Wait. Wait. The vaccine makes you MORE susceptible to C19?

Good morning.

Found this interesting. Apparently Omicron XBB1.5 is MORE likely to infect those that have been vaccinated.

Link: www.foxnews.com...

Fantastic. smh. For the conspiracy minded, one may think the long term "end game" is for the vaccine to enable more infections.

My thoughts though, with 79% of Americans with full initial series, and 68% with at least one shot, statistically, by raw numbers, and the abysmal effectiveness of the "vaccine", the vaccinated will naturally become the population that gets the most COVID.

Vax stat source: usafacts.org...

Is this nefarious, or just convenient math to make a headline? Epidemiologically, I do find it concerning.

a reply to: davegazi2

Yep, its nefarious.

originally posted by: davegazi2
Good morning.

Found this interesting. Apparently Omicron XBB1.5 is MORE likely to infect those that have been vaccinated.

Link: www.foxnews.com...

Fantastic. smh. For the conspiracy minded, one may think the long term "end game" is for the vaccine to enable more infections.

My thoughts though, with 79% of Americans with full initial series, and 68% with at least one shot, statistically, by raw numbers, and the abysmal effectiveness of the "vaccine", the vaccinated will naturally become the population that gets the most COVID.

Vax stat source: usafacts.org...

Is this nefarious, or just convenient math to make a headline? Epidemiologically, I do find it concerning.

The actual Cleveland study shows an increase in the numbers of infections at the time when the study was being done. It does not indicate that vaccination was the cause, because the infection rate was increasing in the general population at the time.

What the Cleveland study did show was a 30% effectiveness of the bivalent booster in a group that was highly exposed to the virus (it is in the summary):

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine

The video made by vlogger John Campbell, where he reinterprets the study (and that video was the source of these commentary articles) has also now been voluntarily removed from YouTube by Campbell (but he has not explained why).

Then we have the natural immunity studies showing recovery from C19 lasts far longer than the vaccine. Of course, you run the risk of long covid, which has the same symptoms of vaccine injury.

It's a crap shoot; short term immunity from the vax or longer term immunity from the virus, with the adverse effects outcome being the same.

We still need another 8 years of data (accurate) data collection before it can be properly analyzed.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The actual Cleveland study shows an increase in the numbers of infections at the time when the study was being done. It does not indicate that vaccination was the cause, because the infection rate was increasing in the general population at the time.

What the Cleveland study did show was a 30% effectiveness of the bivalent booster in a group that was highly exposed to the virus (it is in the summary):

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine

So, this study has been posted like 6 times now as the smoking gun that all vaccines were/are bad along the lines to the OP's title. The problem is people don't actually read these studies like we do and look to cherry pick some information to support their narrative, or just link someone else's cheery picking without really understanding what the study actually said.

In this case it is only about boosters after Omicron became the major variant. Our vaccine hesitant group can't even get through the first paragraph of this study and a number of times I asked them how they feel about this line from the study in the first paragraph. No one has commented on it other than attacks on my math skills and low IQ level...geez

The vaccines were amazingly effective in preventing COVID-19, saved a large number of lives, and changed the impact of the pandemic.

In a nutshell, the study is saying what many of us have known and already said a good number of times.

The boosters suck against the Omicron variant, and that variant is massively more infectious than Delta. The good side is that it is less lethal than Delta, so we have that. Once again this isn't hidden or restrictive knowledge as it has been talked about many times over across many other platforms.

originally posted by: nugget1
Then we have the natural immunity studies showing recovery from C19 lasts far longer than the vaccine. Of course, you run the risk of long covid, which has the same symptoms of vaccine injury.

Long COVID I believe is only happening when someone is ill over a longer period of time. If you are sick like less than a week you are pretty much good, if you go weeks then other longer issues can happen too.

It's a crap shoot; short term immunity from the vax or longer term immunity from the virus, with the adverse effects outcome being the same.

That is why it is suggested both vaccine and actually getting COVID is the best immunity one can have. Natural is longer, but the vaccine covered like 20 variants where the natural is one at a time.

In any case one doesn't want to be sick over a long duration and so for the high risk groups the vaccine can help in that area to minimize that.

a reply to: davegazi2

My immediate family members all caught Covid at Christmas. One of us jabbed with booster, three of us not.

Thankfully we all made it through.

The only way to avoid dying with Covid is to stay as far away from hospitals as you possibly can...

a reply to: nugget1

until that data is out, i shall remain coof boofless...or at least say that I'm giving my dose to those who are less fortunate (as what happens)

a reply to: Xtrozero

That is why it is suggested both vaccine and actually getting COVID is the best immunity one can have. Natural is longer, but the vaccine covered like 20 variants where the natural is one at a time.

I'm not sold on that line of thinking. First, you're far more likely to get one of the variants-over and over- if you're vaxxed, and secondly evidence to support all the 'anti-vaxer' claims that the mRNA highjacks your immune system, leaving it vulnerable to all other viruses is now being 'discovered' in the scientific community.

The experiment still has 8 years to go before enough data has been collected for proper analysis.

The cart went before the horse on this one, full data was never collected and what was collected has been proven to have been manipulated to show favorable results for the vax. Why would they need to do that if it was so good?

In any case one doesn't want to be sick over a long duration and so for the high risk groups the vaccine can help in that area to minimize that.

Except elderly deaths in senior facilities (where vaccination and boosting is a requirement) have greatly increased. Without a test group, they can just say nature took its course, with no need to prove the vaccine is safe or isn't the cause of increasing elder deaths.

a reply to: Xtrozero

My curiosity on long covid is what percentage of sufferers were already on the list as being extremely at risk.

Still bothers me that at a national level people still havent called out some of those common factors because of the "body positivity" people.

When covid was really kicking off my local hospital group was the only time I heard an administrator on the radio say 70+% of the inpatient covid cases were classified as obese.

Just curious if it carries into long covid as well.

a reply to: davegazi2

It's all part of pharma god's ineffable plan, a test of faith.

After the coming vaxture you will have immunity to all diseases and enjoy immortal life in a neverending paradise, but only the devoted that faithfully take all their boosters.

The sinful who partake of worldly pleasures, like robust natural immunity, will be cast into hell to be tortured by the demonic natural antibodies they consorted with on earth for all of time.

Praise Fauci brother, praise him! In pharma's name we pray!

a reply to: davegazi2

In the end, you can only believe what you witness., my niece and her husband have had two shots, and have caught it twice, the second time is like a bad cold for them. But they are young and fit. In fact, everyone I know that has had a dose are the ones that have had the shot.

originally posted by: nugget1
The experiment still has 8 years to go before enough data has been collected for proper analysis.

I don't follow this line since no other drug does it either. It seems to be some anti-COVID vac narrative. BTW first human testing with mRNA was like 2013, and there are more traditional COIVID vaccines too, so not sure what people really mean by it too.

Except elderly deaths in senior facilities (where vaccination and boosting is a requirement) have greatly increased.

I would need to see the data on that. I would say that today there is an increase maybe because the delta vaccine is worn off and no longer the variant now, also the natural isn't good against Omicron either. The boosters for Omicron are not that good.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

When covid was really kicking off my local hospital group was the only time I heard an administrator on the radio say 70+% of the inpatient covid cases were classified as obese.

Just curious if it carries into long covid as well.

Hard to tell, but I bet anything that extends the illness duration is a factor. Being overweight isn't good with COVID.

From this document:

read this part:

So, it seems that it's highly possible that the Vaccine is the virus. Given this fact it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that getting the vaccine increases the chance of coming down with the virus since they are the same thing.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That is why it is suggested both vaccine and actually getting COVID is the best immunity one can have. Natural is longer, but the vaccine covered like 20 variants where the natural is one at a time.

In any case one doesn't want to be sick over a long duration and so for the high risk groups the vaccine can help in that area to minimize that.

having been unfortunate enough to get a pf4 clot I'm quite sad no one has bothered to check the immune system of those of us where our immune system attacked the vaccine to the point of nearly killing us... in the end my body looked like it'd be run over by a lorry..

I get deafening silence when I ask if the doses I've had count or am I back to zero? and what'll it do to the boosters?

off the back of that i wonder if my immune system does that to the vaccines what'll it do to covid itself as I've never tested positive for covid even though I was on wards with covid patients during my recovery..

its all a huge conundrum with no answers and the closest I've got was a specialist saying to trust my body to deal with it all.. aside from that it's been silence from healthcare.

I'm sure at some point they'll pivot to be as interested as they where during the first few weeks of going from the hyper acute wards to acute to recovery and discharge..

originally posted by: nickyw

I get deafening silence when I ask if the doses I've had count or am I back to zero? and what'll it do to the boosters?

off the back of that i wonder if my immune system does that to the vaccines what'll it do to covid itself as I've never tested positive for covid even though I was on wards with covid patients during my recovery..

Well, I would say if you are healthy and under like 65 then just treat COVID like any other flu. Omicron is extremely infectious compared to Delta but is also much lower in days sick overall. I really don't think the initial vaccine and Delta natural immunization is much good against Omicron and the boosters suck too, so not much to do but play it like a typical flu now. There seems to be a good number of vitamins and herbs that help minimize most flu types and some people here I think really know their stuff too, so that there could be a good direction for you.

The only dangerous effect of covid is lockdown and superficial governmental overreaction.

a reply to: davegazi2

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So, this study has been posted like 6 times now as the smoking gun that all vaccines were/are bad along the lines to the OP's title. The problem is people don't actually read these studies like we do and look to cherry pick some information to support their narrative, or just link someone else's cheery picking without really understanding what the study actually said.

I'm not sure you have understood the intention of such threads.

If you think the *claimed* and rather modest 30% efficacy of the bivalent vaccines (against certain variants they were specifically designed for) was the only point of this study, I think you might be doing some cherry picking of your own. Though I can understand why it was written this way. You seem to be overlooking the parts where they also incorporate the effects of previous infection, and also of previous vaccination status to the study, as if they don't exist. In the conclusion it finishes with this...

"The effect of multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses on future risk of COVID-19 needs further study.

That the latest vaccines are crap, and more recently acquired natural immunity + vaccine is better than more distantly acquired natural immunity + vaccine, will have surprised very few. Though the effect of previous vaccination status was unexpected and very surprising even to the authors. They say as much and even go to some effort to pre-emptively counter various explanations. If you don't place any significance on this (for the vaccination program itself, and the possible effects of repeat vaccination on long term immunity), that's up to you.

Others find it concerning and anyway, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to highlight a surprise finding. I find the possibility of immune imprinting a concern. I know this was touted as a possibility by certain "nutters" (ie. highly qualified scientists) who have had a habit of eventually being right.

In this case it is only about boosters after Omicron became the major variant. Our vaccine hesitant group can't even get through the first paragraph of this study and a number of times I asked them how they feel about this line from the study in the first paragraph. No one has commented on it other than attacks on my math skills and low IQ level...geez

The vaccines were amazingly effective in preventing COVID-19, saved a large number of lives, and changed the impact of the pandemic.

As a self professed idiot/savant without any savant qualities, I'm unlikely to mention your perceived skills or IQ even if I thought there was reason to (which I don't).

Also as a covid "vaccine" sceptic (they aren't really vaccines) who still believes in vaccination in general (for real vaccines that actually work) and is also fully vaccinated against covid, I can tell you exactly how I feel about your quote.

It is basically the pharmaceutical version of "jesus is my lord and saviour". It's an irrelevant apologia to the vaccine cult. This study should rise or fall on its own merits without the need for this and it's a shame (in many ways an indictment on this branch of "science") that authors have to stoop to prefacing their work with a little gratuitous vaccine praising first, should they find something that could in any way be construed as contra narrative.

It does mention the original clinical studies. The Pfizer study was crap and along with a refusal by the FDA to supply the data, should have been rejected. Really this needs its own (very long) thread. There is some good critique but you'll have to look for it.

As to other statistical studies I can give you some of my reasons for scepticism. We know that in the early pandemic in the US about half of the people admitted to hospital with covid weren't covid patients (journalists had to find this out, not academics). They were given a pcr test while there for something else.

The last FOI request I looked at showed that about 3.5% of the claimed covid deaths in the UK, were clearly from covid. The official figures also claim 8% of the population is unvaccinated, when the real figure is likely to be 20-25%.

The CDC vaccination data was so bad that a lot of states stopped using it and reverted to their own.

Round my way large populations were barricaded and required unvaccinated people to have a negative (ridiculous and unreliable) pcr test no more than 72 hrs old just to leave home (unvaccinated didn't require one). Similarly to go to hospital unvaccinated required mandatory testing. I think they might have needed a pcr test to scratch their arse.

Surely you can see the possibility for bias here? Not to mention the rather imaginative and fluid definitions of a "covid" case to begin with. Seems there was one for every occasion.

Good luck sorting through all that to find reliable data free of bias. It might get old very quick. It might not be a good idea to simply accept that other people are doing that either, just because they author a study.

I have seen attempts by statisticians to sort it out though (which must take forever) and it rarely inspires confidence.