When is a vaccine not a vaccine? Part 2
When the protection it offers fades BELOW ZERO within months... No wonder Pfizer wanted to add a booster shot!
No wonder Pfizer wanted to add a booster shot!
Vaccinated people are at much higher risk of infection at three different times during the vaccination sequence.
#1 - for the 2-3 weeks after their first shot
#2 - starting about 4-6 months after their second dose
#3 - for 2-3 weeks after their booster (3rd) shot
In Part 1 of “When is a vaccine not a vaccine?” I presented evidence about #1 above; that the initial mRNA ‘vaccine’ creates a 2-3 week period where the recipient was at much higher risk of infection.
Now, let’s look at what happens to infection risk in the months after the second shot (hint: it is so bad that they had to add a booster shot).
Recall that starting about two weeks after the second shot, vaccinated people have maximum protection from COVID infections. At this point, vaccine efficacy (VE) is well over 90%… Hurray, right?!?
Unfortunately, protection does not stay at these levels.
Efficacy fades over time.
This leads us to #2:
#2 - Vaccine defense against infection fades to zero (or worse) over 4-6 months.
Again there is a ton of data supporting this idea. One paper out of Qatar1 looked at over 100,000 people (essentially their entire population) and showed the vax gave good initial prevention of illness, but that this faded nearly to zero within 6 months.
No wonder Pfizer wanted to add a booster shot!
Even Pfizer’s own reports2 agree that this is "....primarily due to waning immunity with time rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection." In their figure (below), you can see the vaccine becoming less and less effective in just five months.
How much worse will it get? Much worse, unfortunately…..
No wonder Pfizer wanted to add a booster shot!
Things look even worse in real-life data from the UK.
Not only does efficacy decrease - it actually goes negative!
[The UK is a fantastic source of health information because nearly every resident has all of their records kept by the government - it is easy to mine this huge dataset.]
This analysis3 shows a snapshot of cases in late September into early October and shows clearly that anyone vaccinated in the UK that is between the ages of 40-79 is experiencing negative efficacy: they are nearly twice as likely to catch COVID as someone who never took the shot!
The clear downward trend is obvious - even in the short (4 week) window shown here. On average, most people in this analysis were vaxxed 4-7 months ago. Probably the only reason younger people 12-29 don’t show this effect (yet) is that they were only permitted to be vaxxed recently - and haven’t hit the four month mark yet. Those who are 80+ are likely artificially inflated because many of them were already getting boosters by this point.
No wonder Pfizer wanted to add a booster shot!
The USA has also confirmed this loss of protection in a huge cohort of Medicare patients.
In a (now deleted) slide show presentation, the US confirmed all of these decreasing-efficacy problems in a study of 5.6 million Medicare patients. Their data showed that VE was down to ~50% in just 4 months after the second shot - and they were also seeing more and more hospitalizations among this cohort.
You can see the rise in ‘breakthrough’ cases on the right side. This population was 80% vaccinated and yet still accounted for 73% of all cases! And this data only goes through mid-August; if the trend continued (it did) this is not promising news.
No wonder they decided to hide this data!
(Ok, I only know that it was there and is gone now…. And there is no good reason for it to be gone….)
No wonder Pfizer wanted to add a booster shot!
In a press release4 just this week, Pfizer announced the results of the Phase 3 trials of boosters, describing their data as "showing a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% when compared to those who did not receive a booster."
That sounds good, doesn’t it?
What most people are missing is that it says “relative” vaccine efficacy. Relative to those without a booster. In other words, the boosted are 95.6% less likely to catch COVID than those who (up until now) were called ‘fully vaccinated’.
What is does NOT mean is that those who get the booster are 95.6% protected from COVID. That would be ABSOLUTE risk, not RELATIVE risk.
We don’t know the real absolute risk numbers because Pfizer didn’t tell us and our agencies (CDC, FDA, etc) aren’t asking.
But, we get some hints at the ABSOLUTE risk from other details in this press release combined with other data.
This ABSOLUTE risk appears to be at least two to three times higher in fully-vaccinated-but-unboosted people than it is in the unvaccinated people described in Pfizer’s initial trials: 2.2% infection rate in the fully vaxxed vs 0.8% rate in the unvaxxed = 2.7 times higher! (110 infections in 5,000 ‘fully vaccinated’ people in 10 weeks, compared to 162 infections in 20,000 unvaccinated people in a similar time period).
They may be hiding it behind flowery and creative language, but….
That sounds like those ‘fully vaxxed’ are experiencing a high degree of negative efficacy. Pfizer is saying that the ‘fully vaccinated’ are at even more risk than the unvaccinated!!!!
No wonder Pfizer wanted to add a booster shot!
So, the loss of protection of against infection created a need for booster shots…. but now we think the booster shots are causing another ‘negative efficacy’ window:
#3 - The first few weeks following the booster shot look just like the weeks after the first shot: increased susceptibility to infection and death.
Another great analysis of the cases and deaths in Israel after boosters (3rd shots) by Boriquagato5 suggests strongly that the booster shot creates another ‘worry window’ of more cases and more deaths. The correlation between third shots and deaths over the next two weeks is astonishing and terrifying.
This may also help explain why cases in the UK and elsewhere won’t go down: as more and more people get boosters (and some first-timers, too), they keep infection numbers higher for the whole country. This is happening out-of-season in the UK… it may be even more dramatic during the winter coronavirus season.
The booster shots are really new and haven’t been studied extensively, but….
The data we already have about boosters is extremely worrisome.
Maybe the Babylon Bee has it right:
What are some takeaways from all this?
These shots are not normal vaccines: vaccines don’t make you more like to get the disease (or die!). This is why I think they are better described as ‘prophylactic genetic treatments’. And these drugs have serious side effects. Some vaccines are more effective after boosters, but no previous vaccine has required ongoing boosters to make it work. (The reason we need new flu shots every year is because of new influenza strains, not a failure of the vaccine.)We may now know the reason that Pfizer ended clinical trialsimmediately after getting an EUA (emergency use agreement) from the FDA. They likely saw the dip in VE, saw the handwriting on the wall, and got out while the getting was good. They could have continued the trials without changing anything else they did - like distributing the shots and making billions of dollars - but they chose to stop the trials. They even went so far as to vaccinate everybody in the placebo group; perhaps to be sure we could never truly compare the results? In any case, their decision to end the trials means we have absolutely no ‘long term’ data to inform policy decisions. 70% of America (and 80% of the UK and 85% of Israel, etc) is now the clinical trial.If you do take a first or third shot of these mRNA ‘vaccines’ -
some form of self-isolation during the next two weeks seems to be logical. You are most at risk of infection during these windows.We will see what the results of the 3rd shot boosters eventually brings, but it seems clear that
taking even one of these ‘vaccines’ puts you on a vaccine treadmillwhere you have to take another shot and the another and another and another - or risk a MUCH higher chance of a COVID infection. You are not agreeing to take one shot; you are agreeing to keep taking shots every 3-6 months for the foreseeable future.Rushing the ‘vaccines’ almost certainly saved lives in the short term - but there is a reason that the usual timeline for a new vaccine is 7-10 years.
We will all pay the pricefor short circuiting that process - possibly in extending a pandemic that might otherwise already be over; possibly in massive numbers of vaccine injuries; possibly in the vaccines putting evolutionary pressure on the virus to become much more lethal; possibly in more deaths over the long term than if we had just let nature take its course.These are just some of the reasons that
this drug (aka ‘vaccine’) should not be forced upon anyone.
Swedish paper with 1.6 million total cohort shows NEGATIVE EFFICACY by 7 months. Just more and more confirmation that 'vaccines' do not control infection (hosp/deaths, yes; cases, no) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410