Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 121

By March 31, 2022Commentary

Anyone who has any doubt that the current demented administration allowed CV-19 policy to be driven by the teachers’ unions should read this report, which describes how the CDC changed school guidance because of the teachers’ unions.  This is disgraceful and shows these people care way more about political contributions then they do about science.   (Cong. Rpt.)

This large study from Denmark looked at the risk of breakthrough infections in regard to Delta and Omicron.  The level of anti-spike antibodies was correlated with the risk of Delta infection but not with Omicron infection.  There  were, however, basically no cases of serious disease following breakthrough infections in regard to either variant.   (SSRN Paper)

For all the people going on and on about ivermectin, here is yet another randomized clinical trial showing that it doesn’t either stop infection or limit serious disease.  There have been repeated trials with the same finding.  The ivermetin fanatics make up all kinds of excuses, but the truth is obvious.  And I keep saying just look at the mechanism of action, it makes no sense that it would work against CV-19.  Doctors can do what they want, but patients should be told the truth.  (NEJM Study)

Here is another misleading study on the supposed benefits of vaccination in adolescents, who are at extremely low risk for serious CV-19 disease.  The study claims significant effectiveness against hospitalization, but the study fails to adequately distinguish between admissions for CV-19 and those which were merely incidental.  The hospitalized children had very high rates of comorbidities and prior admissions for non-CV-19 reasons.  So these are generally children not in good health.  (NEJM Paper)

And reinfection rates in children are low, and far lower than in adults, and almost never result in hospitalizations except in children with substantial comorbidities.  (Lancet Article)

This study from Japan found high levels of antibodies, derived from vax and prior infection, in the population but low effectiveness of those antibodies against Omicron.  (Medrxiv Study)

Join the discussion 12 Comments

  • Pianoman says:

    Thank you for not referring to Ivermectin as “horse drugs”.

  • Micky Willkom says:

    Maybe you should read this to find out why the Ivermectin study you reference is flawed. https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1509400149608448000

  • Bill McKinney says:

    I’m not one of “those ivermectin people”. I don’t know whether it has any efficacy or not. But I had to respond to the comment about the above study. My own experience with covid outpatient treatment was “call us back when we need to admit you”. I think the outpatient response from the people in charge of the medical community was willfully, criminally negligent. I know the people in charge will lie when it suits them, and i know there is tremendous pressure to produce studies with the “correct” results. Given that, why should I believe the above ivermectin study was a fair trial? Are all the doctors advocating the drug idiots? The only studies I ever hear about in the media, this one included, always produce “correct” results. But apparently fifty percent of studies aren’t reproducible. How can anyone trust anything they read in the media any more?

  • JT says:

    I communicate with a good friend who’s a Orthodox Priest in Uganda. Over the past couple years they have gone through the same government over-reach that we have (curious if they are captured to by the WEF acolytes?) but with far fewer resources and options for keeping life moving forward than we have. One of the things that he mentioned about Ivermectin was that it wasn’t a new drug for them, thrown at this virus at the last minute. People live on it, usually taken once a week, so there’s a completely different situation in some countries use and results.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    No one is stopping doctors from prescribing the drug but patients should be given full information about the lack of efficacy. I can’t speak to how particular providers treated CV-19, but in general they were very quick to admit patients or treat them because they got paid extra for doing that.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    it isn’t a horse drug, has been very valuable for some human diseases, but I don’t see the evidence for effectiveness against CV-19

  • joe Kosanda says:

    I am probably far more neutral in the benefits of ivermectin , though I havent seen any positive studies except those that seem to be very agenda driven.

    curious about thoughts on Remdesivir – the positive results seem very agenda driven with measurement of benefits being very subjective
    for example John hopkins study

    “Overall, 74% of remdesivir-receiving patients saw improvement within 28 days (with a median time of seven days) versus 68.3% of control patients (with a median time of nine days).Jan 18, 2022”
    74% vs 68 % and 7 days vs 9 days seems both subjective and trivial

    Thoughts?

  • John Kulze MD says:

    Here’s a summary of the antiviral effects of ivermectin
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

  • Joe says:

    Is it possible that the Ivermectin “successes” were because it was treating a comorbidity?

  • Kevin Roche says:

    yes, in fact there is a study showing that the apparent effect in one trial was due to co-infections with a parasite in South America

  • Kevin Roche says:

    that is basically a summary of why it could be effective, not really a metareview of any trials establishing such an effect. As I noted in another comment reply, in many cases where there is an apparent improvement in health due to use of ivermectin (in non-CV-19 settings), the effect is due to it working against a co-infection with a parasite

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I am not going to pretend to be an expert on treatment trials, largely because as a result of my own involvement in drug trials, I have learned that patient selection and various confounding factors are often not dealt with well. My recollection in regard to remdesivir is that on the whole the trials suggest that there was a beneficial effect, and unlike ivermectin, there is a clear mechanism of action to which effectiveness could be ascribed

    Once more I will be clear, I am fine with doctors prescribing ivermectin if they think it will help, but patients should be fully informed, and the best information is that it is unlikely to make much difference either in preventing infection or serious disease.

Leave a comment