Protection against infection from a fourth Pfizer vaccine dose wanes to zero in just eight weeks, an Israeli study published in the NEJM has found.
The researchers looked at the records of all 1,252,331 people over 60 in Israel eligible for the fourth dose during the Omicron wave (January 10th to March 2nd 2022). They excluded various groups, including those with prior test-positive Covid to avoid confounding with natural immunity.
They compared infection rates and severe cases in the four-dose group to the three-dose group, and also to an “internal control” in the form of the four-dose group in the first week after the jab (excluding the first two days). They provided estimates of rate ratios (a measure of vaccine effectiveness) adjusted for age, sex, demographic group, and calendar day (to take into account the varying prevalence over the epidemic wave).
They found that although some fleeting protection against infection appeared to occur, it peaked two to three weeks after the injection (blue dots in the chart below) and was gone by the eighth week.
The adjusted rate of infection in the eighth week after the fourth dose was very similar to those in the control groups; the rate ratio for the three-dose group as compared with the four-dose group was 1.1 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.2), and the rate ratio for the internal control group as compared with the four-dose group was only 1.0 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.1).

Note that the apparent reduced risk in the first two days after the jab the researchers put down to “transient biases” such as people not getting vaccinated if unwell.
Enhanced protection against severe illness, on the other hand, persisted for the six weeks of the study (red dots above), the researchers observe. However, they sound a note of caution, pointing out that the effectiveness of earlier doses was found to wane quickly. A CDC study found that two doses were only 38% effective against hospitalisation with Omicron after six months, while another study found vaccine effectiveness against emergency department admission with Omicron waned to 41% with two doses after six months and to 48% with three doses after three months.
It’s worth noting that the four dose group in the Israeli study appears to be healthier than the three dose group, which means the vaccine effectiveness against severe disease in the chart above will be overestimated. Compared to the four dose group, the three dose group had 3.5 times the adjusted risk of severe Covid whereas the internal control group (i.e., the four dose group in its first week post-jab) had just 2.3 times the adjusted risk of severe Covid. This is a version of the healthy vaccinee effect, and means the vaccine effectiveness against severe disease above will be overestimated as it does not adjust for it.
It’s also worth noting that the raw (unadjusted) reported infection rate was higher in the internal control group than in the three-dose group (388 vs 361 per 100,000 person-days), which means the four-dose group experienced higher than average infection rate in the week after the jab (a phenomenon noted in many contexts previously). This means many of the susceptible may have been infected at that point, creating a survivorship bias in the four-dose group that lowers its infection rate and artificially increases reported vaccine effectiveness.
The study confirms that additional vaccine doses do little to nothing to reduce infection risk. They appear to have a positive impact on serious disease, though the follow-up time is too short to know how quickly this wanes. There is no reason, however, to think it will differ much from earlier doses, where it dropped to around 40% within six months.
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.
I suspect pregnant or soon to be pregnant women will vote on this with their feet (or arms…) and unless I’m really missing the pulse of things, it won’t be in support of the study.
Natural selection will do the rest.
“THE SCIENCE…”
…Operate at warped speed to pander to a fake pandemic narrative
…De-prioritise teratology studies, routine in medicines evaluation since the thalidomide tragedy of over 60 years ago
…Expect no unforeseen consequences and find none
No other way of putting it – Australian doctor, William McBride, who first made public the birth defects attributable to thalidomide, and Dr Frances Oldham Kelsey of the FDA, whom history credits with saving expectant American mothers from a tragedy unfolding in Europe, will be spinning in their graves.
Current scientific establishment too captured by its own hubris to look back on the lessons of a past it feels so superior to. Nemesis is diligently watching.
|The study shows thsat all the women who were unaffected by the “vaccine” were unaffected by the “vaccine”. I can do studies with 100% outcomes using that methodology, please can I have my money now.
I hardly have to persuade any here not to trust clinical trials.
They removed Maddie de Garay from the Moderna trial so they didn’t have to declare her extreme adverse reactions. Convenient that. They also left her to rot and reneged on the medical assistance promised when she signed her release form.
For a thorough review of the tricks employed, may I recommend Doctoring Data by Malcolm Kendrick.
An excellent book by an honest doctor. He also sees statins as doing more harm than good and describes the trial results as basically crap. He also won his defamation case against a Mail on Sunday hatchet job.
You’ve really got to be seriously dim to allow yourself to be injected with the gunk when pregnant.
Survival of the fittest is a cruel mistress.
The default advice given with all jabs pre Covid was not to be given to pregnant women.
Yet this article is still up on Spiked, written by an academic at the Uni of Kent, Sept 2022.
Is it an offence to publish misleading medical advice?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/02/no-the-covid-jab-is-not-dangerous-for-pregnant-women/
Why has the fertility rate fallen? Why have issues with pregnancies skyrocketed?
More junk $cience studies by the paper mill$ of $cientism. No virus. Scam/plandemic. Pilot project.
Why the hell would a pregnant woman stab herself with poisoned shit, when she knows that alcohol, drugs and other toxins are anathema for a healthy child and birth?
Idiocy.
If the study’s authors are not even aware that only women can be pregnant …
This study makes no sense because I thought we were assured that the jabs were totally safe and effective in pregnancy 3 years ago?
We lost a child in 2022 when my wife was about three months pregnant. My wife had taken three covid injections before becoming pregnant. On the day when the scan couldn’t find a heartbeat for our unborn bav I saw a succession of heartbroken women in floods of tears leaving the pre-natal unit after their scans. My wife texted me from inside the unit as NHS coves rules prevented ne from being with her for the ukrrasound to tell me they couldn’t find a heartbeat. My wife came out of the unit and told me the person performing the ultra
Just the reference to transgender people with the possibility of becoming pregnant as obviously not possible should undermine any validity in the study, along with all the very thorough list of other deficiencies you have identified.