New Cleveland Clinic Study Confirms Negative Efficacy of Covid Vaccine: Boosted 33% MORE Likely to Get Covid
A brand new study from the Cleveland Clinic is out. And it found something we already knew: Covid vaccines increase the chances of getting Covid instead of being protective.
In the pre-print study, which is awaiting peer-review, Shrestha et al. looked at specific employees of the Cleveland Clinic. Most of them are Covid-vaccinated due to the federal mandate. However, while a minority (11,990 employees) chose to be ‘up-to-date’ on their Covid vaccines, the majority (36,344 employees) wisely chose to refuse Covid vaccines.
Guess which group had more Covid? The up-to-date people had approximately 25% more Covid infections.
The study’s authors did an excellent job of weeding out confounding variables. For example, could it be that Covid-conscious, vaccine-loving people test for Covid more often? The following chart answers this question: while the propensity to test somewhat affects the likelihood of getting a positive test, it does not explain the difference.
The authors also point out that their results are not confounded by age. However, in a disturbing finding, the female sex is associated with a 24% higher chance of a Covid infection among the vaccinated people.
Why are vaccinated females 24% more likely to get Covid, than vaccinated males?
In the above multivariate analysis, adjusting for confounders, those ‘up-to-date’ are 33% more likely to get Covid! (1 ÷ 0.75 = 1.33)
I am so sorry for all those vaccine believers who got a shot of a completely unproven ‘bivalent’ substance. The authors lament (emphasis mine):
This study’s findings question the wisdom of promoting the idea that every person needs to be ‘up-to-date’ on COVID-19 vaccination, as currently defined, at this time. It is often stated that the primary purpose of vaccination is to prevent severe COVID-19 and death. We certainly agree with this, but it should be pointed out that there is not a single study that has shown that the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine protects against severe disease or death caused by the XBB lineages of the Omicron variant. At least one prior study has failed to find a protective effect of the bivalent vaccine against the XBB lineages of SARS-CoV-2. People may still choose to get the vaccine, but an assumption that the vaccine protects against severe disease and death is not reason enough to unconditionally push a vaccine of questionable effectiveness to all adults.
This study exposes the dishonesty and quackery of promoters of bivalent Covid vaccines, which are based on studies of several mice who were promptly killed as soon as the antibody-counting experiments were completed.
In one study, all bivalent-vaccinated mice who were challenged with Covid got sick.
Remember that the CDC and the FDA hysterically promoted non-working Covid vaccines with false advertising such as this:
Do you think that they owe us an apology?
This article was first published on Igor’s Substack page. Subscribe here.
Stop Press: According to FactCheck.org, the Cleveland study “did not show vaccines increase COVID-19 risk”. The fact check is misleading in that it quotes various ‘experts’ pointing out that correlation is not causation and there could be any number of confounding factors skewing the results but omits to say that the researchers looked at some of the more likely confounders and ruled them out. You can read the fact check here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The study’s authors did an excellent job of weeding out confounding variables.
They allowed for just four confounding variables:
“adjusted for propensity to get tested for COVID-19, age, sex, and phase of most recent SARS-CoV-2 infection”
Admittedly it would have been hard to adjust for others but that doesn’t mean they weren’t important. It is an interesting contribution but no way does it “Confirm Negative Efficacy of Covid Vaccine”.
No matter how many actual died of covid, it will be nothing compared to the uncounted and undisclosed millions who die of the effects of the vaccine in the coming decades.
Meanwhile, big pharma wring their hands with glee!
Why would you want to give Big Pharma and their rushed vaccines the benefit of the doubt?
Actually they never were vaccines in the true sense of the word. Even the testing was fiddled to make them look good, re mice as above. Criminal intent is evident isn’t it?
Well, godknows, I hope you don’t suggest that people paid to do a job (including posting twaddle on behalf of BigPharma, or running a fact-,free “fartcheck” operation), should fail to follow their instructions!
That would be dishonest! I’m sure that, actually, they laugh all the way to the bank and the more bodies they step over, the better!
I do take your point, but there are numerous scientific papers such as this which show on a biomolecular/immunological level precisely how and why mRNA jabs can adversely affect the immune system, leading to a host of autoimmune disease.
I have yet to see any coherent rebuttal of this paper updated from January 2022 – no doubt for the usual reason, to engage may discourage uptake of the jab.
So, we have the Cleveland study which appears to suggest that more jabs weaken the immune system and a paper which shows precisely why this may be the case.
But no serious debate will ever take place, the sole reason being that bigpharma would lose.
(and yes, I do know a thing or two about immunology/vaccinology and am aware of the qualifications of the authors).
I would appreciate a critique of the paper from yourself.
https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas
Thanks for your polite and reasoned response. I am afraid I don’t have the skills to make any useful response to the paper you link to. I have some background in statistics but not in biochemistry.
But you criticised the multivariate analysis, and clearly don’t understand it?
We all guessed that, long ago.
Oddly enough, I agree with you, at least partially. However, when I did my research degree, admittedly many years ago, one of the things I took on board was that no single piece of research is sufficient confirmation in itself. I do suggest though that the accumulation of evidence is now sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on Covid vaccine safety and effectiveness/efficacy. I include in this the anecdotal reports of people who are vaccine injured. The problem is that open discussion is still being suppressed which makes it almost impossible to reach a sensible position and just encourages polarity between different parties.
I do think the Daily Sceptic could be less dogmatic in it’s headlines but appreciate that this is how the press works to attract readership. It does not in any way invalidate the article itself, especially in the light of additional and accumulating evidence. Regardless of the limitations of this particular piece of research, I would go further than to say that it is “interesting” – condemning with faint praise? and suggest that the conclusion warrants being taken seriously and looked at objectively in much more depth.
“The problem is that open discussion is still being suppressed…”
And your answer is right there.
Whilst we are confronting a REFUSAL to debate, backed up with censorship on stilts and complete backing by HMG with full coercive powers and supported absolutely by the self-described “opposition”, I’m not enthused by the notion that the Daily Sceptic should be less “dogmatic”.
“The problem is that open discussion is still being suppressed”.
As mentioned in another comment, this is the major problem.
An almost unprecedented deadly pandemic that necessitated shutting down normal life for an extended period for billions of people. A miracle “vaccine”. And still the “vaccine” zealots struggle to provide consistent, clear real world evidence that is significant benefit to anyone by getting injected.
Hmmmm.
C’mon, ToF.
I can think of some “kind and benevolent Experts” who seem to have cornered the market in benefits.
No doubt you don’t need me to point that out, but still….
I assume you know how multivariate analysis works. If so your comment is nonsense. The analysis produces a number for “all others” which shows the likelyhood of being another factor at play which is tiny. The large sample size here is very likely to produce an excellent quality of result, which is does from the error bars. These include all other possible sources. Statistics is very capable in the right hands of accurate results. It is abused by the wrong hands!
The analysis produces a number for “all others” which shows the likelyhood of being another factor at play which is tiny
First – do you mean likelihood (sic) or probability? In a way it doesn’t matter because a multivariate analysis of this kind doesn’t show the likelihood or probability of anything. It shows how well the proposed explanatory variables “explain” the observed data.
I can’t actually find the “all others” data that you discuss in the paper but no doubt it is there. I assume it is the unexplained variation. It may well be small. However, that doesn’t mean the explanatory variables are the right ones. Anything that is highly correlated with the explanatory variables will give a similar result (or indeed there may be another set of explanatory variables which do even better). In particular anything that is highly correlated with “update with booster” will give a similar, possibly even better, result.
As you say “Statistics is very capable in the right hands of accurate results. It is abused by the wrong hands!”
Not having this thing injected into me is the best discision I’ve ever made in my life bar none!
Here’s to a common sense and a strong critical mind!
From the Factcheck response:
“A May 18 statement from a World Health Organization advisory group on vaccine composition said there is evidence from laboratory work that prior exposures to COVID-19 or vaccines may reduce certain immune cells’ response to new parts of a variant. “However, based on observational epidemiological studies to date, the clinical impact remains unclear,” the statement says.”
In other words “there are indications that ‘vaccines’ may have a negative impact but we don’t know for certain”.
So the question is, why should anyone bother getting vaccinated ?
Personally I rely on my own built in immune system that’s has served me proud for 60 years!
But if an 84 yr old took the fake test, got the fake positive, was fat, really fat, had 4 cancers and died 2 months after the fak test, the ‘science’ with its paid farce-checkers tells me it was da Rona. No other factors, variables or issues at play. Rona goes on the death cert. and money is paid out to Dr Quack and Nurse Baffled. Ah, now I understand the ‘science’. Just like with Quack Jenner, follow the money.
So when do you suppose walking sock puppet Biden will declare that we’re having a ”pandemic of the boosted”? Or that the multi-jabbed ”up to date” vaxtards are killing people? Nah, I can’t see it either. I do wonder though what lurgy delights this coming winter will bring for the immunocompromised zealots but one thing I do know for sure is the deranged, sanctimonious twats sure as hell cannot blame and deride the ‘never-jabbed’ sane folk, who weren’t ever so brain damaged that they forgot their basic high school biology or left their immune systems back in 2019. Wonder what Neil Ferguson’s team has to say about their monumentally stupid predictions in light of this latest evidence. Cue Dr Clare Craig;
https://twitter.com/CartlandDavid/status/1670042472016166912?cxt=HHwWgIC2hfaxl60uAAAA