COVID vaccines' negative effectiveness now extends to symptom severity?
COVID vaccines' negative effectiveness now extends to symptom severity?
Just two weeks ago we noted that it seems that every other week there is further evidence indicating that the COVID-19 vaccines are not particularly safe and not particularly effective. One study (Fraiman et al.) indicates that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own trial data reveals that their COVID-19 vaccines are more likely to put a person in hospital than keep them out. Another (Benn et al.) seemed to indicate that either there was no effect of the mRNA vaccines on mortality or that they killed as many people, possibly more, as they saved from COVID-19. We have also reported on many studies (like this one) linking the COVID-19 vaccines with cardiovascular side effects. We also reported on increasing evidence (Altarawneh et al.) that a) natural immunity is superior to whatever benefits the vaccines grant, and b) the vaccines trend towards negative effectiveness, that is, and unlike typical vaccines, they make catching COVID-19 more likely. The rapidly decreasing effectiveness of the vaccines against infection has been effectively incorporated into the mainstream narrative, even used to encourage booster shots, though now there is some evidence that the rapid waning to 0 and even negative effectiveness applies also to the severity of symptoms, namely hospitalisation and death (apparently nullifying the sole reason for taking the jab).
A report from the Dutch government accepts that there is now hardly any protective effect from the original ‘double dose’ regimen of COVID-19 vaccines on hospitalisation and ICU admission. Source. Their data, from the 15th of March to the 28th of June this year, shows that vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation was 0% overall, and -52% for 50-69 year-olds; vaccine effectiveness against ICU admission was -20% overall, -31% for 50-69 year-olds, and -43% for over-70s. Source. Data from the Manitoban government in Canada also implies that, compared with the unvaccinated, the ‘double dosed’ have an increased chance of hospitalisation and death. Source.
Okay then.
Note: Questions you may wish to ask. If the COVID-19 vaccines make it more likely that you will catch COVID, more likely that you will die from COVID, and more likely that you will die from other adverse (for instance, cardiovascular) effects, why would you take the vaccine? Isn’t that all risk and no benefit? Why would these products be approved and encouraged, let alone mandated? Can a product that increases your chance of catching the disease in question and increases your chance of dying from the disease even be called a vaccine? What are we to say to those who have lost vaccinated loved ones to COVID, when they would still be alive had they remained unvaccinated? Would the negative effectiveness of the vaccines, with regards to both infection and death, help explain why COVID cases and deaths dramatically increased once the vaccination program started? If the COVID-19 vaccines increase the chance of infection, and death, from COVID-19, what proportion of “COVID-19 deaths” should we actually label “vaccine deaths”? How many other deaths might be called “COVID-19 deaths” when they do not involve COVID-19 at all, but have more to do with damage done by the COVID-19 vaccine spike proteins? After all, how is it even possible that a vaccine can have negative effectiveness? What is it doing to the body? And one we’ve asked before: When do the lawsuits start?