Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 231

By December 4, 2023Commentary

In desperate catch-up mode, too much going on.  The masking nonsense is becoming more apparent by the day.  Here is an article describing how a UK official admits that there was no evidence that masking works to slow transmission in the community.   What is really damning is that she admitted that she knew that at the start of the epidemic and yet mandatory masking still proceeded.  (SubStack Story).  This is further reported on by the good people at the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine.  (CEBM Post)

And speaking of masking, a review of the research finds no evidence to support masking of children.  Really, who would have thought it?  The authors conclusion is that children should not be masked.  Meanwhile we have lots of kids with speech and other issues because they were masked.  (BMJ Review)

Actual data is such a terrible burden for those who desperately want to believe that something is true.  Do the vax cause more miscarriages?  Nope absolutely not according to this large study from Canada.  Won’t make a bit of difference to the VSNs.  (Vax Article)

Did the response to the epidemic, particularly lockdowns and the terror campaign harm people.  Absolutely yes.  Another brick in the wall comes from this research finding that during the epidemic the cognitive health of old people declined significantly, and risk of dementia increased.  Older people were particularly targeted for social isolation.  (Lancet Article)

The study of whether, how many and why there were excess deaths during the epidemic continues.  This study looks at a number of countries and concludes that factors associated with more excess deaths include poverty levels and income inequality.  Note that several countries had fewer than expected deaths and all of these are very highly vaxed countries.  Also not consistent with the vax safety nonsense.  (PNAS Study)

And on the topic of vax safety, here is a large Italian study finding no evidence of neurological disorders being associated with CV-19 vax.  (SSRN Study)



Join the discussion 6 Comments

  • joethenonclimatescientist says:

    The excess death by country is interesting. According to the study, the US rate of excess deaths was much worse than other countries. I would have expected the results among the various states would have much closer – ie regression to the mean. Has anyone looked at the computations to see if the results are reasonable reflection of the excess deaths (note I am not implying that the study results are wrong – only that the results seem out of line with I would have expected)

    Thanks for any insight.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      US deaths are worse, I think, because of our over-attribution, but more importantly because of the poor health status and poor health behaviors of so many of our people. Obesity appears to be the number one risk factor for serious CV-19, and you know the obesity issue in this country. I think there are methods issues as well. Just averaging five years before the epidemic is inadequate, you need to look at a ten year trend by age group, by sex and by cause to get a reasonable baseline that the epidemic years can be compared against.

  • Bill in Seminole says:

    Re: Masks and Masking/COVID There appears to be a multitude of studies showing no benefit from masks. The studies I’ve seen are at a “macro” level; the analysis of data after-the-fact. I’d like to see something at the micro level. Do the proponents of masking have a study (or studies) showing, in a controlled setting, that a mask will prevent infection? To wit, if worn properly, and continually, does a mask provide protection against infection? Is it the case that the mask is ineffective, or is it that human behavior (taking the mask of to eat, drink, sleep) renders the mask ineffective.


    • Kevin Roche says:

      I outlined what I thought definitive research could be a couple of weeks ago and I don’t believe anyone has done a study like this. There are mannequin studies that supposedly show effectiveness of a mask in blocking particles, but there are other ones that show how porous they are

  • D says:

    I’m glad you’re tracking this. It’s hard to believe the shots didn’t have any negative impact, yet the studies you find are showing that. I love your focus on what’s real. It’s odd that masking and distance were made up, but they sure got us there. I do hope we don’t see health problems other than mental.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      I think they do have some negative impacts, some severe, but not in any substantial number and the nonsense about millions of deaths is just that.

Leave a comment