Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Holiday Edition

By May 30, 2022Commentary

Medicine has gone delusionally woke and here is a study that combines woke racist garbage with CV-19 lunacy.  The study purports to look at any association between vax rates in a zip code in Chicago and CV-19 mortality.  It starts with a lecture about structural racism in health care.  Why, other than virtuous posturing do they do this?  Because most of the areas with low vax rates are minority neighborhoods and they want to claim this is due to racism, which is pure bullshit.  And of course, there is higher mortality in those areas as well.  Here is the real reason, which is politically incorrect to say.  Many minorities have poor health behaviors and therefor poor health status.  They have greater CV-19 mortality because of the poor health status, including high levels of obesity, a major risk factor for CV-19.  And they have low vax rates because of poor health behaviors in general.  It has nothing to do with racism.  These neighborhoods have plenty of access to free vax and are constantly bombarded by pro-vax messages.  Most of the people in these neighborhoods have gold-plated Medicaid coverage, so they have no excuse for not taking better care of their health.  And the federal government and the state of Illinois literally have spent a fortune on health care in Chicago.  But the medical powers that be and others aren’t going to miss an opportunity to squawk about structural racism.  Things will never get better in these areas until the true causes of health disparities are addressed, and they are complete lack of family structures that nurture responsible behavior in all areas of life, worthless schools that teach nothing, and no policing to address crime, drugs and other activity that hinders the quality of life.  (JAMA Study)

And speaking of awful research, the CDC has become notorious for dreadful methodologies and data analysis intended solely to support the message du jour, like wear 18 masks 25 hours a day.  Here is a revisit of one of those studies, on mask mandates in Kansas schools.  The authors took the methods used in the original CDC published drivel and extended it to a larger geographic area and included analysis of other factors.  As anyone could tell at the time, the results show zero benefit of forced masking to prevent spread in schools.  (SSRN Paper)

And here is yet another idiotic study from the mask religionists.  Once more all you need to know is that it is based on self-reported mask-wearing behavior, which is completely unreliable.  The claim is that people who said they wore a mask all the time had fewer infections.  Complete failure to account for selection bias or a hundred other confounding factors.  But by God, they got the answer they wanted so what else matters, science be damned!!  You can tell how bad the methodology is becauses these jackasses don’t even bother to include a limitations section.  It would be longer than the paper.   (Medrxiv Paper)

This study from the California prison system evaluated effectiveness of vax and prior infection on likelihood of Omicron infection.  Although the follow-up period is inconsistent and often short, for those with a two-dose vax and no prior infection, protection against Omicron was 15% and for those with a booster it was 43%.  For those who had a prior infection before the Delta wave, protection was 48% with two-doses of vaccine and 61% with a booster.  For those with a prior infection during Delta, the protection against Omicron was 73% for two doses of vax and 87% with a booster.  Not clear if the difference in the timing of the prior infection is due to the passage of time alone or there is some better adaptive immunity following a Delta infection.  What is very clear is that a prior infection offers far more protection than does vax alone and that vaxing a previously infected person only adds incremental protection.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This is a metareview of studies on vax effectiveness against Omicron in Europe.  As we can see in the data everywhere, the two-dose series pretty quickly has zero effectiveness against infection and diminishing protection against serious disease.  A booster appears to be somewhat better, but obviously has shorter follow-up time and I believe with adequate follow-up shows similar results to the two-dose series.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Study from Canada suggests that while vaxed people still get hospitalized, they may have a less serious disease and lower risk of being in an ICU, but not much of a decrease in the risk of dying.  (JID Paper)

During the epidemic there has been renewed interest in the relative and changing rates of infection of multiple viruses.  Does infection with one inhibit or even promote infections by others?  Do all the attempts to suppress CV-19 have an impact and eventually a rebound effect on other respiratory viruses.  This study looked at influenza on a University campus during the epidemic.  The results suggest far fewer than expected flu cases during the epidemic and only one possible co-infection.    (Medrxiv Paper)

Still not completely clear if Omicron results in lower viral loads.  This study in University populations in Boston finds that despite a lot suppression efforts, transmission was very widespread and viral loads were lower.  That may be due to testing selection, length of infectious periods or a younger population.  (JID Paper)

Here is an interesting and needed look at the failures of medicine to rapidly develop good protocols for caring for serious cases of CV-19, and how that development might be improved in the future.  (JAMA Article)

 

Join the discussion 11 Comments

  • Stacey Atneosen says:

    Kevin
    Do you think this Covididiocy will ever end? They are completely ignoring medical data and studies.

  • joe kosanda says:

    Curious on the study pointing out lower flu cases during covid pandemic

    Thoughts on whether it was lower due to
    A) covid being the dominant virus during the pandemic
    B) lower levels of reporting
    C) some other reason.

    One school of thought is that the non pharmacetical interventions such as masking and social distancing resulted lower transmission because the regular flu and inherently lower transmittability and therefore the protocols were more effective

    Thoughts

  • Rob says:

    University populations in Boston. Good grief! Boston is one of the most congested cities in the country. The population of 20-somethings interacts with more people out of their age bracket than within it because it can’t be helped! Might as well just study 20-somethings in Southie!

  • Kevin Roche says:

    Not clear to me what the explanation is. I doubt it is A or B completely. CV-19 certainly has been the dominant virus but it is unclear the exact mechanisms by which one virus tends to exclude infections by another. I don’t think it is lower levels of reporting. The testing for people with serious respiratory tends to go beyond CV-19, particularly if that test isn’t positive. Suppression efforts may have temporarily impacted all viral infections, but if so, we are certainly seeing a rebound.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    not for some people, they enjoy it too much

  • JT says:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/05/how_the_covid_vaccines_kill.html

    Just lost another close friend to a heart attack after his booster. 2 of the 3 others were from blood clots. But, there’s ‘nothing’ linking these events … just ask the CDC/Pfizer team. Far too many people have been lied to and fooled about this virus’s true risk metrics by the government propaganda machine. When will people WAKE UP ?

    Thank you for posting the data KR and attempting to enlighten us. This unapproved test serum needs to be pulled from the market as a failure ASAP. Back to the drawing board regarding Corona Virus products. mRNA development is a long way off unless they start to be completely honest with themselves and the public about the mechanisms of the failure.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    just so I am clear, there is no, none, not one whit of evidence suggesting that there are any significant numbers of deaths caused by the vaccines. And every heart attack is due to a blood clot.

  • JT says:

    Then I guess there are a whole lot of people with medical degrees who are all wrong. I’m not sure how/why a lawyer is so sure of himself regarding medical statements such as the one above. I sincerely appreciate your background in the industry, but I think you need to stay in your lane regarding medical statements. “Significant” is a cover word for ‘thousands are statistically acceptable’. NO its not, especially with the fraud surrounding Pfizer’s clinical studies. And ‘Evidence’ requires autopsies, which were purposefully limited or ignored as the mRNA product flooded the population.

    Anyone who believes that having ‘spike Proteins’, which the immune system considers as a threat, circulating through all of your organs is a healthy situation needs to have their head examined. It defies all medical common sense, especially for the risk profile of a corona virus.

    Here’s another little ditty regarding our little friend Mr. Obama and the changes to the Federal Register on his last day. The term ‘Plandemic’ never sounded more appropriate !

    https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2017-01-19/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-70?toc=1

  • Kevin Roche says:

    you are just dead wrong on this one

  • John Kulze MD says:

    In response to your comment above, concerning data is starting to build on association of vaccine and cardiac events.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z

  • Kevin Roche says:

    and there is also data on the cardiac impacts of CV-19, so in any decision about being vaxed that would also need to be taken into account

Leave a comment