Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 120

By March 29, 2022Commentary

On and on we go, and where we stop, no one knows.

This study from Norway looked at vaccine effectiveness among adolescents in regard to both Delta and Omicron.  Effectiveness against infection lessened rapidly in regard to both variants, but was essentially nothing in a few weeks in regard to Omicron.  (Medrxiv Paper)

A similar study in regard to vaccine effectiveness at preventing hospitalization among children and adolescents in Canada.  The authors were consultants for the teachers’ unions.  All you need to know.   In the context of very small numbers of hospitalizations and no effort to ascertain the underlying reason for hospitalization, they claim that the vaccines were modestly effective at preventing serious disease in this population.  Now, I think the vaccines do limit the risk of hospitalization for any given person, but for this group that risk is so low to begin with, that I tend to be dubious about extensive claims of benefit.  (Medrxiv Paper)

I said it before and I meant it, I am not spending any extended time on bullshit mask studies.  This is a typical example of the absolutely pathetic methodology of most of these studies.  With made up modeling garbage which says masks work, these idiot authors then claim that, voila, masks work to prevent a bunch of hospitalizations.  (Medrxiv Paper)

And it isn’t just masking studies that have these absurd methodologies; here is one on the value of contact tracing and testing, claiming that prevented millions of cases and thousands of hospitalizations.  Hogwash.  A very small percent of cases even were investigated and most of the time people lied or were uncooperative.  There is zero real evidence that this was anything more than a gigantic waste of money.  The authors used made-up data from states to create a made-up model, there is that M word again, that said contact tracing and testing worked, so once again, as if by magic, the results show that contact tracing worked.  The range of findings is so ridiculously huge that the authors should be embarrassed to even publish this dreck.  But this is epidemic research by the same people who recommended these futile measures, so of course it gets published as long as it supports the mainstream message.    (JAMA Study)

And this epidemic will be notable for the amount of money and time wasted on suppression measures that made no difference.  Cochrane reviews are extremely high quality measures of the evidence supporting a particular health intervention.  This one looked at international travel restrictions and found very weak evidence to support any effectiveness.  (Medrxiv Paper)

There appears to be a law of diminishing returns on vax doses.  This study from Israel finds that while a fourth dose provides another boost in effectiveness against infection and serious disease, that effect lessens even faster than it did after the third dose.  (Medrxiv Paper)

One finding of this study is so out of line, with most prior studies that I assume something is wrong.  The Cleveland Clinic looked at a large number of patients to determine the effect of vax or prior infection or monoclonal antibody therapy, on subsequent infection or serious disease.  According to the findings, vax was more protective than prior infection, but as I said, this is contrary to every other significant study.  And here is a big reason why–it only considered those people who were tested at the Clinic.  Think that is a random sample.  Think that over time all subgroups had the same testing behavior.  But more importantly, as I read the data, if vax was more preventive, it isn’t by much, actually appears to be in the margin of error.  Otherwise, we see the usual lessening of vax effectiveness and prior infection over time, and lower effectiveness against Omicron than Delta.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Here is a useful exploration of the history and limitations of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.  (Medrxiv Paper)


Join the discussion 3 Comments

  • JT says:

    So are JAMA and Medrxiv now just dumping grounds for research grant garbage? Between the top-down medical tyranny and the lack of fidelity in the research communities … where does anyone, especially doctors, go for evidenced based, peer reviewed, data?

  • Joe says:

    Given that everyone has likely been at least exposide to COVID-19, there is no control group, so how can most generalized studies be valid.

    Going one step further, COVID-19 clearly had the worse effects on vulnerable populations–the low hanging fruit, so to speak. When studying vaccines or any treatment, is it not likely that we are looking at a defacto healthier population?

Leave a comment