Just When You Think CV-19 Research Could Not Be Any Worse

I literally thought the first study I am going to talk about was a joke, a parody, put out by the Babylon Bee, when I first saw a reference on Twitter.  This can’t be serious, I said to myself.  But unfortunately, it is, and that is all you need to know about how untrustworthy and message-driven science is today.  These dumbkopfs literally want you to believe that unvaxed persons are more likely to have car accidents.  Now there may be all kinds of weird associations or correlations between actually unrelated events, but the idiots who wrote this “research” want you to believe that if you are unvaxed you are dangerous on the road.  The only good part of this kind of lunacy is it encourages people to distrust supposed science in these times; but the bad part is, it really would be far better if the public could trust researchers and policy-makers to be honest and not play games.

The study has been completely demolished multiple times on Twitter and elsewhere, so I am not going to bother, I just wanted to highlight that this kind of bullshit exists for the sole purpose of attempting to support a get-vaxed message, when the public can tell that the vax offer limited protection for only a short time.  The study comes from Canada, which is even crazier than the US in terms of vax pushing.  One really funny part of the study is that the higher risk exists even if the unvaxed person is just a passenger in a car or if they were a pedestrian hit by a car.   Now the authors say they don’t have any proof of any mechanism by which this might occur, but still say people should get vaxed to avoid being in a car crash.  How insane has the world gone?  I can only conclude that the authors are suffering the cognitive effects of long CV-19.   (Crash Study)

The second piece of trash research comes from an institution I am very familiar with–the Commonwealth Fund.  This is a far, far, far radical left think tank, funded by billionaires who want to ruin our health care and our lives.  The Commonwealth Fund regularly puts out awful research that is build on thin air, as is this piece claiming that the vax prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths.  This study is pure modeling, and presents a good opportunity to be reminded that here is what a model does–it gives you the answers you tell it to give you.  So the researchers told the model that if you were vaxed you were way less likely to be infected or hospitalized or to die.  There is only modest support for this notion in real data or research.

Here is what I think is the truth about the current vaccines.  For some period of time, a few months, they do protect against infection, but that protection is declining almost immediately after vaccination.  For a somewhat longer period of time they offer protection against serious disease, again declining after a few weeks or months.  Boosters provide some additional increase in protection, but look like they lessen in effectiveness even faster than original doses.  The vax don’t offer any better protection than results being infected, although in combination with infection, protection may be better.

So what this means is yes, for a short time after you are vaccinated, there is some protection against infection and serious disease, but the disappearance of that protection means these risks are merely deferred, not eliminated.  So studies like this which claim hospitalizations or deaths are avoided, are very misleading, because they aren’t, they are just deferred.  If less lethal strains become dominant during the period of deferral, than there may be some actual reduction in serious disease, but this study is illogical among many other problems, in treating deferral of events as complete avoidance.

And our recent work on population estimates strongly suggests that as I would have anticipated, the vaccines actually work the least well for the very old, and better for young and middle-aged adults.  That is typical of vaccines, as older persons’ immune systems typically are less responsive to vaccination.

Again, this study has been amply deconstructed on Twitter.  It is a bullshit model that has no support for its assumptions in the research or data.  The details of the analysis are largely hidden, which is intentional because the method is so bad.  (Commonwealth Post)

It is really a terrible thing for our country that supposed scientists and researchers feel no hesitation, no shame, no remorse, over completely slanting made-up research to support ideology and messaging.  No commitment to accuracy or truth.