Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 61

By December 1, 2021Commentary

I am driving to Florida so a little slower getting stuff out than usual, as Moronic  variant terror engulfs us.

If you read the comments lately, and if you saw some of the emails I get, there are some people who apparently think they can browbeat me into saying the vaccines are terrible and dangerous. You must be kidding.  Some have threatened to stop reading.  Ohhhh, scary, boys and girls.  I think I have revealed this before, but I am 71 years old, have been very fortunate in my business career, don’t monetize this blog in any way, and my entire goal is to help people look at data and research to understand the epidemic for themselves.  I am fine with people not agreeing with me, but I prefer they do it because they actually have solid data and research that supports their perspective.  You can replicate anything I do or Dave Dixon does.  To tell me that if I don’t toe the line with the vaccine safety nuts, I will lose readers means absolutely nothing to me and what kind of integrity would I have if it did.

What it tells me about people who write those comments and emails is that they are entirely narrow-minded zealots who have no interest in reading or hearing anything that doesn’t fit their paranoid little delusions about some massive vaccine conspiracy that simply doesn’t exist.  And they don’t want to look at the actual high quality research that shows no significant serious adverse events.  When there is research that raises safety issues, like myocarditis, I review it.  And God knows I was talking about vaccine effectiveness and reporting on breakthrough issues in Minnesota long before others noticed the issue.  But I am really tired of getting the same email several times telling me that someone knows four people who dropped dead upon receiving the vaccine.  Feel free to take that lunacy elsewhere.

This study from Europe again indicates that there is very, very little risk of serious disease to children from CV-19, undermining any concerns about their safety as a basis for restricting their activities and terrorizing them.  Across ten European countries almost very few infected children were hospitalized and basically none died.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This article is a good summary of what I have come to believe is true, based on other pieces of research attempting to understand why the epidemic moves as it does and why some people just don’t seem to get infected, and therefore are never a source of transmission.  It is difficult to model these concepts about variation in the population network structure, immune system status, etc.   (CSPI Article)

We are starting to get some early papers on the effects of the booster shots.  I am very cautious in interpreting these as giving us information about the long-term effectiveness against infection, because of the decline we saw with the initial doses.  This paper from Israel is a large study that compared infection rates in those who were boosted versus those who weren’t.  The boosters appeared to significantly reduce the likelihood of breakthrough infection.  But the follow-up period was at most around two months.  (JAMA Article)

And this study in the VA has a similar design, comparing those with three doses to those with two, but carefully matching the populations on a variety of relevant factors.  Good but not such great results here.  People with the third dose had about half the risk of infection and hospitalization as those with only two doses.  This was an older population, likely with a number of comorbidities.   (Medrxiv Paper)

This editorial from the Lancet points out the obvious; that the fully vaccinated population is contributing to case loads and likely to transmission and pretending they aren’t isn’t good policy or medicine.    (Lancet Article)

 

 

Join the discussion 30 Comments

  • Wendy says:

    I can only imagine the craziness you receive. I appreciate what I perceive to be a balanced approach to the topic and acknowledging what I think is obvious, the risk profiles differ largely based on age. That is something I wish the ‘public health officials’ would do, be calm clear and outline that the one size fits all approach doesn’t work. The vaccines are not all that they were promised to be but that doesn’t make them ‘bad’ per se, but it does in my opinion highlight the need for a risk/benefit assessment that is broken down in age groups.

    I try to tell friends/family to look at this way, alcohol isn’t bad per se but it is more appropriate for adults than kids, there are a ton of things that I feel are ok for adults but not for kids. This vaccine is certainly one of them. I don’t have a problem with anyone getting the vaccine for themselves or their children, but I certainly don’t want anyone pressured to do so, and honestly I don’t want to know who did or didn’t get it. I never asked anyone if they got the flu shot I am not going to ask about this.

  • J. Thomas says:

    Why would Pfizer undermine their [vaccine/booster] gravy-train with an oral, early onset, medication? Is it because they have sold these [vaccines] out years ahead and there’s no worry about cannibalizing the business?

    I think healthy people who waited out the [vaccine] game have plenty of evidence that is was a good decision. We don’t know what we don’t know yet. Despite the growing pressures, I’m glad that there is still a valid control group of un-vaxxed people to compare long-term results with. The coercion and forced tactics to eliminate this group is part of the concern of ‘thinking’ people.

    I think it’s agreed upon that overall public health and our freedoms were trampled on, run over by a [vaccine] freight train, and that approach has dissolved the trust needed to sensibly administer a national health system. It’s broken, it’s captured, and it’s failing us.

  • Colonel Travis says:

    Welcome to the internet!
    😉

    That CSPI Article is a good read, thanks. Enjoy Florida

  • Joe - Dallas says:

    “What it tells me about people who write those comments and emails is that they are entirely narrow-minded zealots who have no interest in reading or hearing anything that doesn’t fit their paranoid little delusions ”

    I am one of those narrow minded individuals that believe the overall approach has been horrific – Along with the crappy politicalized science.

    Fortunately, Your commentary keeps me in line with some rational assessment of the science.

  • Brad says:

    “I am 71 years old, have been very fortunate in my business career, don’t monetize this blog in any way, and my entire goal is to help people look at data and research to understand the epidemic for themselves”

    Love this. Thankful for what you are doing. Keep it up!

  • Larry Fitzgerald says:

    I’d like to get your opinion on the RFK Jr. book “The Real Anthony Fauchi.” I’ve finished about half of it, so finished the parts on HCQ, IVM, and Remdesivir. Seems like the book’s analysis is accurate and well documented. I guess the overall perspective is that just about all pharma drugs and vaccines over the past 20-30 yrs are very flawed in terms of validated effectiveness, side effects, and proper regulatory approval. With the demise of traditional journalism and scientific skepticism & outright lies propagated by the our government health agencies and MSM with effective censorship of opposing information…….is there really any hope of rectifying the dismal situation we are in vs. Covid (i.e., continued government restrictions, mandates, and suppression of inexpensive alternative therapies)?

  • Brandt Johnson says:

    I do appreciate that you are just giving your opinion based on reviewing studies and stuff. No need to take the criticism seriously, you will get criticized no matter what you say about vaccines.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I don’t mean to insult anyone, but I do sometimes tire of the crap people give me about the vaccines

  • Kevin Roche says:

    the actual truth is that a lot more people would be dead if it weren’t for the vaccines.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I have no problem with people making a reasoned decision on whether or not to get vaxed, and I made my perspective on children pretty clear.

  • Chuck says:

    I have been told by a couple anti-vaxers that I have no proof the vaccine helped my breakthrough case stay mild. Two Dr friends have told me the vaccine may have saved my life. Who to believe???

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    “the actual truth is that a lot more people would be dead if it weren’t for the vaccines.”

    This may be true. It my also be true that many people would be dead but for the vaccines, time will tell. There is evidence supporting this contention now. It may not be the quality you need to reach a definitive conclusion yet, but it does exist, and to dismiss those who disagree with you as universally paranoid and delusional kooks is not objective no matter how wealthy you are and how little you care about angry readers deserting your blog.

    (It may also be true that many are dead due to lack of timely treatment from vaccines obsessed medical professionals but this possibility rarely draws much attention on this blog.)

    And the evidence that exists gives us clues about quality of deaths, not just quantity. How many eighty year old codgers should get an extra six months of life to justify the death of one young man or woman?

    Meanwhile, no matter how crazy and delusional people who oppose hysterical injection of everyone are, at least they are not putting people in camps (Australia) or about to literally imprison them for refusing to be injected (Austria). Those people are on the vaccine side, your side, and it speaks very ill of you that you have more harsh words for those with whom you disagree over injection risk than with the fascists who are taking over this world with a message of forced injection for all.

  • Christopher B says:

    I also really like the CSPI article. If you imagine that the various subnetworks are differentiated by their ability and/or willingness to comply with various NPI’s, which could include things like employment and living conditions, while still sharing a virus with similar basic reproductive number then the whole track of pandemic makes more sense.

  • J. Thomas says:

    https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

    https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

    What I find very interesting is that after 42,000+ adverse events, Pfizer’s own report concludes that this is typical for a vaccine. Is there any other data on prior vaccines that validates these results as ‘typical’ or ‘in-line’ with regulatory norms?

    Also, the data over the last 2 years of deaths FROM Covid shows clear evidence that those under 65 have negligible risk. Therefore, you must be referring to [vaccines] saving more ‘elderly lives’ … which contribute little to the economic engine of our country. I’m sorry, but as cold sounding as this is, the ruination of our country with medical apartheid via [vaccine] mandates is not worth saving a few more from this demographic.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    yes, it is a much more sophisticated and realistic approach to transmission dynamics

  • Kevin Roche says:

    i don’t have a side, and that may the problem, everyone else does

  • Kevin Roche says:

    the vaccine probably kept your case mild, but you might have been unlikely to die, so could be a stretch to say the vaccine saved your life.

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    “i don’t have a side, and that may the problem, everyone else does”

    Ah yes, the only unbiased observer out there!

    Apparently some nutty moonbats and crazy lunatic ideologues and terrorists at the American Heart Association “conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination” (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712). Nothing to see here, these are just the usual hate-mailing haters. Are they not aware of the serious high-quality research showing no significant serious adverse events? Luckily the health experts at Twitter are on the case!

  • Kevin Roche says:

    If you read the posts you would see that a week ago I posted on the study from the cardiology practice, which while it did note higher values on certain measures, did not find any actual increase in events. that is the basis for the AHA note, which did not suggest that people should avoid getting vaccinated. You are the one who brought up “sides” and I think I pretty clearly have a more rational and neutral approach to the data than you do. Your mind is made up and nothing is going to affect that. So you will get the level of credibility that such a closed minded approach deserves.

  • Charles Fogg says:

    Clicked on the CSPI article and it appears the account has been suspended.

    Thank you for having this blog, Kevin.

  • Jeff says:

    I didn’t read the CSPI article when you first posted it, but I wanted to go back and look at it now, after seeing the other comments about how good it is. Unfortunately, the link is no longer active, and I can’t find it anywhere else 🙁

  • Darin Kragenbring says:

    I read about 80% of the CSPI article; however, this morning I get an “account suspended” error. I didn’t find the article controversial and appreciated the author’s attempt to explain the waves of the pandemic. Does anyone know why this article was pulled?

  • Kevin Roche says:

    yeah, I assume they got censored but I don’t know why.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    yeah, I have the same problem, wish i had downloaded it

  • Jeff says:

    RE: CSPI post. Looks like it’s a whole website problem, so hopefully it’ll be back soon. Reference twitter post at https://twitter.com/CSPICenterOrg/status/1466791871485677568

  • Kevin Roche says:

    thank you, seemed like a popular article

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    So when their note refers to “observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination” are you saying there are no such observations? Because if they refer to “observations of increased … events” and you are right that there is no “actual increase in events” then there is a pretty critical issue with they way they wrote the abstract, isn’t there? The two statements don’t reconcile, someone has to be wrong.

    “I think I pretty clearly have a more rational and neutral approach to the data than you do. Your mind is made up and nothing is going to affect that. So you will get the level of credibility that such a closed minded approach deserves.”

    Uh huh. Like when you won’t apologize to people you called “terrrorists” on a specific issue *for being right on that issue* when you were wrong on it, because you don’t like the way the that they don’t agree with on a different issue.

    Like when you write posts that say Sweden’s current low coof deaths are caused by their open policy *and vaccination rates* when vaccination rates have absolutely not explanatory power because they don’t differentiate Sweden form the neighbors that are doing worse.

    Look, we all have our biases. Me, you, everyone. I think people who read this blog can see there’s a lot of close-mindedness going around and it’s not all in the comments section. The fact that you are very wealthy (“successful in business”) and run a blog doesn’t make you better than the rest of us. And the fact that you have barely anything at all to say about people on your side of the debate literally locking people up, forcing needles into their arms, etc. again is pretty telling.

    https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/austria-plans-enormous-fines-incarceration

  • JWS says:

    Not to belabor the point, but Philippe Lemoine has shared quite a bit of his CSPI post info in a VERY LONG twitter thread, available at:

    https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1462807921750851594

    The complete thread in an easier-to-read format is on Threadreader at https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1462806796020686850.html.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    thank you

Leave a comment