Noteworthy recently published studies that aren't getting public attention

There are a lot of nuggets buried within the million+ covid studies

There are literally hundreds of thousands of studies on covid or covid related topics, many of which actually contain something of public import. Unfortunately, most of these studies are consigned to be buried under the mountain of covid literature and will likely never see the light of day.

Since I regularly slog through thousands of studies searching for vaccine related case reports, I come across a lot of these studies. I’ve been meaning to publish articles like this for a while but never got around to it.

This is not an endorsement of the legitimacy of the scientific literature. Anyone reading this is by now almost certainly aware that the vast majority of studies are complete garbage. However, sometimes you can still find useful or revealing bits of information in studies, even those that are on the balance nonsensical. One of the primary benefits of these studies is that they are often more effective at convincing people on the fence, or who are resistant to accepting that the scientific institutions are systemically corrupt, of fundamental issues with the official narrative.

The point of this article is simply to highlight the main point and significance of these studies, not flesh out the details.

For today, we have the following five studies:

• Predictors of incomplete COVID-19 vaccine schedule among adults in Scotland: Two retrospective cohort analyses of the primary schedule and third dose
  (severe side effects from dose 1 is a primary factor driving dose 2 ‘hesitancy’)

• Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination
  (there’s a big difference in the immune response depending on which arm you get doses 2+)

• Inability to work following COVID-19 vaccination-a relevant aspect for future booster vaccinations
  (healthcare workers took a lot of sick days because of the covid vaccines)

• Cardiac sequelae in athletes following COVID-19 vaccination: evidence and misinformation
  (a truly audacious propaganda piece trying to deny any connection between covid vaccines and any athlete mishaps)

• Naturally Occurring Mutations of SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Confer Drug Resistance to Nirmatrelvir [Paxlovid]
  (what the title sounds like)

Predictors of incomplete COVID-19 vaccine schedule among adults in Scotland: Two retrospective cohort analyses of the primary schedule and third dose

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37598025/

Highlights

One of the driving factors for people who declined dose #2 was having a severe reaction to dose #1.

In the words of the study (emphasis mine):

“The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the second dose were age, having a potential AESI [Adverse Event of Special Interest] and socioeconomic status. Those aged 18–29 years were over four times as likely to not receive a second vaccine dose (reference: 50–59 years aOR: 4.26; 95% confidence interval: 4.14–4.37). Those who were hospitalised due to a possible AESI within 28 days of vaccination were over 3.5 times more likely to not receive a second vaccine dose (reference: no AESI aOR:3.78; 95% CI: 3.29–4.35). Those living in the most deprived quintile were over three times more likely to not receive a second vaccine dose (reference: least deprived quintile aOR:3.24; 95% CI:3.16–3.32), and those who smoke were 2.5 times more likely to not receive a second vaccine dose (reference: non-smokers aOR: 2.48; 95% CI: 2.43–2.52) (Figure 3 and Table 2).”

Significance

According to the CDC, 39,589,833 people in the US got dose #1 but did not get dose #2. That’s 14.65% of people who received dose #1. Of course, we must stipulate that this is CDC data, which means that data integrity is not a given; however, there was definitely a very high rate of ‘dose two hesitancy’ regardless of where precisely the numbers fall out.

This study provides real-world confirmation of something that is obvious to anyone with a semblance of intellectual honesty and a two-digit IQ: A massive number of people refused dose #2 because of a significant reaction or adverse event following dose #1.

(This study needs an article of its own to properly flesh out the details and implications.)

🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37574375/

Highlights

• Which arm you get Doses 2+ actually makes a big difference for the quality of the immune response - administering the vaccine in the same arm was more likely to produce antibodies and certain types of T-Cells that were neutralizing (in other words, immune cells that ‘work’).

• By contrast, there was no difference in overall levels of spike-specific antibodies or T-Cells.

• The authors interpreted their findings thusly:

  “Both ipsilateral and contralateral vaccination induce a strong immune response, but secondary boosting is more pronounced when choosing vaccine administration-routes that allows for drainage by the same lymph nodes used for priming. Higher neutralizing antibody activity and higher levels of spike-specific CD8 T-cells may have implications for protection from infection and severe disease and support general preference for ipsilateral vaccination.”

  “However, considering that neutralizing antibody activity contributes to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, and specific T-cells mediate protection from severe COVID-19 disease, the choice of arm for the second vaccination represents a previously unappreciated factor that may contribute to overall vaccine effectiveness on a population level.”

Significance

• This underscores how little the “experts” actually know about the very things they profess to have expertise in.

• It also highlights the detrimental consequences of “warp speed”. Remember, one of the foundational lynchpins to justify aggressively rolling out and then mandating the novel covid vaccines was that despite the incredibly truncated development timeline of the covid vaccines, they didn’t skip, skimp or otherwise compromise one iota on the standard rigorous testing. As it turns out, warp speed is not “the speed of science” - it took them more than two years to figure out that which arm you inject the subsequent doses in makes a big difference to the immune response.

🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹

Inability to work following COVID-19 vaccination-a relevant aspect for future booster vaccinations

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37562083/

Highlights

• Main result:

  “Among 1704 HCWs enrolled, 595 (34.9%) HCWs were on sick leave following at least one COVID-19 vaccination, leading to a total number of 1550 sick days. Both the absolute sick days and the rate of HCWs on sick leave significantly increased with each subsequent vaccination. Comparing BNT162b2mRNA and mRNA-1273, the difference in sick leave was not significant after the second dose, but mRNA-1273 induced a significantly longer and more frequent sick leave after the third.”

• The study (surprisingly) doesn’t mince words when describing their findings:

  “In the light of further COVID-19 infection waves and booster vaccinations, there is a risk of additional staff shortages due to postvaccination inability to work, which could negatively impact the already strained healthcare system and jeopardise patient care. These findings will aid further vaccination campaigns to minimise the impact of staff absences on the healthcare system.”

Significance

This study shows that one of the primary justifications for vaccine mandates - “we need to vaccinate health care staff to protect patients” - actually hurt patient welfare by reducing the number of available staff at health care facilities.

Moreover, there are definitely even more healthcare workers who went to work despite being less than 100% functional or suffering vaccine side effects that hampered their ability to work properly than there were who took sick days.

This is not a trivial matter. The inevitable consequence of less staff, or less functional staff, for the same number of patients is that the remaining staff are overburdened & overwrought and do not provide the same level of patient care. The difference between a nurse noticing a clinical indicator of a serious condition can be the difference between life and death.

This shows that the establishment did not properly weigh the risks/harms of vaccine mandates before decreeing them, which is a useful argument to deploy against “normies” who are not yet convinced.

(This is in addition to the other more glaring deficiencies, especially that the vaccines did not block transmission and the permanent loss of staff who quit or were fired because of the vaccine mandates.)

🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹

Cardiac sequelae in athletes following COVID-19 vaccination: evidence and misinformation

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37562938/

Highlights

Here’s part of the abstract from this study. Beware, reading this might drive up your blood pressure (emphasis mine):

A subgroup analysis in individuals under 40 years revealed a low incidence of myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination when compared to positive SARS-CoV-2 tests. No confirmed cases of athletes experiencing cardiac complications after mRNA vaccination have been reported. Most athletes only reported mild side effects after COVID-19 vaccination. A small but statistically significant decrease in maximal oxygen consumption in recreational athletes occurred after BNT162b2 mRNA booster vaccine administration. The clinical relevance and temporality of which remain to be determined. Many speculative social media reports attribute sudden cardiac arrest/death (SCA/D) in athletes to mRNA vaccination. Large media outlets have thoroughly debunked these claims. There is currently no evidence to support the claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccination increases the risk of myocardial sequelae or SCA/D in athletes. However, specific vaccine regimen selection and timing may be appropriate to prevent detrimental performance effects.

Significance

The existence of a study acknowledging the claims/reports of athlete sudden deaths/cardiac events betrays that the truth of this phenomenon has become too prominent and prevalent for the science-industrial complex to ignore. This ‘study’ is nothing more than a a desperate and thinly veiled attempt to gaslight people “don’t believe your lying eyes”. After all, when was the last time a study cited “media outlets” “debunking” something as **scientific evidence**??? (Although to be fair, former CDC director Rochelle Walensky already established mainstream media as scientific authorities when she famously admitted her primary source for information about the Pfizer vaccine trial results, “I can tell you where I was when the CNN feed came that it was 95% effective”.)

The emperors clothes are at least being tugged?

🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹

Naturally Occurring Mutations of SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Confer Drug Resistance to Nirmatrelvir [Paxlovid]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37637734/

Highlights

This study is about as technically dens and unreadable as it gets. The basic takeaway is that currently circulating covid variants have acquired mutations that make them more resistant to Paxlovid. (Were they perhaps *caused* by Paxlovid? The authors here go out of their way to emphatically reject this idea, but they’re not exactly unbiased. . .)

Significance

Paxlovid doesn’t work. (Yes, we knew this already, but it’s a good argument to use on people on the fence.)

Paxlovid does work, as a business matter - once covid mutates to avoid Paxlovid, Pfizer will have their excuse to release a new “miracle” drug that governments will spend billions of dollars on. So the merry-go-round of Pharma scam products will keep on spinning.

Also, as a general matter, scientists have no idea what the epidemiological impact of medications that interfere with the replication or genetics of pathogens will be. Mulnopiravir, Remdesivir, and the covid vaccines / vaccine trials have been implicated in the emergence or ascendance of new virulent covid variants. Now we can add Paxlovid to the list. Unnatural meddling with natural selection of viral evolution is extremely reckless and especially in light of the past few years should be avoided. Alas, society is run by demented sociopaths and greedy robber barons, so this will remain an unrealized aspiration for the foreseeable future.