COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness in UK booster study

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

Hot on the heels of my COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness article appearing in a major Australian medical journal, a study (Horne et al.) on booster shots involving many millions of Brits found something a little odd: “By 6 months, the cumulative incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was higher in boosted than unboosted individuals.” Source. This not only adds to the increasing evidence of (at least perceived) COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness, which is horrifying and needs urgent explanation, but also aligns with the growing evidence that this is dose-dependant, starting from dose 0. Yes, those with 0 doses seem to be at lower risk of getting COVID-19. To up your risk, make sure you’re ‘up to date’ with the jabs. And if you’re one of the morons that for some reason don’t want an increased risk of getting COVID-19, you deserve to be slandered and fired!

Okay then.

Extra: There’s quite a bit more to the UK study. First of all, it aligns a bit with the earlier discussed and related Andrews et al., a big study on UK children (Andrews appears on both papers), with very underwhelming results (no mortality benefit, but clear myocarditis risk). Regarding COVID-19 infections, there was a small decrease in the vaccinated, “although the 20-week risks were similar”. In Horne et al., effectiveness appeared to turn negate for infections at 6 months. What would happen if they looked at the 12 month mark, for both studies? Would it be similar to the other studies showing clear negative effectiveness, even for death, within 12 months? Not to mention more adverse effects can be factored into the risk-benefit analyses, if accuracy and truth is even what they’re striving for (the authors of Andrews et al. had financial ties to government, WHO, the Wellcome Trust, Big Pharma, and that paragon of health, Bill Manboobs Gates). Furthermore, why is the hazard ratio less than 1 for infections in their Table 2 when they clearly stated that there appear to be more infections in the boosted at 6 months? And why does the vaccine in their study apparently have such a dramatic panacea effect on non-COVID deaths, and fractures? They do acknowledge that decreased fractures is surprising, perhaps some confounder is responsible, but would this not also apply to the decreased non-COVID deaths? And could this confounder impact the other outcomes as well, for COVID hospitalisations and death? They did discuss this further, though it was all hypothetical, and I wonder if there is not some confounder/bias/other issue that affected all their results, such as the counting window issues identified by the likes of Peter Doshi and myself in JECP4. I reached out to Andrews for clarification on all this (no response at time of publishing), and on why in Table 3 the best results for the first few months are in days 1-14, when pretty much every other study assumes that it takes 1-2 weeks to build up to ‘full immunity’. I wonder if there is some 1-2 week delay between the jab and ‘full protection’ in Horne et al., which leads to large exaggerations of effectiveness (and even safety), as in almost every other study.

Extra: One of the things that really gets to me about the jabs not being all they were cracked up to be, with these studies and beyond, is that they clearly wanted our children jabbed as well, with the CDC and apparently their allies in the media like CNN recommending “that your children are vaccinated, even if they’ve been infected”. Source. Even though natural immunity is superior, and even though the jab might undo the benefits of natural immunity, and even though COVID vaccination can yield more adverse effects in the previously infected.