Here is a duh paper. Stricter lockdowns and other measures to suppress the spread of CV-19 were associated with higher levels of subsequent mental health issues. (Medrxiv Paper)
Not only does a prior infection do a better job than vaccination of protecting you against a subsequent CV-19 infection, it also creates a lower risk that you will infect someone else. The protection is somewhat better in the first three months, but much longer-lasting. The study was conducted among over 170,000 inmates in the California prison system. (Medrxiv Paper)
This study looked at neurological and gastrointestinal consequences of CV-19 infection 3 to 12 months later compared to people with no infection of people with other infections., such as flu or Lyme’s disease. Only sensory symptoms showed any greater long-run prevalence than found in other infections or controls who were uninfected. It may be wrong to say “long” CV-19 doesn’t exist but it definitely isn’t wrong to say it has been exaggerated and that the presence of the same extended symptoms after other infections ignored. (Medrxiv Paper)
Our old friend the bad model rears its head in this pathetic study from Sweden which claims to estimate a huge number of deaths saved due to CV-19 vax. The model assumes, as models always due, an absurdly high number of infections and fatalities if the population were completely unvaxed, while ignoring the effetct of prior infections, of which there were a high number in Sweden by the time vaccinations began. It also fails to account for changes in the lethality of the virus and assumes a far higher effectiveness of the vaccines than was actually experienced. And my favorite is failing to account for the fact that those most susceptible to dying, die first and the fatality rate plunges thereafter. (Medrxiv Paper)
Some interesting work was done during the epidemic in regard to the phenomenon of one virus inhibiting another in the body. This paper finds that CV-19 appears to hinder infection by RSV, but not other common respiratory viruses. (Medrxiv Paper)
This study using a large national claims data base examined whether taking psychiatric medications was associated with lower rates of CV-19 severe disease and mortality. It appeared that there was such an association, but I am dubious about what the causality link might be. (Medrxiv Paper)
There have been suggestions that either CV-19 infection or CV-19 vaccination might be associated with Type 1 diabetes in children and young adults. This study from Norway and Sweden found no clear association with either infection or vax, but there were some sub-groups that might have shown a link. (Medrxiv Paper)
This is why I tell people I don’t see any reason to keep taking updated CV-19 vax. A study from multiple countries in Europe of the updated vax shows very modest, in the range of 50%, effectiveness against hospitalization initially, declining rapidly, and even less effective among the very old, who are the most vulnerable. As usual there is an embarrassing failure to fully account for the effect of prior infections. (Medrxiv Paper)
Can you tell us more about Medrxiv? Is there independent medical research going on today other than by the government (who brought us C19) and pharma (who profited from C19)? You can almost pick any position on the last 4 years of ‘science’ and find supporting ‘documents’ to support your narrative. I think we are officially lost in the woods and blindfolded by the current medical system.
Medrxiv is an early pre-print service, papers aren’t peer-reviewed yet. I always check out the authors and funding sources. Most medical research is funded by the researchers or independent services