Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 182

By December 23, 2022Commentary

More bad news for vax safety nuts.  Some, like Alex Berenson, were promoting supposed negative effects of vax on fertility, with as usual, absolutely zero evidence.  Most tellingly, there has been no increase in people seeking fertility treatments.  And when they do, according to this study from China, there is no impact from vax status on likely success of the treatment.   This paper cites several other studies coming to the same conclusion.  Won’t stop Alex and others from spreading their lies, but eventually the truth always comes out.  (JAMA Study) 

One clear safety issue from the vax is myocarditis in younger males.  This very large study from Scandanavia found that there was an increase in heart inflammation cases in this group following booster doses, although not as large an increase as that occurring after the primary series.  Serious illness leading to hospitalization was extremely rare. (Medrxiv Study)

At this point I think everyone recognizes that the response to the epidemic was not good for children of any age and specifically led to worsening mental health in that population.  This review of the research finds that to be undoubtedly the case.  (Medrxiv Study)

While the focus of the immune response to CV-19 is often on antibodies, it has been apparent since early on that T cell responses may play a more important role, particularly in the long-term response to subsequent exposure.  This article discusses the T cell response to CV-19 infection and the factors associated with that response that may be associated with more or less strength and durability.  (Nature Article)

And this study shows that in breakthrough infections, T cell responses tend to be very quick and strong and to lead to rapid virus clearance.  (Medrxiv Paper)

In regard to B cells, which are associated with antibody development, this study found that asymptomatic persons have rapid B cell, including memory B cell responses, upon infection, whereas symptomatic persons appear to have suppressed ones.  (Medrxiv Study)

I continue to wonder about so-called long CV-19, or general longer term effects of CV-19 infection on overall health.  This study found no association with a prior CV-19 infection with worse outcomes in a subsequent major cardiac surgery.  (JAMA Study)

And while I may wonder about it, this large study claims to find an increase in certain symptoms or conditions up to five months following a CV-19 infection.  For hospitalized CV-19 patients, there was an increased risk of some conditions, for non-hospitalized ones, the risk was far lower.  There were a couple of conditions, mental health issues and neurological disorders, for which the risk actually appeared lower among CV-19 infectees.  Note that the study relied solely on testing to determine prior infection, thus likely missing many infections, and did not include vax status, which is a large potential confounder.  (Medrxiv Study)

This is a somewhat technical research letter but the upshot is that the new bivalent booster really doesn’t provide that much better levels of neutralizing antibodies against recent Omicron variants than did the original formulation.  Forget boosters.  (NEJM Letter)

Oh, boy, another bad booster effectiveness study, this one in nursing homes saying the boosters really lowered case, hosp and death risk.  Look at the short followup period.  Look at the complete failure to adjust for prior vax status, in fact exclude everyone with a positive test within 90 days of vax, but not longer ago.  Give me a break.  It is possible that for some short period of time, the vax and boosters defer some risk of serious disease, but it isn’t for long.   (JAMA Study)

Kind of an interesting study from South Africa using proximity monitors in households and finding that more  or less close contact with an infected person had no effect on transmission rates.  Suggests that droplets play less of a role that perhaps aerosols do.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Leave a comment