Vulpes vulpes

@PFIZE®bubu

3. À quelle publication faites-vous référence ?

4. Pourriez-vous préciser mes affirmations qui ne correspondent pas à la réalité ?

5. Je ne suis pas responsable de vos croyances !

@PFIZE®bubu

Cependant, par la suite la FDA présente deux cas graves suspectés mais non-confirmés, qui ont attiré son attention justement à cause de leur gravité. Il est probable, selon la FDA, qu’il s’agisse de faux tests négatifs.

Maintenant, parmi les 3.410 cas suspectés et non-confirmés, combien y-auraient-ils de tests faux négatifs ?

Quand il y a 20 fois plus de cas suspectés que confirmés ça pose des questions sur la fiabilité de l’étude, d’où l’importance de l’accès aux données brutes !

bubu12 :

Cependant, par la suite la FDA présente deux cas graves suspectés mais non-confirmés, qui ont attiré son attention justement à cause de leur gravité. Il est probable, selon la FDA, qu’il s’agisse de faux tests négatifs.

c’est bien on passe de 3400 cas à 2 cas en l’espace d’un message

Ce n’est pas en fragmentant mes messages que vous allez arriver à avoir raison, PFIZE®bubu !

La FDA a regardé deux cas graves suspectés et non-confirmés et a affirmé qu’il peut s’agir de faux test négatifs.

Maintenant, parmi les 3.408 cas suspectés et non-confirmés, combien y-auraient-ils de tests faux négatifs ?

C’est-à-dire, des participants avec la Covid 19(84) exclus de l’analyse ???

@PFIZE®bubu

bubu12 : Concernant Doshi : " He is currently an assistant professor (non-tenured) of pharmaceutical health services research in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Maryland. This field of study is not basic pharmacological and clinical research of pharmaceuticals–it is an economic based study for drug utilization and other areas."

bubu12 : et votre "article" est un article de blog écrit par un antivax notoire

Pourriez-vous citer ses articles, interventions, notes (sources primaires, seulement !!!) permettant de conclure qu’il s’agit d’un antivax notoire  ???

Peter Doshi, PhD, is an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research.

Peter Doshi, PhD, is an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor at The BMJ. His research focuses on the drug approval process, how the risks and benefits of medical products are communicated, and improving the credibility and accuracy of evidence synthesis and biomedical publications.

Doshi campaigns for greater transparency of clinical trial data and has received wide recognition for his work. In 2013, the New York Times reported on Doshi’s work to increase public access to clinical study reports. The same year he was also chosen for The Wired “Smart List.” In 2015, he received a New Investigator Award from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. Doshi has presented on the topic of clinical trial data sharing to the Institute of Medicine in 2013 and 2014, and served on advisory panels to the European Medicines Agency regarding its policy on proactive publication of clinical trial data.

Much of Doshi’s research has examined the science and politics of influenza policy. His most cited publication is a Cochrane systematic review of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza. This review—the first Cochrane review to be based exclusively on clinical study reports and other regulatory documents—challenged previous understandings of the drugs’ effectiveness and raised new questions about their safety, and led to governmental inquiries in the United Kingdom. It is cited as a milestone in the James Lind Library, which chronicles the evolution of fair tests and research synthesis.

Doshi leads the RIAT Support Center, funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative enables researchers everywhere to address two long-standing problems in the biomedical literature : non-publication and misreporting of trials. The RIAT Support Center aims to accelerate the correction of the scientific record of clinical trials by making publications more accurate and more complete, addressing these problems of publication bias and reporting bias.

Doshi earned an A.B. in anthropology from Brown University, an A.M. in East Asian Studies from Harvard University and Ph.D. in history, anthropology, and science, technology and society from MIT. During his PhD, he was an intern at the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, a research student at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, and studied as visiting researcher at the University of Tokyo Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law. Doshi completed a fellowship in comparative effectiveness research at Johns Hopkins before joining the faculty at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy.

Grants

Between 2011 and 2014, Doshi was a co-recipient of a UK National Institute for Health Research grant to carry out a Cochrane review of neuraminidase inhibitors (PI : Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford). In 2015, Doshi received a New Investigator Award from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy to fund a PhD student to study consumer medical information about the possible harms of statins (PI : Peter Doshi). From 2015 to 2016, Doshi was a co-investigator on a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded grant to compare data from multiple sources (PI : Kay Dickersin, Johns Hopkins University). From 2015 to 2018, Doshi has been a co-investigator in a Cochrane Methods Innovation Fund sponsored project to develop guidance regarding when to use regulatory data in Cochrane reviews (PI : Tom Jefferson). Beginning in 2018, Doshi will be a collaborator on a Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded project “Beyond Transparency in Pharmaceutical Research and Regulation” (PI : Matthew Herder, Dalhousie University, 2018-2022). Doshi is principal investigator of the RIAT Support Center, which is funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (2017-2021).

Plus d’informations sur le site de l’Université de Maryland : https://faculty.rx.umaryland.edu/pdoshi/

@bubu12
 
bubu12 : ces gens ne sont pas positif au PCR

Oui, vous avez raison !

J’avais mal compris le début du paragraphe, qui peut s’interpréter de deux manières.

As specified in the protocol, suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19 that were not PCR-confirmed were not recorded as adverse events unless they met regulatory criteria for seriousness. Two

Cependant, par la suite la FDA présente deux cas graves suspectés mais non-confirmés, qui ont attiré son attention justement à cause de leur gravité. Il est probable, selon la FDA, qu’il s’agisse de faux tests négatifs.

Maintenant, parmi les 3.410 cas suspectés et non-confirmés, combien y-auraient-ils de tests faux négatifs ?

Quand il y a 20 fois plus de cas confirmés que suspectés ça pose des questions sur la fiabilité de l’étude, d’où l’importance de l’accès aux données brutes !

@PFIZE®bubu

bubu12 : et votre "article" est un article de blog écrit par un antivax notoire, n’essayez pas de faire croire que c’est une publication svp.

1. bubu12 : un article de blog

thebmjopinion  : Comment and opinion from The BMJ’s international community of readers, authors, and editors

2. Vous faites référence à Peter Doshi ?

Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ and assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services at the University of Maryland. His research focuses on policies related to drug safety and effectiveness evaluation in the context of regulation and evidence synthesis. He is an advocate for greater public access to clinical trial data. Dr. Doshi also has strong interests in journalism as a vehicle for encouraging better practice and improving the research enterprise. Since 2009, Dr. Doshi has worked with a team that sifted through around 150,000 pages of internal company documents to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of anti-influenza drugs like Tamiflu.

3. À quelle publication faites-vous référence ?

4. Pourriez-vous préciser mes affirmations qui ne correspondent pas à la réalité ?

5. Je ne suis pas responsable de vos croyances !