10% reduction in infections in new preprint show Covid vaccine is useless for 9 of 10 recipients. Plus, booster efficacy now only seems to last ~3 months.
Does this study prove that the Cleveland Clinic study has been widely misinterpreted? The method used here seems more rigorous with the daily testing. Are the widely shared claims of strong negative V-efficacy totally false?
The Cleveland bivalent study had also "baseline charasteristics". Did Brian consider this, do you find context?
Total 51011 persons, out of which 20689 persons have had covid ; 40,56 % of all.
Received min 1 injection 44592 pcs i.e. 87,42 %, which leaves 12,58 % unvaxed.
Earlier infection OR injection 46340 pcs i.e. 90,84 %, deduct the above.
It remains 3,43 % of unvaxed previously infected; obviously they had no previous injection.
That means 27,23 % infection rate of the unvaxed.
Cmpr to vaxed 44592 pcs, of which covid infected 18941 pcs.
The vaxed infection rate is thus 42,48 %.
So the unvaxed entered the fall study with 27% covid history, while vaxed entered with 42,5% covid history. And the history kind of repeated itself; novax group fared better than any vax group during the bivalent fall study. Dose dependently, even that.
This just falls into the immortal unvaccinated problem. What if someone is in your study who you can't "see," ie be alerted about either vaccination or infection - well they aren't going to be in the vaccinated group, so they are "unvaccinated." But you don't actually know if they are vaccinated or not, or infected or not. They are immortal and as such the unvaccinated infection rate looks better than it really is. You want some kind of positive registration, so the unvaccinated have to say "here" at the beginning of the class just like the vaccinated do (by virtue of the fact that you recorded them as being vaccinated). It isn't plausible that the unvaccinated are magically less previously infected than the entire group average. It's probably just people on leave, or serial no-testers, whatever.
Best is serology. What Cleveland Clinic unvaccinated and 2-dose-only groups looked like before June 2022 is probably similar to Figure 3 in https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296142v1 <- massively ahead on infections and therefore natural immunity vs the boosted. So the Cleveland Clinic studies are just showing the catchup that goes on after June 2022.
There is nothing about the Cleveland Clinic studies that needs to be refuted. They are sampling stragglers. If you read a "study" about people who come to the supermarket at 10PM, and it says that most people who go to the supermarket do so late at night, you would ask, wait, what about all the people who came earlier?
That is all that the Cleveland Clinic studies are showing. The question "who is getting infected in summer/fall 2022?" is the same as "who didn't get infected in winter 2021?" just like the question "who goes to the grocery store at 10PM?" is the same as "who doesn't go earlier?"
Now taking the time to refer back - the even more late-sampling version https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893v2 uploaded in September breaks down "up-to-date/not up-to-date" by prior infection. Once you do this you have a negligible increase in HR for "up-to-date" in every prior infection category, but always dwarfed by the difference *between* prior infection categories. And you can't explain the cumulative effect by this marginal rate difference - i.e., again, the uber-boosted can't actually be making up most of your "infected more times previously" group because this group is having the least infections during the observation window (unlike the uber-boosted). There is no non-paradoxical explanation except that the uber-boosted have few prior infections.
That isn’t a meaningful framing. Either the study reports infections per person-time starting from spring 2020 or it is only sampling stragglers. There is no way to “adjust” a selective, narrow person-time window that sieves out events. That said, the studies did separately report infections by most recent tine of infection, showing lowest HR with the most recently infected, highest HR in previously not infected. Since highest HR was also shown (different figure) in the uber-boosted there is no way that they did not also populate the not previously infected group.
I am very interested in what you found about Polio. I have known two people who contracted Polio.
One was an uncle, now deceased, who contracted it on a farm in Queensland, Australia, in an area away from the coast (ie, a drier area of Qld.) All the people who may have any memory of practices on that farm are now deceased :-(
The other is a doctor who was born in Hong Kong and somehow blamed his parents for not vaccinating him despite the fact that he contracted it sometime in the late '50s of early '60s.
It does seem that there is reason to reject the official story.
I like your points about the intervention only changing the timing of the infection. It would seem that the only support for doing so is a relic of 'crushing the curve' and not overwhelming hospitals. Perhaps an argument could be made in the other direction that as in adults health is always a declining quantity front loading the infections would be advantageous?
Of course unless these are the PCRs that are rigged to explode when you get a positive result none of this is meaningful. An 'asymptomatic infection' is only of interest to epidemiologists and their presstitutes.
Regarding your other work - have you read The Moth in the Iron Lung by Forrest Maready? It’s about polio, but I read it a while ago and can’t remember much other than it being mostly about pesticides causing the symptoms. It’s an easy, entertaining read anyway!
It wasn't pesticides. Dissolving Illusions makes the same claim and it's profoundly weak. British, American, and New Zealand troops, ie adult men, going to the Middle East and Egypt and developing polio paralysis in WWII isn't pesticides, it's encounter with polio virus strains in a less sanitary region. But the paralysis didn't happen in WWI. What is the difference. This is the mystery. Pesticides totally fails to solve.
I am not as dogmatic as Brian on this question, but I am willing to consider other hypotheses. I have looked at some of the documents pointed to by Forrest Maready and there are some intriguing hints, including that cows and horses experienced paralysis.
That certainly seems to rule out the virus and it seems unlikely that anyone was injecting treatments for other human diseases into farm animals.
DDT is developed years and years after the mystery has already resulted in 1000s of medical publications.
"Poliomyelitis occupies a relatively minor numerical position among the infectious diseases of childhood, yet hardly any disease is as terrorizing to the public, presents such a problem to the doctors and the health officer, or has been so perplexing to the epidemiologist."
Without proof of an actual virus the whole lot falls to pieces. Its a scam which has been used to justify a sustained attack on people for profit and for depopulation or disabling of a potential 'army of opposition'. RT-PCR cannot find what is not there or provable that it could be. |injecting anything into people especially healthy people is to introduce foreign material into their body which their systems must remove as waste or render the material harmless or of lesser harm in some way within its ability to do so.
That sometimes injected or even ingested or absorbed material can cause violent reactions should be expected. Our ability to handle such violence in our bodies is a protective process necessary for life to exist. Waste disposal or containment describes it possibly better than 'immune system' which does not describe what actually is happening with an ability to deal with foreign material.
So, both previously uninfected and infected groups that were vaccinated fared worse than the unvaccinated for PCR+ and either symptomatic or COViD-like illness. Not substantially, but it’s interesting that the only real substantial difference is between the asymptomatic vaxxed and unvaxxed group, most especially in the previously infected bucket. That’s interesting, no? I mean, I’m a simpleton but if you aren’t showing any symptoms, I could give less than a rat’s ass, perhaps just a few rodent hairs, but I do wonder why previously infected, unvaxxed people would test positive but show no symptoms much more frequently than their vaxxed counterparts. Seems like I could write a nice conclusion for a preconceived narrative from that alone!
Oct 26, 2023·edited Oct 26, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Great article again, I have yet to comment on the previous one as it's so thought provoking :-)
But for this one, another possible confounder is that a younger unvaccinated cohort is likely to be more socially active and more likely to contract covid *outside* the home, hence higher infections.
A larger study with matched cohorts would have avoided this but a quick google search has failed to turn one up. It just goes to show there's a dearth of high quality observational studies on the way covid actually spreads, this is decided by mainstream expert and media opinion which is centered around supporting one-size-fits-all measures like lockdowns and mass vaxxing.
(As an aside for a useful contrast I would highly recommend finding Youtube videos and articles featuring Prof. Hitoshi Oshitani who played a key role in Japans approach which avoided mass testing, strict lockdowns and vaxx mandates - sorry to ramble on a bit..)
My best guess is that results are going to depend on timing. This study goes to 2023 so the boosters are failing to show infection efficacy because they can't possibly outperform post-infection immunity in the non-boosted. You end up with a wash as far as the numbers. If you could magically import a non-previously-immune group with less recent boosters then you might see that the millionth dose is actually still postponing infections even now.
Whereas, if your study cuts off before or around June/July 2022, you see the 3rd and 4th dose group still outperforming everyone (which is how they wind up in natural immunity debt afterward). This is found in another creative study by Nash et al. uploaded this month https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296142v1 - if you dive to the last figures, 2-dose only are seroconverting almost as much as unvaxxed but booster havers are not. Probably wouldn't be totally explained by exposure risk.
That Nash study does sure look a convoluted way to argue in favour of boosters. What's interesting in table 2 is how 18-29s seroconvert 1.8x as much as over 60s pre vaxx, and post vaxx the difference is 2.3x, so it could be a significant confounder in the Rolfes study you featured.
BTW if you want a laugh have a look at Nash's twitter account, people are tweeting about his study and highlighting how the higher infection rate is due not wearing a mask on public transport (and having an extra kid)?!?! It's like they just skim for phrases to prop up a given narrative, ignore the actual numbers at the end, and completely fail to reason in any meaningful way.
One thing that shores up the study a bit is that BA.1/2 waves dwarf all preceding infections, and the big difference between 2-dose-only and 3+ is made of people who probably got the 3rd dose shortly before BA.1 and then re-upped again before BA.2, so the end figures in June 2022, just by sorting according to 'how many doses at the end time point,' wind up testing the boosters in a pretty straight-forward manner. Of course, again, this just shows how screwed the boosted were relatively to everyone else going forward from that point.
I considered making a post about the mask results. It certainly doesn't support the 'masks don't work' narrative. As always, my position is that they probably work just by making people avoid each other, but that doesn't justify having started/kept using them. It's no way to live.
The originally chosen part string of genetic code which those who posted it deemed to be SARS-Cov-2 was a best guess choice from a good number of possibilities so any 'slight' variation cannot be called a new variant such as Delta or Omicron for a Virus that equally has not been positively identified having been collected from an individual exhibiting the specific symptoms and conditions necessary to call the illness a novel Corona form.
RT-PCR was never designed nor intended for use as a Clinical Diagnostic tool and despite Drosten's claims, and those of many others, is not able to identify a specific viral particle as it simply multiplies ALL material offered by doubling the sample with each cycle to make ALL material more 'visible'. Without the ability to identify in its process, ie no specificacy, a particular particle and without the cycle total used to 'claim' a result as positive, any RT-PCR output is useless as a diagnosis for ANY illness. If people cannot smell BS when it is right under their noses then stop promoting what they cannot detect. Do not piss on my leg and tell me it is raining.
Does this study prove that the Cleveland Clinic study has been widely misinterpreted? The method used here seems more rigorous with the daily testing. Are the widely shared claims of strong negative V-efficacy totally false?
The Cleveland bivalent study had also "baseline charasteristics". Did Brian consider this, do you find context?
Total 51011 persons, out of which 20689 persons have had covid ; 40,56 % of all.
Received min 1 injection 44592 pcs i.e. 87,42 %, which leaves 12,58 % unvaxed.
Earlier infection OR injection 46340 pcs i.e. 90,84 %, deduct the above.
It remains 3,43 % of unvaxed previously infected; obviously they had no previous injection.
That means 27,23 % infection rate of the unvaxed.
Cmpr to vaxed 44592 pcs, of which covid infected 18941 pcs.
The vaxed infection rate is thus 42,48 %.
So the unvaxed entered the fall study with 27% covid history, while vaxed entered with 42,5% covid history. And the history kind of repeated itself; novax group fared better than any vax group during the bivalent fall study. Dose dependently, even that.
JR
This just falls into the immortal unvaccinated problem. What if someone is in your study who you can't "see," ie be alerted about either vaccination or infection - well they aren't going to be in the vaccinated group, so they are "unvaccinated." But you don't actually know if they are vaccinated or not, or infected or not. They are immortal and as such the unvaccinated infection rate looks better than it really is. You want some kind of positive registration, so the unvaccinated have to say "here" at the beginning of the class just like the vaccinated do (by virtue of the fact that you recorded them as being vaccinated). It isn't plausible that the unvaccinated are magically less previously infected than the entire group average. It's probably just people on leave, or serial no-testers, whatever.
Best is serology. What Cleveland Clinic unvaccinated and 2-dose-only groups looked like before June 2022 is probably similar to Figure 3 in https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296142v1 <- massively ahead on infections and therefore natural immunity vs the boosted. So the Cleveland Clinic studies are just showing the catchup that goes on after June 2022.
There is nothing about the Cleveland Clinic studies that needs to be refuted. They are sampling stragglers. If you read a "study" about people who come to the supermarket at 10PM, and it says that most people who go to the supermarket do so late at night, you would ask, wait, what about all the people who came earlier?
That is all that the Cleveland Clinic studies are showing. The question "who is getting infected in summer/fall 2022?" is the same as "who didn't get infected in winter 2021?" just like the question "who goes to the grocery store at 10PM?" is the same as "who doesn't go earlier?"
More shots = get infected later.
Did't that study adjust for previous infection status?
Now taking the time to refer back - the even more late-sampling version https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893v2 uploaded in September breaks down "up-to-date/not up-to-date" by prior infection. Once you do this you have a negligible increase in HR for "up-to-date" in every prior infection category, but always dwarfed by the difference *between* prior infection categories. And you can't explain the cumulative effect by this marginal rate difference - i.e., again, the uber-boosted can't actually be making up most of your "infected more times previously" group because this group is having the least infections during the observation window (unlike the uber-boosted). There is no non-paradoxical explanation except that the uber-boosted have few prior infections.
That isn’t a meaningful framing. Either the study reports infections per person-time starting from spring 2020 or it is only sampling stragglers. There is no way to “adjust” a selective, narrow person-time window that sieves out events. That said, the studies did separately report infections by most recent tine of infection, showing lowest HR with the most recently infected, highest HR in previously not infected. Since highest HR was also shown (different figure) in the uber-boosted there is no way that they did not also populate the not previously infected group.
I can't get past the term "mild SARS". The S stands for Severe. What is a mild severe thing?
People sent to the hospital have SARS. Sniffle people have Covid 19.
An outbreak of severe mildness.
I am very interested in what you found about Polio. I have known two people who contracted Polio.
One was an uncle, now deceased, who contracted it on a farm in Queensland, Australia, in an area away from the coast (ie, a drier area of Qld.) All the people who may have any memory of practices on that farm are now deceased :-(
The other is a doctor who was born in Hong Kong and somehow blamed his parents for not vaccinating him despite the fact that he contracted it sometime in the late '50s of early '60s.
It does seem that there is reason to reject the official story.
I like your points about the intervention only changing the timing of the infection. It would seem that the only support for doing so is a relic of 'crushing the curve' and not overwhelming hospitals. Perhaps an argument could be made in the other direction that as in adults health is always a declining quantity front loading the infections would be advantageous?
Of course unless these are the PCRs that are rigged to explode when you get a positive result none of this is meaningful. An 'asymptomatic infection' is only of interest to epidemiologists and their presstitutes.
Regarding your other work - have you read The Moth in the Iron Lung by Forrest Maready? It’s about polio, but I read it a while ago and can’t remember much other than it being mostly about pesticides causing the symptoms. It’s an easy, entertaining read anyway!
It wasn't pesticides. Dissolving Illusions makes the same claim and it's profoundly weak. British, American, and New Zealand troops, ie adult men, going to the Middle East and Egypt and developing polio paralysis in WWII isn't pesticides, it's encounter with polio virus strains in a less sanitary region. But the paralysis didn't happen in WWI. What is the difference. This is the mystery. Pesticides totally fails to solve.
I am not as dogmatic as Brian on this question, but I am willing to consider other hypotheses. I have looked at some of the documents pointed to by Forrest Maready and there are some intriguing hints, including that cows and horses experienced paralysis.
That certainly seems to rule out the virus and it seems unlikely that anyone was injecting treatments for other human diseases into farm animals.
DDT is developed years and years after the mystery has already resulted in 1000s of medical publications.
"Poliomyelitis occupies a relatively minor numerical position among the infectious diseases of childhood, yet hardly any disease is as terrorizing to the public, presents such a problem to the doctors and the health officer, or has been so perplexing to the epidemiologist."
Aycock. 1931.
It wasn't pesticides.
All of this effort to prevent a mild case of the sniffles?
But it didn't prevent...
Useless effort, for sure. But that was their purported intent.
Seems like it didn't prevent:
1. Transmission, or
2. Hospitalization, or
3. Death.
Probably prevented severe cases and deaths. But early treatment probably could have done the same. This post isn't commenting on severe efficacy tho
Without proof of an actual virus the whole lot falls to pieces. Its a scam which has been used to justify a sustained attack on people for profit and for depopulation or disabling of a potential 'army of opposition'. RT-PCR cannot find what is not there or provable that it could be. |injecting anything into people especially healthy people is to introduce foreign material into their body which their systems must remove as waste or render the material harmless or of lesser harm in some way within its ability to do so.
That sometimes injected or even ingested or absorbed material can cause violent reactions should be expected. Our ability to handle such violence in our bodies is a protective process necessary for life to exist. Waste disposal or containment describes it possibly better than 'immune system' which does not describe what actually is happening with an ability to deal with foreign material.
What are the size of the pieces. What are the shapes. You seem to have a very vivid image in your head.
So, both previously uninfected and infected groups that were vaccinated fared worse than the unvaccinated for PCR+ and either symptomatic or COViD-like illness. Not substantially, but it’s interesting that the only real substantial difference is between the asymptomatic vaxxed and unvaxxed group, most especially in the previously infected bucket. That’s interesting, no? I mean, I’m a simpleton but if you aren’t showing any symptoms, I could give less than a rat’s ass, perhaps just a few rodent hairs, but I do wonder why previously infected, unvaxxed people would test positive but show no symptoms much more frequently than their vaxxed counterparts. Seems like I could write a nice conclusion for a preconceived narrative from that alone!
The reason is noted in the initial commentary - very large portions of kids in the unvaccinated groups
Great article again, I have yet to comment on the previous one as it's so thought provoking :-)
But for this one, another possible confounder is that a younger unvaccinated cohort is likely to be more socially active and more likely to contract covid *outside* the home, hence higher infections.
A larger study with matched cohorts would have avoided this but a quick google search has failed to turn one up. It just goes to show there's a dearth of high quality observational studies on the way covid actually spreads, this is decided by mainstream expert and media opinion which is centered around supporting one-size-fits-all measures like lockdowns and mass vaxxing.
(As an aside for a useful contrast I would highly recommend finding Youtube videos and articles featuring Prof. Hitoshi Oshitani who played a key role in Japans approach which avoided mass testing, strict lockdowns and vaxx mandates - sorry to ramble on a bit..)
My best guess is that results are going to depend on timing. This study goes to 2023 so the boosters are failing to show infection efficacy because they can't possibly outperform post-infection immunity in the non-boosted. You end up with a wash as far as the numbers. If you could magically import a non-previously-immune group with less recent boosters then you might see that the millionth dose is actually still postponing infections even now.
Whereas, if your study cuts off before or around June/July 2022, you see the 3rd and 4th dose group still outperforming everyone (which is how they wind up in natural immunity debt afterward). This is found in another creative study by Nash et al. uploaded this month https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296142v1 - if you dive to the last figures, 2-dose only are seroconverting almost as much as unvaxxed but booster havers are not. Probably wouldn't be totally explained by exposure risk.
That Nash study does sure look a convoluted way to argue in favour of boosters. What's interesting in table 2 is how 18-29s seroconvert 1.8x as much as over 60s pre vaxx, and post vaxx the difference is 2.3x, so it could be a significant confounder in the Rolfes study you featured.
BTW if you want a laugh have a look at Nash's twitter account, people are tweeting about his study and highlighting how the higher infection rate is due not wearing a mask on public transport (and having an extra kid)?!?! It's like they just skim for phrases to prop up a given narrative, ignore the actual numbers at the end, and completely fail to reason in any meaningful way.
One thing that shores up the study a bit is that BA.1/2 waves dwarf all preceding infections, and the big difference between 2-dose-only and 3+ is made of people who probably got the 3rd dose shortly before BA.1 and then re-upped again before BA.2, so the end figures in June 2022, just by sorting according to 'how many doses at the end time point,' wind up testing the boosters in a pretty straight-forward manner. Of course, again, this just shows how screwed the boosted were relatively to everyone else going forward from that point.
I considered making a post about the mask results. It certainly doesn't support the 'masks don't work' narrative. As always, my position is that they probably work just by making people avoid each other, but that doesn't justify having started/kept using them. It's no way to live.
Got it, that flew over my head a bit apparently.
The originally chosen part string of genetic code which those who posted it deemed to be SARS-Cov-2 was a best guess choice from a good number of possibilities so any 'slight' variation cannot be called a new variant such as Delta or Omicron for a Virus that equally has not been positively identified having been collected from an individual exhibiting the specific symptoms and conditions necessary to call the illness a novel Corona form.
RT-PCR was never designed nor intended for use as a Clinical Diagnostic tool and despite Drosten's claims, and those of many others, is not able to identify a specific viral particle as it simply multiplies ALL material offered by doubling the sample with each cycle to make ALL material more 'visible'. Without the ability to identify in its process, ie no specificacy, a particular particle and without the cycle total used to 'claim' a result as positive, any RT-PCR output is useless as a diagnosis for ANY illness. If people cannot smell BS when it is right under their noses then stop promoting what they cannot detect. Do not piss on my leg and tell me it is raining.
Again. This is just deconstructionism. I could say the same things about DNA based organisms.