COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness in Japan?

Dose-dependant COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness, from Shrestha et al.

One of the most alarming issues around the COVID-19 vaccines has been perceived negative efficacy/effectiveness, because it means that the jab *increases* the risk of COVID infection, hospitalisation, and even death. An absurdly unthinkable, pointless, and unnecessarily dangerous trade-off for the ‘other’ side effects, like myocarditis and the like. I’ve raised this issue in some major medical journals (and showed mathematically in another journal how this could be hidden in the initial clinical trials) and we still don’t have a valid excuse as to why we perceive this phenomenon. Maybe it’s just real? More evidence has come in from Japan.

What the researchers (Nakatani et al.) found is astounding: “A total of 913 participants were included in the final analysis. The adjusted ORs [odds ratios] for COVID-19 infection among vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals were 1.85 (95% CI: 1.33-2.57, p < 0.001). The odds of contracting COVID-19 increased with the number of vaccine doses: one to two doses (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.08-2.46, p = 0.020), three to four doses (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.35-3.08, p = 0.001), and five to seven doses (OR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.07-4.56, p = 0.033).” So the jab doubles the risk of COVID infection? Cool. I don’t always take vaccines anymore, but when I do, I want it to increase my chance of getting infected… Their conclusion aligned well with a lot of the concerns of us ‘COVID skeptics’: “The study observed a higher reported incidence of COVID-19 infection among vaccinated individuals during the pandemic period, which increased with the number of vaccine doses received. This paradoxical finding may be influenced by various factors, including immune response mechanisms, such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) or original antigenic sin, behavioral changes, and exposure risk.” Source. This is consistent with the earlier Shrestha et al. Not only does the jab seem negatively effective, but more doses means more COVID. Safe and effective, indeed. Safe profits for the manufacturers, and negative effectiveness for us.

Okay then.

Extra: It’s sadly hilarious to read the criticisms of the paper in the comments, and of any study revealing some sort of perceived negative efficacy/effectiveness, particularly around possible confounding variables. These excuses are ridiculous. It shouldn’t even be close. The jabs are meant to be so effective that a little difference in the eating habits or health status of the unjabbed shouldn’t count for much. Certainly not enough to go from ‘95% effective’ to ‘now your risk of COVID is doubled’. And in actuality there is quite a bit of evidence that there is a healthy vaccinee effect (there’s not much point in jabbing the very old and sick, and this could even be dangerous, so a few of them die of/with COVID, which bolsters unjabbed death numbers), which would mean that the ‘real results’ are even worse than we’re finding. And if the unjabbed are generally doing better, maybe they’re right about the jabs? Or maybe they’re wrong about the jabs but right about so many other things? So maybe leave them alone, and don’t force them to take an experimental intervention they don’t need?

Extra: The researchers also noted: “Behavioral analysis indicated that a reduced frequency of bathing and exercising was significantly associated with higher COVID-19 infection rates (p < 0.05).” Brings to mind how so many of the people truly suffering from COVID were overweight. It’s almost as if the lockdowns really made things worse, huh? It’s not all bad, though, at least the über rich who own basically everything now got even richer and got a lot more power which they definitely won’t wield against us, yay :)