Another study, this time from Manitoba, Canada, reveals that there was a significant decrease in diagnoses for certain cancers during the early portion of the epidemic, which subsequently returned to normal levels, but likely resulted in later stage diagnoses. Terror campaign. (JAMA Article)
Face masks couldn’t possibly ever cause any kind of issues or problems for people who wear them for an extended time, right? Wrong. Another study notes that extended mask wearing can cause physiological and cognitive issues. it was conducted among nursing students doing in-person education during the epidemic. Cognitive fatigue increased, and cognitive reaction time decreased. Body temperature increased and pulse rates went down. Now imagine that these are medical professionals charged with providing critical care to patients. (NEP Article)
Our “experts” have tried desperately to justify keeping kids out of school and social events. As usual, they specialize in emotional blackmail, in this case by saying children would infect frail grandparents. What a load of bullshit. And this study from France, contrary to other studies, follows right along by claiming that households with children had higher rates of CV-19 infection than those without. Please note the pathetic design–only looked at test-confirmed CV-19 infections, so obviously missed a ton, likely all mild, was partly based on self-reported transmission from a child, which is a garbage method for anything, and note that there was only a pathetic self-reported attempt to control for important confounders, like when young children are in daycare or school, the parents are more likely to be working. I don’t believe at all that parents are accurate recorders of whether a child transmitted the infection to them, as opposed to vice versa, or another adult. Also note that there was actually less association with infection for children in day care or school than for those who were at home. And there was no analysis of whether these infections led to any more serious disease. Finally, the study limitations themselves note that the study sample was completely unrepresentative of the population. Just garbage to be ignored. (JAMA Article)
For those interested in a non-conspiratorial perspective on CV-19 vaccine study, another large study using an electronic medical record database for the New Zealand population. It examined the risk of 12 serious adverse events following vaccination, serious meaning resulting in hospitalization. The event rate after vaccination was compared with the event rate in a long pre-epidemic baseline. Other than the uusal suspect, heart inflammation and for those aged 20 to 39 a slight increase in single organ vasculitis after the first dose only (very small number of events so interpret carefully), there was no statistically significant number of adverse events related to receipt of vaccination. (Drug Saf. Article)
A study from the first half of this year involving inmates in the California prison system compared infection risk among those who had received the bivalent booster and those who were never vaxed. There was only a very minor difference in risk, except in those over 65, and in fact the bivalent vaxed group had slightly higher infection rates. I would note that the study is an example of the difficulty at this point in tracking every prior infection and every vax dose to truly compare infection risk, particularly when so many infections went undetected. There was perhaps a higher level of detection in a controlled environment like a prison, but the issue remains. There were serious limitations to the study, which the authors address quite forthrightly. But to me just further evidence of the lack of any reason to take further boosters. (Cureus Study)
I am not certain what the mechanism of action would be but children who had CV-19 antibodies were more likely than those who didn’t to have the kind of autoimmune reaction that leads to Type 1 diabetes. The authors postulate that infection by the virus of islet cells could be responsible. Concerning if replicated, but longer studies would be needed to show that there was a higher rate of actually developing Type 1 diabetes. (JAMA Article)
