 models? Providing details on characterization of UV-C dose distribution across the N95 is requisite for readers to understand whether a ‘worst-case’ scenario is being modeled.

We thank the authors for their important research efforts on N95 decontamination during this COVID-19 pandemic & look forward to an updated/revised PDF posting.

On 2020-08-20 15:14:43, user Carlo Ferrigno wrote:

How many of the infected had an asymptomatic, mild, severe ,or critical outcome. What is their age and clinical status? It would also be important to know as well. Congratulations for this study.

On 2021-11-29 12:50:35, user Eleutherodactylus Sciagraphus wrote:

BMJ has further information regarding this case: https://www.bmj.com/content...

On 2020-04-08 14:37:18, user alexishmatov wrote:

Problem of high or low AH is not a problem

The recent study has shown that problem of high or low AH in timing respiratory infections may be resolved by using the physical effect in the airways (supersaturation and enhanced condensational growth in the airways).

The main sense of the supersaturation in the airways is that this effect depends simultaneously on both temperature and RH of inhaled air. Thus, temperature and RH are the parameters of one simple function — it is the effect of supersaturation.

This function can be used to analyze the correlation between climatic parameters and seasonal patterns of COVID-19 and influenza; that is, the differentiation of absolute and relative humidity as environmental drivers of influenza seasons no longer needs to be considered.

Ishmatov A. Influence of weather and seasonal variations in temperature and humidity on supersaturation and enhanced deposition of submicron aerosols in the human respiratory tract, Atmospheric Environment, V. 223, 2020, 117226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.a...

On 2025-10-13 15:16:10, user François Lecoquierre wrote:

Hi, it looks like legends in Fig 3 have been shuffled (plots a, b, c have their legend under f, g, h)

On 2020-07-05 11:40:53, user OxImmuno Literature Initiative wrote:

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

On 2020-04-05 01:22:40, user stephen zhang wrote:

See its associated journal publication in Psychiatry Research:

https://www.sciencedirect.c...

On 2022-03-27 12:21:47, user helgarhein wrote:

To bring my immune system into best working order I would want to be vitamin D replete for some months or years. (Similar to the finding that it took 5 years of 2000 IU daily to reduce the incidence of auto-immune diseases, Hahn et al BMJ, Jan 2022.) This trial lasted only 6 months, but, crucially, we are not told when the optimal blood level was reached. Only once the optimal level for immune health has been reached should an assessment happen. This is 75 nmol/l. Some individuals might need more than 3200 IU to reach it, some might even reach it in the 800 IU group. Could this subgroup be assessed: Those who achieved the defined sufficient 25(OH)D level across all 3 groups? Did this ‘replete’ group have reduced incidence of Covid infections?

On 2020-04-25 04:04:36, user Deevish N D wrote:

The radiometer used in this study - UV513 AB detects a peak wavelength of 365 nm as per its manual. But the actual germicidal wavelength is around 254 nm. I believe the dose needed for UV disinfection has been under-reported in this article. Authors please correct me if am wrong.

On 2020-06-14 10:14:23, user Donna Barstow Draws wrote:

Let me know if you find a source! Because I'm sure there is none. Outside indeed...

On 2020-08-29 09:10:30, user Brenda White wrote:

Can forehead testing affect brain or glands in the head?

On 2021-09-09 11:59:48, user Mohammad Ali wrote:

Please find the published version here: https://link.springer.com/a...

On 2022-01-12 21:42:47, user Bill Johnson wrote:

Exactly the opposite. Did you read the paper, or just the abstract? If the paper, you should have noticed that the tables and figures at the end (notably Tables S8 and S10) contain exactly this kind of information and more.

On 2022-01-14 04:06:37, user Sir Henry wrote:

Why are the hazard ratios above one for vaccines in Table 2?

On 2022-01-13 13:55:45, user Kirk Kelln wrote:

IMPORTANT DATA ERROR in "Table 2: Demographic and clinical characteristics of cases tested in outpatient settings with SGTF and non-SGTF SARS-CoV-2 infections", line "Hispanic 7,762 (6.6) 23,894 (45.8) 1.29 (1.24, 1.34) 1.26 (1.21, 1.32)" The percentage of Hispanic is stated as 6.6 but this is incorrect. Should be about 45.9%. Thanks for this interesting report!

On 2020-10-18 11:36:53, user Benjamin Himes wrote:

Nice ideas, I hope it matures into some useful tech. There are a few holes in the experimental design (or at least the presentation of such.)

Full review is accessible on Zenodo.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zen...

On 2020-10-27 16:42:24, user Kamran Kadkhoda wrote:

Again no good panel of confirmed common CoVs to exclude cross-reactivity especially to an Ab like IgM with poor affinity maturation.

On 2021-06-19 15:42:33, user TB wrote:

The data in Figure one is duplicated. The 'left orbitofrontal cortex (thickness)' data is the exact same at the 'left superior insula' data.

On 2022-09-22 09:16:27, user Wera Pustlauk wrote:

Dear authors,

thanks for the valuable effort to set up a new assay for the determination of PPi.

Regarding table III samples remained somewhat vague to me. Clarification in the table header including the unit of the determined PPi might be helpful. Calculation of the standard deviation in addition to the average would make the data more roboust and would establish a more substantial link to the variability discussed in the paragraph before. Moreover, time differences in the addition of EDTA to the CTAD tubes as discussed in the text should be clearly stated for each sample in the table III as well.

In addition, a hands on protocol (stored in a repository or as supplement) allowing the direct usage of the assay based on the optimized procedure would make the usage more accessible.

Best regards,<br /> Wera Pustlauk

On 2021-01-27 06:24:26, user Michael wrote:

DL+DiReCT including the trained model of DeepSCAN is also available on github: https://github.com/SCAN-NRA...

This method for cortical thickness estimation is mentioned in the manuscript and refers to https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm...

On 2021-03-24 14:52:53, user Pedro Negreiros wrote:

The paper is of good quality. The results need , however, be reproduced by other researchers.

On 2021-07-21 14:27:41, user Enrique Zielli wrote:

Can someone explain this to a simple citizen vaccinated with Sinopharm?

On 2020-10-28 08:35:30, user Rasmus Skov Husted wrote:

The final peer reviewed article is published open access - please follow this link: https://bit.ly/3mrLlvZ

On 2019-10-11 18:31:08, user Miguel wrote:

Interesting paper. It is really usefull to understand how P4 concept spread all over the world.<br /> RBMFC performed and published an special number about Quaternary prevention concept. Was lead by Marc Jamoulle and he encourage people from all over to send manuscripts. The year of the publication was 2015. That probably caused the increment of titles duriing this year. 2015 was also the year of the Iberoamerican Family Medicine in Uruguay. It was attend for an important number of P4 leaders ( included Jamoulle). Finally you must know there are a lot of publications (grey literatura) that are not allowed to be published. And the leadership of the P4 WONCA international gruop is in Uruguay.

On 2020-10-30 18:25:19, user gatwood wrote:

I suspect there could be a strong corellation between vaccination status<br /> and following a strict adherence to all COVID anti-infection <br /> guidelines, PPE etc... Experienced and medically trained Drs and nurses<br /> more likely have been vaccinated and also are more likely to follow PPE<br /> wearing and careful anti-infection routines. Support staff (food <br /> service, assistants and claening staff) with less formal medical <br /> training and understanding of infection are probably less likely to be <br /> vacinnated and also may be less likely to carefully employ all technical<br /> anti-infection measures. Would this account for the vaccinated folks <br /> having less COVID infection?

On 2020-06-01 16:31:45, user OxImmuno Literature Initiative wrote:

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

On 2022-03-14 08:16:14, user Timothe Menard wrote:

The published version is now available in Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, the journal of the Drug Information Association.

DOI: 10.1007/s43441-022-00388-y

On 2020-09-28 14:47:49, user Screamin_Jay wrote:

If saliva testing accuracy has been demonstrated to be equal to the nasal swab method, why subject patients to the uncomfortable nasal swab? Why is, then, all testing not saliva-based?

On 2021-02-15 13:07:34, user Guido wrote:

State, local governments & complicit media simply ignore this, as unions help shut down rank and file "health & Safety Committee" walkout/sickout strikes. Our Creative Class is speciously distracted by blatantly staged shock & awe by an autocratic duopoly as the most vulnerable are intentionally exposed to the mutated strains, before vaccination is properly evaluated.

On 2020-05-11 01:40:27, user Lewis G wrote:

Is it possible that this result indicates that COVID-19 is more often than not a saliva borne disease?

On 2021-04-17 14:48:15, user Mansour Tobaiqy wrote:

This manuscript has been published in:

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3...

On 2021-04-21 15:08:18, user Rafael wrote:

Interesting work. We also found Prevotella sp. associated with COVID-19 severity in https://www.frontiersin.org...

On 2022-04-19 13:42:56, user Matthew MacLeod wrote:

This document was peer reviewed and published by Defence Research and Development Canada, which does not provide DOIs, so cannot be linked to by medRxiv. Permanent link to the citation record is here:

https://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.c...

And PDF of the final version is here:

https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.g...

On 2022-07-08 05:23:36, user Adrian Campos wrote:

This manuscript was published in November 2021: https://www.nature.com/arti...

On 2021-05-10 15:04:07, user Zsofi Igloi wrote:

article has been published in Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(5):1323-1329. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid...

On 2021-06-26 16:12:33, user Daisy wrote:

Why on earth wouldn’t they include all age groups? Or at least those 60 and up, who have lower immune response.

On 2020-06-16 00:09:43, user Andrew Cohen wrote:

Johann,<br /> That's a good question, one that I've been thinking about since China's mass-testing event in Wuhan last month. My answer is long, so I've posted it at www.bioinvasions.com/covid-.... –Andrew

On 2021-02-17 13:49:48, user David McAllister wrote:

The latest version of this manuscript has now completed peer review and been accepted for publication by the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood.

On 2020-03-21 21:07:21, user Elisabeth Bik wrote:

Cross posting a concern I also posted on PubPeer.

The protocol for the treatment was approved by the French National Agency for Drug Safety on March 5th 2020. It was approved by the French Ethic Committee on March 6th 2020. The paper states that patients were followed up until day 14, although I don't see any data from day 14 in the paper.

Since the paper was submitted for publication on March 16 in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, the 14 day timeline seems to be impossible. Could the authors clarify how this statement in the Procedure matches the 10-day interval between ethical approval and preprint submission? <br /> "Patients were seen at baseline for enrolment, initial data collection and treatment at day-0, and again for daily follow-up during 14 days."

On 2021-04-15 00:06:12, user fra setch wrote:

Anti-spike IgG glycoprotein for Covaxin in Phase 2 trial was 65%. And this trial was done on only 96 Covaxin participants. Something doesn't seem right about this.

On 2020-05-31 22:34:08, user Maria Ribando Burmaster wrote:

Good study. I would be interested in comments from MDs and epidemiologists as well as other working scientists.

On 2021-02-01 15:59:31, user Victoria Gates wrote:

What about the studies done by the FLCCC Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance? They present strong evidence to the contrary.