Cont: The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 5

[angrysoba]

@jt512 the “serious and rational concerns”?

 

[dann]

Zombie Data

Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers (Retraction Watch)
There are now 530 retractions + 20 "Expressions of concerns"

New study - not specifically about COVID-19:

Investigating the impact of trial retractions on the healthcare evidence ecosystem (VITALITY Study I): retrospective cohort study (BMJ, April 23, 2025)
Retrospective cohort study based on forward citation searching. Retraction Watch up to 5 November 2024

Dr. Sean Mullen's summary is an easier read:

Dr. Sean Mullen on X, May 8, 2025
I finally had a chance to dig into this monster of a study—and if you care about evidence-based healthcare, you need to read this.

But first, let me explain why I care so much.
There’s been a flood of retracted COVID-related studies—some of which gained massive media coverage before being pulled. As of June 2023, over 300 papers were retracted for fraud, with 19 more under expressions of concern. Some of these falsely claimed that masking caused Long Covid, or wildly underestimated COVID severity and Long Covid prevalence—especially in kids.
And once bad data gets embedded in systematic reviews and guidelines, it doesn’t just vanish. It spreads. It sticks. It misleads.

That’s where this VITALITY Study I comes in.
Published in BMJ (April 2025), it’s the largest empirical investigation to date tracking how retracted RCTs contaminate the entire healthcare evidence ecosystem—from meta-analyses to clinical guidelines.

Here are the jaw-dropping findings:
Key Findings:
•1330 retracted trials were identified; 847 systematic reviews had already included them.
•1 in 5 meta-analyses changed meaningfully when retracted trials were removed:
•8.4% flipped direction of effect
•16.0% lost statistical significance
•15.7% changed magnitude by more than 50%
• 3.9% flipped both direction and significance

But it doesn’t stop there:
•These flawed meta-analyses fed directly into 157 clinical guidelines, many still live today.
•Reviews with fewer included studies were most vulnerable—where just one retracted trial could tip the scales.
•Harm outcomes, which are often underreported or fragile, were especially distorted.
And most importantly?
Almost 40% of these reviews were published after the included trials had already been retracted.
Implication? We’re making clinical decisions based on zombie data.
If this doesn’t make the case for routine retraction screening in evidence synthesis—and updates to guideline repositories—I don’t know what does.

This study deserves to be required reading for:
•Systematic reviewers
•Clinical guideline developers
•Journal editors•Policy makers
•Clinicians who trust what the evidence base tells them

Data integrity is not a luxury—it’s the backbone of public trust. And it’s time we built systems to protect it.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-082068

Max Simpson on X, May 9, 2025
Hard to believe that such a large preponderance of misleading and fraudulent studies have occurred just by accident.

Dr. Sean Mullen on X, May 9, 2025
I agree. Nowadays Zotero shows whether a paper has been retracted.
That said, I train students in Sys Review & we’ve never discussed retracted articles.
Never crossed my mind to talk about it because it was my understanding that they wouldn’t show up.
I won’t assume that anymore.

 

[dann]

It's really quite bizzare, isn't it, that the people who believe Covid was an extremely dangerous bioweapon have joined hands with those who think it should have been allowed to infect as many people as possible because it is mostly harmless to all but the most elderly and infirm.

I have already commented on this in post 737, but if you haven't already seen my post about Laura Loomer in the Covid-conspiracy thread, it is interesting in this context.

Loomer started out as one of "those who think it should have been allowed to infect as many people as possible because it is mostly harmless to all but the most elderly and infirm," but when she managed to get infected and then got PASC, it was convenient for her to blame it on the alleged bioweapon instead of on her own and MAGA's Covid-minimizer and anti-vaxxer stance.

 

[dann]

UK strategy revisited:

UK decision not to suppress covid raises questions about medical and scientific advice (BMJ, May 11, 2025)
Early in the covid pandemic, evidence emerged from several East Asian countries that suppression could lead to successful control. Yet the UK did not adopt the approach. Suppression aims to avoid national lockdowns and maintain economic activity for most of the population by introducing surveillance systems to bring new outbreaks under control quickly, thus reducing the reproductive rate of infection (R0) to below 1 and causing the epidemic to wither. In May 2020, Jeremy Hunt, then chair of the health and social care select committee, criticised UK government advisers for failing to recommend a response focused on suppression of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from early in the pandemic, calling it “One of the biggest failures of scientific advice to ministers in our lifetimes.”1 Why was suppression not recommended, and what can be done to improve advice in future?

 

[dann]

CIDRAP on X, May 12, 2025
Study suggests COVID-19 reinfections less likely to cause long COVID
The risk of long COVID was two to three times higher after the initial infection (14.8%) than after first (5.8%) or second (5.3%) reinfections.
https://cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/study-suggests-covid-19-reinfections-less-likely-cause-long-covid

Ryan T. Gregory on X, May 12, 2025
Here we go again. The *total* risk goes up with every infection, because math. Also, 1/20 risk with each subsequent infection is not great odds if you ask me.

There's also this:

Data suggest COVID-19 reinfections less likely to cause long COVID (CIDRAP, May 12, 2025)
Risk for long COVID was highest following infections with the ancestral strain and lowest after Omicron infections. However, because Omicron caused such widespread transmission, that strain was associated with the most long-COVID cases.

 

[dann]

COVID-19 fueled increase in hospital-onset MRSA, study finds (CIDRAP, May 12, 2025)
A US surveillance study shows that patients with recent COVID-19 infections contributed substantially to increases in hospital-onset methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia during the pandemic. The findings were published today in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

 

[dann]

So far only in rodents, but ...

Mucosal unadjuvanted booster vaccines elicit local IgA responses by conversion of pre-existing immunity in mice (Nature, May 13, 2025)
Mucosal delivery of vaccine boosters induces robust local protective immune responses even without any adjuvants. Yet, the mechanisms by which antigen alone induces mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract remain unclear. Here we show that an intranasal booster with an unadjuvanted recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, after intramuscular immunization with 1 ug of mRNA-LNP vaccine encoding the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2), elicits protective mucosal immunity by retooling the lymph node-resident immune cells.

The beginning of a short thread on X explaining it to us mere mortals:

Prof. Akiko Iwasaki on X, May 14, 2025
Published today
Our nasal booster in the "Prime & Spike" vaccine works without adjuvants (which are needed to induce adaptive immunity but also cause inflammation). @Kwon_Dongil @tianyangmao @BenIsraelow et al. asked how this is possible. (1/)

Prof. Akiko Iwasaki on X, May 14, 2025
Prime & Spike is a vaccine strategy that leverages preexisting immunity primed by conventional vaccines to elicit mucosal IgA and T cell responses that prevent COVID infection and transmission in rodents. The nasal booster is simply the spike protein (2/)

 

[dann]

tern on X, May 17, 2025
The percentage of all deaths here that involved a disease of the respiratory system skyrocketed in 2020, and then again in 2021 and then *stayed massively elevated*.
And they're still increasing.

 

[dann]

Novavax FDA approval letter (FDA, May 16, 2025)

NUVAXOVID (FDA, May 17, 2025

• NUVAXOVID is a vaccine indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in adults 65 years and older.
• NUVAXOVID is indicated for individuals 12 through 64 years who have at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19.

 

[dann]

Long COVID Brain Fog “Very Well Explained” by Altered Levels of 2 Key Biomarkers (IFLScience, May 16, 2025)
The discovery could lead to earlier identification and treatment of the condition.

Brain fog has become one of the most familiar, and most feared, symptoms associated with long COVID. In a new study, scientists say they’ve identified two biomarkers that are altered in people with long COVID compared with people who recovered fully from the infection, indicating that there may be more we can do to identify and support patients earlier.
Since the opening stages of the pandemic five years ago, it’s been clear that some people experience lingering symptoms after their initial COVID-19 infection. In many cases, these were people who had had mild initial symptoms, had not been hospitalized, and who had previously been fit and healthy.
The road to understanding and developing treatments for this condition has been long, and research is still continuing. Meanwhile, patients report difficulties in convincing medical professionals that their symptoms – which can be wide-ranging and hugely variable – are real.

 

[dann]

COVID virus 'reprograms' infection fighters into immune system suppressors, study shows (MedicalXpress, May 22, 2025)
A study ,,, finds that neutrophils—the most abundant type of white blood cells in humans—may be altered by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, to cease their normal function of destroying pathogens in the body and, instead, significantly inhibit other immune cells critical for fighting the virus.

Infection Control, Emergency Management, Safety, and General Thoughts (icemsg,org, May 24, 2025)
Evidence Suggesting Immune Damage
I saw pertussis (whooping cough) data this week that reflects both antivaccine sentiment as well as the possibility of COVID damaged immune systems leading to spread. All of the data used in these graphs is from the UK.

https://t.co/F6NzWTKBHU

 

[dann]

:
Cognitive Slowing, Dysfunction in Verbal Working Memory, Divided Attention and Response Inhibition in Post COVID-19 Condition in Young Adults (MDPI, May 21, 2025)

Abstract
After COVID-19 infection, about 30% of people have clinically persisting symptoms, characterized as Post COVID-19 Condition (PCC). One of the most reported symptoms in PCC is cognitive dysfunction, yet there are only a few studies investigating long-term effects on different domains of cognitive function. A total of 107 young adults, university students aged 18–34 years, participated. In total, 68.2% had contracted SARS-CoV-2; 21.9% showed PCC. Three groups were compared: no-C19 (COVID-19-negative controls), C19 (COVID-19-recovered without PCC) and PCC. Attention and executive function were measured with the Vienna Test System (Schuhfried®, Mödling, Austria). In verbal working memory, the PCC group had a significantly lower performance with a moderate effect. The rate of below-average performance was higher in PCC (56.2%) compared to no-C19 (20.6%) and C19 (15.8%). In divided attention and response inhibition, PCC also showed lower performance, 62.5% and 37.5%, respectively, than no-C19 and C19. The co-occurrence of decreased cognitive functions was pronounced in PCC. The present study revealed significant long-lasting cognitive dysfunction in PCC in young adults, two years after COVID-19 infection. Verbal working memory was significantly impaired, and a lower performance was found in divided attention and response inhibition. In addition, there was an increased reaction time in most cognitive tasks, demonstrating cognitive slowing in young people with PCC.

Weakness: relatively small number of people tested.
Strength: they were subjected to actual cognitive tests; symptoms weren't self-reported.

Dr. Sean Mullen on X, May 28, 2025
I’ve spent two decades studying how brains age. And I’ve never seen anything quite like this.
In normal aging, some neurons die—but it’s gradual, region-specific, and the brain compensates remarkably well. Most of what we see is driven by loss of synaptic connections, not widespread neuron death. Behavioral changes tend to be slow, subtle, and mostly involve executive function.
In neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, it’s different. These diseases kill neurons. The decline is faster, deeper, and more functionally disabling.
What we’re seeing in young adults after SARS-CoV-2 infection doesn’t fit either pattern.
We’re seeing signs of early, widespread cognitive impairment—slowed thinking, weakened memory, executive dysfunction. Not just in one domain. Not just in one region. Almost every study that looks for brain damage post-infection finds it.
This suggests accelerated neural de-differentiation—a breakdown in how specialized brain regions communicate and function. It's something we normally see decades later.
Impairment doesn’t always mean permanent disability. But if neurons are dying, those cells aren’t coming back. And yes—cognitive disabilities have also spiked dramatically since 2020. There’s no other plausible explanation for the scale and timing of this trend.
Meanwhile, self-styled truth-tellers with zero background in neuroscience or cognition keep minimizing the risks—spreading the idea that these impairments are rare, minor, or imagined.
Speak up with evidence? You’re called an extremist.
Refuse to play along? You’re accused of fear-mongering.
My biggest mistake? Thinking these folks were just misinformed.
They’re not. They’re propagandists.
It’s 2025.
The damage is measurable.
The science is clear.
And the longer we pretend this is normal, the worse the outcomes will be.

 

[angrysoba]

@jt512 the “serious and rational concerns”?

@jt512

Any response to this?

 

[dann]

Long COVID in kids:

chantzy on X, May 31, 2025
From JAMA pediatrics, May 2025
"Long COVID is common, affecting up to 10% to 20% of children with a history of COVID-19." With ~6M kids afflicted, this would make it the most common chronic health problem in kids

Long COVID in Young Children, School-Aged Children, and Teens (JAMA Pediatrics, May 27, 2025)
Long COVID is common, affecting up to 10% to 20% of children with a history of COVID-19. With almost 6 million US children potentially affected, this is higher than the number of children with asthma, the most common chronic health problem in children.

This surprised me:

There are no specific blood tests for long COVID. It is diagnosed based on prolonged symptoms or new or worsening conditions.

Maybe it's because - with the exception of persistent C19 infection, probably - all other tests will depend on the specific organs that have been damaged by an infection that has been overcome: heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, vascular system, mitochondria etc. but that this damage won't be distinguishable from similar damage caused by other things than C19.
However, I don't know if that's the case.

 

[novaphile]

Long COVID in kids:




This surprised me:

Maybe it's because - with the exception of persistent C19 infection, probably - all other tests will depend on the specific organs that have been damaged by an infection that has been overcome: heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, vascular system, mitochondria etc. but that this damage won't be distinguishable from similar damage caused by other things than C19.
However, I don't know if that's the case.

I'm guessing that blood tests wouldn't be able to distinguish between vaccination related antibodies, and exposure antibodies...

 

[marting]

I'm guessing that blood tests wouldn't be able to distinguish between vaccination related antibodies, and exposure antibodies...

I've read research papers that distinguished C19 infection from vaccination without infection. The former generates antibodies to both the spike and whole virus. So you can tell whether someone has been infected but, if infected, not whether they were vaccinated.

 

[dann]

I'm guessing that blood tests wouldn't be able to distinguish between vaccination related antibodies, and exposure antibodies...

That is not the point, in this case, since you may have had the infection without having PASC.
I know several people who have (or have had) ailments that might have been caused or exacerbated by C19, e.g. Parkinson's, Guillain-Barré, rheumatism, heart palpitations, mental issues.
However, none of those diseases are uniquely caused by C19. Diabetes and ME/CFS also existed before 2020.
See the list of Long Covid symptoms in children in post 754. There is nothing new, so the only thing that makes us assume that many of the cases may be caused by C19 is statistics. This, for instance, makes it unlikely that C19 is not involved even though it still is only correlation or post hoc, which we know isn't necessarily propter hoc:
Risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome 6 times higher after COVID infection, study suggests (CIDRAP, Oct 18, 2023)
An exception may be MIS-C. At first, it was diagnosed as "a "Kawasaki-like" disease associated with COVID-19," but according to Wikipedia it
"appears to have distinct features."

There may not (yet?) be a way to distinguish between C19-related cases of many of these diseases and cases that are unrelated to C19.
It is probably irrelevant for the treatment - unless the cause is persistent infection - but is important for the assessment of the overall damage done by COViD-19.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Politico reported, "In his answers Sunday, Makary was not supportive of past guidance, criticizing the methodology of the CDC. “We know the CDC data is contaminated with a lot of false positives from incidental positive Covid tests with routine testing of every kid that walks in the hospital,” he told Brennan." Is this true?

 

[marting]

Politico reported, "In his answers Sunday, Makary was not supportive of past guidance, criticizing the methodology of the CDC. “We know the CDC data is contaminated with a lot of false positives from incidental positive Covid tests with routine testing of every kid that walks in the hospital,” he told Brennan." Is this true?

Short answer No. C19 molecular tests are highly specific. So they aren't false positives.

There have been times, especially during C19 peaks, when hospitals tested pretty much everyone. It was so common there was a good chance someone that came with other issues also had C19. They did this so they could separate out people with C19 so they wouldn't infect others w/o C19. But these days C19 tests are usually only given to people with ILI (Influenza like illness - a resp. catchall).

But what they infer is the classic With vs. From Covid hence C19 deaths are overstated. If anything, deaths that occur from Covid are under-reported.

Here's some stats from the CDC for the week ending 9/18/2021 when Delta was out and about.

Provisional COVID-19 Mortality Surveillance

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

Covid deaths: 15246
All cause deaths: 73317
Deaths involving Pneumonia, Influenza, or COVID-19: 18302
Percentage of all cause deaths relative to historical expected: %142

The charts don't show expected all cause death so we back calc. it: 73317/1.42=51632
Excess deaths = 73,317-51632=21685

Note how much larger (over 3k) this is than the total ILI deaths which include C19.
And much larger (over 6k) than C19 deaths.

Covid is a nasty bug and it can attack pretty much every organ in the body.

The With/From death trope is not entirely wrong. But it should instead read: With/From/Other caused by.

 

[dann]

Dr. Sean Mullen on X, June 6, 2025
From my presentation yesterday at @NASPSPA [North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity]

“I'd be remiss not to mention that in today's society, there's no single exercise program or brain training program more effective at offsetting the cognitive costs of inactivity, aging, and neurodegeneration than wearing a mask and breathing purified air to prevent repeated infection from SARS-CoV-2. You know it as Covid, but it is a vascular diseasing, immune dysregulating, neuroinvasive pathogen. Masking is our most accessible neuroprotective intervention and you can read more about my position in The Psychologist, published on Monday called Stuck In the Middle, Masking.”

Sorry not sorry.