re: The Lancet: “substantial neurological and psychiatric morbidity in the 6 months after COVID-19 infection”
re: Vaccine Safety: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”
re: The Dismal Anti-Science of Modern Medicine: “less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration”
Recovering from Long Haul COVID, I keep getting advice and suggestions (including from at least one physician) that vaccination might do something for LHC.
I have seen no science supporting that idea—it’s purely anecdotal bunk as far as I can tell. And it makes no logical sense—damage done by COVID isn’t going to be repaired by challenging the body to fight off proteins it itself is forced to manufacture (the mRNA vaccine for example). You don’t get stronger by asking the body to fight off a challenge while also repairing damage at the same time! Might that double helping cause further problems?
Peter K writes:
I’ve been catching up on your blog. I haven’t read the Lancet paper you cited, but from my anecdotal poll of friends, re-infection is more common than you may think. I used to live in a small town in Wyoming, and more than a handful of my close friends there have developed COVID-19 at least 2X. For many reasons the town was reluctant to institute mask mandates and physical distancing, and now many are vaccine averse. As you may be aware, a year ago Wyoming as a whole got hit hard, and many believed they would be immune this year. Interestingly, because they believed they were immune, many of them traveled, and got infected while traveling, even by car. My friends there who got vaccinated and then traveled, have been fine.
I hear you about the vaccine and possible clotting. I don’t like that they keep talking about frequency being statistically less than normal everyday occurrence of clotting. I want to hear about how they’re teaching healthcare professionals to recognize and diagnose, then treat this successfully. Figuring out the mechanism of the cause would be ideal, but I don’t think that’s going to happen in the near term.
WIND: blood clots in the brain are basically strokes, causing permanent damage. Some types of strokes do not manifest in any clinical way. So we are dealing with massive risk here, potentially.
I still am having a hard time with the “hit hard” statistics. The CDC reporting guidelines classify anything that even has a whiff of COVID as such. It was and is junk data collection violating decades of protocol—fake science that in effect was and is used generate hysteria. The true data will never be known, which makes rational public policy much harder. Let’s see the two and three year statistics, and just how much damage was done by the policies, vs COVID itself.
As far as Wyoming, it looks pretty typical: the elderly and those with comorbidities die at far higher rates. And as usual, the baseline death rate is not subtracted. Consider that a death merely suspected of COVID is a “COVID death” and a death after the vaccine is frequently ruled out as unrelated. How can the medical profession apply this double standard?
Reinfection with COVID
Reinfection is of course possible, as is infection after vaccination. But the science of such claims rests on dubious data integrity.
- PCR tests had and might still have a high error rate because of an absurdly high cycle threshold value, leading to many false positives never recognized as such.
- Testing for COVID with a baseline rate near the error rate, you get GIGO data. Scientific junk.
- The latest science shows that natural immunity is as good or better than any vaccine.
- Many people are nutritionally deficient and thus at high risk. The reinfection idea presupposes a weak immune system. Fix nutrition as a priority.
Basically I don’t trust a claim of “reinfection” not supported by BOTH (1) clinical manifestation of COVID symptoms and (2) at least two positive COVID tests on different days. Seems like junk science otherwise.
Assuming reinfection, you have to ask what is wrong with someone's immune system to get it twice. Probably severe nutritional problems, stress, etc.
Experimental COVID vaccine safety
Note that some vaccines like the J&J don't work for 1 in 3 people. That’s what efficacy of 67% means. So I would not be going with that option.
I have auto-immune issues—multiple symptoms, but most worrisome is my body attacking my thyroid as per the thyroid peroxidase test. Which started after my initial infection. The CDC says "no data" on what the vaccine might do to people with auto-immune conditions. It is all anti-scientific unethical speculation.
Maybe the vaccine would be trouble-free and beneficial to me, and maybe it would fuck me up by “enhancing” an auto-immune response. No doctor can say ! Where in the news do you read anything about side effects short of death and/or what happens 3/6/9/12 months later? Nowhere, and no one cares and no one is studying it as a priority, if at all.
The latest science says getting the vaccine means stronger reactions to the vaccine for those who have had COVID). That might mean a higher risk of adverse events. And what does it mean if the body has an auto-immune situation?
Willful ignorance by the medical establishment
The medical establishment is not looking for micro clots from the vaccine or any number of potential harms.
Nor is there any plan whatsoever to track side effects months or years from now across diverse groups. It’s a medical ethics clusterfuck.
Vaccine Safety: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”
The Dismal Anti-Science of Modern Medicine: “less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration”
You don't find what you don't look for. And they are not looking. We could find a year or two from now that 80 million people were damaged somehow by the vaccine—no science can claim otherwise at present. While that’s unlikely, when no concerted effort is made to gather data rigorously, it cannot be ruled out.