Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 168

By September 10, 2022Commentary

For all the Alex Berenson fans, here is actual research, a very large population-based study from Korea looking at rates of heart attacks or strokes in vaxed or unvaxed persons more than 30 days after a severe CV-19 infection.  Guess what, the vaxed people had a much lower risk of having a heart attack or stroke after infection. How can that be if the vax are causing all these deaths?  (JAMA Study)

We have a winner in the stupidest CV-19 study of the year category, and it relates to the scientific area with the greatest level of fraud and lunacy in research–climate change.  This study claims that climate change, which is largely bullshit to begin with, will make it more likely that new coronavirus and other pathogens arise to cause epidemics because of something about where bats live.  I would be embarrassed to either put my name on something like this dreck or to have any role in publishing it.  (Medrxiv Paper)  

An interesting study on the immune response in regard to different combinations of the vaccines.  It appears, as other research has suggested, that mixing types of vaccines prompts a stronger, more comprehensive response than does using the same vaccine for all doses.  (Medrxiv Paper)

And another study on viral infection interaction with other viral infections.  These researchers found that infection with Omicron CV-19 variants prompted the production of interferons which limited co-infections with influenza.  Delta did not have the same effect.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Vaccination likely is associated with a reduced risk of serious disease.  I think this study exaggerates the reduction, at least based on what we see in the Minnesota data, but it claims that during January to April 2022, hospitalization rates were ten times greater in unvaxed persons.  It does not appear that prior infection was included as a variable, and oddly, the risk of ending up in an ICU or dying was indistinguishable between vaxed and unvaxed person in a multivariable matched cohort analysis.  (JAMA Study)

And for the vax safety nuts, here is a study among pregnant and breastfeeding women finding basically no serious adverse reactions to vaccination.  Sorry.  (JAMA Study)

Join the discussion 14 Comments

  • Jody says:

    I still don’t understand why anyone who is healthy and under the age of 70 would get vaccinated against covid, which is simply not that dangerous – certainly no more than the normal flu. In addition, have ivermectin or HCQ on hand to take once infected and greatly reduce the symptoms and severity.
    And you can go right along believing those in power who have committed and are still committing genocide. Just because they lied to you and continue to manipulate data about about man made climate change and covid doesn’t at all mean they would lie to you or manipulate data about any of the vaccines – right?

    • Kevin Roche says:

      reply to Jody. There is no study anywhere showing that taking ivermectin after getting infected makes any difference and the same for HCQ. And there are a lot of dead people, who if they were alive, might beg to differ with you on the potential for CV-19 to be dangerous. throwing around terms like genocide just shows what a ridiculously unbelievable set of nonsense you are spewing out

  • joe Kosanda says:

    Regarding the study that claims Climate change will cause in increase in viruses is consistent with most climate change studies. Almost all of climate impact studies are just variations of the Paul Ehrlich of the population bomb fame.

    First, there is no question that the earth is going through a warming phase since circa 1850. the only ones denying the warming are true science deniers.

    A classic example of bogus climate science studies – Skeptical science regularly runs studies showing that as the oceans become warmer, that hurricanes will increase in intensity.

    However , the earth has been warming for 150+ years during which time there has been no increase in total hurricane intensity. We have 150 + years of good empirical evidence showing the warming seas will not cause an increase in hurricane intensity. yet somehow, the scientists should be believed because they are experts.

    What is astounding is the articles of faith progressives have in these modeled predictions when the empirical evidence shows the opposite.

  • Bruce Wellman says:

    Re the Sept 10 literature cited that Omicron but not Delta were protective against influenza.
    I oversee a Midwest health system lab and in particular our COVID testing platforms. We a use a combo PCR that detects COVID and flu on the same sample. In late January we performed over 14,000 tests in one week.
    This allowed us to test a large population for both influenza and SARS CoV 2 RNA.
    Influenza positive rate in symptomatic patients in mid December 2021 during Delta was up to 10%. As Omicron rapidly replaced Delta influenza positive plummeted to less than 1% by early January 2022 interestingly as the first Omicron wave peaked around mid to late February Influenza positivity rate surges in early March and continued into May before declining. Coinfections were very rare. Also we were in transition between original Omicron to series of variants. The March resurgence may signal that the subsequent Omicron variants may not be as protective as the original Omicron v.
    This points out the difficulty of SARS Cov 2. Assumptions based on past variants response to immunizations and therapies may not hold up as new variants appear.

  • goodgrief-952 says:

    I randomly chose one of your listed studies to read. It happens to be the one you designated as specifically for you “vax safety nuts, here is a study among pregnant and breastfeeding women.”

    Significant problems with this study that immediately jump out:
    1) “MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Self-reported vaccine reactions less than 24 hours after
    the dose.”

    LESS THAN 24 HOURS???? Ok. Dude. You’re kidding. Right?

    2) Conflict of interest:
    “Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kachikis reported serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline on maternal immunization-related projects in 2020 and as an unpaind consultant for GlaxoSmithKline in 2022 outside the submitted work. Drs Kachikis, Englund, and Drake reported receiving grant support from Merck outside the submitted work. Drs Kachikis and Englund reported receiving grant support from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Englund reported receiving grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca and serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Moderna, Sanofi Pasteur, and Meissa Vaccines Inc outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.”

    This is the best you’ve got? Really? Are you just hoping nobody actually reads the study?

    • Kevin Roche says:

      Another person who doesn’t know the first thing about research or data analysis purporting to tell me how to read a study and just quoting garbage they get off the internet.

  • goodgrief-952 says:

    I don’t even know who Alex Berenson is. Lol. But I know a little bit about how to read a study instead of a headline.
    It’s rich that you post that pregnancy study as “proof” to all your vax safety nut friends on your blog and then don’t post comments regarding it’s questionable details.
    Reader beware.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      what is really “rich” is when people who know nothing about designing a study and doing research just quote stuff they pick up off the internet. Seriously, use your brain.

    • goodgrief-952 says:

      Replying to Kevin Roche’s reply to me:

      If you call clearly reading the study link on the internet that you posted “quoting stuff I picked up off the internet”, why yes I did. Straight from the pregnancy study. Am I misreading that the stated goals and conflicts of interest? 🤔
      All you’ve done is deny and accuse without telling me how I’m actually reading it wrong. I am trying to learn.

  • Debbie M says:

    To Goodgrief…I also read the study paying close attention the the methods, results, and limitations and found it typical of a JAMA study with today’s political bias. The headline is a bit misleading. One might interpret by just reading the abstract, to say the vaccines are safe for pregnant and lactating mothers. Reading the actual study method tells us what the results were that 24hrs following the vaccine/booster. I too had misgivings reading who the researchers were and their ties to Pfzier. Ugh. So this study did nothing to prove to me the safety of vaccines in pregnant and lactating women.


    • Kevin Roche says:

      every researcher has ties to something. Funny how the people exaggerating vax safety concerns never mention the money that people like Alex Berenson make with his sensational and completely irrational claims. Researchers who get published in JAMA can’t just make up data and the methodology of that study is just fine

  • goodgrief-952 says:

    Am I reading the pregnancy study correctly that the study only looked for vaccine reactions less than 24 hours after the dose?

Leave a comment