Three doses of the Moderna Covid vaccine increase your risk of Omicron infection by up to 27%, a study has found.
The pre-print study (not yet peer-reviewed) was funded by Moderna itself and partly designed by employees of Moderna as well as involving researchers from Kaiser Permanente in Southern California. The study’s reporting of poor outcomes for the original vaccine may be understood in the context of Moderna now having a ‘bivalent vaccine’ which targets Omicron.
The study used a test-negative case-control design to evaluate the Moderna Covid vaccine’s effectiveness against infection and hospitalisation with Omicron subvariants. It included 30,809 test-positive and 92,427 test-negative individuals aged over 18 years tested during the first half of 2022. Results were adjusted for potential confounders such as age, sex and comorbidities.
The study found negative effectiveness (i.e., where the vaccinated have a higher infection rate than the unvaccinated) for three doses against all Omicron subvariants (BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5) except BA.1, where the waning was slower.
Vaccine effectiveness against infection was negative within five months (150 days) at around minus-25%, meaning there were 25% more infections in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. The results are shown below and I’ve marked the five-month figures in red. The lowest figure was for BA.2.12.1 at nearly minus-27%.
A second recent study from Sweden (also in pre-print) also showed negative vaccine effectiveness against Omicron, this time for two doses and after just 15 weeks, with the trend moving deep into negative territory (see below). The study looked at all Swedish data from December 27th 2020 to January 31st 2022, meaning for Omicron it only covered BA.1.
The Sweden study also showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death heading into negative territory after about a year (see below; hospitalisation top, death bottom) – though this chart makes use of a spline curve, which the authors note may differ from the other data at later time points as it “assumes a linear association in the tails” and also due to the low number of data points.
One oddity about the Sweden study is that for pre-Omicron it claims to show a high and non-waning vaccine effectiveness against infection, as shown below.
This implies that the vaccine effectiveness remained over 90% for nearly a year. This is very strange, as a study from Sweden using the same data but published in October 2021 found a sharp decline into negative territory by eight months.
Why does the new Sweden study, using the same population data, find such a different trend of vaccine effectiveness pre-Omicron? On the face of it it makes no sense. Dr. Clare Craig commented to me that it appears (in Table s8) the authors used as a reference only one value for the unvaccinated, which had huge numbers of patients in it, suggesting they are using winter Covid in an unvaccinated population as their baseline rather than the unvaccinated levels at a similar point in time. She notes that rather than comparing with the unvaccinated, if you compare the figures for the periods after vaccination with each other then the test positivity goes from 0.01% up to 0.8% as time passes, indicating a waning vaccine, in contrast to the non-waning vaccine presented in the chart.
It’s worth noting that a recent study from Oxford University found a similar negative vaccine effectiveness pre-Omicron in England data.
Why the picture of the vaccines we are gaining from studies isn’t always consistent is not really clear. However, what is clear is that a number of studies are now showing negative effectiveness, including studies from the manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies themselves. This is worrying as it raises questions of what may be causing it (assuming it is a real phenomenon and not an artefact of some kind). Is it due to immune imprinting (‘original antigenic sin’) impeding the response to later variants, or a more general inhibition of the immune system, or something else? Whatever it is, it is highly disturbing to think that the vaccines may increase susceptibility to infection, and even more disturbing to think that the official solution put forward to address this problem is an endless series of further vaccine doses.
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.
It’s not clear exactly how useless and/or dangerous these novel “treatments” are but what is clear is that spending trillions on them and forcing people to have them has got to count as one of the biggest frauds/wastes of money/acts of satanic hubris in the history of human civilisation
Oh this little jape is history making. If there is anybody left to write the history.
Why the studies aren’t consistent? Because then they would have to own up to having fiddled and doctored them from the outset, certainly in the early days when political pressure was exerted to enable political leaders to escape from the lockdown trap they had established for all of us and for the international medical community that blindly followed the pied piper that is the FDA/CDC, taking their word as gospel that the poison worked and that any suspicions must be cast aside so as not to cause ‘vaccine hesitancy’. They know now, probably knew then, that any decline in ‘cases’ after a jabathon was merely the natural fall of a given wave, any infections and deaths in the ‘unvaxxed’ blithly ignored the fact that even though someone was called ‘unvaxxed’ for 14 days after first poke, the vaxxed-yet-not-vaxxed were far more susceptible to infection and actual illness than initially realised.
Now they are busy doing what they have done every time a claim fell by the wayside, starting with ‘No one ever said the vaxx would stop infections’ to ‘No one said you wouldn’t get sick, but it will keep you out of hospital’ to ‘It means you won’t die’ to ‘It means you are less likely to die’ – trying to find a way to spin this. I’m now waiting for ‘No one ever said being vaxxed meant you wouldn’t get infected again and again and be sicker than those who weren’t vaxxed – that’s not how vaxxes work, listen to the experts. When you’re vaxxed you’re supposed to keep getting sick, that’s the whole point. That’s why you need continual boosters, to protect you from getting well.’
A so-called sterilizing vaccine can prevent transmission. No vaccine can prevent infection (defined as positive PCR test result). That infection (as defined) alone would be a noteworthy event is one of the fundamental COVID propaganda lies. But – as I already wrote – Don Quichotte is fighting windmills, so, fighting windmills must be a meaningful action, he’s just not fighting the right windmills in the right way! — opposition to COVID change (or was that the climate pandemic?) in a nutshell.
Back in 2021, on the paperwork that was issued to me as an invitation to use the product, it said: “Like all medicines, no vaccine is completely effective – some people may still get COVID-19 despite having a vaccination, but this should be less severe”, and “We do yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus”. Of course, many politicos pretended that they new better, and oversold it.
Even John Campbell has changed his mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ceurG7P89c&list=WL&index=6&t=2s That 10 minute episode is a masterclass as to say what you want to without saying so in such a way as to be expelled from YT!
No vaccine is completely effective, true but that encompasses everything between 0% and 99% effective. Anything below 99% isn’t effective and isn’t a vaccine.
It also depends when administered. Vaccination administered during the active phase of a virus circulating throughout a population is unlikely to be effective at all, as there is a period of two weeks (or if two doses, from first dose until two weeks after second) after administration for full immunity to begin, and during that time the vaccine being a stressor on the immune system, makes the subject more susceptible to the pathogen. The pathogen will be actively transmitted as if there had been no vaccination, since the entire population cannot be vaccinated at the same day at the same time.
We did used to know this prior to 2020.
It is why vaccination is nor recommended during an epidemic – it makes it worse – as we can see from the data over two years.
In other news, it was reported that the crowning of Charles III had zero effectiveness wrt resurrecting his dead mother despite it was supposed to enable the monarchy to continue.
If the statement above was about vaccination and its effects on something it cannot possibly affect, say, melting of polar icecaps, it could perfectly appear in a ‘study’.
So to plan B. Mandate he wears the Crown in all public places and stands a sceptres length from other people. Plus a booster coronation every three months.
Failing that blame climate change, Putin, Trump and the legacy left by Fatcher, in that order.
You are going to hear a lot more about mRNA technology. Lots of pharma companies are into it right now, they are not household names but they are flush with investment cash and looking to exploit the technology for a whole range of vaccines and other treatments besides.
Search ‘Pharma 4.0’ and have a read.
Trouble is, I’m pretty confident that Big Pharma have shot themselves in the foot now, and especially as more and more fraud, harms, ineffectiveness and cover-ups are being brought to light every day. In particular by red-pilled experts in relevant fields such as Dr Malhotra. It would appear that those with a vested interest in protecting the official narrative and supporting the continued promotion and uptake of these boosters are having a hard time stepping up and publicly refuting what he wrote in his 10,000 word paper. So now I can foresee Big Pharma taking a hit across the board with ALL vaccines going forward. I can’t remember if it was UK news or even here where I read that there’s been a slump in parents bringing their kids forward for their regular scheduled vaccines. This is hardly surprising. The trust and blind faith they once had will be gone for many. Certainly nobody’s coming near me or mine with a loaded syringe ever again. They’ve got the ability ( and lack of ethics ) to put anything inside these formulations, and that’s without talking about future mRNA products. If they can do it with one form of injectable then they can do it for all of them.
Might have been this that I read. But this trend is happening in the US too and most likely other parts of the world. Not a big drop but if this continues to happen year on year, which is what I predict, then it obviously reflects the increasing lack of confidence the public have in Big Pharma and public health authorities generally. I would also go so far as to say that even these public health policies put in place during the scamdemic are affecting public confidence and adherence, such as the constant hand sanitizing, distancing, masks…any layperson can deduce that the authorities are inept and haven’t got a clue what they’re on about.
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2353.full
If you think about how quickly they brought them to market though, compared to traditional product development, clearly the whole pharma industry (not just the big household names) are excited by this. Re-programming your cells to fight disease. The problem I think is that the regulators don’t understand it and appear to have outsourced their safety standards to the companies themselves (a bad, very bad idea).
In some respects it’s a shame because this could be an exciting opportunity for some real medical breakthrough but unfortunately rushing out these so-called vaccines for covid has poisoned the well somewhat with the general public.
David Scott pointed out very well in a recent UK Column what the late Queen said in her 1957 Christmas speech, the gist of which was it is not technology that is bad it’s how it’s used and by whom is where the problem lies.
The intention is for all vaccines to be mRNA based, Conventional vaccine production is time consuming and expensive.
The CoVid mRNA jungle-juice was a global Human trial, without the need for expensive regulatory work up, particularly to prove safety, and without need for ethical clearance.
It didn’t matter about efficacy, but they needed wide scale study to investigate safety. So far so good, because all the deaths and injuries are just incidental and whilst a few can be directly linked, the others can’t. They are all a mystery. Anyway, once the ‘evidence’ is finessed and shows 1 death per zillion doses – who cares?
The genetically engineered product/aka vaccine, is designed to instruct your cells to faithfully reproduce the infamous spike protein. They work brilliantly.
The engineers had to evade the natural responses of the immune system in order to achieve this desired effect..
So they had to switch certain parts of it off, so there’s no real surprise re this data whatsoever.
And if you think an increased risk of infection is the only problem, think again.
.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
By now, headlines that start ‘Study shows..’ are for me physically unreadable. I have read so many of them. What the hell is a ‘study’? It doesn’t matter whether it what it
shows' is something I'd prefer to hear, or not. It is just part of the swell of verbiage likeevidence is emerging that..’,worrying up-tick',clear down-tick’, … that just brings up the sick in the back of my throat. It just serves to hide things that might even, by sheer accident, be important, in a miasma of journalistic, gladatorial froth.There must be better ways to combat `narrative’ than engaging in its mirror image.
Now that the vax is officially inverting the meaning of vaccination I’m calling myself an anti-anti-vaxxer. Well I thought it was clever
Question:
is it possible that the data from Sweden is different because they developed a higher level of natural immunity sooner because they kept society working?
Will this have skewed data for vaccine effectiveness?
Only by 27% – so not a complete right-off then.