Dödligt virus från Kina orsakar panik (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19)

"‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why

The proportion of publications that send a field in a new direction has plummeted over the past half-century.

The number of science and technology research papers published has skyrocketed over the past few decades — but the ‘disruptiveness’ of those papers has dropped, according to an analysis of how radically papers depart from the previous literature1. (...)

“The data suggest something is changing,” says Russell Funk, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and a co-author of the analysis, which was published on 4 January in Nature. “You don’t have quite the same intensity of breakthrough discoveries you once had.” (...)

The authors reasoned that if a study was highly disruptive, subsequent research would be less likely to cite the study’s references, and instead would cite the study itself. Using the citation data from 45 million manuscripts and 3.9 million patents, the researchers calculated a measure of disruptiveness, called the CD index, in which values ranged from –1 for the least disruptive work to 1 for the most disruptive.

The trend might stem in part from changes in the scientific enterprise. For example, there are now many more researchers than in the 1940s, which has created a more competitive environment and raised the stakes to publish research and seek patents. That, in turn, has changed the incentives for how researchers go about their work. Large research teams, for example, have become more common, and Wang and his colleagues have found3 that big teams are more likely to produce incremental than disruptive science.https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5

"Boys more at risk from Pfizer jab side-effect than Covid, suggests study

US researchers say teenagers are more likely to get vaccine-related myocarditis than end up in hospital with Covid

Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim.

Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period. (...)

In the latest study, which has yet to be peer reviewed, Dr Tracy Høeg at the University of California and colleagues analysed adverse reactions to Covid vaccines in US children aged 12 to 17 during the first six months of 2021. They estimate the rate of myocarditis after two shots of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to be 162.2 cases per million for healthy boys aged 12 to 15 years old and 94 cases per million for healthy boys aged 16 to 17. The equivalent rates for girls were 13.4 and 13 cases per million, respectively. At current US infection rates, the risk of a healthy adolescent being taken to hospital with Covid in the next 120 days is about 44 per million, they said. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

BNT162b2 Vaccine-Associated Myo/Pericarditis in Adolescents: A Stratified Risk-Benefit Analysis

Background: Male patients ages 12-17 years have an elevated risk of mRNA vaccination-associated myo/pericarditis. A risk-benefit analysis of first and second doses of mRNA vaccination in adolescent boys by health status and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection has not been performed.

Weighing post-vaccination myo/pericarditis against COVID-19 hospitalization during delta, our risk-benefit analysis suggests that among 12-17-year-olds, two-dose vaccination was uniformly favourable only in nonimmune girls with a comorbidity. In boys with prior infection and no comorbidities, even one dose carried more risk than benefit according to international estimates. In the setting of omicron, one dose may be protective in nonimmune children, but dose two does not appear to confer additional benefit at a population level. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35156705/

– Pojkar verkar löpa mer än tio gånger så hög risk som flickor att drabbas och då hamnar man helt plötsligt i antal där det börjar irritera. För flickorna är risken att drabbas en på 100 000 men hos pojkarna börjar vi komma upp i en på 5 000.

Forskarna har jämfört resultaten för risken för hjärtproblematik med sannolikheten att barn behöver sjukhusvård på grund av covid-19-infektion.

Forskarna skriver att risken för en i övrigt frisk pojke att behöva sjukhusvård på grund av covid-19 under de närmsta 120 dagarna är 26,7 på miljonen vilket ger att risken för bieffekter på hjärtat efter två sprutor är 6,1 gånger högre.

– Man börjar fundera alltså. Man har kommit upp i sådana siffror för pojkar att man verkligen kan överväga om man ska vaccinera. Man skulle kunna landa i att ”nej för pojkar tycker vi att risken är för stor, men för flickor väger det för att vacciner”

"It is important to mention that while adenovirus-based vaccines did not result in long-lasting IgG4 responses, mRNA vaccines did [177].

"Is it possible that the excessive mortality reported in highly COVID-19-vaccinated countries is related to the deleterious NSEs induced by the mRNA vaccines?"

"The mortality risk ratio was 3 times higher for the mRNA vaccines than that of the adenovirus-vector vaccine. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 RCTs were quickly unblinded, and controls received vaccinations; as a result, the chance to conduct extensive RCTs vaccine-vs.-placebo trials that would have offered significant data was eliminated [183]."