China Corona Virus Outbreak

[thearsenal1205]

Yes, but there are some people that will dine in on other city/LGU. Also other people like my wife who got their vaccine from other city, also people like me who got vaccine from my company, not LGU. I believe all LGU and organizations that facilitated the vaccination have their own records. The challenge is merging all these records into 1 so that there will be less way to fake them.

I hope they roll out vaxcert.ph to all not just OFW.

is the vaxcert registration exclusive for OFWs only? I might register soon. They will also give you another proof of fully vaccination right?

[ale828]

Marami akong lapses pagdating sa personal biosecurity.

Madami pa pero complacency na lang kalaban ko.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Same here, still have some lapses in biosecurity. Lapses usually happen to me during work and times of stress and when i am in a hurry. One of my most common lapses if forgetting to bring my own ballpen. i do prefer using my own pen rather than using the ones given by the establishment just for precautions.

[uls]

is the vaxcert registration exclusive for OFWs only? I might register soon. They will also give you another proof of fully vaccination right?

just choose travel, enter the correct info, and you'll see you're already in the database

[kagalingan]

COVID-19 vaccines kill two people for every three they save (mRNA)

Attention Required!

why retract the paper directly, considering it passed peer-review?

[dr. d]

COVID-19 vaccines kill two people for every three they save (mRNA)

Attention Required!

why retract the paper directly, considering it passed peer-review?

if there was no reason given,
i would not even attempt to guess, why this particular paper was retracted.
maybe your suspicion is spot on.
but then again,
maybe you're way off beyond all imagination..

[Yatta]

COVID-19 vaccines kill two people for every three they save (mRNA)

Attention Required!

why retract the paper directly, considering it passed peer-review?

Because another paper disproved it.

[dr. d]

Because another paper disproved it.

one paper disproving another paper, or having the opposite conclusion of the other, is a common-enough occurrence in the industry.
it does not usually result in paper retraction.
on the contrary, it may even generate interest and further research on the topic.

if this is the real reason for the retraction,
there must have been a very compelling, 'fatal' reason for it.
i am wondering, what that might be, in this case.

[Yatta]

one paper disproving another paper, or having the opposite conclusion of the other, is a common-enough occurrence in the industry.
it does not usually result in paper retraction.
on the contrary, it may even generate interest and further research on the topic.

if this is the real reason for the retraction,
there must have been a very compelling, 'fatal' reason for it.
i am wondering, what that might be, in this case.

It could be that another reseacrh group sent a letter to the journal that refuted the result and conclusion so thoroughly that the original author had to withdraw it. In common speech, tore it a new one. Or someone found ethical lapses on the methodology.

Remember that stem cell research by that SoKor cloning scientist?

[dr. d]

It could be that another reseacrh group sent a letter to the journal that refuted the result and conclusion so thoroughly that the original author had to withdraw it. In common speech, tore it a new one. Or someone found ethical lapses on the methodology.

Remember that stem cell research by that SoKor cloning scientist?

yes,
a paper that is convincingly and roundly proven to be erroneous, is reason for retraction.
retraction is apparently good for the industry, because it tends to minimize useless and expensive research, i.e., buillding up on the erroneous research.

google presents several reasons for paper retraction.
data manufacture, dishonesty, plagiarism, and unethical procedure, are up there.

so, does anyone know why the paper was retracted?

ADDENDUM.
earlier printed in the journal, "Vaccines", the paper had since been retracted.
it was published june 24, 2021, and was retracted july 2, 2021.
at the time of its retraction, it had been viewed over 380,000 times.

i googled for the reason, and i came up with these tidbits from the BMJ July 7, 2021.
the data was apparently misrepresented.
a classic case of GIGO.
garbage in, garbage out.
a number of the editorial board members had since resigned. one of them said, "it is grossly negligent and i can't believe it passed peer review".
"none of the three authors had background in vaccinology, virology, or epidemiology."
it contained several errors that fundamentally affected the interpretation of the findings.
from what i understood, reading the retraction explanation,
a major flaw was that the associated adverse effects of vaccination were interpreted as causal effects, which is fundamentally inaccurate.
in laymen's terms, "pag may nangyari pagkatapos nang bakunahan, real or imagined, which anyone and anyone can report, without the need for medical verification, cause-and-effect na yan and nothing else". the possibility of coincidence or unrelated event, "or plain overreactive imagination" (my words) was apparently not entertained, in my opinion.
there were also other flaws mentioned at the end of the retraction statement that i read.

anti-vaxx activists were having a field day, citing "the vaccine study you're not allowed to see".
now that i read the explanation, i agree with them! this retracted paper should not be allowed to see the light of day, to un-informed readers.
but it is a good example of a badly-researched paper. research scholars should read this as part of their training on what not to do.
heh heh.

[dr. d]

COVID-19 vaccines kill two people for every three they save (mRNA)

Attention Required!

why retract the paper directly, considering it passed peer-review?

kags,
see my post above.
#32119.