On 2021-09-16 18:50:38, user pedro alvaro Szasz wrote:

the results of the survey conclude about a very low efficiency of coronavac above 90 years<br /> and also a small decrease for vaxzevria<br /> death protection efficiency <br /> age Vaxzevria Coronavac<br /> 70-79 90% 77%<br /> 80-89 89% 67%

=90 65% 33%

these results are not consistent with real numbers<br /> a simple comparison of deaths by age and month shows that is not such decrease on efficiency:

next table shows the figures for January 2021 (where there are no vaccine) and in May and June and July, where almost all people above 70 has complete his immunization process:

Brazil- Covid19 deaths by month and age <br /> age absolute values % relative to january values <br /> -----------------------month----------------- -----------------month---------------------- <br /> <60 jan may jun jul jan may jun jul<br /> 70-79 8337 8168 6239 4375 100% 52.5% 74.8% 52.5%<br /> 80-89 6325 5057 5082 3378 100% 53.4% 80.3% 53.4%

=90 2050 1576 1472 1199 100% 58.5% 71.8% 58.5%

great majority og people above 90 years has taken coronavac in february, <br /> If efficiency against death on thiis group were just 33% (or 67% of deaths) against 67% (or 33% of deaths for youngers, these figures should apear in may, June an july with relative death index ( relative ti=o january) twice times bigger( than the young group ( 70-89)

what we see is tha the figures are more or less the same and just a small increase on the older group(>90) that seems to be small decrease on efficiency with time (the older where vacinated before.

On 2021-04-16 18:43:40, user Lee Rague wrote:

This paper has been published in the Journal of Nursing Management

https://doi.org/10.1111/jon...

On 2021-04-06 13:27:57, user Roseland67 wrote:

So,

Under what conditions Is a fully vaccinated person at risk of infection again?

And, can this fully vaccinated person, once reinfected, pass this infection on to others?

On 2021-10-19 21:37:15, user Sam Smith wrote:

Official website of the trial: https://twitter.com/togethe...

On 2023-12-12 14:56:15, user Tanmoy Sarkar Pias wrote:

This paper has been accepted to an IEEE conference. A link (& DOI) to the IEEE Xplore will be added when this article is published. Please see the following copy right details of IEEE.

2023 26th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), 13-15 December, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh

979-8-3503-5901-5/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE

On 2021-07-29 01:05:33, user Luke Zabotka wrote:

Article published: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.m...

On 2020-04-17 18:22:03, user Anon wrote:

The authors state: "We used Facebook to quickly reach a large number of county residents and because it allows for granular targeting by zip code and sociodemographic characteristics." This gives an inaccurate impression of how participants were recruited. I participated in the study, but don't have a facebook account. In truth, anyone with a link could have registered to participated in the study. So the author's claims here are dubious on the evenness of recruitment.

In this survey we were only allowed to have one adult get test. Naturally, we selected the person with the most relevant symptoms (me). So there's an element of self selection going on here as well.

On 2020-04-18 02:41:54, user Andy wrote:

Based just on the 50x number, many places in New York already have herd immunity. Everyone in Westchester (currently 2,253 cases per 100,000 people) should already have it.

https://www.nytimes.com/int...

Based on the 85x number, more than everyone in New York City (currently 1,458 cases per 100,000 people) also already have it.

As noted in the paper, "bias favoring those with prior COVID-like illnesses seeking antibody confirmation [is] possible."

The bias has to be very very significant, if you think about why anyone would venture out to risk exposure to be tested during the state's Stay At Home order. In other words, if you do not believe you have been exposed previously, why would you even go -- I wouldn't.

On 2020-04-18 03:04:01, user Matt Durrant wrote:

A study participant mentioned on Twitter that you asked all participants in a questionnaire whether they had COVID19-like symptoms previously. You could have used this to correct your ascertainment bias, but you don't mention this survey question in your paper. Why didn't you use it?

On 2020-04-18 13:01:41, user mendel wrote:

Thank you!<br /> I've looked at your excellent analysis. Your IFR estimate for L=5 is 0.6%-1%, which feels realistic and tallies with other estimates I've seen. (Which number of deaths did you use?)

Disqus tells me my original comment was "detected as spam", unfortunately.

On 2020-04-18 02:19:41, user disqus_ms91a7O52p wrote:

Awesome work. The heading for the RESULTS section needs to be properly formatted so it’s easy to find.

On 2020-04-18 00:16:22, user Rob Kuchta wrote:

I am very suspicious of the 50- to 85-fold difference in confirmed cases based on the NY (and NYC) infection rates. NY has a 1.2% infection rate as a whole, and for NYC it is 1,5%. Using these values, that would indicate that from 60-100% of the population have been infected in NY state, and infections should be dropping rapidly (also, I have never heard of a virus having this sort of infectivity). In NYC, the infection rate would be 75-100%. This suggests that either there is an unknown issue with the test or that the Ab generated by being infected by this virus do not prevent subsequent infection. This latter situation would be rather worrisome in terms of a vaccination strategy to prevent infection.

On 2020-04-23 19:01:38, user Young-In Kim wrote:

Well data from John Hopkins disagrees. http://91-divoc.com/pages/c...

On 2020-04-21 21:21:19, user Dave White wrote:

You have your own math error! remember its 1 over the sqrt. So the reduction is by 1/3 not 3.

On 2020-04-23 08:44:30, user Robert Ton wrote:

Confirmed cases of 1190 reduces the under-ascertainment to 40-68

On 2021-08-05 18:32:18, user Anette Stahel wrote:

Dear moderator,

I've now reviewed, edited and updated my earlier comment to the present study [1]. I hope this will allow for it to be posted.

I'm sorry, but this study is not correct. That is, the pool of people used as denominator when calculating the percentage of COVID-19 infected people who developed CVT and PVT is greatly inadequate. I'll explain what I mean.

In the abstract of the study, it's stated:

"COVID-19 increases the risk of CVT and PVT compared to patients diagnosed with influenza, and to people who have received a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine."

However, when comparing the risk of developing condition X from disease Y with the risk of developing condition X from something else, eg vaccine Z, you first and foremost need to make a correct assessment of how how large the pool of people with disease X is. And to do that, you need to make an estimate. Merely counting the number of people who've sought out primary or secondary care for their symptoms won't do. Not even if you include all the people who were asymptomatic but sought out the care center anyway in order to take a test to see if they were infected (simply because they wanted to know) and then tested positive.

No, you need to include all infected persons in the total pool of people belonging to the health care facility/facilities in question, including the ones who don't go test themselves because of being asymptomatic, or of not having the energy to do it due to their symptoms, or of being into alternative medicine, or of lacking interest/knowledge about the infection et c. There may be many of different reasons. This means you need do make an estimate, otherwise the denominator in the calculation of the percentage who develop condition X from infection Y becomes incorrect.

A study measuring the risk of developing condition X from infection Y using a smaller denominator than one including everyone infected may be useful at times, but it can not be used for comparison with a correctly calculated vaccine risk.

I will use the study Estimation of the Lethality for COVID-19 in Stockholm County published by the Swedish Public Health Agency [2] as an example of a correctly calculated risk, based on an adequately defined denominator. The fact that this is a calculation of the lethality percentage from COVID-19 and not the CVT and PVT percentage is irrelevant, the point is that the same mathematics used in this study should've been applied in the present Oxford University study. From page 13 in the Swedish study, in translation:

"Recruitment was based on a stratified random sample of the population 0-85 years. In the survey we use, the survey for Stockholm County was supplemented with a self-sampling kit to measure ongoing SARS-CoV-2-infection by PCR test. The sampling took place from March 26 until April 2 and 18 of a total of 707 samples were positive. The proportion of the population in Stockholm County which would test positive was thus estimated at 2.5%, with 95% confidence range 1.4-4.2%."

For a complex reason, which I won't go into but is described in detail in the study text, one needs to use a slightly higher percentage when multiplying it with the total number of people in the pool, but that's of minor importance. Anyway, in this study they had to use the figure 3,1169% and when they multiplied it with the number of people in Stockholm County, 2 377 000, they got 74 089. This estimate was then the correct denominator to use when calculating the percentage of people who died from COVID-19 in Stockholm County during this time period.

The numerator was the number of people who died in Stockholm County with a strong suspicion of COVID-19 as a cause, which was 432, no incorrectness there either - as long as a suspected cause number, not a diagnosed cause number, is also used as the numerator when calculating the lethality from the COVID-19 vaccine when the infection lethality and vaccine lethality rates are compared.

So, what they found was that the lethality from COVID-19 in Stockholm County was 0,58%. This is a correct figure, as long as we keep in mind the fact that some of the suspected COVID-19 deaths may later become diagnosed as unrelated to the infection.

The above is thus how the authors of the present Oxford study should've carried out their calculations but they didn't. From their text:

"Design: Retrospective cohort study based on an electronic health records network. Setting: Linked records between primary and secondary care centres within 59 healthcare organisations, primarily in the USA. Participants: All patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 between January 20, 2020 and March 25, 2021 were included."

This excludes a considerable amount of infected persons in the total pool of people belonging to all of these primary and secondary care centers, who didn't go test themselves because of a number of reasons (being asymptomatic, being alternative medical, not having the energy or interest for it, et c).

If they'd used the adequate figure in the denominator, the percentage of people established to've developed CVT and PVT from COVID-19 would've gotten vastly lower. However, the percentage of people determined to've developed CVT and PVT from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was fully correctly carried out since there are no unregistered vaccinated cases and therefore the registered figure is to be used.

Via the Oxford study's Figure 2 and Table S2 [3], I calculated the following figures: First time CVT cases diagnosed after administration of the mRNA COVID vaccines amounted to 6.6 per million and first time PVT cases after same vaccines amounted to 12.5 per million.

Now, there's a study titled Estimation of US SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Symptomatic Infections, Hospitalizations and Deaths Using Seroprevalence Surveys published by the American Medical Association [4], which has estimated the percentage of infected people in the US looking at roughly the same time period as the Oxford study. From the paper:

"An estimated 14.3% (IQR, 11.6%-18.5%) of the US population were infected by SARS-CoV-2 as of mid-November 2020."

With an infection rate around 14.3%, the estimated number of infected people of the 81 million patients in the healthcare database referred to in the study would've amounted to 11 583 000. This number gives us a hint as for the size of the denominator which should've been used in the calculation instead of the figure of 537 913 confirmed diagnoses.

However, since the Oxford study not only looked at CVT and PVT arising from people having the infection around mid-November 2020 but looked at a much longer time period, from January 20, 2020 to to March 25, 2021, a number far greater than 11 583 000 should be applied. What we need is to estimate how many of the 81 million patients which were infected at least once during these 14 months in question. For the calculation to be really accurate, we need the total, accumulated number of infected people. But since that number isn't found without a very comprehensive and time consuming investigation, we instead have to use the signs ">" ("greater than") and "<" ("less than") here. So, the correct denominator, which should've been used instead of the 537 913 figure, is >11 583 000.

Further, the study says that first time CVT was found in 19 of the patients following COVID-19 diagnosis and first time PVT in 94. This actually means that the rates of CVT and PVT elicited by COVID-19 were much lower than the rates of CVT and PVT elicited by the vaccines. COVID-19 elicited PVT cases, correctly calculated, amounted to <8.1 per million - only about two thirds of the 12.5 per million for the vaccines - and the CVT cases amounted to <1.6 per million - a mere fourth of the vaccines' 6.6.

Interestingly, with their work including this method error, these authors have provided scientific validation of the growing suspicion that the COVID-19 vaccines give rise to thrombocytic complications to a much greater extent than does COVID-19 (which is the opposite of what's stated in the study), because even if the 537 913 figure is inadequate, the other figures in the study are most likely not.

It should also be said that the disclaimer inserted towards the end of the Oxford study by no means can be referred to in order to justify this method error. From the disclaimer:

"However, the study also has several limitations and results should be interpreted with caution. (--) Third, some cases of COVID-19, especially those early in the pandemic, are undiagnosed, and we cannot generalise our risk estimates to this population."

The reason why this passage cannot be referred to, is that 11 000 000 or so omitted cases impossibly can be defined as "some", when the number of denominator cases determined in the study merely constitutes a small fraction (5%) of that figure.

Finally, I'd like to suggest a reading through of the English translation of the Swedish COVID-19 lethality study that I took up in the beginning of my text as a correct, comparative example [5]. This is the main paper that the Swedish equivalent to CDC, the Public Health Agency (Folkhälsomyndigheten), refers to when talking about the COVID-19 lethality here and it's put up on one of the major information pages of their website. I really recommend reading all of it, because it explains so well and in such detail how come this model of denominator calculation without exception must be used in studies like these, which aim to investigate the rate of injuries/complications arising from an infectious illness.

Anette Stahel <br /> MSc in Biomedicine <br /> Sweden

References

1. Taquet, M, Husain, M, Geddes, J R, Luciano, S & Harrison, P J (2021) Cerebral Venous Thrombosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 537,913 COVID-19 Cases medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/202...
2. Svenska Folkhälsomyndigheten (2020) Skattning av Letaliteten för Covid-19 i Stockholms Län https://www.folkhalsomyndig...
3. Taquet, M, Husain, M, Geddes, J R, Luciano, S & Harrison, P J (2021) Cerebral Venous Thrombosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 537,913 COVID-19 Cases OSFHome https://osf.io/a9jdq/
4. Angulo FJ, Finelli L, Swerdlow DL. Estimation of US SARS-CoV-2 (2021) Infections, Symptomatic Infections, Hospitalizations and Deaths Using Seroprevalence Surveys (2021) JAMA Netw Open https://jamanetwork.com/jou...
5. The Swedish Public Health Agency (2020) Estimation of the Lethality for COVID-19 in Stockholm County Online translation of [2] https://translate.google.co...

On 2021-07-16 09:48:28, user Šafo wrote:

Question: Do patients who have overcome the disease have the mentioned S-protein S1 in the body? Or only vaccinated people have S-protein in their body!

On 2022-01-18 19:31:15, user Charles R. Twardy wrote:

This appears to have been published in v1:9 of a new journal called "Cell Reports Medicine", one of the _Cell_ line. ScienceDirect link, DOI 10.1016/j.xcrm.2020.100146.

On 2025-09-21 16:07:08, user practiCalfMRI wrote:

The authors should address the issue of brain/CSF motion as a potential source of error in the MISL difference images.

On 2021-10-25 21:40:02, user John Hulleman wrote:

This preprint was subsequently published in Molecular Vision on April 2nd, 2021. Please see link below for the accepted article:

http://www.molvis.org/molvi...

On 2024-11-15 15:00:42, user Chandni Khemai wrote:

This paper has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Integrated Care, published by Emerald Publishing Limited.

On 2021-10-18 15:21:44, user Dr Gareth Davies (Gruff) wrote:

An interesting study. Is the raw data available? It would be very illuminating to see a plot of individual *uncategorised* 25(OH)D status against seropositivity, along with standard errors plotted for each data point to be sure that the apparent U-shape is real and not e.g. an artefact of categorisation of continuous data with known, large standard measurement errors.

The number of individuals per category is relatively small, and the standard errors on vitamin D assays relatively very large (and potentially heteroscedastic), and this, combined with the natural variance in the study population, uneven bin sizes, and the presence of multiple confounding variables introduces potentially very large biases and uncertainties.<br /> Fischer's Exact Test is not contructed to be able to take into account factors such as these, and thus the stated p values are not really meaningful, and potentially misleading.<br /> Plotting fit curves along with reduced y-axis range gives a false impression of a precise trend which seems unjustified by these data.

For example, the abstract states that "This trend repeated when split into subgroups of age, sex, ethnicity, BMI, and co-morbidity status", but this *not* in fact true for the "age < 50" and "zero comorbidities" groups where the U-shape trend is not present.

I would urge caution interpreting any apparent trend and also the meaning of 'seroconversion'. There seems to be an implicit assumption that "detected seroconversion" is equivalent to risk of harm from disease. If the trend turns out to be an artefact of the analysis, any interpretation is premature. If the trend turns out to be real, there still may be zero implications for risk of harm. High vitamin D serum concentrations could, for example, lead to stronger host immune response and antibodies, which could account for the results.<br /> It would be useful to include - if possible - some measure of actual disease severity (if any) in the individuals who tested positive.

I hope this is helpful feedback for a future draft of this preprint.

Best wishes

Gareth

On 2020-05-26 20:36:45, user C'est la même wrote:

A lack of sequencing data limits the conclusions of this study. Suggestion that individuals were reinfected by the same strain is not confirmed due to lack of specificity of the serological testing. There is far greater genetic diversity of these strains compared to SARS-2. Just like influenza, subsequent infections in the few years following an infection are due to exposure to different strains, or similar strains but with significant drift in key antigenic proteins.

Immunological memory is not dependent on high levels of circulating antibodies and hence the antibody kinetics do not tell us very much about long term immunity. The observed kinetics are similar to many other infections/vaccines and primarily reflect plasma cell kinetics, not memory-B-cell functions. So long as a small population of memory T-cells and B-cells are maintained, long term immunity will be maintained.

I strongly suggest that a strong worldwide vaccination approach will be effective, even if at worst, there is significant genetic variation that requires annual vaccinations.

On 2020-08-29 05:11:06, user Daniel Connelly wrote:

The practitioners at our office in NJ have been prescribing HCQ +zinc + azithromycin or doxycycline to newly diagnosed symptomatic Covid-19 patients since March. Our sample size is small and includes nursing home patients. To date, all patients improved rapidly, usually within 24 hours. The were zero hospitalizations, zero deaths and no reported side effects.<br /> The import number from the study is only 7.6% of outpatients were prescribed the drug. This could be because they were asymptomatic at the time and did not need it or it could be because of the oppressive political climate that suppressed the use of this life saving drug in New Jersey.

On 2020-03-24 23:10:14, user Godfree Roberts wrote:

JANUARY 1 seems awfully late, if we are to believe multiple health officials:

Coronavirus may have been in Italy for weeks before it was detected. Test results worry experts as new cases emerge in Nigeria, Mexico and New Zealand Lorenzo TondoLast modified on Wed 18 Mar 2020 10.57 GMT. The Guardian

"The new coronavirus may have circulated in northern Italy for weeks before it was detected, seriously complicating efforts to track and control its rapid spread across Europe. The claim follows laboratory tests that isolated a strain of the virus from an Italian patient, which showed genetic differences compared with the original strain isolated in China and two Chinese tourists who became sick in Rome." https://www.theguardian.com...

NEXT ITEM: Massimo Galli, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Milan and director of infectious diseases at the Luigi Sacco hospital in Milan, said preliminary evidence suggested the virus could have been spreading below the radar in the quarantined areas.

“I can’t absolutely confirm any safe estimate of the time of the circulation of the virus in Italy, but … some first evidence suggest that the circulation of the virus is not so recent in Italy,” he said, amid suggestions the virus may have been present since mid-January.

The beginnings of the outbreak, which has now infected more than 821 people in the country and has spread from Italy across Europe, were probably seeded at least two or three weeks before the first detection and possibly before flights between Italy and China were suspended at the end of January, say experts.

The findings will be deeply concerning for health officials across Europe who have so far concentrated their containment efforts on identifying individuals returning from high risk areas for the virus, including Italy, and people with symptoms as well as those who have come in contact with them.The new claim emerged as the World Health Organization warned that the outbreak was getting bigger and could soon appear in almost every country. The impact risk was now very high at a global level, it said.“The scenario of the coronavirus reaching multiple countries, if not all countries around the world, is something we have been looking at and warning against since quite a while,” a spokesman said.symptoms.https://www.scmp.com/news/china/sci...

On 2020-06-21 13:22:30, user Joe Rubi wrote:

Will 70%-80% alcohol solutions kill the SARS-CoV-2 mutant of Covid-19?

On 2020-01-26 00:39:20, user Jimmy Shih wrote:

One can also argue the parameters and assumptions used in such transmission model.<br /> The main point is not the results of the model, but rather the methodology in predictions.<br /> How can a researcher in thousands of mile away with no background of anything other than academics know the parameters and assumptions.<br /> Chinese government should do whatever she could to do the predictions as she controls all data and formulate policies based on the predictions results.

On 2020-08-04 14:44:36, user Tammy Spain wrote:

This is such an important study. I applaud the authors for bringing good evidence to the discussion about the role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV2. So much of the dogma around this question has been centered on anecdotal information.

On 2021-06-10 04:54:34, user ejmah wrote:

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

On 2021-06-02 21:08:40, user Mike wrote:

"no pregnant or lactating individuals were included in the Phase 3 clinical trials of these vaccines despite belonging to a group at high risk for severe complications of COVID-19 infection" - Ok, so how are you concluding that it is not affecting these women when they weren't included in clinical trials?

"We show here that the mRNA from anti-COVID BNT162b2 (Pfizer) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines is not detected in human breast milk samples collected 4-48 hours post-vaccine" - Two concerns with this statement: 1) they were only tested up to 48 hours afterward? Why are we to conclude that if they don't show up in 48 hours they never will? When other vaccines NEVER leave the shoulder muscle (according to Dr. Bridle) that would indicate that the possibility for much slower movement to the blood exists. 2 - Are you testing for the correct substance? Are you looking for the spike protein or mRNA? Are those the same?

On 2020-04-02 22:52:25, user Qi Ying wrote:

The error function used in the study can be derived from the assumption that the daily death follows a normal distribution. Our experience in China shows that it is not the case. The tail in the daily death rate distribution is much longer. The predicted deaths are likely underestimated. Also, the error function fitting leads to significant under-predictions when the inflection point in the death rate has not arrived, which is likely the case for many US states. Thus, I believe these estimations presented in the paper as well as on their website are going to be significantly biased low. The actual situation could be much much worse.

On 2020-04-22 23:37:10, user Glenn Korbel wrote:

In the absence of tests for antibodies, which they don't have they are simply guessing/Yhere is NO way to predict deaths without knowing how many people have already been infected.<br /> None.

On 2020-04-16 17:25:11, user forevertheuni wrote:

This is tricky:

Can you do a graph with "tests per capita" as a variable in this? I think that it would abate some differences.

I think that on how robust the testing has been plays a bigger role in this, because it reduces the % per million inhabitants. Which is usually a correlative on how resources are put into healthcare in general, and where vaccines are probably well implemented.

Then you have another big and totally opposite confounder, if you don't to tests...you don't have reported cases, and you will go down the graph (and that in some cases correlates with low income places, that will have the BCG because tuberculosis is very prevalent).

Well, I still appreciated the article, but there are many variables to be explored.

On 2020-04-08 06:20:46, user Vincent Hare wrote:

Logarithmic differences in death rates are also partially explained by the fact that UM and H income countries had the virus first; and there is a clear lag between infections and deaths - of several weeks. On top of this, lower income countries with mandatory BCG programs have also pursued more aggressive lockdowns. Both biases - lag, and lockdown - need to be factored into this analysis BEFORE the effect is tested for statistical significance. Otherwise, the comparison is more or less meaningless.

On 2020-04-04 14:52:54, user jwcross wrote:

BCG is also used as intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (BC). Since BC is more common among the elderly, it would be interesting to know if BC patients and survivors treated with BCG have a higher survival than age-matched peers and BC patients and survivors who had been given alternative therapies.

On 2020-03-31 00:14:04, user Alex wrote:

Have you analyzed West and East Germany?

On 2020-04-07 21:56:51, user VesnaV wrote:

The idea of the article is very interesting. But I am afraid that the trends are changing. It would be very useful to update the data on covid-19 and replicate the analysis. Could you please do it? Thanks a lot!

On 2020-04-14 15:45:03, user Euclides Hernández wrote:

In Costa Rica, BCG is one of the compulsory vaccines for the entire population and is applied by the social security system, it is universal. CR. As of Tuesday, April 14, it has 612 cases, 62 people recovered and 3 deaths. Costa Rica has a population size similar to that of Ireland. Costa Rica's social security system is one of the strongest in Latin America.

En Costa Rica la BCG es una de las vacunas obligatorias para toda la

población y es aplicada por el sistema de seguridad social, es

universal. CR. tiene, al martes 14 de abril, 612 casos, 62 personas

recuperadas y 3 fallecimientos. Costa Rica tiene una cantidad de

población similar a la de Irlanda. El sistema de seguridad social de

Costa Rica es uno de los más sólidos de América Latina.

On 2020-04-14 21:52:36, user Dr Eric Grossi Neurocirurgia wrote:

Is missing the intervals of age - 29.4 to 60 years only - Enormous Bias

On 2020-03-31 15:11:10, user Lawrence Mayer wrote:

A study claiming to be a clinical trial but is not peer reviewed and will not release data is not worth posting. China now claims to have 24 clinical trials suppporting the use of HCQ, Not one of them is published with details and no data has been released. Please ignore this claim. The College of Clinical Toxicologists issued a warning yesterday about HCQ for Covid19

On 2020-07-16 10:16:25, user Hagai Perets wrote:

See https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.... for a possible explanation of the observed differences and origin of herd immunity, from a preceding low-virulence strain.

On 2022-09-27 14:26:13, user C. Downs wrote:

Published version can be found at https://doi.org/10.1177/105...

On 2022-11-07 07:35:58, user Renier Mendoza wrote:

Now published in AIMS Mathematics:

https://doi.org/10.3934/mat...

On 2021-07-19 15:32:51, user Marco Pellegrini wrote:

This paper in revised form has been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal:<br /> Pellegrini, <br /> M. Accurate prediction of breast cancer survival through coherent voting networks with gene expression profiling.<br /> Sci Rep 11, 14645 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41...<br /> link: https://www.nature.com/arti...

On 2022-03-09 02:39:17, user Peter J. Yim wrote:

Vaccine efficacy based on vaccination registries is dependent on the completeness of the registries. Any missing or improperly registered data contributes to misclassification bias: https://drive.google.com/fi...<br /> This study relies on the Citywide Immunization Registry (CIR) and the NYS Immunization Information System (NYSIIS). However, no evidence is presented for the accuracy of those registries. As such, the VE estimates from this study should be regarded as uncertain.

On 2021-09-16 13:35:24, user David Brown wrote:

There is evidence that abdominal obesity in both humans and chickens is determined by the fatty acid profile of the diet; specifically, the linoleic acid content. Read pages 7-9 of this 2019 Master's Thesis. https://trace.tennessee.edu...<br /> For further comment regarding linoleic acid intake and vulnerability to COVID-19 complications, read these articles:<br /> https://www.medpagetoday.co...<br /> https://www.science.org/doi...

On 2021-02-07 17:39:47, user Martin Gažák wrote:

Dear all, regarding the statement "All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived." is a lie. I as a citizen of Slovak Republic participated already 4 times on AG testing, every time under the threat of ban of movement, ban of work, yesterday because without my negative test my child would not be accpeted at school. I was never informed that I am participating on any sort of research. I did not sign anything. I consider the above statement as misleading and unethical, especially because the authors are government officials. Best regards, Martin Gazak

On 2020-03-13 02:25:01, user Thomas J Janstrom wrote:

In light of the index patient now being traced back to a 55yo male in Wuhan who became symptomatic on the 17/11/2019 how will this alter the predicted cases as per your paper?

On 2021-06-22 13:45:29, user ibamvidivici wrote:

Both, age and BMI is highly correlated for the risk of Covid-19. Can you add the data about Median-age and Median-BMI for the groups:<br /> - positive SARS-Covid-19-Test<br /> - negative SARS-Covid-19-Test<br /> for both (LTCF and HCW) cohorts?<br /> This would be necessary to measure the margin of error for this study.

On 2021-12-30 16:39:32, user Igor Chudov wrote:

Very interesting article!

Could you please clarify something for me.

You say "Moreover, the magnitude of Omicron cross-reactive T cells was similar to that of the Beta and Delta variants, despite Omicron harbouring considerably more mutations. Additionally, in Omicron-infected hospitalized patients (n = 19), there were comparable T cell responses to ancestral spike, nucleocapsid and membrane proteins to those found in patients hospitalized in previous waves dominated by the ancestral, Beta or Delta variants (n = 49).".

This is great, but no Covid vaccine generates or in any way is related to "nucleocapsids" or "membrane proteins". If so, is the mentioned T-Cell reaction to nucleocapsids somehow related to vaccination? Covid-naive vaccinees never come in contact with "nucleocapsids".

Were the nucleocapsid T cell reactions only in the covid-recovered?

A clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

On 2021-08-21 06:05:58, user Dinofelis wrote:

Even though 10% is within the confidence interval 8.4% - 24.8%, what is hard to explain is that the number of severe cases per 100 cases decreases faster (16.6%) than the rate of vaccination increases (10%). It would actually mean that non-vaccinated people that do get covid, are less often severely ill because others got vaccinated. That's very hard to explain, unless several of them got infected by vaccinated people with a lower viral load, but that would then imply a lower effect on infection prevention than demonstrated in this article.

On 2022-01-07 20:51:11, user Sam Miller wrote:

By now, we know that the transmission rate of omicron is high, regardless of vaccination status. Reducing transmission is a marginal, secondary goal of vaccine passport/mandates. Whether we think it is an ethical policy or not, the primary goal is to significantly increase the vaccination rate through carrot/stick motivators to prevent hospitalizations and health care system failure. Data from several countries have shown proportionally higher hospitalizations rates for unvaccinated. Although it may be difficult to quantize, a more pertinent question on policy efficacy would be "How much have these mandates/passports increased vaccination rates and reduced hospitalizations, and at what social capital cost?"

I think Aaron Prosser said in his Youtube interview with Vinay Prasad, MD, that the vaccination rate was 85% in his area. I wonder if he thinks that rate could have been reached without some type of vaccine passport/mandate policy? A recent Lancet study, "The effect of mandatory COVID-19 certificates on vaccine uptake," states that COVID-19 certification led to increased vaccinations 20 days before implementation in anticipation, with a lasting effect up to 40 days after. It concludes that "mandatory COVID-19 certification could increase vaccine uptake, but interpretation and transferability of findings need to be considered in the context of pre-existing levels of vaccine uptake and hesitancy, eligibility changes, and the pandemic trajectory."

On 2020-09-06 14:23:35, user Knut Wittkowski wrote:

The hypothesis of two strains in my manuscript, starting in the March 31 version, was confirmed in a July 2 paper in Cell. Korber (2020) identified two strains, D614 and G614, of which G614 is more virulent and arrived in Europe first in Italy.<br /> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.c...

On 2024-07-01 17:32:52, user Cristian Riccio wrote:

Hello, there is a typo in the title. "half-a-million" -> "half a million"

On 2020-09-27 12:30:11, user Saurabh Mandal wrote:

Dear Authors, <br /> You have mentioned that no single paper has been published by Bihar, a BIMARU state. This can be attributed for lack of medical or health science education and research institutions in this part.

I would like to know from authors, Could you please decribe that how many full-fledged research institutes are there in Bihar? How many active research groups are there who works in virus or virology research? How many virus research papers has been published from Bihar by 02/03/2020?

If authors compares with existing research status of any states and then compares with coronavorus research contribution, then it will be more robust to make attribution.

On 2020-03-14 19:27:30, user Halmartin Brown wrote:

Covid-19 Question: What is the risk of the virus being transmitted on paper and mail in general and packages? Are mail and package carriers being tested and are they using gloves? I read it can survive up to a day on cardboard and cash doesn't allow viruses to survive as long.

On 2020-12-22 08:44:55, user Maxime Baud wrote:

Study published in Lancet Neurology, now available at https://www.thelancet.com/j...

On 2024-05-14 18:33:34, user Chris Buck wrote:

It seems to me that the simplest explanation for these data is that a lot of people are walking around with an H5N1 infection in their gut. It's certainly a follow-up hypothesis worth testing. I've posted a more detailed argument on my Substack page: <br /> https://open.substack.com/pub/cbuck/p/h5n1-is-messing-with-texans

On 2020-04-30 15:02:24, user Subhradip AIIMS New Delhi wrote:

Why gene expression RPKM for ACE2 is very low in lungs? Source : TiGER, Protein Atlas

On 2021-12-30 19:39:03, user Jesusswept wrote:

Study Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

On 2021-01-28 07:53:10, user lotfi chaari wrote:

Journal version after peer review is available here: <br /> https://benthamopen.com/con...

On 2020-03-30 16:54:02, user Anton Surda wrote:

How can I get the model available online.

On 2020-06-28 05:19:24, user David Perkins wrote:

This study is so flawed that it should be immediately withdrawn, and the study designers reeducated on how to run a study. The flaw is that it doesn't test for the following: "If workers or users at a gym have covid-19, can procedures be put in place at the gym to greatly reduce (or even eliminate) the spread of the disease to other workers or users at the gym?" (Said another way "Is is safe to go to a gym and work out?") To run such a study without the consent of the workers or users would be unethical (or most likely, illegal). Instead, a study was set up to see who knows what? Was it that the equipment or the building doesn't spread the disease? I am completely shocked that this study was carried out and that it had coverage in the NYTimes and other national publications. Because using people that are carriers of Covid-19 is unethical, a better experiment would be to use a non-lethal disease such as the common cold (or the flu) and try to determine which procedures at gyms minimizes its transmission.<br /> Again, this study did not determine if it was safe to use a gym. It showed nothing!

On 2021-08-15 02:02:46, user bcwbcwbcw wrote:

An online survey, where anyone can claim to have a PhD and no tests or controls for whether that's true? If you're anti-vax what better way to claim credibility than to lie and claim to have a PhD? In other past surveys , 6% of PhD's said they are Republican, yet the hesitancy results for PhD's are nearly the same as the strongest Trump supporters. (statistically possible but very unlikely.) (https://www.pewresearch.org... ) If I was a reviewer, I would ask see the breakdown of Trump support versus education level. If not consistent with other studies, the educational attainment data should be discounted.

I took this survey and it likely has some use as far as changes in totals over time but PhD's not really.

Let me give you a data point from a lab with about 1500 PhD's and tech staff. Everyone I've asked is vaccinated and I've asked everyone I'm in contact with.

On 2021-08-15 10:02:06, user Anna Z. wrote:

This paper is circulating among no-vax groups and used as a prof that educated people don't get the vaccine because they are not fooled by the government.<br /> How did you make sure that the survey was not circulated among no-wax groups that on purpose answered to obtain this result?

On 2025-05-23 02:41:40, user Robert C. Speth wrote:

Aside from making unfounded claims of adverse effects of vaccines to distract from the lifesaving benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 and other communicable diseases; the data presented by Levi et al. to support the conclusion that more people die after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine compared to the mRNA-1273 vaccine are dubious.<br /> The authors report a population of 9,162,484 Floridians who were immunized with these two vaccines, however, data comparing matched cohorts - the primary information conveyed in this report - is for only 1,470,100 Floridians, 16% of the total population receiving these vaccinations. Discarding 84% of the population opens up the possibility that the data was cherry picked to match the authors’ hypothesis. Indeed, in Supplement Figure 3, which is not mentioned in the main text of the report, the results of the entire 9,162,484 Floridians who were vaccinated with these two vaccines are opposite to those reported in the manuscript. It shows that vaccination with the mRNA-1273 vaccine increased the risk for all cause deaths, cardiovascular deaths and non-COVID-19 deaths in the 12-month period following the second vaccination. <br /> Of greatest concern, however, is the failure of the authors to compare death rates of non-vaccinated matched controls with those vaccinated by either of the two mRNA vaccines. It is well established that millions of lives were saved by vaccination with these two vaccines, which is of much greater significance than any small difference in efficacy of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines to protect against a subsequent variant of SARS CoV-2.

On 2025-05-01 19:06:19, user John R wrote:

Now compare to the unvaccinated.

On 2020-05-28 16:48:14, user Megan Toohey wrote:

So I had an antibody test that came back negative but I did have trace amounts apparently. The range was 1.4 and my result was 0.2. I did get sick for a week with severe migraine, dizzy, light headed, nausea, fever runny, nose (off and on but not bad) not really congested, no sob, or cough. Got tested twice for covid which came back negative each time. I work in a hospital so i am around covid a lot. I'm just looking for some insight on that 0.2 result. And if they mostly doing detected/not detected type testing doesn't that technically mean if its my system its been detected? I'm not a scientist, doctor, or nurse so I apologize if my question is dumb.

On 2020-10-28 17:49:44, user Sam Wheeler wrote:

How often should a healthy 40-year-old person take the flu shot, for maximum protection? Every 2 months, until real covid-19 vaccine is available?

Does vaccine brand matter? Egg-free vaccines better? Egg-free flu vaccines are unavailable in most European countries, where could an European consumer buy them and how?

On 2022-08-29 19:04:05, user Vivek Verma wrote:

Abstract says "100mg of LSD"; is it true or a typo?

On 2022-01-21 00:18:18, user Myssi Graves wrote:

It's disappointing to see the final published abstract. I have to wonder if the authors had to agree to adding the political 'vaccinate and boost' in order to be published, or if it was fear of backlash. The paper was a warning of possibilities, not a push to continue using a vaccine that fit the very failures the article warned of, or at least it was.

On 2022-04-07 15:07:03, user Addi Romero wrote:

A revised, updated version has been published as a correspondence in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. A link will be forthcoming. Meanwhile, feel free to have a look at the In Press, Corrected Proof: <br /> https://www.sciencedirect.c...

Dynamics of humoral and T-cell immunity after three BNT162b2 vaccinations in adults older than 80 years

On 2020-08-30 11:26:31, user Wolfgang Wodarg wrote:

Does anyone know a study older than one year, giving evidence to let patients, who are infected with respiratory viruses wear masks? Why didn't we pactice this all those flu- corona- rsv-, hMPV, etc- seasons before?

On 2021-08-29 21:49:01, user Tim Hinchliff wrote:

Why is there reason to believe there would be a difference in propensity to get tested?<br /> "The infected group will exclude people who have died from the virus". How is this relevant to which of the two techniques gives better protection? People who die from the vaccine will also be excluded from the vaccine group. That has nothing to do with whether the vaccine gives effective protection or not.<br /> "It should also be noted there was no difference in deaths between the group's"<br /> Again what relevance does this have? Deaths can only be a function of cases. You cannot have a covid death without a covid case (at least in theory). If cases are reduced then on the whole deaths must be reduced. <br /> None of this is particularly surprising as a covid infection will induce a whole immunity response including t-cells which have been shown to be very important in viral responses. The vaccines only induce antibody response.

On 2021-12-01 13:15:14, user MWK wrote:

This study is both limited and flawed on many levels. First, it is a retrospective, observational study. That is, no actual serial testing was done. It was a study of past medical records, and that is all.

No regular covid testing was done to see if asymptomatic people in any of the groups were positive. No regular blood testing was done to see if antibodies were present at a higher number than a previous count. A spike in antibody counts from a previous count would indicate a recent covid infection.

These people were not instructed to get tested if they started showing only minor signs and symptoms as they did not even know they were part of a study until after the fact as it was done retrospectively.

So, it is quite possible that people in all three groups did not get tested if they were showing only minor symptoms.

However, it has been argued, and I completely agree, that the least likely group to go and get tested if showing only minor signs/symptoms would be the previously infected group, especially if they had a moderate to serious sickness the first time around.

It was then and still is now a very widely held belief that previous infection protected an individual. Additionally, previously infected people were and are being asked to donate antibodies to help those who were sick, clearly implying protection from repeat infection.

It also has been argued that the vaccinated group would be more likely to get tested if showing only minor signs and symptoms because no one was sure if the vaccine would work against the Delta variant, and vaccinated people were very concerned.

So, simply put, these numbers are not at all accurate, reliable, or valid.

I do not believe this study will ever be published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal as the scientific community is already finding serious problems with this study,

On 2021-12-22 02:45:31, user Renee, the cooking RD wrote:

It would seem that the fact that the plant-based nature of the intervention diet might have been a confounding variable and possibly the major contributor to the positive effects. Lots of research already shows that plant proteins are a lot kinder to kidneys than animal protein.

On 2020-03-05 21:03:21, user Arturo Tozzi cns wrote:

CROSS-REACTIVITY BETWEEN COVID-19 AND CHILDHOOD VACCINES?

One speculation for the lower SARS clinical severity in children is that cross-protective antibodies were elicited in children as a response to one of their childhood vaccines.<br /> A 2007 paper (on mice immunised with various vaccines) states that children's vaccines do not induce cross reactivity against SARS-CoV

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

However, the above-mentioned paper is affected by several bias.

Therefore, would it be feasible to look for cross-correlations between the RNA and proteic sequences of the NCOV 2019 and the immunogenic epitopes of the vaccines administeded to chinese children? If a correlation does exist, it could be possible to vaccinate the whole sensitive population.

Arturo Tozzi<br /> Center for Nonlinear Science, Department of Physics, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA<br /> tozziarturo@libero.it<br /> Arturo.Tozzi@unt.edu

Gennaro D'Amato<br /> Division of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases, Department of Chest Diseases, High Specialty A. Cardarelli Hospital, Napoli, Italy<br /> Medical School of Specialization in Respiratory Diseases, University on Naples Federico II.<br /> gdamatomail@gmail.com

On 2025-12-01 15:00:29, user Mayank Sikarwar wrote:

Thank you for sharing this interesting work. Could you kindly provide the supplementary data associated with this study? It would greatly help in understanding and reproducing your findings.

On 2020-12-17 16:23:47, user G F wrote:

Our just published, see https://bmjopen.bmj.com/con... , detailed study protocol and data analysis plan may guide other biomarker exploration trials. You're welcome to get in touch with us (fuellen@uni-rostock.de) !

On 2020-04-24 20:11:40, user Diego B. wrote:

This article has been posted on JAMA Network: https://jamanetwork.com/jou...

On 2020-09-19 13:39:00, user kdrl nakle wrote:

The fundamental UK study on dexamethasone has made the same conclusion so you are really not breaking any new ground with this.

On 2021-11-30 09:20:59, user Glenn LGG wrote:

Crucially the study also misses clear criteria for testing (including symptoms - if any) and the number of people subjected to PCR testing (under which regimen?) in each cohort.<br /> Arbitrary PCR testing does not imply any true event.

On 2021-12-30 00:27:59, user Wesley Burchnall wrote:

Wouldn't people who have had PCR positive test (and survived covid-19) have natural immune response/antibody production and therefore any resistance to future strains be ambiguous as to whether the resistance was from the vaccination-induced antibodies or natural immunity response's antibodies?

How would removing an ambiguous group or data points with an obvious confounding variable, make a study "faulty"? Would it be better to screen for this confounding variable?

I'm legitimately asking and curious. To me, I would think the removing of confounding variables strengthens the validity of the results, not worsens; within reason.

On 2021-12-25 21:47:17, user Daniel Song wrote:

Um the results don't seem to back the conclusions the authors come up with<br /> Back to the drawing board I guess

On 2023-07-07 16:44:43, user Stephanie London wrote:

This paper has now been published in Frontiers in Microbiology and appears in Pubmed. Reference is Wang Z, Dalton KR, Lee M, Parks CG, Beane Freeman LE, Zhu Q, Gonz Lez A, Knight R, Zhao S, Motsinger-Reif AA, London SJ. Metagenomics reveals novel microbial signatures of farm exposures in house dust. Front Microbiol. 2023 Jun 21;14:1202194. doi: 0.3389/fmicb.2023.1202194. eCollection 2023. PMID: 37415812. PMCID: PMC10321240.

On 2021-08-06 21:20:16, user MotherGinger wrote:

This is at the stage of calculating CFR where we were with the initial wild SARS-Cov2 in February 2021. That is, we have no idea how many cases there actually are, because most people aren't getting tested.

Testing was extremely common prior to mass vaccination, but post-vaccination, most people no longer bother to get tested as soon as they have symptoms, most institutions (colleges, healthcare, etc.) stopped requiring weekly testing for those with proof of vaccination, most institutions requiring immediate tests for participation (sports, travel, etc.) stopped requiring it for those with proof of vaccination, and the CDC, among other public health bodies, announced they would stop collecting stats for asymptomatic cases in the vaccinated.

That means the denominator for the CFR for VOC-202012/1 ("Delta") is completely unknown, just as it was in February 2020 for the wild virus, when it was estimated at 3.5% or higher, at least an order of magnitude higher than it turned out to be.

Unfortunately, this study doesn't yet allow us to compare apples to apples.

On 2025-04-16 08:59:33, user Idan Menashe wrote:

Now published here: DOI: 10.1186/s11689-024-09550-z

On 2020-03-27 22:25:16, user Leon van Engelen wrote:

Is there connectien between rhesus + vs -

On 2020-05-14 03:50:20, user Hey Dr Drew wrote:

https://www.medrxiv.org/con...<br /> Also this !

On 2020-05-24 07:09:29, user Animesh Ray wrote:

Once again, this study uses previous studies' data (by the kit manufacturers) to estimate CL of their specificity estimate. This is flawed--a classic Type I error. In other words, the authors use "meta-analysis" of other studies data to establish the bounds of their own data interpretation. Meta-analysis requires very careful calibration of admissible data using several well-known metrics. None of that has been done here. These results will remain flawed until the authors use their kits under their own experimental conditions to determine the true negative frequencies using sufficient (at least 200) pre-COVID19 samples. Even then I will be worried because these samplings will be conducted non-contemporaneously with their main study. In other words, these studies have little hope of being salvaged because of their fundamentally flawed study design.

On 2020-05-03 19:21:56, user ThetTruth wrote:

Can anyone use these findings to arrive at an estimate of how many US deaths from covid will occur 2019-2020?

On 2020-04-18 21:23:50, user Jim Rossi wrote:

Interesting & optimistic if this holds up. Thanks for sharing.

On 2021-07-01 15:31:12, user David Gurwitz wrote:

This study may potentially allow better prognostics in Covid-19. If validated by further studies, it may even indicate that clinical trials of testosterone supplementation in male Covid-19 patients with low serum testosterone levels are warranted.

A recent study by Peruzzo et al. 2021 (Front Pharmacol. 2021 May 13;12:683529), titled “Synergy Between Vitamin D and Sex Hormones in Respiratory Functionality of Patients Affected by COVID-19” seems supportive for this preprint (and should be cited by the preprint authors). Peruzzo et al. observed “a significantly positive correlation between 17?-estradiol and 25(OH)D in elderly women and between testosterone and 25(OH)D in elderly men”. As Vitamin D is a well-established immune enhancer, it could be that the positive effects of higher serum testosterone reported in this preprint reflect higher serum vitamin D. This aspect of their findings should be examined.

The authors of this preprint discuss the role of hyper-coagulation in severe Covid-19 as a key risk for fatal outcome. In this context, it is noteworthy that a recent meta-analysis of 13 clinical trials (Ayele et al. 2021; Thrombosis Research; PMID: 33486321) indicated that testosterone replacement therapy in men was not associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism.

Taken together, the authors suggestions that testosterone may be beneficial for male Covid-19 patients with low serum testosterone definitely warrants further research.

David Gurwitz, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel

On 2021-06-21 17:58:22, user Greg wrote:

I will pose a very simple question. If masks worked, why wasn't the pandemic stopped in its tracks? Instead, it has played out like all outbreaks do. Masks didn't work in 1918 during the Spanish Flu pandemic, and they don't work now. Surgical masks or cloth masks were never meant to stop viruses. Why do you think workers in highly-secure biolabs wear airtight suits? Why go through all that trouble if they could just pop on a surgical mask?

The fact is, masks are simply for show. They make people feel safe and secure, but it's all theater. That's why you see people continuing to wear them even after the mandates have been lifted. They make them feel safe. It's always been about feelings, when it should've been about science.

On 2021-08-31 19:01:52, user wesmorgan1 wrote:

Did you read the study?

"The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings. This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks."

On 2020-10-11 21:53:53, user Sam Wheeler wrote:

You can also use Betadine for nasal irrigation. Perhaps it also helps to stop covid.<br /> https://link.springer.com/a...<br /> 27 September 2019<br /> Concentrated solutions of 5% and 10% PVP-I were ciliotoxic, and advised caution with its use in the nose. As an upper limit of tolerability, PVP-I diluted to 1.25% has been shown not to be ciliotoxic in vitro, while a dilution to as low as 0.01% has shown to be the lower limit of active potency. A diluted PVP-I concentration of 0.08% was arbitrarily chosen as it was deemed to fall within the safe window of activity and permitted easy mixture for patients by diluting 2 mL of commercially available 10% aqueous Betadine into 240 mL of normal saline. Patients were instructed to rinse each side of the nose with 0.08% PVP-I every other day for 7 weeks.

On 2023-09-27 12:35:32, user Patrick Alexander Wachholz wrote:

This preprint has been published in a peer-reviewed journal at https://www.scielo.br/j/rla...

On 2021-04-16 14:11:38, user Claudio Marabotti wrote:

I'd like to ask Authors why they did a retrospective study rather than a prospective one. The high number of cases in Italy in the so-called "second wave" would make easy to recruit two parallel matched groups, one "actively treated" and one serving as a control group, possibly in a couple of weeks. Moreover, even if some reason may explain the need of a restrospective analisys, I think that comparing patients in different epidemic phases seems to represent a source of bias. Actually, knowledge about the disease, and therefore clinical approach to it, was definitely different in the two phases.

On 2020-07-24 23:05:36, user Guest wrote:

IFR is a good thing to measure. I’d rather concentrate on Excess Deaths.

Total Deaths from any cause are way up. There is a second spike forming (first was mostly NY city)

Click: “Weekly Number of Deaths by Age,” then “Update Dashboard”

Select a Jurisdiction or Age group if you wish to change the chart

See the Weekly Deaths by jurisdiction and age group over the previous 5 years (gray) & this year (red)

Title: <br /> Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nv...

On 2021-07-31 22:45:18, user Matt Mauro wrote:

In Table S4 it lays out the causes of death. What's the difference between a COVID-19 pneumonia death and a COVID-19 death?

On 2021-08-26 14:59:31, user Holger Lundstrom wrote:

So, to summarize:

• COVID-19 cases after dose 2: 77 (vax) vs. 850 (placebo) hinting at 91.3% protection
• no difference in cases for those with prior infection
• deaths during blinded period: 15 (vax) vs. 14 (placebo)
• COVID deaths during blinded period: 1 (vax) vs. 2 (placebo)
• deaths during total period: 20 (vax) vs. 14 (placebo)

Conclusion: <br /> 1.) Vaccine allows for 91.3% relative risk reduction. Total risk reduces from 3,9% (placebo) to 0,35% (vax) within the study timeframe. A decrease of 3% efficacy per month is expected - but is likely to be much larger, according to recent reports from Israel.<br /> https://www.sciencemag.org/...

2.) People with prior infection benefit very little from the vaccination, if at all. No benefit is recorded within study period. According to assumptions made here of about 70% protection (prior infection) vs. 90% protection (vax), a vaccination for people with prior immunity would reduce total risk from about 1% to 0,35%. However, it is more likely that prior immunity awards better protection than a vaccine does, due to the involvement of other aspects of pathogen defense, such as IgA antibodies. Again, no benefit was recorded in the study.<br /> https://stm.sciencemag.org/...

3.) No significant benefit is recorded concerning deaths due to coronavirus (1 vs. 2). Overall deaths are higher in vaccinated group than in placebo group, however total numbers are small (20 vs. 14).

Supplement tables:<br /> htt...

On 2021-07-29 23:21:22, user eli_ot wrote:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/fu...

On 2020-05-18 16:23:32, user Daniel Connelly wrote:

From the beginning, it was known that Zinc is the active portion of the HCQ & Zinc combination. The HCQ was necessary to increase intracellular Zinc to block viral replication. The organizers of this study are both brave and brilliant.....but they also were not fully truthful. They called it a retrospective study when it is really a prospective study. The experimental arm was with Zinc and the control was without Zinc. The cohorts for the 2 arms were well matched and the regimen standardized. HCQ was not officially part of the study as it was dosed the same in both cohorts. <br /> Why would they need to organize the study this way? IMO, because they would have been blocked from doing a prospective study around HCQ. That is to dirty politics that good physicians are fighting against to save lives.<br /> What does this "prospective" study of "Zinc" show????<br /> 1. All other studies which did not use Zinc along with HCQ are at best, irrelevant and at worst, fraudulent.<br /> 2. HCQ with or without Zinc is useless in severely ill ICU patients.....as expected.<br /> 3. Zinc with HCQ was effective early to increase recovery and prevent death....as expected.<br /> 4. The study strongly supports the proposed mechanism of action of HCQ as a zinc ionophore.

What we don't know:<br /> 1. How effective is HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin when given in the ambulatory setting with the onset of symptoms?<br /> 2. How many hospitalizations would be avoided? Deaths?<br /> 3. How much is the transmission R0 value reduced for patients on this drug combo, especially in closed environments like nursing homes? How much is the environmental viral load decreased?

On 2021-06-15 17:03:14, user Jana Hirschtick wrote:

This paper is now available in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases: https://academic.oup.com/ci...

On 2022-01-28 20:33:22, user Mohamad Kabbani wrote:

Fantastic article! Very informative and the ideas are easy to understand. This is a good baseline to get a better understanding on how different things have become during and after covid-19. We can learn what a pandemic can do to a population and compare it to this data as a reference point.

On 2020-05-05 13:21:34, user Franko Ku wrote:

Hope this is right about the mechanism and she gives some insight on HCQP <br /> https://m-jpost-com.cdn.amp...<br /> excerpt<br /> The Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), the national authority responsible for drug regulation in Italy, has an approved trial of hydroxychloroquine on 2,500 patients, which will start in early July and focus on the use of hydroxychloroquine in prophylaxis, Chiusolo said. The study, for which preliminary data would be ready within 16 weeks, will look at whether the preventive intake of the drug decreases the probability of contracting COVID-19 when one comes directly into contact with a positive patient.<br /> THE ROLE of hydroxychloroquine in the prevention and fight against coronavirus was also the subject of a study published in The International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, which describes how a healthcare worker infected with the novel coronavirus traveled freely within a hospital before being diagnosed with the virus.<br /> “It was not possible to quarantine everyone who had come into contact with the healthcare worker,” Chiusolo said. So, they treated 211 healthcare professionals and patients with hydroxychloroquine. After 10 days, nobody tested positive for the coronavirus.<br /> Furthermore, Chiusolo told the Post, the Italian Society of Rheumatology interviewed 1,200 rheumatologists throughout Italy to collect statistics on contagions. Out of an audience of 65,000 chronic lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who systematically take hydroxychloroquine, only 20 patients tested positive for the virus.

Then we have a questionable prevention trial for prevention with HCQP funded by Gates Foundation at Univ of Washington where the placebo is high dose Vitamin C instead of inert pill. Why? So the results aren't as different. They should also give same amount of Vitamin C to the HCQP arm.<br /> https://clinicaltrials.gov/...<br /> excerpt<br /> This is a randomized, multi-center, placebo-equivalent (ascorbic acid) controlled, blinded study of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults exposed to the virus<br /> also see for others joing<br /> https://www.clinicaltrials....<br /> In fact here's one of the studies using Vitamin C and zinc and Vit. D with HCQ<br /> https://www.clinicaltrials....

There need to be many many more trials and studies including zinc.<br /> Here is one:<br /> https://www.clinicaltrials....

Some good news about Gilead's remdesisvir but if accurate as Dr. Fauci said will need an anti-inflammatory cohort. We have one in HCQP AND zinc.<br /> https://www.insiderbaseball...

On 2021-12-25 13:45:26, user Blister wrote:

Interesting that most evidence used to support boosting against omicron is in vitro. If anyone has a study that shows real clinical benefit to boosting with these legacy vaccines please share. This paper is being cited by authors as supporting the use of legacy virus boosters as opposed to a new generation variant booster.

On 2024-08-16 10:09:21, user Unclaimed wrote:

Article publsihed at Nature doi 10.1038/s41586-024-07769-3

On 2021-09-03 20:53:44, user Cal Research wrote:

This article has been published in Frontiers in Medicine: https://www.frontiersin.org...

On 2021-02-26 03:35:39, user Larisa Tereshchenko wrote:

Because this preprint was very large, we divided it and so we now have two separate (completely different) manuscripts published out of this preprint:<br /> (1) in European Heart Journal - Digital Health, ztab003, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehj... <br /> (2) in BMJ Open: BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 31;11(1):e042899. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042899. PubMed PMID: 33518522

On 2021-12-21 15:35:35, user Greg Mock wrote:

Has any association of PANS and the NOD2 gene been studied?

On 2020-04-15 19:06:22, user Greg Lambert wrote:

For ultraviolet disinfection the study uses a UVC lamp (260-285nm) but measures the power output with a UVAB meter (which measures 280-400nm) hence the N95s are being exposed to a much, much higher UV power level than is stated in the paper.

On 2020-11-21 09:00:00, user Ton Soons wrote:

the study didn’t address rhe intrinsic benefits of population-wide testing and it default assumes sensitivity and specifity will be a challenge. Suppose population-wide testing would be executed by using a pooled PCR-based testing strategy. Suppose the population-wide testing based on pooled PCR testing was addressed to a more realistic scenario by using it as a kind of front testing of HCW or at Nursing homes. More realistic scenario’s to study would als be:<br /> ->the added value of testing and monitoring of contacts during their quarantaine period (ttsi) in order to support backward contact tracing to find the super spreader. Keep in mind ‘mainly’ 20% is responsible for wide spreading!<br /> -> additional precaution taken to enter events, hospitals, restaurants, theaters, work envirionments.

On 2022-08-01 00:35:38, user JJ wrote:

Looks like some numbers are inconsistent, eg 146 vs 158 and 303 vs 301 in the unmasked group.

On 2021-12-24 21:34:35, user Robert Parker wrote:

So, these vaccines are, essentially, not effective against Omicron. The upside is that Omicron seems, at the moment, to be like getting a really bad cold. Very little hospitalization, and no deaths as far as I can find. This may be a Godsend. It is highly transmissible, with few bad effects. It may actually serve as a means to herd immunity, with few deaths. Hope springs eternal.

On 2020-12-26 19:56:50, user Dr S K Maheshwari wrote:

This systematic review is focusing on measuring effectiveness of mHealth interventions on antenatal and postnatal care utilization in low and middle-income countries. A strong methodology was used along with wide inclusion of relevant studies from low and middle-income countries. The search strategy criteria were used very specific. I appreciate this work and recommend.

On 2020-12-02 16:52:31, user Benjamin Speich wrote:

This was an interesting article, thanks for posting it!

On 2023-12-05 02:49:44, user Author wrote:

This article is now published on Journal of Psychopharmacology: https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811231211219

On 2020-05-24 08:36:41, user Lauren wrote:

Accidental death rates for my age group of 30 to 39 are roughly 1 in 1000 (white female) roughly the same as COVID. I get what others are saying but this specifically addresses percent of death compared to other fatality statistics. I do think though that thr 50 or 60 age range is more likely to die of COVID IF almost everyone were to be exposed, hopefully we will not see that. This however does not include impact of COVID on black and Hispanic populations which are much higher.

On 2021-05-19 22:26:18, user Michael Plank wrote:

This paper has now been published in the New Zealand Medical Journal and is available open access at: https://www.nzma.org.nz/jou...

On 2020-05-08 04:39:19, user Robin H wrote:

This study is weird.

First of all : why a daily dose of 600mg of HCQ?<br /> Raoult and his team use a dose of 200mg per day to treat Covid-19. The general dose for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis or lupus is 200 to 400mg, max 600mg if there is no response.<br /> There is a high debate about the potential cardiac toxicity of HCQ... But with this dose, we can understand that "Eight patients receiving HCQ (9.5%) experienced electrocardiogram modifications requiring HCQ discontinuation." Of course...<br /> Did the authors intend to favor the cardiac toxicity of HCQ to invalidate this treatment?... I Wonder.

Second point: when you display the characteristics of the observed populations in the first table, you should indicate the p-value concerning the comparisons. If I'm correct, the HCQ group tends to have a more severe condition BEFORE treatment, at admission. 14 HCQ-treated patients (21.9%) vs 8 control patients (12.1%) had >50% of lung affected in CT scan... There is a trend to a significant difference with a p-value of 0.08...

Then, you can't be conclusive with such bias...

On 2025-05-01 12:48:20, user Ravi Sharma wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

in loving memory of my late, beloved mother, a type 2 diabetic since my birth, I dedicate this research to harnessing the beneficial power of gen-AI to banish GDM from the face of the earth.

I salute my industrious and loyal research group for their dedication in this journey.

Until our work is published and linked to this DoI, kindly cite this preprint as ...

Edmund Evangelistaa, Fathima Rubab, Syed M. Salman Bukhari, Amril Nazir and Ravishankar Sharma. (2025). "Developing a GraphRAG-enabled local-LLM for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus." medRxiv preprint doi: https://medrxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2025.04.28.25326568v1

With kind regards and best wishes, Ravi

On 2021-08-26 07:10:10, user William Brooks wrote:

To help readers clearly see the difference in infectiousness before, during, and after the various interventions (i.e., the states of emergency, school closures, and GoTo travel campaign),the authors should add the start and end points of the interventions in Figure 2.

On 2023-03-07 04:37:46, user Ted Gunderson wrote:

July 2021 had more covid19 deaths than any other month in Rwanda.

This was after 80% of the population was injected with the covid19 vaccines.

African countries with significantly lower vaccination rates had significantly lower covid19 mortality rates.

Why doesn't this paper address this?

On 2020-05-22 13:37:38, user Dan Elton wrote:

The original version can be viewed here: https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

On 2020-05-29 06:56:04, user Luis Ayerbe wrote:

Probably the largest Covid database in the world. Hydroxihycholoroquine given to 87% of patients. Data available on mortality. Wouldn't you consider building a model to see if HCQ improves survival at all?

On 2021-10-08 05:09:07, user Anya Dunham wrote:

Hi Sean and team, as a scientist and a mom of a 2020 baby, I read your paper with interest. Similar to Pasco, I wondered about the effects of masks. I am also wondering whether babies might have exhibited some form of a 'freeze' response, as some might have not left their homes or neighborhoods much... In an exaggerated example, I would probably do okay on a cognitive test in my home or your lab, but perhaps not so well if I were abducted by aliens... which a lab setting might feel like to babies born during the pandemic.

Similarly, there could be a novelty effect. Given that babies learn by figuring out patterns and experiencing novel events, I wonder if everything in the lab visit was so new that babies who didn't 'freeze' had a harder time paying focused attention to the task at hand. (I see you already mentioned something similar below.) I imagine even following a shape with their eyes might be more challenging if baby is greatly distracted by the novelty of a visit. I can see my summer 2020 baby having this challenge, although he has amazing focus when playing independently at home. I think some measure(s) from the home environment taken by the family would be important here.

Lastly, how did the families join the study? Did they self-identify? (As a side note, I would have liked to see more details in the Methods section - perhaps I am missing an Appendix?) At least where we live, getting an appointment with a pediatrician has been much more challenging during the pandemic. So I wondered if families who had some concerns around their babies' development (even subconscious ones) could have been more likely to join.

On 2021-09-02 22:45:41, user Roger Marble wrote:

I understand the increase in hospitalization but doesn't that also mean a significant increase just in the number / % infected? CDC wants people who test as infected to be under quarantine for 2 weeks. How does that work when we soon will have a majority of the population infected even if they are not sick? I thought the vaccines prevented serious illness and some deaths but did not prevent infection.

On 2020-11-04 14:41:47, user Rodrigo Quiroga wrote:

Are´t these results expected regardless of children´s proneness to infection and infectivity? Up until August, the time periods with open schools were also periods with low viral propagation in the UK.

Wouldn´t the interesting period to observe with such an analysis be precisely August-November, with open schools and increasing case numbers?

On 2022-01-07 19:58:49, user Clive wrote:

Hi, please correct me if I'm wrong, but reading this study I'm not seeing any comparison to the baseline population that has not contracted COVID. If, as I'm sure you're aware of, a broader worsening of health conditions has increased across the population during the time frame of this study, could the data be misrepresenting a change to the mean in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. For a specific example, I've heard anxiety rates have tripled since the start of the pandemic across the population, and if that pattern was ongoing at the time of this study could the study be overestimating the increase in anxiety among both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, as everyone, not just those who contracted COVID, experienced an increase in anxiety?

On 2021-10-25 10:06:26, user Camille Charbonnier wrote:

Thank you for this work, it is really interesting to see what the 200,000 exomes from the UK Biobank have to say on rare variants in Alzheimer disease.<br /> Just one question and one remark:<br /> - you cite Holstege et al (doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/202... "https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.22.20159251)"). On top of ABCA7, SORL1 and TREM2, this study also identified ATP8B4 and ABCA1 as genes associated with AD, while ADAM10 and SRC failed to reach exome-wide significance at stage 2. Have you tried to replicate these two or four signals?<br /> - there seems to be a few mismatches between rsIDs and p. annotations among TREM2 rare variants, you might want to check these. At the bottom of page 3, rs75932628 cannot be both arginine to histidine and p.R239W. Besides rs75932628 is the p.R47H variant. Therefore at the top of the following page, rs143332484 cannot be p.R47H, it is p.R62H instead.

On 2021-05-26 19:18:16, user Gudsson wrote:

This study might be crucial when explaing the susceptibility to the symptoms of Long Covid.

On 2020-11-18 19:54:47, user Donald R. Forsdyke wrote:

RISK ALLELES FAVOUR POSITIVE SELECTION OF CELLS POISED FOR "NEAR-SELF" REACTIVITY

The hypervariable CDR3 regions of T cell receptors (TCRs) show specificity for peptides (p) that can associate with individual-specific sets of MHC (HLA) proteins. Different individuals inherit different sets of MHC genes (polymorphism). T cells defend against pathogens by recognizing pathogen-derived peptides complexed with MHC proteins (pMHC). However, T cells can also cause autoimmune disease by reacting with an individual's own peptides complexed with MHC proteins. Thus, there are "inter-individual differences in autoimmune disease risk," and "CDR3 patterns associated with autoimmune disease risks might indicate T cell reactivity to pathogenic antigens." Indeed, vulnerability to autoimmune disease is strongly correlated with inheritance of certain MHC sets ("risk alleles").

From a statistical study of pMHC-TCR sequence covariance in human populations, the authors conclude that "MHC risk polymorphisms modulate the process of thymic selection and give rise to TCR repertoires that may be poised for autoreactivity." However, they also state that “T cells that cannot generate substantial TCR signaling from any HLA-peptide complex die by neglect (positive selection).” This implies that death by neglect equates with positive selection.

In the 1970s it was proposed that, anticipating a pathogen strategy of exploiting "holes" in the T cell repertoire that had been created by negative selection of freshly arising anti-self T cells, future hosts would, though positive selection, naturally establish repertoires poised for autoreactivity. Thus, following positive selection, peripheral T cells recognize, and are maintained through tonic-stimulation by, "near-self" antigens. Individuals inheriting MHC risk alleles equilibrate nearer to the perilous anti-self "brink" than individuals inheriting non-risk alleles.

The wealth of fresh evidence on this, as provided by the authors, is interpreted as favouring the “central [thymic] hypothesis.” However, they agree that the “central hypothesis” and the “peripheral hypothesis” are non-exclusive. Indeed, their results provide important evidence supporting a combined central-peripheral hypothesis. This has recently been summarized (Forsdyke DR. Scand J Immunol. 2019; e12746).

On 2020-08-30 04:40:35, user puzzled_one wrote:

Hi Joao - Thank you for the analysis - good effort. Question: your paper states just over 40% of patients over 60 were vaccinated against influenza in the past two years. But other papers state over 70% of Brazilians over 60 are vaccinated. Since less than half your cohort were vaccinated, does this imply vaccination has further protective effects (unhospitalised infections)?

Second question: on page 11, people over 60 show a *positive* association (1.12) between past influenza vaccination and Covid-19 mortality. Is that correct? Does this group mean people vaccinated in the last two years (prior to the current campaign)?

On 2020-09-14 11:45:41, user Andrew Boswell ???????????? wrote:

"We found that an increase of only 1 ????g/m3 in PM2.5 is associated with an 8% increase in the COVID-19 death rate"

Is your COVID evidence actually reflecting a more general extreme sensitivity to PMs across underlying respiratory conditions which has been detected through the lense of the COVID research. I found this tweet (https://twitter.com/AliNour... "https://twitter.com/AliNouriPhD/status/1296554508684754945?s=20)") where Dr Ali Nouri says that the same effect has also been observed for other respiratory viruses like Influenza and SARS-1, and reflects the impacts of PMs to the underlying respiratory and cardiac system.

Have you looked into this with your research?

Is there other studies out there which suggests COVID is a lense to see other more underlying effects?

On 2020-05-27 02:04:13, user Chintu Shah wrote:

Interesting. I can see the oral and nasal forms becoming part of the sterile procedure process for many surgical procedures.

On 2021-08-08 08:57:23, user Raman wrote:

I am really glad that this study has been done; though the numbers are relatively small, I am glad that it has been executed well. As a vaccinologist, I have been feeling strongly that a heterologous prime-boost of covaxin followed by covishield (In my opinion, this would have been a more logical approach than the one tried here) would give better results than either of the vaccines in a homologous prime-boost mode. Glad that this itself has given good results. In case, we go for a third dose, we should perhaps switch over, though the logistics of such an approach would be difficult if not impossible).<br /> V.D.Ramanathan MBBS, PhD (London), <br /> Scientist G (Retd),<br /> National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (ICMR),<br /> vdrnathan@gmail.com<br /> 8 Aug 2021

On 2021-09-05 10:18:52, user Jessie Abbate wrote:

The authors need to explain what (precisely) they mean by their discussion statement that "the virus becomes more contagious as it is screened through the vaccinated population, eventually to become the dominant strain to infect the entire population." The following sentence and reference #12 (which is just discussing the presence of breakthrough infections) do not support this statement. I would argue to remove this statement entirely, given what I believe they mean and the (thus far) unsupported and controversial nature of the sentiment that high vaccination rates will drive evolution of escape mutants. In the history of vaccination for improving public health, this sentiment has never once helped nor been supported by the data; on the contrary, the data support the immense success of vaccines to control the spread and negative impacts of infectious diseases. While it's true that pathogens can adapt to persist when hosts become increasingly unavailable (such as with influenza pandemics), it is not an inevitability (look at smallpox), does not require that the adaptations will also lead to higher severity in vaccinated people, and above all, is not supported by any current data for COVID-19 as the emergence of the Delta variant had nothing to do with high vaccination rates. It emerged under low vax rates, and has dominated globally irrespective of vax rates.

On 2020-06-09 20:59:34, user Brenner Silva wrote:

Comment:<br /> Well explained and valid analysis.<br /> Suggestions: <br /> line 203. please indicate the formula variables in the text.<br /> Possible corrections:<br /> line 147. please name the app as in "we used the COVID-19 app to"<br /> line 210. "where each is"<br /> line 213. "is defined by the"<br /> line 325. "and future work to better understand"

On 2021-07-30 05:51:51, user Raja Mugasimangalam wrote:

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the DHSC JCVI NIHR or WHO. TW, HS, IH, JB, EJK, KS, JV, TLV are employees of AstraZeneca. <br /> should I need to say anything more?

On 2021-08-08 03:47:33, user theasdgamer wrote:

This is a very, very interesting paper. I'm not a molecular biologist nor medical, so please excuse any questions I have which may seem silly.

First, are there any conditions which might lead to viral escape from lysozomes but not zinc escape? It seems to me likely that if zinc isn't escaping, then maybe the viruses aren't escaping the lysozomes either. And should there be conditions where the viruses escape, then I would expect zinc to also escape into the cytosol. Could you perhaps give a little background here? Am I totally mistaken, and if so, how?

Second, are there bio-regulatory systems in human cells in vivo that might be triggered by high pH in lysozomes that might cause acidification of lysozomes to increase?

Third, how much variability is there in CQ protonization over time from continual lysozome acidification, or am I mistaken in thinking that cells continually acidify lysozomes?

If CQ is given twice daily, how much variation in CQ levels would there be in the lysozomes of cells in vivo?

What differences in results might we expect if we were to use hypothetical human vascular endothelial cells as the cell medium for in vitro studies?

Hydroxychloroquine is the more active form of chloroquine and I wonder if it might make some difference in results versus chloroquine.

Thank you for a most interesting paper.

On 2020-04-08 22:31:44, user Mansour Tobaiqy wrote:

I am glad to say that our manuscript Therapeutic Management of COVID-19 Patients: A systematic review has now accepted for publication at the Infection Prevention in Practice @IPIP_Open the Official Journal of the Healthcare Infection Society @HIS_infection

The last version will be available soon at their site. Thank you very much medRxiv for sharing our SR to a great and large audience .