Lancet journal shows COVID vaccine negative effectiveness?
Evidence against the mRNA COVID jabs continues to mount, and in the most prestigious medical journals. Just days after my own paper was published by Oxford University Press (on the questionable use of the jabs since the omicron era) we are made aware of yet more evidence for the troubling phenomenon of COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness. Published in a Lancet journal, the British study (Kirwan et al.) finds: “Compared to a waned third dose, fourth dose VE [vaccine effectiveness] was 13.1% (95% CI 0.9 to 23.8) overall; 24.0% (95% CI 8.5 to 36.8) in the first 2 months post-vaccination, reducing to 10.3% (95% CI −11.4 to 27.8) and 1.7% (95% CI −17.0 to 17.4) at 2–4 and 4–6 months, respectively.” Source.
In real people talk, this means that adding dose 4, compared to those still on dose 3, was only 24% effective up to 2 months post-vaccination, 10.3% for 2-4 months, and 1.7% for 4-6 months. Interesting trend. What would it be beyond 6 months? This is incredibly low relative protection just a few months after vaccination, though the reality could be worse. The confidence intervals provided mean that the real figures could be as low as 8.5% effective up to 2 months post-vaccination, -11.4% for 2-4 months, and -17% for 4-6 months. Who knows how negative it could be beyond 6 months, and how low the figures are when accounting for the counting window issues identified by the likes of Doshi and myself. As is the norm with such articles, given that authors tend to want their articles published, despite this potential for negative effectiveness after only a few months, they conclude that “vaccine boosters remain an important tool in responding to the dynamic COVID-19 landscape”.
Okay then.
But wait, there’s more. Another study, from Austria (Chalupka et al.), published by a Wiley journal also found negative effectiveness, for deaths, when comparing a 4th dose of vaccine with a 3rd dose: “Adjusted HR (95% CI) for all-cause mortality for four versus three vaccinations was 0.79 (0.74–0.85).” Source. That figure being clearly less than 1 = bad news. Negative effectiveness. Not just for infections, which the authorities can attempt to downplay by appealing to unsubstantiated claims about ‘lessened symptoms’. No, this is for deaths, the ultimate measure, the whole point of the vaccine enterprise. Lessened symptoms indeed. Some positive news to kick off the new year…
Okay then.
“3.4 All-cause mortality
In participants with four, three, one to two and no vaccinations, we recorded 1568, 1748, 607 and 566 all-cause deaths from 1 November to 31 December 2022, respectively. Compared to individuals with three vaccinations, the age and gender adjusted HR (with 95% CI) for all-cause mortality in those with four, one to two, and no vaccinations, was 0.79 (0.74–0.85), 1.17 (1.06–1.28) and 0.93 (0.85–1.02), respectively”
I’m new to adjusted HR measures but is the 0.93 for the unvaccinated considered statistically meaningful even though the CI crosses the 1 line?
There's "effectiveness" and "duration of effectiveness". Looking at the duration of effectiveness of the Polio ( IPV) vaccine having been verified as lasting for decades ( https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html#Duration%20of%20Protection) these Coronavirus vaccines are not 'fit for purpose' obviously! I want a refund!!!
By the way, has anyone thought of the likely reason behind the use of RED, ORANGE,YELLOW and GREY in the image.... After all we all know that the images presumably caught of this virus can only be in BLACK & WHITE because the Electron Microscope does not display colour...just shades of black and white, ONLY. Our designated responsible health professionals have apparently undertaken an advanced course in the use ( ie, misuse) of Photoshop software; clearly as part of their continuing education encompassing an advanced course in committed Newspeak.