Negative effectiveness is a huge topic within a topic when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines. If the effectiveness of the jabs turns out to be less than 0%, negative, there is no possibility that the benefits outweigh the risks, because there wouldn’t be any benefits - what is supposed to be a benefit is itself a risk. The jabs would obviously be harmful. Case closed. We keep seeing evidence of this phenomenon over time, with more evidence indicating negative effectiveness regarding infections and deaths in the past few weeks. Now we have more evidence for negative effectiveness regarding hospitalisations, and from the CDC, no less.
Slide 12 of a recent CDC presentation shows that for the most recent time period, January-May 2023, absolute vaccine effectiveness against COVID hospitalisation in immunocompetent adults is -8% for the monovalent doses; 29% for the bivalent booster dose, 7-89 days earlier; and -8% for the bivalent booster dose, 90-179 days earlier. Yet more evidence that, at this point in time, the vaccines are hardly helping, and are likely harming, before we even factor in the (other) adverse effects. And what happens beyond 179 days? Is it like many of the other studies we looked at in this ‘series’, where it looks like the jab just gets more and more negatively effective? And, once again, this evidence comes from the jab-loving CDC. Source.
Okay then.
Extra: And does this observational study account for the known statistical biases that can actually over-exaggerate the effectiveness of the vaccines, such as the case counting window bias? Seems unlikely; where is the data for 0-7 days earlier? And for those clinging desperately to the confidence intervals, or are somehow happy to see a figure like 29% effectiveness, because at least it is positive, though it is pathetically small and even turns negative within just a few months, should it even be this close to 0 (ineffective)? Given the known and unknown risks (including death via myocarditis), shouldn’t COVID vaccination be amazingly and obviously effective compared to doing nothing? Especially if you’re going to force it on people and demonise those who were clever enough - and possessed Djokovic levels of strength of will - to avoid the jabs?
There are some more problems with the CDC data from what I can tell. Most of the slides refer to the following 5 cohorts:
・Unvaccinated
・Monovalent doses only
・Bivalent booster, 7-59 days earlier 1,627 144 (9) 33 (19-46) 27 (9-41)
・Bivalent booster, 60-119 days earlier 1,862 144 (8) 88 (74-104) 39 (24-51)
・Bivalent booster, 120-179 days earlier
That leaves 3 cohorts conspicuously missing:
・Unknown vaccination status (pg. 10 states "Vaccination data: Electronic medical records (EMR), state and city registries, and self-report" and there is no mention of how they handled vaccinated cases that didn't self-report or if they even bothered to look.)
・Bivalent booster, 0-6 days earlier (←Gosh I hope they didn't lump these in with the unvaccinated. They'd never do something like that would they?)
・Bivalent booster, 180+ days earlier (←With the trend showing negative efficacy over time, you'd expect this group to have even worse numbers. Now, they wouldn't cut this data out to make things look not quite so bad for their industry friends, would they? Note: bivalent authorized 8/31/2022)
Page 7 bizarrely reduces the bivalent data even further to:
・Bivalent booster, 7-89 days earlier
・Bivalent booster, ≥90 days earlier (←They use the "≥" symbol here, but actually capped it at 115 days.)
Very confidence inspiring.
Can I email you some data to get your opinion on something?