Advances in the fight against the coronavirus

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 02/07/21, 19:23

Christophe wrote:2nd round

Evaluator Report 3

The document must be accepted as is


: Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:

Nah, nah, it’s worse, it’s indeed A BUCKET as I suspected ... Read the reports I posted (translated). : Mrgreen:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by Christophe » 02/07/21, 19:27

You added the 2nd link ... after my answer ... Well I save here "for posterity":

Proofreading by 3 peers over 2 rounds:

Tour 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript of Walach et al. provides a much anticipated analysis of the benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccination under real field conditions, based on large statistical data sets that are only becoming available in these days. While some of these publicly available underlying figures may have some inherent bias (due to reporting of side effects and / or priority of vaccination), this analysis is conducted in a responsible manner (e.g. , with plausible and convincing arguments as to why the Dutch EMA dataset was chosen) and without methodological flaws, and the results are interpreted with the necessary caveats. Interestingly, this up-to-date comparison of NNTV (Number Needed to Vaccinate) and adverse drug reactions collected by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) shows that the risk of COVID-19 infection in terms of serious side effects and death is comparable - roughly to an order of magnitude - with the risks incurred by vaccination with the predominant products in Europe (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca). This finding is a timely contribution to aid in the overall assessment of risks and benefits, both at the level of governments and physicians in charge of health care, as well as at the level of the individual - especially the elderly. and children - who may wish to choose wisely to be vaccinated based on their individual risk profile.

A few minor points should be corrected before publication:

Line 1, 14 and all along: capitalize "COVID-19"

Row 59: Authors may emphasize that they did not simply add up all (multiple) side effects in the ADR database, but refer strictly to the number of reported cases.

Line 89: hyphen "controlled active"

Table 2, columns 4 and 5: add a footnote on the observation period of these studies

Table 3, 1st column: zero missing in "for 1oo, oo0 vaccinations", and use the comma as separator

Table 3, footnote 2: link does not open

Table 3, footnote 4: Missing letter in “… the Dutch government reports two digits…”

Line 142: It should be “per 100 VACCINATIONS ISSUED” (because people should be vaccinated twice, although this is not significant during the 000 week observation period).

Lines 144-145: Use a consistent format for small numbers in this sentence, ie spell "for every SIX"

Lines 150-152: Reverse the order of the numbers to reflect the risk / benefit ratio from a vaccination point of view, ie “we risk 4 deaths to avoid 33 deaths”.

Line 177-178: rephrase the ambiguous singular-plural "The DATA we used to assess the NNTV IS BASED ON a single, although the largest field study to date, AND ON regulatory trials that were not designed … ”

Lines 199-200: duplicate sentence

Line 234: indicate more clearly "THIS ASSESSMENT RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT WOULD be useful to rethink policies and to use COVID-19 vaccines MORE sparingly ..."

Line 240: insert a comma "... severe cases, so that ..."

Author's response

We welcomed all of the reviewer's suggestions. See the attached point-by-point response

Author response file: Author response.pdf

Evaluator Report 2

Walach et al's manuscript is very important and should be published urgently. Please update the data on the number of vaccinations in the EU. Please avoid the use of the names "Pfizer", "Moderna" etc. and prefer the official names of the vaccines.

Discussion: In the sentence: "COVID-19 vaccines are immunologically effective and can prevent ..." authors should include the sentence "according to the publications".

The authors describe the literature on the potential toxic effect of SPIKE. Please add reference from Farsalinos et al, IJMS (https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/16/5807) describing and discussing the snake toxin-like epitope of the SPIKE protein.

Author's response

Thank you for your complimentary comments. We have carried out the following operations:

included information about the Farsalinos post and discussed it in the discussion
added the suggested phrase "according to the publications"
added the Pfizer and Astra-Zeneca vaccine brand names in tables and text and used the same convention as the ECDC dashboard which uses Moderna and Sputnik (not their brand names)

We have updated the vaccination data in the introductory part. But we didn't do that in the rest of the document, as it would only make sense if we updated the entire database. It takes time and would delay publication. We think it's more important to get this information out as quickly as possible. We will update the information later with more assiduous analysis based on age groups and gender etc. We hope for your understanding.

Evaluator Report 3

The manuscript “The Safety of Covid-19 Vaccinations - Should We Rethink the Policy” by Walach and colleagues was reviewed.



In their article, Walach and colleagues attempted to determine the effectiveness of currently available vaccines by comparing their protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 with side effects.

The manuscript is well written and due to the current pandemic it is of some interest.





Nevertheless, it is not clear why the study was carried out comparing NNTV obtained from an Israeli study with the side effects reported by the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch National Registry. In my opinion, due to economic and social differences, the data should be calculated using the local registry.

As made clear by the editor of the BMJ (and in the reference), the opinion reported by Cunningham is a third party online commentary and not an edited article. This should be clearly stated in the discussion.

The literature is adequate (although it needs to be reviewed extensively), but many cited texts are not peer-reviewed articles, and this should be clearly stated.



Small worries:

The manuscript should be thoroughly revised to correct printing errors (e.g. table 1, line 78, 108, 109, 111, 142, 151, etc.)

Literature should be revised to include all basic information (year, number, pages) and style properly standardized (see ref. 2, 3, 6, 7, 17)

The quality of Figure 1 should be improved



In my opinion, the manuscript should be accepted after major revisions noted.

Author's response

Please see the attached file please. A native speaker checked the revised text and made some very minor adjustments.

Author response file: Author response.pdf

2nd round:

Evaluator Report 3

The document must be accepted as is


The causes of the withdrawal:

The journal withdraws the article, Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations — We Should Rethink Policy [1], cited above.
De serious concerns have been brought to the attention of the publisher (therefore external pressures?) regarding misinterpretation of the data, leading to incorrect and distorted conclusions.

The article was reviewed by the editor with the support of several members of the editorial board. They found that the article contained several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the results. So the 3 reviewers are bozo?


These include, but are not limited to:

The data from the Lareb report ( https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in the Netherlands were used to calculate the number of serious and fatal side effects per 100 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript of Harald Walach et al. these data were misinterpreted, leading to erroneous conclusions. The data were presented as causally related to the adverse events by the authors. It’s incorrect. Why?

In the Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report suspected adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of report, a causal relationship between the event and the vaccine is not necessary. Therefore, a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to the vaccination. Thus, the declaration of death following vaccination does not imply that it is a vaccine-related event. Is this the Benny Hill Show?

There are several other inaccuracies in the article by Harald Walach et al. one of them is that the fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. You should know that even this false (??????) assertion does not imply causation, which the authors imply. In addition, the authors have called the events "effects" and "reactions" when this is not established, and until causation is established, they are "events" which may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine.

No matter what statistics we can apply, it is incorrect and misleading and until causation is established, these are "events" which may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. No matter what statistics one can apply, this is incorrect and misleading. And until causation is established, these are "events" that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. No matter what statistics one can apply, it is incorrect and misleading.
The authors have been asked to respond to the allegations, but have not been able to do so satisfactorily. The authors were informed of the retraction and did not agree.
Reference

Walach, H .; Clement, RJ; Aukema, W. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


So if we swallow all this, there would have been 0 deaths following the vaccination?

What about the 15 deaths from EUROPE that you posted a few days ago?
1 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by Janic » 02/07/21, 20:19

abcon from nullissime
Christophe must follow, this is not an article from the IHU, it is an article cited by the young lecturer from the IHU of video, who uses it to support her benefit-risk calculation vaccines, citing an incomprehensible figure for me (that 9000 to 50000 people would have to be vaccinated to avoid one death, which seems absurd to me since the case fatality rate of covid is greater than 1 in 1000).
and the archie null in French who still does not know how to read (but did he read it?) the painting equipped and not a cut sentence (like 'hab "with this olibrius) of its sufficiently clear context. : Arrowd: : Arrowd: : Arrowd:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 02/07/21, 20:54

pedrodelavega wrote:Do you look surprised? : Wink:

And the winner of "La taule du jour" is ... Végaz and his recurring hypocrisies. Bozo is out of the competition.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by ABC2019 » 02/07/21, 23:01

Janic wrote:abcon from nullissime
Christophe must follow, this is not an article from the IHU, it is an article cited by the young lecturer from the IHU of video, who uses it to support her benefit-risk calculation vaccines, citing an incomprehensible figure for me (that 9000 to 50000 people would have to be vaccinated to avoid one death, which seems absurd to me since the case fatality rate of covid is greater than 1 in 1000).
and the archie null in French who still does not know how to read (but did he read it?) the painting equipped and not a cut sentence (like 'hab "with this olibrius) of its sufficiently clear context. : Arrowd: : Arrowd: : Arrowd:


I don't know if it's clear, but no one has explained here how this figure was calculated ... not even the top scientist in the forum : roll:
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 02/07/21, 23:17

(It's stupid, even Bozo the self-proclaimed "master of all masters thésard Demeldeuze" can not answer. Could he be a clown?)
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by Obamot » 06/07/21, 20:33

So far he hasn't even shown us a 'Clown Diploma' Image

Do not set the bar too high anyway, if not Image
0 x
VetusLignum
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1690
Registration: 27/11/18, 23:38
x 760

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by VetusLignum » 18/07/21, 14:07

A site on antihistamines against covid
https://www.covid19lafin.org/
2 x
User avatar
Adrien (ex-nico239)
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9845
Registration: 31/05/17, 15:43
Location: 04
x 2150

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by Adrien (ex-nico239) » 22/07/21, 23:35

Have some old molecules ... no chance, it's all gonna be buried

Jerusalem: 3 existing drugs beat corona almost 100% in lab

https://fr.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem- ... s-un-labo/
2 x
VetusLignum
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1690
Registration: 27/11/18, 23:38
x 760

Re: Advances in the fight against the coronavirus




by VetusLignum » 23/07/21, 01:14

VetusLignum wrote:
VetusLignum wrote:
VetusLignum wrote:An article on macrolides, and in particular azithromycin.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 42313/full


And also an article on fluvoxamine:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 52688/full

And another on ivermectin:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 63586/full


And now, the mode of action of bromhexine (of which ambroxol is the main metabolite):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5821004907

melatonin
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3421001938

anti-androgens (such as proxalutamide, but there are others)
https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/ful ... 34-5909(20) 30547-6

quercetin (anti-thrombotic effects)
https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ ... 39-1694028
2 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 233 guests