ALL the kids in my childrens' local football club got infected at least once, many have been infected twice. NONE have any health issues, they run like crazy, loads of endurance, no problems.
That is good to hear! I believe it is mentioned in some of the comment threads below, but I have talked to one unvaccinated teen who lost lung function after infection (former competitive swimmer), whereas I am confident I am at 100% post-infection (current barely competent swimmer).
I didn't expect anyone to be curious about that, since N speaks for infection and reported injection speaks for itself. I don't think they did but let me check. *edit: They did. Same rates of positivity as for N, so presumably the same kids.
I think this is a cohort issue. The groups in all 3 are very - very - small and one hence needs to wonder how they are selected. There are countless ways one can introduce bias. One thing that sticks out is 11 kids in group 2 were vaccinated AFTER having recovered from covid. That already suggest these are not randomly selected kids from all social groups.
I agree hence with the inherent selection bias conclusion. Group 2 is kids with symptoms afterwards. It is not 1000's of kids and see if they have symptoms, but recruiting the (extremely rare?) cases where there is a symptom. In other words, this may be data mining as opposed to sampling.
And last the control group was explicitly selected to NOT have any symptoms: "Healthy controls were excluded [...] current respiratory infection/symptomatology". If you take a random group of kids and see how many have a current respiratory infection/symptomatology, you have to exclude dozens of kids at any given time in a year. And especially in the study period August-December. It would be nice if they had taken a truly random sample and within that control looked for differences between those with and without any other respiratory infection/symptomatology.
Good catch. Seems like they plugged in the values for all infected here. Since some of the analysis grouped all 54 infected together and some didn't, it's not surprising to see such an error.
This is a really interesting study. It does have many limitations (i.e. why were no other follow-up studies conducted after finding such results using other imaging methods) and the selection bias is really something that should be considered. The issue is that such studies may have high variability because you just never know what "mild" is for some people. I always think of that scene from Scott Pilgrim vs the World where the vegan ex-boyfriend remarks that "chicken parmesan isn't vegan?" Imagine how many people go see a doctor with a myriad of problems but never actually bring it up during the visit? It's the same issue that can happen with studies.
I'm glad you've made a few comments about these sorts of studies and how they may be interpreted. Right now we're dealing with two issues: one of novelty and one of relativity. COVID has created an image in which many of these issues may be specific to COVID alone when in reality it's likely a fact that there are a ton of issues that have never been extensively looked at prior to COVID such as post-viral sequelae which now makes long COVID seem unique.
Then there's also the issue in which studies may not be wholly representative of the real-world or if studies never have any proper frame of reference so it may make things look bad even though we may not have any basis to use to frame a study.
The reported symptoms accord with "mild" in that there's no pneumonia or hospitalization (as would be expected with MIS). But no, I tend to bet that these were rare, severe infections of the "sudden-onset childhood ailment in a classic novel" type that just didn't have the inflammatory involvement that would cinch hospital admission.
It's still disturbing. Those scans look CRAZY bad.
And the children didn't appear to notice any severe changes in their own lung capacity or breathing aside from those likely within the long COVID group? I wonder if there was some compensatory mechanism that aided that abrupt change.
Also, I did try doing a quick search for imaging post-flu infection and I could only come across studies for serious flu infection/death 🤷♂️.
Presumably not very athletic kids. Resting respiration rates would have been really awesome to know. For the LC group, four of them couldn't complete the test; none of the "recovered" had the same problem.
How about MASKS!!!! Odds are these poor kids are the same ones forced to mask and rebreathe their bacteria. Maybe just rename the study and it will prove that masks are useless and down right harmful!!!
Masking is not reported. Presumably the healthy controls were masking as well, at least when mandated.
It's not impossible that the same apparent bias for worse pulmonary involvement coincided with a bias for more masking, but both biases are just wild guesses that we have to make based on how outlandish the results are.
I am aware. That sets the bar for "SARS-CoV-2 is uniquely bad" at higher than "causes lingering symptoms at all," but that doesn't rule out that it meets the higher bar of "causes lingering symptoms inordinately, or in people who otherwise never would have experienced them."
As I've said before, the Covid vaccine skeptical side can't win the argument by refusing to acknowledge tradeoffs - that's resigning from the argument, not winning it.
Am I missing something here or is the “Long Covid” group definition just ridiculously wide, especially given that - due to observation/ confirmation bias - basically any symptoms are blamed on Covid? 3 and 4 below seem to basically admit any child who’d had a positive test and then had any illness or worsening after.
“The definition for long COVID was based on the persistence of symptoms for a minimum of 12 weeks and either one of the four following criteria:22,23 1) Symptoms that persisted from the acute COVID-19 phase or its treatment, 2) Symptoms that resulted in a new health limitation, 3) New symptoms that occurred after the end of the acute phase but were understood to be a consequence of COVID-19 disease, 4) Worsening of a pre-existing underlying medical condition. This guideline reflects the current WHO definition of long COVID.2”
The LC definition is that loose. It seems to be irrelevant since lung dysfunction is rampant in the kids who *don’t* have reported persistent symptoms anyway, and thus there seems to be a built-in bias for unreported pulmonary symptoms.
The abandonment of any semblance of critical thinking by the authors of papers like this is quite extraordinary. Interesting to speculate on the extent to which it has just got a lot worse on all things covid-related, as opposed to being an under-appreciated constant in "academic" science publishing for a long time and only noticed because of the interest taken right now by such a wide range of people from ouside the science bubble.
Having recently reviewed 100 years of flu research, I would say the drop-off in critical thinking starts in the 40s. Up into the 90s however, the field still advances as a whole on the back of a handful of geniuses (Burnet, Laver, Webster). After the 90s it seems like everyone gets that the only thing that matters is funding. Similar to how the polio vaccine program goes off the rails after Sabin's death in 93.
Thank you, Brian, for this thoughtful, even-handed analysis of these findings - whether they are correct, or, as you suggest, possibly the result of bias or inadequate data.
Hopefully, what you have written will at least make parents alarmed by the inevitable, hyped mass media coverage to at least stop and think before rushing their offspring to the nearest vaccination centre for a dodgy jab.
Right - and that would accord with more innate suppression of the Wuhan era strains and more symptomatic presentation in Omicron siblings, as reflected in the transition from an “asymptomatic virus” to a “more contagious” (as in actually just more symptomatic) virus: I never had symptoms before this year, January, and they were totally upper airway and neural.
So as I postulated in “Rashocron” the Wuhan era strains were more like safe-crackers of the lower lung than smash and grabbers; they could do more damage but were less likely to get to the target. And that could partly add a bias for lung involvement though I still think this sample can’t possibly be representative of “kids who tested positive irrespective of lung symptoms.”
I have a molecular theory for what's causing this.... I'll link to your article and drop the link here when it's ready. Thanks for pointing out a fascinating study.
(1) already published: extracellular matrix damage by cytokine storm and matrix-metallo-proteases: see Guizani et al. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00011-021-01487-6, sections 'From lung infection to extracellular matrix remodeling' and 'The role and fate of the pulmonary extracellular matrix'.
Almost everyday, some new study. When will it be enough to convince you that you are under attack? We all are. Get with the program. Talking about it endlessly is waiting for them to ambush you. We need to get over it and face facts, we are under siege in a massive way. We can do something about it much better rather than wait till it slaps us in the face. We don't uphold proper principles like free speech and body autonomy. Nobody is calling for things like that that we can stand for. Everyone keeps saying the sky is falling. And it is but just repeating it over and over means it may fall on you. This is a time of great consciousness unfolding. You're either in it or you're bound for the train wreck.
I had Covid way early, 11-2019. I did not feel fully well for 4 months, and it was especially because of the a certain kind of fatigue i felt related to blood oxy perhaps. I feel I have recovered to about 90% of my former health cardiovascularily. I lost 10% body wt and it took me a year to gain it all back. (5-7, 135 to 125 lbs.) It was very wasteing and I compare it to a combo of whooping cough (but totally dry and no phlegm really) and mono, both of which I have observed first hand in others. I had been around someone who works with Chinese nationals at an acupuncture school (and the person was also ill) so maybe from them. I took Burdock root tea a pint a day for 60 days. Quercitin, inulin and a ton of other helpfuls, blood cleaner, Burdock. Never went to a doctor, luckily. Barely squeeked out of gettain a jab, just a bad premonition and general laziness combined to save me I guess, then Dr. Bhaktis first video. Now I know it would have been damaging. I have read so much science in the last few years, its been like a class called 'Health Damage by Despots and Democrats 101'. Whatever they tossed into the Osterizer to make Covid sickness, they sure picked out the most evil bits I do say. As Dr. Alexander says, if you were going to make a bioweapon you would do it exactly, exactly like this. Killin the babies inside the babies.
I can really tell you counted the number of vaccinated "Recovered" kids (8) and saw it was less than those with lung abnormalities (20) before sending your moronic comment, Richard.
I wanted to post earlier that I once had a dog who was quite adept at using a TV remote control but my dog, Alex, who could not fetch me a beer never made the news . . .
Dog Who Ordered $70 In Porn On Owner's TV Is Back In The News – OutKick
ALL the kids in my childrens' local football club got infected at least once, many have been infected twice. NONE have any health issues, they run like crazy, loads of endurance, no problems.
That is good to hear! I believe it is mentioned in some of the comment threads below, but I have talked to one unvaccinated teen who lost lung function after infection (former competitive swimmer), whereas I am confident I am at 100% post-infection (current barely competent swimmer).
[“Recovered”: Previous PCR+. Not reporting symptoms more than 4 weeks after the acute phase. N = 29.
This group had a similar age spread and mean weight as the control group.
All but 1 were Nucleocapsid-antibody seropositive.
1 was Covid-vaccinated before infection, 7 after.
“Long Covid”: Previous PCR+ and symptoms reported more than 4 weeks after acute phase. N = 25.
This group was a bit older and higher-weight than the control.
All but 3 were Nucleocapsid-antibody seropositive.
0 were Covid-vaccinated before infection; 11 after.
Both groups were 100% rated as “mild” for the acute infection; 0 were hospitalized.]
Did they actually NOT test for Spike antibodies in these 2 groups??
I didn't expect anyone to be curious about that, since N speaks for infection and reported injection speaks for itself. I don't think they did but let me check. *edit: They did. Same rates of positivity as for N, so presumably the same kids.
I think this is a cohort issue. The groups in all 3 are very - very - small and one hence needs to wonder how they are selected. There are countless ways one can introduce bias. One thing that sticks out is 11 kids in group 2 were vaccinated AFTER having recovered from covid. That already suggest these are not randomly selected kids from all social groups.
I agree hence with the inherent selection bias conclusion. Group 2 is kids with symptoms afterwards. It is not 1000's of kids and see if they have symptoms, but recruiting the (extremely rare?) cases where there is a symptom. In other words, this may be data mining as opposed to sampling.
And last the control group was explicitly selected to NOT have any symptoms: "Healthy controls were excluded [...] current respiratory infection/symptomatology". If you take a random group of kids and see how many have a current respiratory infection/symptomatology, you have to exclude dozens of kids at any given time in a year. And especially in the study period August-December. It would be nice if they had taken a truly random sample and within that control looked for differences between those with and without any other respiratory infection/symptomatology.
I was expecting to find a gotcha in BMI but did not but of course the ages aren't specified.
Weight seems to track reasonably with age; visually only one of the Long Covid kids looks potentially overweight.
Is that a mistake in Table 2 white
recovered ? 53 ?
Good catch. Seems like they plugged in the values for all infected here. Since some of the analysis grouped all 54 infected together and some didn't, it's not surprising to see such an error.
This is a really interesting study. It does have many limitations (i.e. why were no other follow-up studies conducted after finding such results using other imaging methods) and the selection bias is really something that should be considered. The issue is that such studies may have high variability because you just never know what "mild" is for some people. I always think of that scene from Scott Pilgrim vs the World where the vegan ex-boyfriend remarks that "chicken parmesan isn't vegan?" Imagine how many people go see a doctor with a myriad of problems but never actually bring it up during the visit? It's the same issue that can happen with studies.
I'm glad you've made a few comments about these sorts of studies and how they may be interpreted. Right now we're dealing with two issues: one of novelty and one of relativity. COVID has created an image in which many of these issues may be specific to COVID alone when in reality it's likely a fact that there are a ton of issues that have never been extensively looked at prior to COVID such as post-viral sequelae which now makes long COVID seem unique.
Then there's also the issue in which studies may not be wholly representative of the real-world or if studies never have any proper frame of reference so it may make things look bad even though we may not have any basis to use to frame a study.
The reported symptoms accord with "mild" in that there's no pneumonia or hospitalization (as would be expected with MIS). But no, I tend to bet that these were rare, severe infections of the "sudden-onset childhood ailment in a classic novel" type that just didn't have the inflammatory involvement that would cinch hospital admission.
It's still disturbing. Those scans look CRAZY bad.
And the children didn't appear to notice any severe changes in their own lung capacity or breathing aside from those likely within the long COVID group? I wonder if there was some compensatory mechanism that aided that abrupt change.
Also, I did try doing a quick search for imaging post-flu infection and I could only come across studies for serious flu infection/death 🤷♂️.
Presumably not very athletic kids. Resting respiration rates would have been really awesome to know. For the LC group, four of them couldn't complete the test; none of the "recovered" had the same problem.
How about MASKS!!!! Odds are these poor kids are the same ones forced to mask and rebreathe their bacteria. Maybe just rename the study and it will prove that masks are useless and down right harmful!!!
Masking is not reported. Presumably the healthy controls were masking as well, at least when mandated.
It's not impossible that the same apparent bias for worse pulmonary involvement coincided with a bias for more masking, but both biases are just wild guesses that we have to make based on how outlandish the results are.
In point of fact post-viral-syndrome existed prior to the Covid branding.
I am aware. That sets the bar for "SARS-CoV-2 is uniquely bad" at higher than "causes lingering symptoms at all," but that doesn't rule out that it meets the higher bar of "causes lingering symptoms inordinately, or in people who otherwise never would have experienced them."
As I've said before, the Covid vaccine skeptical side can't win the argument by refusing to acknowledge tradeoffs - that's resigning from the argument, not winning it.
STAY WELL NATURALLY! I have taken Swanson Vitamins' 600 mg. capsules of NAC
(Cysteine, an amino acid) since 2009. Since then I have not had any flu and Coronavirus including COVIDS (although directly exposed in January, 2021.)
It's about $10.00 a bottle. Child: 1/Day Adult: 2/Day It's very healthy for the lungs,
digestion, and a number of others. I post publicly and freely on MeWe.
ETERNAL LIFE BLESSINGS FOR YAHWEH'S SAINTS!
Am I missing something here or is the “Long Covid” group definition just ridiculously wide, especially given that - due to observation/ confirmation bias - basically any symptoms are blamed on Covid? 3 and 4 below seem to basically admit any child who’d had a positive test and then had any illness or worsening after.
“The definition for long COVID was based on the persistence of symptoms for a minimum of 12 weeks and either one of the four following criteria:22,23 1) Symptoms that persisted from the acute COVID-19 phase or its treatment, 2) Symptoms that resulted in a new health limitation, 3) New symptoms that occurred after the end of the acute phase but were understood to be a consequence of COVID-19 disease, 4) Worsening of a pre-existing underlying medical condition. This guideline reflects the current WHO definition of long COVID.2”
The LC definition is that loose. It seems to be irrelevant since lung dysfunction is rampant in the kids who *don’t* have reported persistent symptoms anyway, and thus there seems to be a built-in bias for unreported pulmonary symptoms.
The abandonment of any semblance of critical thinking by the authors of papers like this is quite extraordinary. Interesting to speculate on the extent to which it has just got a lot worse on all things covid-related, as opposed to being an under-appreciated constant in "academic" science publishing for a long time and only noticed because of the interest taken right now by such a wide range of people from ouside the science bubble.
Having recently reviewed 100 years of flu research, I would say the drop-off in critical thinking starts in the 40s. Up into the 90s however, the field still advances as a whole on the back of a handful of geniuses (Burnet, Laver, Webster). After the 90s it seems like everyone gets that the only thing that matters is funding. Similar to how the polio vaccine program goes off the rails after Sabin's death in 93.
Thank you, Brian, for this thoughtful, even-handed analysis of these findings - whether they are correct, or, as you suggest, possibly the result of bias or inadequate data.
Hopefully, what you have written will at least make parents alarmed by the inevitable, hyped mass media coverage to at least stop and think before rushing their offspring to the nearest vaccination centre for a dodgy jab.
Although I suspect there is a strong recruitment bias, it's also true that Omicron family variants have much less lung involvement.
So it's possible that long-term impairment of lung function *was* a common outcome of infection in the pre-Omicron era but is no longer.
Right - and that would accord with more innate suppression of the Wuhan era strains and more symptomatic presentation in Omicron siblings, as reflected in the transition from an “asymptomatic virus” to a “more contagious” (as in actually just more symptomatic) virus: I never had symptoms before this year, January, and they were totally upper airway and neural.
So as I postulated in “Rashocron” the Wuhan era strains were more like safe-crackers of the lower lung than smash and grabbers; they could do more damage but were less likely to get to the target. And that could partly add a bias for lung involvement though I still think this sample can’t possibly be representative of “kids who tested positive irrespective of lung symptoms.”
I have a molecular theory for what's causing this.... I'll link to your article and drop the link here when it's ready. Thanks for pointing out a fascinating study.
(1) already published: extracellular matrix damage by cytokine storm and matrix-metallo-proteases: see Guizani et al. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00011-021-01487-6, sections 'From lung infection to extracellular matrix remodeling' and 'The role and fate of the pulmonary extracellular matrix'.
(2) coming soon
I look forward to it!
Almost everyday, some new study. When will it be enough to convince you that you are under attack? We all are. Get with the program. Talking about it endlessly is waiting for them to ambush you. We need to get over it and face facts, we are under siege in a massive way. We can do something about it much better rather than wait till it slaps us in the face. We don't uphold proper principles like free speech and body autonomy. Nobody is calling for things like that that we can stand for. Everyone keeps saying the sky is falling. And it is but just repeating it over and over means it may fall on you. This is a time of great consciousness unfolding. You're either in it or you're bound for the train wreck.
I had Covid way early, 11-2019. I did not feel fully well for 4 months, and it was especially because of the a certain kind of fatigue i felt related to blood oxy perhaps. I feel I have recovered to about 90% of my former health cardiovascularily. I lost 10% body wt and it took me a year to gain it all back. (5-7, 135 to 125 lbs.) It was very wasteing and I compare it to a combo of whooping cough (but totally dry and no phlegm really) and mono, both of which I have observed first hand in others. I had been around someone who works with Chinese nationals at an acupuncture school (and the person was also ill) so maybe from them. I took Burdock root tea a pint a day for 60 days. Quercitin, inulin and a ton of other helpfuls, blood cleaner, Burdock. Never went to a doctor, luckily. Barely squeeked out of gettain a jab, just a bad premonition and general laziness combined to save me I guess, then Dr. Bhaktis first video. Now I know it would have been damaging. I have read so much science in the last few years, its been like a class called 'Health Damage by Despots and Democrats 101'. Whatever they tossed into the Osterizer to make Covid sickness, they sure picked out the most evil bits I do say. As Dr. Alexander says, if you were going to make a bioweapon you would do it exactly, exactly like this. Killin the babies inside the babies.
BUNK. There is no virus. It’s been the VAXX Bio Weapons the entire time. ALL vaccines. Not just the ones for the fake Covid virus.
Well. You should be aware by now that there are virus' whether lab-created or
natural. I will not take any vaccine (quackcine?) and nose-jab testing but I do
believe that we should all take natural meds to prevent harm from them and shedding
from the jabbed victims. I post about this publicly and freely on MeWe.
Personally, I will not use the term "pure bloods". It smacks too much of Nazi propaganda.
I do hope that you and your kids remain well.
"Humperdinck! Humperdinck! Humperdinck!"
I can really tell you counted the number of vaccinated "Recovered" kids (8) and saw it was less than those with lung abnormalities (20) before sending your moronic comment, Richard.
1. ALL vaxxines are bio weapons. Kids are FORCED to get lots of vaccines. Not mine of course.
2. VAXX Bio Weapons can shed onto Pure Bloods
Then explain the results in the 9 "pure blood" controls.
I did.
No, you *think* you did. Because your brain handles words like a dog trying to operate a TV remote.
I wanted to post earlier that I once had a dog who was quite adept at using a TV remote control but my dog, Alex, who could not fetch me a beer never made the news . . .
Dog Who Ordered $70 In Porn On Owner's TV Is Back In The News – OutKick
Gold !!
Woof