"COVID Vaccines Work. What Is There to Debate?"

Says Dr. Marc Siegel, a $cience hitman, and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors and a Fox News medical correspondent. Oh, really? Look at this honest face.

“Sorry RFK Jr.: COVID vaccines work. What is there to debate?” (USA Today Opinion by Dr. Marc Siegel, 2023.07.05):

Are there side effects to the COVID-19 vaccines? Of course. But are the side effects along the same line as side effects of the virus itself but occurring much less frequently or severely? That is what the science shows so far [“Covid-19: Vaccination reduces severity and duration of long covid, study finds”].

The truth is that COVID-19 vaccines dramatically reduce disease's severity

With billions of people around the world having received COVID-19 shots, associated side effects such as myocarditis have been well demonstrated , but myocarditis also is much more common and severe when contracted from the virus itself [“Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis”]. In addition, brain fog, fatigue, lung and heart problems and other manifestations of “long COVID-19” appear to be much less common or severe among those who have been vaccinated and boosted [“Impact of COVID-19 vaccination on the risk of developing long-COVID and on existing long-COVID symptoms: A systematic review”].

So what is the debate?

OK, where do I start? Marc “lawyered up” with study references, so let us just have a brief look, keeping in mind that the Covid “studies” are ordered and screened by Big $cience, so they are more often rigged than not, and sometimes to great extent:

1. “Covid-19: Vaccination reduces severity and duration of long covid, study finds” (theBMJ, 2023.03.01):

   The participants’ experience with long covid was compared with 455 unvaccinated people who matched the vaccinated group for age, sex, coexisting health conditions, and long covid severity, among other metrics. Both groups were asked to score the severity of the impact of long covid on their quality of life every 60 days using questionnaires.

   The findings revealed a small reduction in both the severity and the duration of long covid symptoms in people who were vaccinated. The vaccinated group had on average 13 long covid symptoms after 120 days, which compared with 14.8 symptoms among the unvaccinated group.

   Twice as many people in the vaccinated group as in the unvaccinated group also reported that all their long covid symptoms were in remission.

   The study also found that people who were unvaccinated said that long covid was having a more severe effect on their social, professional, and family lives. Out of a maximum 60 points, people in the vaccinated group rated the effect as 24.3, which compared with 27.6 in the unvaccinated cohort.

   Call me cynical, by the results of this study do not impress. For one, they already preselected the Long Covid sufferers from both groups, which tells nothing about the chances of getting one in the first place. Isn’t is suspicious? As Long Covid sufferers among the unvaccinated, albeit less probable to occur, may be more vulnerable to begin with? And the difference in outcomes among the preselected participants is most likely not statistically significant? Plus, the outright vaccine injured and dead do not ever enter into the picture under this study design. Was it worth jabbing overall, considering the cost? So many questions, no answers.

2. “Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis” (Front Cardiovasc Med, 2022.08.29):

   Results

   We identified 22 eligible studies consisting of 55.5 million vaccinated cohorts and 2.5 million in the infection cohort. The median age was 49 years (interquartile range (IQR): 38–56), and 49% (IQR: 43 to 52%) were men. Of patients diagnosed with myocarditis (in both vaccination and COVID-19 cohort) 1.07% were hospitalized and 0.015% died. The relative risk (RR) for myocarditis was more than seven times higher in the infection group than in the vaccination group [RR: 15 (95% CI: 11.09–19.81, infection group] and RR: 2 (95% CI: 1.44-2.65, vaccine group). Of patients who developed myocarditis after receiving the vaccine or having the infection, 61% (IQR: 39–87%) were men. Meta-regression analysis indicated that men and younger populations had a higher risk of myocarditis. A slow decline in the rates of myocarditis was observed as a function of time from vaccination. The risk of bias was low.

   Conclusion

   In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations.

   I have covered this red herring of a study in my post “COVID-19 is SEVEN Times More Dangerous for Myocarditis Than Vaccine?” (Oct. 15, 2022). Among the 22 studies under review, not only they made up the studies that purportedly show lower myocarditis incidence after the jabs, they also totally ignored the studies that strongly indicated the opposite. Total fake of a study.

3. “Impact of COVID-19 vaccination on the risk of developing long-COVID and on existing long-COVID symptoms: A systematic review” (the Lancet, 2002.08.26):

   Methods

   MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to June 20, 2022. Peer-reviewed studies or preprints monitoring multiple symptoms appearing after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection either before or after COVID-19 vaccination collected by personal, telephone or electronic interviews were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

   Findings

   From 2584 studies identified, 11 peer-reviewed studies and six preprints were included. The methodological quality of 82% (n=14/17) studies was high. Six studies (n=17,256,654 individuals) investigated the impact of vaccines before acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (vaccine-infection-long-COVID design). Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long-COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose. Eleven studies (n=36,736 COVID-19 survivors) investigated changes in long-COVID symptoms after vaccination (infection-long-COVID-vaccine design). Seven articles showed an improvement in long-COVID symptoms at least one dose post-vaccination, while four studies reported no change or worsening in long-COVID symptoms after vaccination.

   Interpretation

   Low level of evidence (grade III, case-controls, cohort studies) suggests that vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of subsequent long-COVID. The impact of vaccination in people with existing long-COVID symptoms is still controversial, with some data showing changes in symptoms and others did not.

   All in all, this study hand-picks 11 studies out of 2584 to prove their desired point, only to follow it up with inconclusive evidence and a slew of caveats. Is it the best the $cience can muster? On the other hand, I have covered exactly this topic in my post “Long Covid Enigma?” (2023.05.03) where the scientific evidence suggests the cause of Long Covid being chronic inflammation from the S spike protein, which is hundreds of times more abundant after each jab than after a severe infection. To add to my arguments, here’s the explanation of the differences between the “vaccination” vs natural infection by Dr. Michael Palmer:

   

So much for Marc’s arguments. And somehow, the jabs only may cause Long Covid or myocarditis, nothing else. At least in Marc’s mind? Which don’t even touch on the subjects of excess mortality following mass vaccination, higher Covid mortality in 2022 than 2020 or 2021, after the masses have been jabbed and boosted, and many other such minor unimportant details, which I have covered extensively in my posts here since Oct. 2021.

Stay tuned, as in my next post we’ll return to Dr. Siegel in a rebuttal to his other hit piece on JFK Jr., “RFK Jr is still wrong — vaccines do NOT cause autism”, incidentally published on the same date as the opus under discussion. Aren’t we prolific?