Форум Привет

DiKrantz писал(а): ↑Пн апр 03, 2023 11:26 am

elpresidente* писал(а): ↑Пн апр 03, 2023 11:22 am
Ваша демагогия меня уже изрядно утомила, у вас есть до 10AM CT 4/4/2023 привести ссылки на исследования где доказано что маски при COVID-19 не помогают.

Чем вас не устраивает эта ссылка, почему такой неуважительный тон, и что за странный ультиматум?

Authors' conclusions
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

DiKrantz писал(а): ↑Пн апр 03, 2023 11:26 am почему такой неуважительный тон, и что за странный ультиматум?

elpresidente* писал(а): ↑Пн апр 03, 2023 11:39 am

DiKrantz писал(а): ↑Пн апр 03, 2023 11:26 am Чем вас не устраивает эта ссылка, почему такой неуважительный тон, и что за странный ультиматум?

Вы вообще читаете свои линки?
Вот прямо оттуда:

Authors' conclusions
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

К доказательствам что маски при COVID-19 не помогают это никак нельзя отнести.

elpresidente* писал(а): ↑Пн апр 03, 2023 11:39 am

DiKrantz писал(а): ↑Пн апр 03, 2023 11:26 am почему такой неуважительный тон, и что за странный ультиматум?

Потому что вас уже предупредили несколько раз.

Due to the health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2, the creation of a new vaccine platform based on mRNA was implemented. Globally, around 13.32 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses of diverse platforms have been given, and up to this date, 69.7% of the total population received at least one injection of a COVID-19 vaccine. Although these vaccines prevent hospitalization and severe forms of the disease, increasing evidence has shown they do not produce sterilizing immunity, allowing people to suffer frequent re-infections. Recent research has also raised concerns that mRNA vaccines could induce immune tolerance, which, added to that caused by the virus itself, could complicate the clinical course of a COVID-19 infection. Furthermore, recent investigations have found high IgG4 levels in people who were administered two or more injections of mRNA vaccines. It has been suggested that an increase in IgG4 levels could have a protecting role by preventing immune over-activation, similar to that occurring during successful allergen-specific immunotherapy by inhibiting IgE-induced effects. Altogether, evidence suggests that the reported increase in the IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines is not a protective mechanism; rather, it may be a part of the immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. IgG4-induced suppression of the immune system due to repeated vaccination can also cause autoimmune diseases, promotes cancer growth, and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals.

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 7:15 am Комментарии и дискуссию тоже интересно почитать.

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 7:15 am Совсем свежий preprint, если это кому-либо ещё интересно. Полная статья доступна в PDF по ссылке на download. Комментарии и дискуссию тоже интересно почитать.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202303.0441/v1

Due to the health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2, the creation of a new vaccine platform based on mRNA was implemented. Globally, around 13.32 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses of diverse platforms have been given, and up to this date, 69.7% of the total population received at least one injection of a COVID-19 vaccine. Although these vaccines prevent hospitalization and severe forms of the disease, increasing evidence has shown they do not produce sterilizing immunity, allowing people to suffer frequent re-infections. Recent research has also raised concerns that mRNA vaccines could induce immune tolerance, which, added to that caused by the virus itself, could complicate the clinical course of a COVID-19 infection. Furthermore, recent investigations have found high IgG4 levels in people who were administered two or more injections of mRNA vaccines. It has been suggested that an increase in IgG4 levels could have a protecting role by preventing immune over-activation, similar to that occurring during successful allergen-specific immunotherapy by inhibiting IgE-induced effects. Altogether, evidence suggests that the reported increase in the IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines is not a protective mechanism; rather, it may be a part of the immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. IgG4-induced suppression of the immune system due to repeated vaccination can also cause autoimmune diseases, promotes cancer growth, and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Riverian писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 9:18 am This version is not peer-reviewed

"Preprints" are preliminary versions of scientific manuscripts that researchers share by posting to online platforms known as preprint servers before peer-review and publication in an academic journal. Preprint servers are publicly available online archives that host preprints and their associated data. They typically employ basic screening processes to guard against "offensive and/or non-scientific content and for material that might pose a health or biosecurity risk."

Preprints and preprint servers have been widely adopted and accepted in disciplines such as physics and math. Health sciences and medicine have only started to warm up to this practice in recent years. Part of the hesitation is due to the fact that research findings that have not been peer-reviewed in these fields could carry greater risks to the safety of patients and the public.

Uzito писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 8:17 am

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 7:15 am Комментарии и дискуссию тоже интересно почитать.

could, could, could, could, could

Доказательтва этих возможностей таки есть?

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 11:38 am Я не знаю, о чём Вы. В самом обзоре (PDF file) обсуждаются результаты из 149 публикаций.

Uzito писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 11:54 am ...

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 10:34 am

Riverian писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 9:18 am This version is not peer-reviewed

Разумеется. Я же указала, что это preprint.
Для тех, кто не знаком с терминологией: https://library.cumc.columbia.edu/kb/wh ... ted%20data

"Preprints" are preliminary versions of scientific manuscripts that researchers share by posting to online platforms known as preprint servers before peer-review and publication in an academic journal. Preprint servers are publicly available online archives that host preprints and their associated data. They typically employ basic screening processes to guard against "offensive and/or non-scientific content and for material that might pose a health or biosecurity risk."

Там же по медицинским публикациям:

Preprints and preprint servers have been widely adopted and accepted in disciplines such as physics and math. Health sciences and medicine have only started to warm up to this practice in recent years. Part of the hesitation is due to the fact that research findings that have not been peer-reviewed in these fields could carry greater risks to the safety of patients and the public.

Я получаю уведомления от NIH по ряду исследований, включая иммуноглобулины. Дам знать когда (и если) эта статья будет опубликована после рецензий. Можно будет сравнить тексты.

Uzito писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 8:17 am

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 7:15 am Комментарии и дискуссию тоже интересно почитать.

could, could, could, could, could

Доказательтва этих возможностей таки есть?

Riverian писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 12:19 pm Я тоже получаю, еще ACS подбрасывает.
Я помню что в начале все статьи связанные с ковидом появлялись он-лайн до официальной публикации и без ревью, думала уже перестали это делать

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 11:38 am

Uzito писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 8:17 am

could, could, could, could, could

Доказательтва этих возможностей таки есть?

Я не знаю, о чём Вы. В самом обзоре (PDF file) обсуждаются результаты из 149 публикаций.

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 12:36 pm

Riverian писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 12:19 pm Я тоже получаю, еще ACS подбрасывает.
Я помню что в начале все статьи связанные с ковидом появлялись он-лайн до официальной публикации и без ревью, думала уже перестали это делать

У меня нет подписки на статьи, связанные именно с ковидом. И preprint есть preprint. В процитированной публикации обсуждаeтся IgG4 mechanism immune invasion. Ковид туда приплюсовался, поскольку IgG4 antibodies are induced by mRNA vaccines. Обсуждаются также испытания HIV and malaria vaccines. Довольно интересная гипотеза, кстати. Но требует проверки, да. Ковид здесь 'сбоку припёка'.

BarBoss писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 12:44 pm

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 11:38 am
Я не знаю, о чём Вы. В самом обзоре (PDF file) обсуждаются результаты из 149 публикаций.

Я знаю о чем он. Боица что исследования 1 докажут что фаушистские методы борьбы с ковидом были большой ошибкой, 2 докажут что трамп был прав и 3 повергнут узито в жестокую депрессию.

Riverian писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 2:55 pm Мне лень читать, но...

in_the_crowd писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 12:16 pm

Uzito писал(а): ↑Вс апр 09, 2023 11:54 am ...

Оказывается, ещё нужно объяснять, что такое Hypothesis. Прямым текстом указано в левом верхнем углу на первой странице, курсивом.