Cleveland Clinic Study

This is a preprint from the Cleveland Clinic designed to look particularly at the effectiveness of bivalent boosters. It has some fascinating information and it’s authors seems particularly brave as finding anything contrary to the “safe and effective” narrative hasn’t been a good career move for many.

Whether it will be reviewed and eventually published, who knows, but the number of shonky or fraudulent studies with obvious self interest passing review in “top journals” makes that somewhat irrelevant IMO. Sadly public policy has been dictated by some of them.

Anyone remember the obviously fraudulent Hydroxychloroquine study? The study finding that this pandemic resulted from a natural zoonotic spill over and resulting censorship of lab leak hypotheses?

It's only one study of course, and has limitations (as do all studies to some level). Putting preprints out is a legitimate and quick way to disseminate pandemic information and hopefully the data will be available to relevant academics and it will eventually get the scrutiny it should. Perhaps others will try to replicate it, although that does seem a stretch.

I first heard mention of it on John Campbell’s excellent you tube channel, though I notice that it has since been removed without any further mention. It simply isn’t there any longer. The medical experts/tea lady at google strikes again? Perhaps the ministry of truth needs some time to arm their “fact checkers”?

It is a retrospective study of 51,011 Cleveland Clinic employees from Sept. 22 (when bivalent booster became available) until Dec. 22. It also looked at things like level of/waning of immunity re “vaccination” and natural immunity acquired from previous infection.

It did find a somewhat modest 30% protection over the 3 month study period from the boosters (surely that will wane further with more time) against the specific strain they were designed for, when that strain was the common one in circulation.

But what it also found is outlined in the graph below. Yes, it does seem to mean exactly what it says. The more vaccine doses people had, corresponded with an increased likelihood of contracting covid. Not just a slightly increased risk either, there was a huge difference. Are the pseudo vaccines causing immune imprinting??

Which further makes you wonder why they are continuing the push with these products. I notice the WHO has a push to get vaccine rates up especially in poorer countries, such as those in central Africa. Though you’ve got to wonder why.

The pandemic seems to be over for them, if it ever really arrived. It also overlooks what they really need. There is (was) info that some 20 million youngsters are now at risk of measles, cholera vaccines are a necessity (ie. real vaccines that actually work) as well as things like simple mosquito nets (for malaria) and access to sanitation and clean water.

But no, we need to spend billions of dollars aimed at getting them vaccinated for a disease (covid) which isn’t really a problem for them, and which (according to this study at least) will in the medium to longer term leave them more susceptible to future (and present) variants, causing increased disease. Is this simply a scam designed to increase pharma profits, under the guise of public health?

The multivariable analyses also found that, the more recent the last prior COVID-19 episode was the lower the risk of COVID-19, and thatthe greater the number of vaccine doses previously received the higher the risk of COVID-19.

The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (>45% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses. This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. A large study found that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving three doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving two doses of vaccine [21]. Another study found that receipt of two or three doses of a mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7]. We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.

www.medrxiv.org...

a reply to: Quintilian

Vaccine believers will be along shortly to set t=you straight.

Thanks for posting this for those of us who are still looking for the truth.

They got on the wrong path long ago with this vaccine and are trying to cover up the fact they got on the wrong path. They need to go back and start over to get a proper vaccine against this or just get appropriate treatment plans approved when you get the virus. So far they are barking up the wrong tree, there are so many natural flavanoids and natural food chemistries that can inhibit this virus that they should quit trying to make treatments they can patent and just extract these cheap natural chemistry combinations and put them into pills.

It seems to be more about making money or people trying to deceive us for prestige and control then about helping people.

That is how I am seeing it based on reading all kinds of research on this virus.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: Quintilian

Vaccine believers will be along shortly to set t=you straight.

Thanks for posting this for those of us who are still looking for the truth.

I've been posting this graph for a little while now in other threads as it completely destroys the often used arguments that the risk of severe rare outcomes from COVID in children or other low risk groups, like myocarditis, somehow justify giving them the vaccine to reduce that risk. I've seen no convincing study that shows they did anyway since they were a rare outcome of a rare serious COVID case in the low risk groups, but it's been the justification used.

This means that without data proving otherwise, vaccines can be considered to actually increase the risk of COVID related adverse outcomes with each shot taken as they increase risk of illness. It's a very tight corner to have painted themselves into for justification, which is probably why this would have never met any previous standard for approval and no risk/benefit has been provided to support it. Far too many unknowns and far too little evidence of benefit. It's just one more thing in a series of things that eliminates wiggle room for justifying their use.

I've yet to have a single response from team vaccine on this. I don't believe it's been addressed by the pharma PR teams so they've not read what they're supposed to refute it with yet. Same deal with the IgG4 prevalence after the 2nd booster. They have reached a brick wall on their understanding of the science. Now ignoring new data to continue arguing stale positions is becoming the norm.

While I prefer to prioritize extinguishing the dumpster fire they're busy sifting through to find what garbage to save.