This is a preprint article, it offers immediate access but has not been peer reviewed.
Preprints with The Lancet is part of SSRN´s First Look, a place where journals identify content of interest prior to publication. Authors have opted in at submission to The Lancet family of journals to post their preprints on Preprints with The Lancet. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed.
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
- This doesn’t accurately reflect the study, which has not been peer-reviewed. Medical experts have noted that the findings are limited and said that more research is needed.
- In the study, researchers used clinical trial data to see what if any effect the different COVID-19 vaccines had on reducing deaths from all causes, not just from COVID-19. It found that adenovirus vaccines like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact.
- The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19.
5 bucks that preprint gets retracted for bad science
"Some may criticize the Danish study for not yet being peer-reviewed, but it has been. It was peer-reviewed by me and several colleagues, and all of us have decades of experience with these types of studies. That it has not yet been peer-reviewed by anonymous journal reviewers is inconsequential."
Had a quick read through it. And well, it’s the first preprint. Any reasonable scientific conclusion is always (or at least should be) a corpus. That being said the authors seem at the very least credible and the results are eyebrow raising in the sense that, if true, it would flip the “more trustworthy/effective” factor from mRNA based to Adenovirus based
A complete disaster for a mainstream media and public majority who has been vilifying anti-vaxxers for the past 2 years
Never trust a preprint even if it's been reviewed by Mr. Harvard PhD unless you want another Ivermectin situation to happen.Wait.. let me guess: someone googled a "fact checker" and called it a day? lol
We’ll have to see what the independent peer reviews return.. one thing I for instance couldn’t find that quickly in the research is the differentiating factor between multiple v single dose in case of mRNA variants in the test groups. The latter requires multiple doses for (alleged) effectiveness whereas Astra, Jansen, Sputnik etc. only require one. So that might be something to pick up in future research and/or a reason to retract/edit.
which is precisely why I wrote: "We'll have to see what the independent peer reviews return" (and by those I don't mean activists/ journalists)Never trust a preprint even if it's been reviewed by Mr. Harvard PhD unless you want another Ivermectin situation to happen.
Huh, didn't know that about the DT vaccine.The main point I really want to stress is that if ANY doubt whatsoever exists in vaccine safety, or if we feel like more research is needed to draw a firm conclusion, then the entire mentality and situation we've seen in the past 2 years comes crashing down. All it takes is 'need more research', not 'we know vaccine is unsafe'. We cannot inject the entire world with something that has unknowns.
So do we have that confidence to say 'it's safe' and if so based on what? Do we have counter studies showing that the non-specific effects are not a factor for covid vaccines? According to Dr Benn's research (before covid) she believes that non-specific effects ARE occurring with certain vaccines in the past, and that much IS still unknown. This analysis on the 3 studies related to Diphtheria-Tetnus vaccine concludes that total mortality was impacted negatively in children who took the vaccine, through non-specific effects. We also have studies showing non-specific POSITIVE effects too in other vaccines. Its a mechanism that has to be understood in the context of each vaccine, clearly.
So there is at the very minimum a historical and scientific context that supports the need for a perspective of 'we need more research', and may even go as far as warranting 'these specific types of vaccine are unsafe'. The covid study is building upon that context. So I ask again, where is our confidence coming from that we have all the answers here?
A foreign country isn't going to bend to the will of some international dude. THE ENTITLEMENT.“I’m not vaccinated and I’m not planning to get vaccinated so the only good news I can have is them removing the mandated green vaccine card or whatever you call it to enter United States or exemption,” the 35-year-old said.
“I don’t know. I don’t think exemption is realistically possible. If that is possibility, I don’t know what exemption would be about. I don’t know. I don’t have much answers there.
“I think it’s just whether or not they remove this in time for me to get to the USA.”
I don’t see which point you are trying to make.No takers?
Novak Djokovic named for US Open despite vaccine laws
A foreign country isn't going to bend to the will of some international dude. THE ENTITLEMENT.