People who want to persuade everyone that the CV-19 vax caused all kinds of harm just make stuff up and twist research. Here is yet another example. This study was done of deceased persons and looked at the persistence of portions of a CV-19 vax in the liver, spleen, heart tissue and certain lymph nodes for those who died within 30 days post vaccine receipt and those who died longer than 30 days after innoculation. Please note that one of the first things the authors said was that none of the deceased persons’ deaths had anything to do with the vaccine. You can’t go randomly biopsying the tissues of living people, so you have to use dead people. For those who died within 30 days after vaccination, vax particles were still present in the arm lymph nodes of a majority of those autopsied, but not other lymph nodes. No particles were found in those who died more than 60 days after vaccination. In those who died within 30 days of vax, three of twenty had vax particles in their heart tissue. Now here is the most important part. All of the patients with vax particles in their hearts had pre-vaccine heart tissue injury, the vax didn’t cause it, but the injury somehow allowed vax particles to conjugate and remain in the heart for some weeks. There was no detection of the vaccine in any person’s spleen or liver. It is very important to understand the distribution of vaccine in the body and the persistence and this study actually gives a fair amount of comfort that the vaccine is cleared from most tissues very quickly and from all tissues within 30 days. And the study strongly suggests that patients who have experienced vaccine-associated myocardial disease had that disease pre-vaccination. (Nature Article)
The impact of missed care during the epidemic is still being assessed. This study finds that visits for cancer care dropped 17% in 2020, the first year of the epidemic. Note that these are patients who definitely had cancer and almost certainly needed their treatments. Explains worsened outcomes. (JAMA Article)
Defenders of the lockdown mentality and cult of masking, euphemistically referred to as “non-pharmaceutical interventions”, which encompasses all manner of futilely stupid attempts to suppress the unsuppressible CV-19 virus, are resorting to meta-reviews, which use questionable techniques to come to the conclusion that these interventions made a difference in transmission. Let’s see, 90% of people in the US are estimated to have become infected, many multiple times, but those interventions, and the vaccines, really worked well. Here is one such study, from China, which found 17 papers that met the researchers’ requirements. Note in the abstract that the authors suggest that the results of the studies were subject to different interpretations, but the authors conclude that the bulk of the evidence says NPIs work. Given the weakness of the design in the underlying studies, there is zero actual evidence of an impact on transmissions or seriousness of disease. (Medrxiv Paper)
And a similar study on the same topic likewise attempts to conclude after assessing a large amount of research that face masks and lockdowns slowed transmission, but not school closures, but as with the prior meta-analysis, the underlying research is sketchy, at best, and no one seriously thinks that these measures ultimately did more good than harm. (Medrxiv Paper)
Two studies cover the number of CV-19 infections which were actually contracted in a hospital. The hospitalization numbers were a primary tool in the terror campaign waged against the public. These numbers were substantially inflated by “incidental” admissions, in which a person was admitted to the hospital for another reason but tested positive for CV-19 (and hospitals had a big incentive to have lots of positive tests, as they got paid more for a CV-19 diagnosis) and by admissions in which the person was not positive when admitted but got Cv-19 in the hospital. Both of those categories should have been excluded from the CV-19 hospitalization numbers or at least broken out.
A very large study from England on the topic concluded that between June 2020 and March 2021, somewhere between 95,000 and 167,000 people in the country acquired CV-19 in the hospital, which means it occurred in 1% to 2% of all hospital admissions for any reason, and that a substantial portion of supposed CV-19 admissions were actually ones in which the patient was admitted for another reason and acquired the infection in the hospital. (Nature Study)
This study looked at hospital-acquired CV-19 in Stockholm, Sweden. Around 2200 of these hospital-acquired infections were identified or a rate of about 1.6 per 1000 patient days, which translates to a rate of 7.6% of all admissions for CV-19. (JAMA Study)