Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 148

By June 27, 2022Commentary

I don’t know why I feel a need to say this every time, but I am not anti-vax, and I am pro-truth, and the truth is that the vaccines for most younger-aged people, and certainly for children, present almost no benefit.  Most children have been infected and they will have a stronger immunity as a result of that than they might get from being vaxed.  So vaxing your children is a mistake, in my judgment.  And apparently Denmark agrees, as their national director of health says the country should not have recommended or pushed for the vax of children.  (Denmark Story)

This study examines whether giving nursing home residents a second booster helped limit infection.  Why is the second booster needed?  Because just like the first two shots, the first booster became worthless after a few months.  So why think a second booster would be any different?  Are we really going to give boosters every few months and if we do what will that do to the immune response?  In any event, the study shows that in the first few weeks after the second booster there was enhanced protection against hospitalization and death.  With an appropriate follow-up period that will not be true.     (JAMA Article)

If you want another reason, aside from lack of benefit due to low risk of serious disease, not to vaccinate your children against CV-19, here is one more study identifying a significant myocarditis, or heart inflammation, risk from the vaccines, particularly in males.  The risk is highest in the first week after any dose and in persons aged 18 to 24.  The risk is multiples of that existing in the absence of vaccination.  (Nature Study)

Another exploration of the risk of heart inflammation is found in a study from Canada among children and adolescents, also finding that heightened occurrence of the condition occurred in those persons following vaccination, particularly in young adult males.  (JAMA Network)

I don’t know why researchers instead on publishing studies on vax effectiveness with inadequate followup periods.  This is a meta-analysis on the effect of primary vax and a booster against Omicron.  It finds that after the two dose series, effectiveness against Omicron infection is very low after six months, and effectiveness against hospitalization stemming from that infection also declines, but not as substantially.  A booster supposedly restores protection, but most of the studies included had follow-up periods too short to detect the decline which appears to occur after a few months.  (Medrxiv Study)

Everything is about the vaccines these days as the experts continue to pimp them despite limited effectiveness at stopping infection or transmission.  If you older or have serious health issues, you are still wise to get vaxed and boosted, as there appears to be ongoing protection against hosp and death, but otherwise they are pretty worthless in a few months.  This study looked at the effect of a breakthrough Delta infection versus a booster in limiting Omicron infection.  Although the authors don’t say it, it appears a breakthrough infection provides better protection against Omicron than does a booster, and I am guessing with an adequate follow-up period, it will be more durable protection as well.   (Medrxiv Study)

Australia is one of the whacko countries that spent a couple of years trying to completely stop CV-19 before finally acknowledging the futility of doing that.  It is a highly vaxed country, but that didn’t stop a substantial Omicron wave.  This research found that a booster substantially limited hospitalization and death risk in those persons who had not had a prior infection, but provided basically no protection against infection.  And once more, too short a followup to detect any waning of booster effectiveness.  (SSRN Paper)

While I don’t think there is an excessive safety risk with the mRNA vaxes, I also think the public health gurus have done everything they can to minimize and even hide the risks that exist.  This review of serious adverse events in the trials leading up to approval finds that the risk of serious events exceeded the reduction in the risk of hospitalization in the trials.  Now that is a little misleading because the trials don’t include a lot of older individuals or people in poor health, but full transparency is required before mandating or pushing vax.  (SSRN Study)



Leave a comment