WHO funded study confirms COVID vaccine negative effectiveness?

The evidence for the highly concerning phenomenon of COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness (the jab increases your chance of getting and even dying from COVID) continues to grow, this time from a Lancet preprint study, incredibly funded by WHO (who in turn is partly funded by Bill Gates, who profited bigly on the jabs). The CDC was also involved, the group that disseminated misinformation about the jab and its products staying at the injection site, for only a couple of days, and doing no harm, then quietly editing their site when they were proven wrong. Wouldn’t it be funny if they themselves happily gave us the evidence that their jab is trash? Wouldn’t it be funny if they themselves confirmed that the people who asked questions, and who they called ‘conspiracy theorists’, were right all along? Imagine…

While, as is the custom, the paper’s authors (Katz et al.) somehow concluded that the jab is good and should be further promoted, the devil is in the detail. Source. They found: “VE [vaccine effectiveness] was 60% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 12–82) for last vaccine received 7–89 days before symptom onset, 59% (95% CI 31–76) for 90–179 days, 7% (95% CI -29–33) for 180–269 days, and -6% (95% CI -44-22) for 270–365 days.” So the jab’s effectiveness was almost 0 around the 6 month mark and was negative around the 9 month mark.

It gets worse, though, because of course it does: “When we limited our analysis to SARI patients ≥ 60 years old, annual VE was 44% (95% CI -33–77) for last dose received up to 89 days prior to onset, 50% (95% CI 7–73) at 90–179 days, -3% (95% CI -51–30) at 180–179 days, and -14% (95% CI -67–22) for those with a last dose 270–364 days before symptom onset.”

And vaccine effectiveness for severe disease was worse still: “66% (95% CI 15-87) for a last dose received 14–179 days prior, 23% (95% CI -60–63) at 180–269 days, and -40% (95% CI -156–23) at 270–364 days prior.” Vaccine effectiveness for severe disease is -40% at around 9 months? So it increases the chance of COVID and severe COVID? I’m old enough to remember when the jab was meant to protect us from the disease and especially from severe disease, and it was so important that everyone had to take it that poor schlubs like me were fired for not taking it.

Okay then.

Extra: Gentle reminder that this was a study run by WHO (partly funded by Gates who profited off the jabs), with the involvement of the CDC. So it may be a little biased, in favour of the jab… How much worse would the figures look if such studies ran longer, factoring in the still-not-existing long-term data? How much worse would the figures look if run by independent researchers, like a Doshi if not a Lataster, and when accounting for all the counting window issues we identified, which artificially boost the vaccines’ effectiveness and safety estimates? Another funny thought. Were the jabs negatively effective from the very beginning, and it was only data manipulation and even falsification that made them look effective?