Global COVID-19 Pandemic Outcomes: A Cross-Country Comparison Study of Policy Strategies.

This paper explores global COVID-19 treatment and containment strategies in 108 countries worldwide, specifically the correlation between COVID-19 deaths and the countries' vaccination rates. Comparison of data across states, provinces, territories, and countries relied upon a common method to evaluate data regarding the impact of COVID-19 policies in the last three years. Data from nine different databases were analyzed to determine if there were correlations between the percentage of countrywide COVID-19 deaths/population and countries' percent vaccinated. Secondary outcome measures include the effect of other variables on COVID-19 death rates per country population, including health expenditures and annual income per capita, COVID-19 tests per 1000 people, stringency index (a measure of each country's containment strategies), hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin scores (measure country use), hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and geographic locations. COVID-19 vaccination rates ranged from 0-99% in 108 countries. Bivariate analysis demonstrates the following independent variables to correlate with COVID-19 deaths/population (Spearman correlation coefficient, p value): countrywide COVID-19 vaccination rates (moderate relationship, r=0.39, P < .001); healthcare expenditures per capita per annum (US dollars) (moderate relationship, r=0.46, P < .001), net annual income per capita (moderate relationship, r=0.50, P < .001), COVID-19 tests per 1000 country population (moderate relationship, r=0.36, P < .003); stringency index per country (moderate relationship, r=0.28, P < .003); hydroxychloroquine index (negative relationship, r= 0.15, P = .125); and ivermectin index (negative relationship, r=0.23 P = .018). The authors found that the higher the percentage of a country's vaccination rate, stringent containment strategies, mass testing, etc., moderately correlated with higher COVID-19 death rates/population. Future studies are required to explore the findings of this study fully.

Morphogenic fields: A coming of age.

Morphogenesis, the coming-into-being of living organisms, was first described in the 4th century BC by Aristotle, progenitor of biology and embryology. Over the centuries it has been the subject of innumerable commentaries by philosophers, theologians and scientists but no consensus has ever been reached as to its causes. In the late 19th century, along with the emergence of cellular and molecular biology, embryology underwent a renaissance and became a topic of great interest and research. Early on the discipline divided into two opposing factions, those who attempted to explain fetal development on the basis of cellular and molecular mechanisms, and those who invoked the presence of organizing fields. The morphogenic field was first articulated in the early decades of the 20th century by multiple researchers independently of each other. The field became an extremely useful conceptual tool by which to explain a wide range of developmental phenomena. While embryology and genetics originally formed a unified discipline, during the 1930s and 1940s geneticists became progressively skeptical of the field notion. The discovery of the DNA structure by Watson and Crick in the early 1950s decisively settled matters and thereafter the two disciplines pursued different lines of inquiry. After World War II embryology and the field concept went into a decades-long decline. By the 1980s an increasing number of scientists began to critically reexamine the morphogenic field concept and it underwent a second renaissance. In this paper I examine the development and evolution of the field concept, both experimentally and conceptually, and highlight the failure of genetic mechanisms to explain morphogenesis. I provide three instances from the medical literature of developmental phenomena which are only explainable on the basis of morphogenic field dynamics and argue that the field concept must be readmitted into mainstream scientific discourse.

Magnetic resonance angiography in intracranial vascular disease.

Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) offers a noninvasive alternative for studying normal and pathological blood vessels within the brain. Insights from important clinical aspects of intracranial vascular disease enable the effective application of MRA. Several MRA techniques have demonstrated clinical utility for the detection and characterization of intracranial vascular pathology. Clinical protocols should comprise combinations of time-of-flight and phase-contrast acquisitions to achieve diagnostic sensitivity.