Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 107

By February 18, 2022Commentary

The documents provided by DOH after the attorneys had to send yet another threatening letter are quite revealing.  A lot to go through, but starting next week I will have some posts up summarizing what is in them.  Next stop, Governor’s office.

This study examined the effect of being vaxed after having an infection.  It comes from Israel, so probably pretty good data.  The risk of a subsequent infection was four times lower in those who got vaxed after infection versus those who did not, although low in both groups.  As usual, the question will be whether the additional vax protection holds up.  One dose was as protective as two.  There was somewhat lower effectiveness in those over 65.  The study period occurred during the Delta dominant period, and we know from subsequent information that Israel had a huge Omicron wave, so the protection from infection or vax likely declined.  We see in the Minnesota data that Omicron was more likely to infect both the vaxed and those with prior infection than was Delta.  (NEJM Article)

This study is so blatantly political and full of shit that I am wasting no time on it.  It is ancient history in the epidemic–back in mid-2020 and purports to show the benefits of mask mandates, especially in Republican counties.  Such a pathetic load of crap.  There is a reason why it doesn’t use a different period–you wouldn’t get the same result.  Health Affairs used to be respectable and is now just piece of woke, politicized garbage.  If you wonder why the bulk of the population has no time for elitist experts–this is why.  (HA Article)

And speaking of piece of shit research, CDC weighs in with its regular contribution to the political messaging of the moment, which is get every child vaccinated, even though they don’t benefit from it.  This is more gibberish about an increase in child and adolescent hospitalizations in the last few months.  As in Minnesota, we know this is purely due to incidental testing, these hospitalizations are not for CV-19 treatment.  According to this “study” Omicron lead to much higher rates of hospitalization among children than did Delta, but not so much for ICU use, and hospitalization rates were lower among vaxed adolescents.  I simply don’t believe it, CDC has no credibility on any research.  Their own limitations section here notes that they can’t distinguish between Delta and Omicron infections, vax status could be inaccurate, partly vaxed were treated as unvaxed, etc.  Not one word on the potential role of prior infections, which were very high among children.  And you have to look at the footnotes to see that they were treating many incidental cases as CV-19 even without a positive test–if there was a “suspicion” of CV-19.  And look at the symptoms that they claim meant it was a CV-19 admission–all symptoms of flu or RSV. Look at the p values associated with the supposed association with CV-19.  And look at the number of hosps for mental illness.  The CDC should be completely defunded at this point.  (CDC Study)

A study which shows that RSV is far more dangerous than CV-19 to children and a far greater drain on resources.  (JID Study)

This article shows that there are still some people with a conscience who refuse to go along with orders and engage in lying to and terrorizing the public.  And it is from someone in my home state.  (BI Article)

Okay, all you ivermectin believers, here is yet another good randomized trial showing early treatment is not associated with any better outcomes.  You know, you have to be smart enough to realize that a lot of things that happen are not causative.  So if a celebrity takes ivermectin and has a relatively mild illness, he was probably going to have that mild illness anyway and a million other things could be related to that.  That is why we do randomized trials, to isolate cause and effect as best we can.  I keep trying to tell people that I am dubious about ivermectin in particular because the mechanism of action makes no sense as applied to a virus.  Don’t let yourself give in to emotion–use reason, use logic.  (JAMA Article)

Keeping children 3 or 6 feet apart made no difference in CV-19 spread in schools, according to this paper from Massachusetts.  The “science” behind this social distancing trash was made-up crap.  (JID Article)

This study from Israel finds that the mRNA vaccines do cause a strong mucosal antibody response which can play a role in limiting infection.  It must not last long, based on breakthru infection data from that country.  (Medrxiv Paper)

The UK has published a lot of research on CV-19, including examining variants and the effect of vax.  This paper reports that, based on household studies and contact tracing, Omicron is more transmissible than Delta both in and outside households, and that vax have lower effectiveness against Omicron infection, but this could be partly due to time from vax.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This study from Germany suggests how easy it would be to mistake CV-19 symptoms for those of other respiratory virus infections.  Several pediatric practices tested for pathogens upon presentation of respiratory symptoms and found almost no CV-19, but lots of other viruses, including seasonal coronavirus which can screw-up CV-19 testing.  (JPID Article)


Join the discussion 9 Comments

  • Debbie M says:

    Gotta comment on a couple of things and may be opening a can of worms. First, I believe this is the first time you have commented and posted on an ivermectin study, and I’ve been a faithful reader during the pandemic. ( and may I say very grateful and supportive of this blog) In months gone by you have avoided posting any studies on early treatments for Covid. When asked, you said you didn’t want to get into what is medically appropriate care for patients as you were not an expert in that. Now you post a study that does not even support the standard of care that physicians are using in the field. Globally, not just in the U.S. Why this study? Why now?

    While the JAMA study is a good and valid one, the problem with it is that IVM is used as a single drug therapy. That’s equivalent to giving a cancer patient one chemo drug. Covid 19 is a complex virus needing a multi-drug treatment. Look at the recent study from Brazil using a multi-drug preventative kit. It’s an observational study albeit, but it cannot be discounted as the results were overwhelmingly positive and saved thousands of lives. Also, there is a good study coming out of Japan next month, supposedly if they get it published. It’s in phase lll clinical trials, RCT, with positive results for ivermectin. Will you then publish that one as well?

    Like I said, you may have opened a can of worms posting on an ivermectin study that was designed to fail. And as an aside, the fact that Joe Rogan had good results with it (along with the multi drug treatment ) never influenced me in the least. I read the studies and papers.

    Again, love your blog and appreciate all you and Dave do to keep us up to date with the latest data. You have kept me sane in this world of covidiocy.

  • The Dark Lord says:

    Intervectin… then explain India and 250 million people … any study that doesn’t do the cocktail intervectin zinc and zpac is intended to fail

  • Peter says:

    I’m surprised you haven’t covered more studies on ivermectin, since I find a lot of studies that positive results. How much research have you done on ivermectin, and what is your opinion on the studies that show positive results?
    Here are a couple links to a number of studies and a recent preprint:

    Perhaps you would comment on some of these?

  • Debbie M says:

    Addendum to my earlier post, I wasn’t clear…… the multi drug approach as used by the “frontline” physicians as their standard of care in treating patients. There is no early “standard of care” treatment in mainstream medicine world.

  • D says:

    The study you reference shows that Ivermectin did indeed work as 4 vs 10 placed on ventilation and 3 vs 10 died. A pretty small study and they didn’t follow the complete protocol (Zinc and vitamin C/D, etc.) Either way, I’d say the conclusion doesn’t match the data.

  • Mike M. says:

    The ivermectin treatment was started on average 5 days after symptoms started. Doesn’t severe covid usually start after about one week? So maybe it did not work to reduce severe covid because not started soon enough. There was a 20% reduction in ICU admission, 60% reduction in ventilation, and 70% reduction in deaths; but all with numbers too small for statistical significance. A non-significant result is not a negative result.

    Also, I know that many hydroxychloroquine trials did not follow the recommended protocol, either by starting too late, not including zinc, or by using an inappropriate dose. So although it seems that such therapies are not magic bullets, I remain unconvinced that they are useless. Especially since they almost certainly do no harm. That might no longer be the case once everyone can get the Pfizer antiviral.

  • JWS says:

    DebbieM expressed my own thoughts better than I could myself, I completely agree with what she said, and I sincerely echo her appreciation for your thoughtful posts and insights through this blog.

    I also appreciated Dr. Kory’s post today about the JAMA study, and I’m wondering if you would consider parsing his comments and contrast them with the conclusions in the study.

    Once again, thank you for your efforts to bring some sanity to this whole rigmarole over the past 2 years – it’s been an invaluable resource and reference point for me all along.

    Respectfully yours…

  • John Oh says:

    Casual observation about the ivermectin studies. I notice that it has been effective in India, where parasites are quite common. Treating people that have covid and some level of parasitic infection would have to improve the patient’s overall health. It doesn’t seem as effective in studies of populations in higher latitudes. Just a casual observation.

Leave a comment