A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) shows not only that the effectiveness of the Pfizer Covid vaccine becomes negative (meaning the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated) within five months but that the vaccine destroys any protection a person has from natural immunity.
The study is a large observational study that looks at 887,193 children aged 5 to 11 years in North Carolina, of whom 273,157 (30.8%) received at least one dose of Pfizer vaccine between November 1st 2021 and June 3rd 2022. The study includes 193,346 SARS-CoV-2 infections reported between March 11th 2020 and June 3rd 2022.
The researchers used a form of statistical modelling with adjustments for confounding factors (such as underlying conditions) to calculate estimates of vaccine effectiveness over time and against the different Covid variants.
The findings are depicted in the charts below. In chart A, notice that the green and blue lines, representing children vaccinated in November and December respectively, go through zero into negative territory at a sharp gradient within five months of the first injection. It’s unclear why the green line is not continued past April, as the researchers presumably had the data, but from what is shown it looks very much like the vaccine effectiveness will continue declining deep into negative territory.
In chart B, we see both the red and blue lines – which represent children who are vaccinated and have been previously infected and not previously infected respectively – again going through zero at a steep gradient within five months of vaccination. The fact that the vaccinated who have natural immunity from previous infection also see negative effectiveness is a surprise as one would not expect those with natural immunity to be more susceptible to infection than those without it.
Charts C and D suggest that it is the vaccine that is causing this worrying erasure of natural immunity. Chart D shows the effectiveness of natural immunity from previous infection among the vaccinated. Notice that the blue line, which is protection against the Delta variant among the vaccinated-and-previously-infected, hits zero at a steep gradient within seven months. Now look at the blue line in chart C, which is protection against Delta in the previously infected and unvaccinated. It, too, is waning, but much more slowly, and after eight months it is still very much in positive territory at over 50%. The same can be said for natural immunity against earlier variants (green line), which wanes slowly and remains positive after 16 months. Why is natural immunity remaining protective for the unvaccinated, whereas in the vaccinated their ‘protection’ goes negative even if they have natural immunity?
This is very disturbing because it suggests not only that the vaccines give negative ‘protection’ after a few months but also that they destroy the protection that should have been provided by natural immunity. The unvaccinated keep their protection from previous infection but the vaccinated end up with negative efficacy even if they’ve been previously infected. This means the vaccines appear to demolish a person’s natural immunity and leave him or her more vulnerable to infection than he or she was before.
The new findings add to growing concerns among scientists about the effect of the Covid vaccines on the immune system. A recent study in mice found that mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s inhibit the immune system response to other pathogens. In that study (which is not yet peer-reviewed), the culprit appeared to be the lipid nano-particles (LNPs) which carry the mRNA in the vaccine: “We found that pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs or LNP alone led to long-term inhibition of the adaptive immune responses.”
Another pre-print study found that the Pfizer vaccine “induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses” including “inhibition of innate immune responses”.
Oddly, the authors of the new study fail to draw attention to their alarming findings. Instead they conclude that the vaccine was “found to confer considerable immunity against Omicron infection” – even though the high protection only lasted weeks and was negative within months. They also conclude that “the rapid decline in protection against Omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination” – as though what people really need is more of these injections.
But the study’s findings speak for themselves, and they are highly concerning. It’s increasingly clear that it was a mistake to rush mRNA vaccine technology to market, and that the vaccines need to be taken out of use and put back into the research phase until the full range of their effects and their safety profile are much better understood.
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.
Wow barely tested gene therapy might actually be damaging to the immune system. Who knew? Chimes with my wife’s experience, first COVID infection was mild, when jabbed she was more poorly second time around. That was enough for her to quit at 2 stabbings.
If you don’t mind my asking, why did she do it in the first place?
To many of us on here, it was out of the question from the outset and even struggle to understand why anyone would submit to such an experiment.
Genuinely interested.
I can’t say it was one of her better decisions but at least having seen they didn’t work she stopped, as many ppl have done so.
My other half had 2 AZs as well. Unfortunately she was bullied into it by her family. She says she was afraid she wouldn’t be able to see her grandchildren. Of course the whole thing was just bullying and coercion. Appalling really but I doubt her family have any qualms about what they’ve done. Her ex had his 4th last Christmas I kid you not! Mind you he’s got Alzheimer’s so think he’d forgotten he’d had the 3rd but the authorities didn’t seem to care and obviously let him get jabbed again. Heaven only knows what he’s done to his body.
We have known about negative effectiveness of this sludge for about a year – I think the Qatar study may have been the first to show this in summer of 2021, not sure. We do know that as time went by more and more evidence of negative effectiveness surfaced, but was denied even as public health officials showed charts with clear negative effectiveness and outright denied the numbers on the charts they themselves were showing.
The absurdly named UKHSA (nothing to do with ‘security’, and apparently even less to do with health) has been noting in its weekly vaccine surveillance reports for many months now that only 40% of vaxxed persons had the more-comprehensive N antibodies compared to about 90% of unvaxxed persons. The mealy-mouthed explanation was that this was ‘probably’ due to the shorter exposure to the virus due to the fab vaxx that helped the body expel it, even though they knew this not to be true. But these days ‘The Science’ is all about ‘probably’, ‘expect’, ‘estimate’, ‘hope’, not actual data.
Their fear that they messed up people’s immune systems and therefore have to keep stabbing them is the only ‘positive’ explanation for why they continue pumping this poison into people. I should think that the EUA does not extend to limiting liability for intentionally ignoring safety issues and continuing/outright refusing to inform people what is going on. This is criminal negligence territory. Eventually lawyers and judges will awake from their trance – many of them and their family were poked, many of them will eventually put 2 and 2 together – the ensuing pulverisation of the health authorities and ‘scientists’ that perpetrated this will be epic. And it will come.
In addition, let them be damned to hell for trying all this time, still trying now, to get the unvaxxed to ruin their health, purely and alone to try to cover up their crimes. This is the true reason for going after the unvaxxed – a large control group is evidence of their crimes.
Great comment. Proud to be in the un-jabbed control group ….. fit, healthy and Covid-free since I got what I am sure was the bug in November 2019.
Meanwhile my triple-jabbed brother-in-law is infected again …. and apparently feels absolutely awful.
Indeed, the irony!
It certainly supports my view that the advertising term “safe and effective” was a blatant lie. Given that the paper presented seems to have focused on one group of infections, do they know anything about negative effects on our immunity against all sorts of other infections? Anyone betting on an outbreak of ‘flu, or traditional “common colds”? That’s just respiratory illnesses, but there could be a list as long as your arm as well.
My thoughts also.
Time will tell but I reckon in the next year excess deaths will sky rocket..
Boosters every quarter for the jabbed for the rest of their lives.
Bollinger all round at the Pfizer board meeting.
Crack dealers have higher customer service standards than those guys, at least their product works as promised.
The comparison with crack dealers could be quite apposite – after all, once you’ve started using their products, you’ll need more. Don’t forget where in the trade “Heroin” was invented. A useful source of cash for some, in effect.
yes, I did not make the comparison by accident. Get ‘em hooked and keep ‘em coming back for more.
And with both, the first hit is always “free”….
Not predictable at all was it.
And, on a bio-molecular level, here are probably some of the reasons why.:-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
mRNA HAS to reprogram and evade parts of the immune system. This is completely intentional because if this were not done, the immune system would recognise and destroy the lipid nanoparticle encased modified gene sequences before they could begin to “work”.
The problem is that the genetic engineers have little understanding of all the precise and actual workings of the the immune system – but then again nobody does. I know we know a lot, but of how much is there yet to know.
No doubt the regulatory agencies around the world are taking careful note….
But worry not, all vaccines for all disease will be made this way.
The trade seems to want to move in that direction; money talks, as ever.
Some pro-drug commentators under JC’s channel have attempted to justify rapid development, along the lines of it being similar to what is done for ‘flu jabs. However, this place: https://www.medical-reference.net/2013/10/bridging-studies-definition-history-importance.html might be worth a browse by those who are interested.
Another pressing question for the Big Pharma Gatekeeper / Cigar Store Indian Dame June Raine and the fragrant Kate Bingham.
In my GP days, some years ago admittedly, patients to be given a multitude of vaccines ( Help A and B, Q Fever) were tested for antibodies, and not given the vaccines if positive for the appropriate antibodies.
For other diseases, a strong history of infection was reason enough for withholding the vaccine.
Don’t know what I’ve missed since moving on from GP, but I fail to see the logic in “vaccinating” children, wiho have virtually no risk from the disease, after having contracted the virus, with a potentially dangerous experimental drug.
Me and my partner briefly moved back in with my parents just before Christmas following the sale of our house. Within 24hrs my dad was furiously attempting to kick us out on the street because I refused to stick a swab down my throat and up my nose. His claim, which I felt was inhuman, was that through my refusal to comply, I was deliberately risking the life of my own mother.
There was irreparable damage done to our relationship that day – something he has never apologised for, and actually doubled down on in one of countless other arguments a couple months later.
I became aware of the extent of his brainwashing when I learned that during lockdown, he had insisted on their cash and groceries being washed before being taken into the house.
He firmly believed, and likely continues to believe, that me and my partner are “idiots” for refusing to be jabbed, and are only alive today through sheer luck. He has my mother believing that the jabs will stop her getting seriously ill.
So it was, that during the summer he showed flu-like symptoms and tested positive with his covid-fraud-kit. He did the strangest thing, and started to behave like he was celebrating, opened and enjoyed beer in the garden. We laughed as he wore his mask and sat as far away from us as he could – as if this would protect us. We laughed more when he got sloppy and his mask slipped to being a more affective bib. *He became visibly ill and not at all happy.
Then my mam caught it and she was bed-ridden for days – visibly very ill. Strangely, for how much my dad scorned me for apparently endangering her life, I found it extremely annoying that he did so little to help her (on one occasion mocking her for sleeping through the day). It was me who made her meals and tended to her needs.
Then me and my unjabbed partner got ill. Such was the mildness of this renamed flu, was that we were both able to suppress it for days without anyone knowing we were ill. Only when I was unable to stop coughing in the final stages did I admit I’d caught it from them. And of course I pointed out the fact they were far more ill then me. By this point, we’d all recovered from this apocalyptic illness.
Thankfully, we’ve now moved out of the madhouse, though I worry very much for my mother, who will be pulled to the front of the next queue to get her 4th jab – unless they’ve already had it.
*He apparently believed he was going to die from ‘long covid’ and privately admitted that he’d had agonising headaches for over a month leading up to testing positive, and even told my mother that he blamed the jab.
That’s really no more insane than Here’s another round of statistical evaluation of PCR-test results and the extremely expected outcome is that vaccinaton doesn’t preven infection … !
In other news, it was reported that umbrellas don’t stop rain, gloves don’t prevent snowfall, ships don’t cause oceans to dry up and that no amount of people driving from London to Oxford has caused either city to move even an inch closer to the other.
Genuinely think you need to have it out with yr father and point out what a selfish moron he is. Isnt the irony that the jerk chastising you infected his wife.
It’s sad to learn about it all, but it looks as if psychiatry might be a good profession to get into, if anyone reading this lot is young enough to take it up. No shortage of patients, by the look of it.
How about a different interpretation? Vaccination does nothing at all. Given enough time and the endmicity of the virus, sooner or later, everyone will again be exposed to it and thus, again test positive for fragments of viral RNA. Even if the vaccine worked, it couldn’t prevent that as – what’s so difficult in finally getting a grip on this simple fact, Mr Qualified? – because the immune system has no effect on anything outside of the body.
Why is this COVID mirage still being discussed in September 2022? Can’t we PCR-test for something more exciting, say, presence of dog DNA (there’s bound to be some every now and then) and emergency-develop mRNA ‘vaccines’ safely and effectively stopping people from turning into dogs, as evidenced by the fact that this never happens?
Robert Malone has been arguing for many months that mRNA vaccines suppress the immune system by a process called “immune imprinting”. Anyone know if the AstraZeneca vaccine has a similar negative effect?
Vaccine effectiveness https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/peer-review-example-effectiveness
It looks to me like there’s too little data so far about protection from Omicron to conclude anything. It is almost certainly the case (looking at the graphs) that the vaccines’ effectiveness declines precipitously and then into negative territory, but only for the variants previous to Omicron. The graphs actually do suggest a positive effect of the jab against Omicron (declining but more slowly than in the unvaccinated cohort), which is currently the dominant variant.
However, this is still far too little data to be gleaning anything definite that might form official advice about vaccinating people with the Covid jab. None of this really demonstrates anything about the jab’s damaging effect on natural immunity, although given time and the collection of sufficient data, I have no doubt that this will ultimately be the case.
The question is, will any of the studies in the future that will undoubtedly show that the jabs do net damage, be peer-reviewed, published, and picked up by the media?
I posted a link to this article on Twitter, in reply to a tweet by Dr David Gorski, and a person by the name of Jerry Alexandratos replied:
‘That web page grossly misrepresents the charts and findings of the study it references.’
To which I replied:
‘Why don’t you explain how it “grossly misrepresents the charts and findings of the study” instead of merely asserting it.’
To which Jerry Alexandratos replied:
‘The website ludicrously claims that immunity went below zero. The referenced article clearly states immunity decreased, but the lowest was 15% of peak.’
To which I replied:
‘Jerry Alexandratos, the chart in the referenced article (Figure 1A) clearly shows that the green and blue lines, representing children vaccinated in Nov and Dec, go below zero into negative effectiveness, so I don’t understand your claim that “the lowest decrease was 15% of peak”’
To which Jerry Alexandratos replied:
‘Baselines matter. Vaccines do not eliminate “natural immunity”. The linked scientific article makes no such claim. That is an anti-vax lie…That zero line is not “any immunity to SARS-CoV-2”. It is the starting level of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning of the study, which includes recovery from previous infection and previous vaccination. Both of which are known to decrease over time.’
(A few minutes later, Dr David Gorski blocked me, for no other reason than what I posted above!)
Does anyone – particularly the author of the article, Will Jones – have anything to say about whether Jerry Alexandrotos is correct or not, in regard to the zero line, etc?
Graph B would suggest itself: Previously uninfected children can’t have prior immunity.
OTOH, practically, previously uninfected means no positive PCR test result prior to vaccination. And this doesn’t really mean previously uninfected, more not known to be previously infected.
Yet OTOH, this is all just bullshit, anyway. Infection means pathogen enters body (and thus, becomes PCR-detectable). Vaccination cannot protect against that. That’s just a ludicrous claim Corona’s witnesses have to make because they want to define PCR-positive as identical to sick with COVID and hence, the only way vaccination against Sars-CoV2 could help here is by shooting down incoming pathogens (or something like that).
Yes, it looks like fraud, more or less. The other claim that is probably wrong is that one does not have prior immunity without previous infection caused by this virus. If you do a bit of homework, you’ll realise that there is a fair bit of “cross immunity” due to previous infections by other things, perhaps via some of the other endemic coronaviruses, or indeed simply by maintaining a healthy immune system one way or another.
PS: “innate immunity” is the established concept that I was thinking about. Look it up.
These are two different things: Reportedly, there’s at least some cross-reactive immunity by the adaptive immune system due to earlier exposure to similar viruses. And then, there’s the innate, ie, non-specific immune system which can eliminate pathogens without creating antibodies (etc) specialized for a particular kind of pathogen first.
But the quoted guy refers to a baseline COVID immunity due to prior infection or vaccination supposedly represented by the 0-line, ie, he’s basically making the claim that the participants start with a little immunity, which is then greatly improved, albeit only temporarily, by another injection. That’s obviously the Endless boosters for Best Protection[tm] sales argument and it was apparently made without bothering to look at the other graphs as this cannot apply to previously unvaccinated and uninfected children.
Taking a step backwards, the whole thing is and remains nothing but bullshit. Infection (checked with the actual study) means positive PCR test result here. And vaccination cannot prevent that. Ideally, the immune system prepped by vaccination can eliminate infections quickly enough that neither sickness nor transmission to others ever happen. But that’s it. Infection and reinfection will always occur for as long as the virus is circulating.
Don’t know if he’s correct or not about the zero line, but presumably he is correct in stating that vaccines don’t eliminate natural immunity – a meaningless statement, as the mrna garbage is not a vaccine.
As for his bizarre statement that negative numbers do not indicate a number below zero – a similar blow-up happened in NL some time last autumn (not sure of exact time, it was a week after the UKHSA first published a chart showing negative vaxx effectiveness). Jaap van Dissel, head of the Dutch public health authority, also head of the Outbreak Management Team, was giving a live briefing to MPs. He was using the UKHSA charts and one of the MPs asked him what the negative numbers meant. Van Dissel said they weren’t negative. The MP again asked, pointing to the chart and saying they were clearly negative and Van Dissel (a prof in infectious diseases) said the effectiveness could not go below zero, like Jerry says. Which is odd, because a couple of months ago in one of the publications of the Dutch public health authority, the public health authority itself stated that the vaxx had resulted in negative effectiveness in immunocompromised people. Current numbers show that 2x vaxxed are more likely to end up in hospital/ICU than unvaxxed people – if he wishes to take that positive number as proof there is no below zero line, fine, but it hardly puts the vaxx in a good light.
We really are in “how many fingers am I holding up Winston” territory. Sure, your 4x vaxxed neighbour has had covid 3 times, once ending up in ICU, but he is absolutely healthier than you, the fool unvaxxed neighbour who has gone through half a box of Lemsip during the same period, you just never realised how sick you truly were.
The red line in charts C and D seems to imply (somewhat) positive efficacy of the jabs against reinfection for kids previous infected with Omicron for some odd reason, while the opposite is true for kids previously infected with Delta. Would that possibly be because some of the ones labeled as Omicron in the unvaccinated group actually had Delta instead but were misclassified? Or the negative efficacy in the Delta group swamped the Omicron group and made the latter look artificially better for the jabbed? Either way, give it a little more time and the red line will eventually drop to zero or negative in the jabbed group as well.
The jabs seem to trick the immune system to stand down faster than NORAD on 9/11.