COVID vaccines' negative effectiveness and natural immunity's superiority confirmed?
COVID-19 vaccines’ negative effectiveness, with regards to infection, is something we’ve covered several times, and there’s several more streams of evidence, spread throughout the world, that we didn’t get a chance to cover. However, we now find this intriguing phenomenon in an article published in one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine:
The authors state that “protection of primary-series vaccination [Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna] against infection was negligible by 6 months after the second dose”. However, by looking at the data, as shown in their figure above, we see that the effectiveness of both vaccines appeared to drop below 0, negative effectiveness. Furthermore, ‘the double dosed’ and even ‘the boosted/triple dosed’ seemed to be far less protected against infection than those with natural immunity acquired through previous infection. The authors also noted that natural immunity was “associated with strong and durable protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death”. Looking at their other figures confirms this, with the effect of prior infection on hospitalisation and death seemingly about the same as for ‘double dose’ and ‘triple dose’ regimens. Source.
Okay then.
Note: Questions you may wish to ask. Given that all such studies have an end-point, will the waning of the genetic vaccines’ effectiveness against infection to zero and beyond worsen over time, as the trends suggest, bringing this in line with other reports of around -300% and -400% effectiveness? While waning, and even approaching 0 effectiveness in time can be expected, what could be causing negative effectiveness, and so quickly; are these vaccines compromising the immune system? How can we be certain that the benefits outweighs the risks, if any benefit against severe COVID is potentially offset (and then some) by an increased chance of acquiring COVID in the first place? Should we finally conclude that natural immunity acquired via prior infection is superior, when effectiveness against severe COVID is roughly the same, but effectiveness against acquiring COVID in the first place is vastly superior? Are the ‘naturally immune’ much better off, since their protection against COVID seems to be superior, and they have no risk from the vaccines’ adverse effects? Should, at the very least (to say nothing of those who have natural immunity for other reasons), those with prior infection be exempt from vaccine mandates?