智利研究：一劑科興毫無保護力
茉莉花園
162 回覆
166 Like
2 Dislike
仆街，我要落地獄
連登仔: 兩針都唔會有
你估兩劑又有保護力
打完科興爆血管死撚埋
仲邊會中武肺
仲邊會中武肺
會唔會成為第一個溝針打嘅國家
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.14.21251704v2
你嗰個係舊報告，新嘅報告證實輝瑞同莫德納對南非變種同打水無咩分別，對巴西變種效力低5倍。
你嗰個係舊報告，新嘅報告證實輝瑞同莫德納對南非變種同打水無咩分別，對巴西變種效力低5倍。
物理抗體
Similarly, neutralizing antibody responses were also significantly decreased for the Brazilian/Japanese P.1 strain (6.7-fold for BNT162b2, p < 0.0001; 4.5-fold for mRNA-1273, p < 0.001), which harbors three mutations in RBD (K417T, E484K, and N501Y) and has also been found in cases of re-infection (nuno_faria 2021).
Strikingly, neutralization of all three South African B.1.351 strains was substantially decreased for both 2-dose vaccines (v1: 34.5-fold for BNT162b2 and 27.7-fold for mRNA-1273; v2: 41.2-fold for BNT162b2 and 20.8-fold for mRNA-1273; v3: 42.4-fold for BNT162b2 and 19.2-fold for mRNA-1273; p < 0.0001 for all comparisons)
打兩針後對南非變種效力低42.4 倍，咁同無打有咩分別？
Strikingly, neutralization of all three South African B.1.351 strains was substantially decreased for both 2-dose vaccines (v1: 34.5-fold for BNT162b2 and 27.7-fold for mRNA-1273; v2: 41.2-fold for BNT162b2 and 20.8-fold for mRNA-1273; v3: 42.4-fold for BNT162b2 and 19.2-fold for mRNA-1273; p < 0.0001 for all comparisons)
打兩針後對南非變種效力低42.4 倍，咁同無打有咩分別？
支那假疫苗事件2021
你拎份2月14號pub嘅
未有Peer-review嘅紙
去話一份NEJM 3月8號update嘅紙
係舊報告
MedRXiv你都好拎出嚟打NEJM同Nature Medicine
未有Peer-review嘅紙
去話一份NEJM 3月8號update嘅紙
係舊報告
MedRXiv你都好拎出嚟打NEJM同Nature Medicine
0x幾多次，結果都係0
你個兩個所為報告個sample size 連20 都無，仲要係用engineered 嘅假病毒，真係無咩代表性窩。
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210309/s-african-variant-challenges-pfizer-moderna-vaccines
唔啱又睇下呢個，呢個有40+ sample(都係少), 用真變種病毒。
結果係輝瑞同莫德納效力低10 -12倍。
唔啱又睇下呢個，呢個有40+ sample(都係少), 用真變種病毒。
結果係輝瑞同莫德納效力低10 -12倍。
你拎份冇Peer review過嘅紙出嚟添
“Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/about-medrxiv
“Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/about-medrxiv
你邊個報告有話peer review 左？
去到拎WebMD出嚟做source？
大佬呀你唔好柒成咁啦
大佬呀你唔好柒成咁啦
個報告係響Nature publish 咁，發雞盲。
大和田
執多劑
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03398-2
就係呢個報告，係響Nature 發表。
D 藥廠用人造假病毒黎測試，然後話比人聽有效。。。
點知之後用真病毒一試就發現原來係無撚用。
就係呢個報告，係響Nature 發表。
D 藥廠用人造假病毒黎測試，然後話比人聽有效。。。
點知之後用真病毒一試就發現原來係無撚用。
NEJM同Nature Medicine都冇Peer-review？
你識唔識架
就算冇Peer review
NEJM同Nature medicine都大粒過你啲MedRXiv
嗱畀多兩份你
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103740
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2104036
你識唔識架
就算冇Peer review
NEJM同Nature medicine都大粒過你啲MedRXiv
嗱畀多兩份你
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103740
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2104036