Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 225

For some reason you won’t read about this in our papers but a UK newspaper has a story about the impending surge in serious cancer cases in the US due to delayed diagnoses and care during the epidemic.  The story details information from a variety of sources indicating the diagnoses for common cancers were down substantially during the prime epidemic years.  Ten million cancer screening appointments were estimated to be missed in the first half of 2020 alone.    (Mail Story)

This has little to do with vax safety, but seriously, why would anyone even consider taking another CV-19 vax.  Almost everyone has had a least one infection and multiple vaccinations and there is no reason to think that further shots will do anything to lessen the likelihood of another infection which in any event will basically be a bad cold.  Here is another study showing pathetically low bivalent vax effectiveness in those 65 and over in Portugal.  Prevention against infection was extremely low, and was basically non-existent within six months.  Nominally better protection was seen against serious disease or death.  And once more the study fails to adjust for past infection(s).  (Medrxiv Paper)

It is frustrating for people who railed against the futility of lockdowns and predicted the horrific damage they would impose on society, to now see multiple studies verifying that this was in fact the case.  Here is a representative study that did a review of the published research and found that at best the lockdowns prevented an extremely small number of deaths.  In my view even this is overestimated due to the wrongful attribution of many deaths to CV-19.  I think lockdowns had no impact on CV-19 deaths.  The authors somehow bizarrely twist their findings into a conclusion that voluntary social distancing did have an impact on mortality.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This study examines Danish adults 50 and over for the mythical long CV-19 symptoms.  In particular they examined whether people with CV-19 had a higher subsequent risk of hospitalization for other infectious diseases, which might be indicative of an impaired immune response.  In fact they found no evidence for such an association which would suggest that getting CV-19 does not lead to a lasting decrement in immune responses to other infectious diseases.  (CID Study)

On the other hand, this study suggests that a CV-19 infection can be associated with evidence of organ damage six months after the infection in people who were hospitalized for CV-19.  70% of patients showed such evidence, but the clinical consequences were unclear.  Interestingly, little evidence of heart damage was seen.  And the study indicates an association but does not definitely show that the CV-19 infection was responsible for damage, and in the uninfected comparison group, almost 30% of patients showed evidence of organ damage.  Note that none of the patients had been vaccinated.  The authors also note other research indicating that an infected population compared with controls each showed about a 20% level of heart abnormalities, suggesting that a large part of the population always has such indications.    (Science Article)

Finally, for the VSNs out there, and you know who you are, this article in Nature suggests that some post-menopausal women may have experienced unexpected vaginal bleeding following CV-19 vaccination.  The data comes from Norway and including women on contraception who weren’t menstruating. Unfortunately for the VSNs, most of those reporting the bleeding did not seek medical care and no serious consequences were reported.  The association is important, however, since such bleeding could otherwise be a sign of serious disease and the potential cause being vax would help in diagnostic efforts.  (Science Study)