View data is from. The Altmetric Attention Score for a research output provides an indicator of the amount of attention that it has received. The score is derived from an automated algorithm, and represents a weighted count of the amount of attention Altmetric picked up for a research output.
Section Navigation. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Syndicate. Figure 1 Figure 2. Article Metrics. Related Articles. Horm, S. Sorn, P. Abstract In Cambodia, influenza A H5N1 virus surveillance at live poultry markets LPMs relies on virus isolation from poultry specimens; however, virus is rarely detected by this method. The Study. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. World Health Organization. Emerg Infect Dis. H5N1 virus evolution in South East Asia. Environmental contamination during influenza A virus H5N1 outbreaks, Cambodia, Environment: a potential source of animal and human infection with influenza A H5N1 virus.
Influenza Other Respi Viruses. J Virol. J Virol Methods. Infect Genet Evol. Epub ahead of print. PubMed Google Scholar. Articles by Country Search — Search articles by the topic country. Article Type Search — Search articles by article type and issue. Comments character s remaining. Comment submitted successfully, thank you for your feedback. There was an unexpected error. Tebi fali common sense.
Sve "budalastine" koje sam napisao su potvrdjene linkovima, dokazima i radovima, vecinu sam i dao samo sto neki ovde jednostavno odbijaju da pogledaju istini i dokazima u oci. Moraju informacije i da se procesiraju, taj deo ti je zabagovao. To majstore niko ne spori. Hansel Svak zase travu pase i savko se mora brinut za sebe. A u Britaniji Science is about rational disagreement, the questioning and testing of orthodoxy and the constant search for truth.
Academics backing lockdown or any major theory ought to welcome challenges, knowing — as scientists do — that robust challenge is the way to identify error, improve policy and save lives. But with lockdown, science is in danger of being suppressed by politics. Lockdown moved instantly from untested theory to unchallengeable orthodoxy: where dissenters face personal attack. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford and Dr. Sunetra Gupta at Oxford, argues for focused protection. Rather than a blanket lockdown which inflicts so much harm on society, we wanted better protection of those most at risk — mindful that Covid typically poses only a mild risk to the young.
For saying so, we are smeared as 'the new merchants of doubt' — as if scepticism and challenge is regarded by the BMJ as something to be condemned. The BMJ article is full of errors that ought to have never found their way into any publication. The failure to implement such measures, in our view, has led to many unnecessary Covid deaths. Both are scientifically established phenomena.
Every Covid strategy leads to herd immunity. The key is to minimise morbidity and mortality. The language, here, is non-scientific: herd immunity is not a creed. Gupta and I have spent decades on vaccine research and we are all strong advocates for Covid and other vaccines. They are among the greatest inventions in history.
To falsely credit the anti-vaccine movement with support from professors at Harvard, Oxford and Stanford is damaging for vaccine confidence. This is unworthy of a medical journal. Note here how something that challenges an orthodoxy is described as anti-science — a label that presumably could have been applied to any scientific innovator who ever questioned a failed orthodoxy.
Collateral public health damage from Covid restrictions are real and enormous on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, backsliding childhood vaccinations, starvation and mental health, just to name a few.
It is not the GBD, but those who downplay lockdown harms who should be equated with those who question the harms of tobacco or climate change. We were there for media interviews, with no sponsorship. How did such a blunder end up in print in the first place? The AIER staff did not even know about the Declaration until the day before it was signed, and the AIER president and board did not know about it until after publication.
If we had written the Declaration at say, Starbucks, would the BMJ have claimed that it was sponsored by the coffee shop? Atlas has never been affiliated with nor written for AIER. Neither have we — unless the BMJ also views us as affiliated with hundreds of universities and organisations that we have visited during our careers or that have reprinted some of our articles. This basic error again exposes how normal checks did not appear to have been applied by the BMJ.
The BMJ article ends by saying that my colleagues and I are peddling a 'well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests'. Nobody has paid us money for our work on the GBD, or for advocating focused protection.
None of us would have undertaken this project for professional gain: it is far easier to stay silent than put your head above the parapet. As a vaccine developer, Dr. Gupta has connections with a pharmaceutical start-up, but Dr. The BMJ attempt to link us to the Koch brothers is an ad hominem attack of the highest order, but failed to mention much closer connections. We all work for universities that have received donations from Koch Foundations, although unrelated to any of our own work.
Many scientists receive research funding from private foundations, for which we as scientists should be grateful. It is hypocritical and discriminatory for the BMJ to single out Dr. Gupta because her lab received limited funds from the Opel Foundation. During a pandemic, it is the duty of public health scientists to engage with government officials: to use their expertise to confront what right now is perhaps the biggest single problem facing humanity.
It is hard to understand why anyone would criticise that. If we are to be faulted for anything, it is that we failed to convince governments to implement focused protection instead of damaging lockdowns. One place where we had some success was Florida, where the cumulative age-adjusted Covid mortality is lower than the US national average with less collateral damage.
If we are wrong, then as scientists we would welcome a scientific discussion on how and where we are wrong. What is there to say? Because of political strategies using slander and ad hominem attacks, many physicians and scientists have been reluctant to speak out despite their reservations about pandemic policies. The error-strewn attacks in BMJ demonstrate what awaits academics who do challenge prevailing views. That such an article was published exemplifies the decay in standards of scientific journals.
Open and honest discourse is critical for science and public health. Crucigramas para expertos. Crucigramas minis. Crucigramas de Tarkus. Licenciatura en Comercio y Negocios Internacionales. Disfrute de nuestras lecciones personalizadas, breves y divertidas. Nuevo curso 'online'. Crucigramas Tarkus. Sudokus mini.
Sopas de letras. Diplomado Virtual de e-Commerce 4.
0コメント