More jabs; more illness
HART reported in January that there was powerful evidence from more than one source that the more injections people had had the higher their risk of contracting covid.
One important study in this area was of over 50,000 healthcare workers in the Cleveland Clinic. The researchers observed that the infection rate per person was higher for every additional dose given. This should have been game changing but was ignored or dismissed as not being peer reviewed work.
The work is now peer reviewed and was published on 19 April 2023. The same team has now produced yet more evidence in a new paper published 12 June. One of the louder voices dismissed their original findings on the basis that the timing since last dose was the crucial variable, so the Cleveland Clinic authors addressed this in their latest paper. However, the critique seems to be following the lie sandwich playbook.
First, let’s look at what the new study showed. Here’s a summary conversation about it by Dr Clare Craig
This time they took 48,000 healthcare workers and measured the rate of covid infection per person depending on whether they were “up to date with their vaccines” according to the CDC definition or “not up to date.”
The findings were similarly stark:
People who had taken a bivalent booster had an infection rate that was 30% higher (28% after adjustments) than those who had declined. The authors chose to report that those who had not had the intervention had a risk 23% lower than those that did rather than saying that the intervention increased the risk by 30%.
Now comes the lie sandwich. The authors start with an odd emphasis. They found there was a major difference in risk for the boosted and that this was not due to prior infections yet placed the emphasis like this, “When stratified by most recent prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was no difference in risk of COVID-19 between the “up-to-date” and “not up-to-date” states within each most recent prior infection group except for those not previously known to be infected, among whom the “up-to-date” state was associate je d with a higher risk of COVID-19 than the “not up-to date” state.”
They then present the results for this claim. Solid lines show the boosted and dotted lines the non-boosted. The yellow lines show that it is true that having had a recent infection (late 2022 early 2023) protected people regardless of their booster status. The brown lines show even more recent infections. Blue shows people who had a covid infection prior to late 2022 and here the boosted have a higher infection than the non-boosted but it is not statistically significant. However, red shows people who have never had a recorded infection (54% of the population studied) and there is a large difference — the boosted are 30% more likely to become infected.
For the discussion and conclusion this massive difference among the 54% who had no previous infection was ignored. Instead, they deduced that two factors were responsible. Firstly, the difference was due to either bivalent vaccines working well against the late 2022 and early 2023 variants (BA.4/BA.5) but not so well against more recent ones. Secondly, those who were boosted had been protected against BA.4/BA.5 meaning that those who weren’t were more likely to be protected from having developed natural immunity.
This is a bizarre conclusion (and not included in the conclusion of their abstract which was fair). Firstly, they had shown in their previous study (see figure 1) that more doses were correlated to more infections both before and after BA.4/BA.5. Secondly, they had shown in the current study that even after removing those with previous infections the major finding of a higher infection rate remained.
Why would they lie? It seems rather odd not to just report what their findings clearly showed. Was this an attempt to try to ease people’s cognitive dissonance? It takes some computing to accept that a ‘vaccine’ can increase the risk of the very infection it was said to protect against. Perhaps, having failed to make the impact needed with their first paper they are trying to get the message across piecemeal? Who knows.
Why would this be? Here’s a reminder of the evidence that increasing injections divert the immune response away from treating the virus as a foreign invader and towards ignoring it like food.
Our government continues to claim that everyone needs to be injected. There have been campaigns for the unvaccinated to have their first dose, while older and vulnerable groups are being continually harassed to get more. Getting any more is a terrible, terrible idea. Don’t do it.
Watch full interview with Dr Clare Craig on the Mark Steyn show below (or here at 18 min 30 sec)
