Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 57

By November 21, 2021Commentary

A few studies to catch up on.

There are a few brave voices in the medical community willing to challenge the standard political message.  Here is a Lancet editorial arguing that people who have been infected should be recognized as having immunity at least as good as that provided by vaccination.  And they take notice of the fact that increasing proportions of events are in the fully vaccinated.  Finally, they point out that stigmatizing people because of vaccination status is wrong.  (Lancet Article)

A reader sent me this one, which should encourage the FDA and the CDC to be very cautious about child vaccinations.  The study was presented at the American Heart Association and is published in the journal Circulation, which is reputable.  The patients involved were part of a preventive cardiology practice and were regularly screened for markers of heart disease.  After receiving mRNA vaccines they were rescreened.  The results showed substantial increases in the proteins which signified heart inflammation and heightened cardiac disease risk.  The FDA should be doing intensive monitoring through its contracted databases to determine if there is a problem.  And we should definitely not be pushing these vaccines on young people.  Now I will say, serious infection with CV-19 leads to the same issues, so the risk/benefit calculation is whether the vaccine or the disease causes more of these problems.  (Circ. Article)

This study compared immune response development resulting from natural infection to that from full vaccination.  A third group was included who became infected less than 15 days after the first dose. The patients were quite old, median age in the 80s.  The paper found the typical decline in antibody levels following vaccination.  The natural infection group started at a slightly higher level, and experienced less of a decline.  The combination of infection and vaccination appeared to produce the strongest and slowest declining levels.   (Medrxiv Paper)

This paper is a meta-analysis of other research on vaccine effectiveness overtime and confirms the usual findings that protection against infection lessens overtime, but stays stronger against serious disease.  (SSRN Article)

Rapid antigen tests are routinely used in school and other screenings.  Prior research has shown they do a good job of avoiding false positives and probably are more accurate than standard PCR tests at indicating infectiousness.  This study evaluated the use of three of these tests in the Netherlands health system.  The tests were found to be good at avoiding false positives, and missed some true positives.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Interesting report on excess mortality over the pandemic period compared to earlier averages in the European countries.  Notice which country is near the bottom, actually has negative excess mortality?  Sweden.  One thing that is striking if you look at these charts going back five years or more is that we had a number of years of declining mortality, which provided lots of fuel for the epidemic.   (ONS Data)

This article, based on Chinese data, claims that 20% of infections are transmitted 14 days or more after the index case was infected.  That is completely contrary to any other research, which all shows that transmission beyond about 10 days is non-existent.  Chinese trying to keep the West in a tizzy and locked-down forever.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Join the discussion 11 Comments

  • Charles Atkinson says:

    There are those who believe that deaths among the fully vaxed are due to the vaccine rather than the virus. Mortality from vaccine damage to the circulatory, neurological and immune system and ADE mimic severe Covid symptoms, so are impossible to separate from viral damage. Excess mortality now appearing in countries with extensive vaccination seems to support this. Being no expert, I can only wonder.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      no evidence to support lots of vaccine deaths, have to be very careful with people like Alex Berenson who use very misleading statistics to suggest that. What is happening, especially with heart disease, is that we interrupted the care patterns that prevent acute episodes so now we have lots of people in worse shape and dying.

  • Donald says:

    It seems to become an accepted fact, that the combination of infection followed by vaccination may give good or the best protection. What I wonder is whether infection after vaccination has the same effect or the effect only happens when someone is infected first and then vaccinated.

  • MLR says:

    How about some reviews on drug treatments for the Kung Flu?

  • Nancy Brown says:

    I think it’s very dangerous to suggest that anyone have to “prove” anything in order to be exempted from a vaccine that almost no one should actually take. If you’re in a high-risk group, I think it’s prudent to consider it, since the data shows it protects against hospitalization and death. If you’re not in that category, the risk benefit swings strongly the other direction. The 30 year old pregnant nurse should not have to “show” anything to make a claim that she should be exempted from the vaccine. We don’t request permission to make our own decisions about what’s injected into our bodies. That’s barbaric. We’ve all gotten into the technical/logistical weeds of this stuff, forgetting that the basic premise of it needs to be thrown out for its obvious abridgement of our basic bodily autonomy.

  • J. Thomas says:

    Regarding the vaccination of children, a Jerusalem court acknowledged in its summary statement that:

    – All its witnesses were ones who support non-COVID vaccination in general;
    – A true expert consensus has not yet been developed, since even those who support COVID shots for kids did so with some hesitancy;
    – COVID is a relatively low threat to children’s health;
    – The threat to someone else from an unvaccinated child is very remote;
    – Serious adverse reactions have occurred and are underreported;
    – Experts who disagree with recommending COVID shots to kids fall into three groups:

    1) The first has no for fear of potential risks like those observed in adults;
    2) The second group fears the risk to children is potentially worse that to adults;
    3) The third fears an irreversible global disaster that may only present itself in the long term.

    As a bottom line, the ruling avoided giving one recommendation for everyone, instead, each person must weigh the various expert opinions for oneself. However, the court warned that one who vaccinates a child and causes death is responsible for that injury as a murderer. He cannot say “I went with the opinion of experts who say it is a life preserving substance, and not a deadly poison.”

    Can our courts override the protection given to the vaccine manufacturers and doctors who inject our kids ? I really wonder how many Drs. would be giving kids shots if this was the policy?

  • J. Thomas says:

    “no evidence to support lots of vaccine deaths”, but one Covid death is too many. There is evidence that the spike proteins have negative blood and arterial affects. I would argue that you are still much better off taking your chances on contracting and managing the virus during a normal, cautious, lifestyle than knowingly having it stuck in your arm via an experiment.

    You also seem to be saying that Alex’s use of data and statistics to support patterns is worse then the government’s. Really? The entire pandemic theatre is based on governmental perverted, twisted and cherry-picked data, but Alex’s’ is wrong. “Come on Man” The entire globe is seeing horrible side-effects to this serum. It is a failed experiment, carried out by failed governments with the sole purpose of social engineering and control leveraged by a self-made catastrophe.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      yeah they can be and you are incredibly selective, ignoring research published in extremely reputable journals and picking up stuff from disreputable sites.

Leave a comment