In another story that “the real science deniers” will find troubling, a new Cleveland Clinic pre-print study posted Monday, titled “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine.” Given attention spans are short these days and these folks are likely not to read it, I’ll let the "cat out of the bag" and tell you that the pre-print study found the bivalent vaccine was NOT very effective, but you’ll likely never guess what else they found?

The study observed over 50,000 Cleveland Clinic employees from the beginning of the pandemic. But first let’s focus on how the study ended and that my friends was with an amazing concession of scientific ambiguity:

“We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.”

What, still have a lot to learn, how could that be experts, given that you’ve been proclaiming from atop your perches that the “science was settled.” So now the experts, such as the Cleveland Clinic researchers admit that maybe the science isn’t settled, is that because of the study’s most important finding:

“Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.”

Translation, seems that the more injections one gets, the greater the frequency and occurrence of covid infections overall. Not only were the researchers not prepared for that finding, or for the fact that the increased risk of catching covid was seen, but to whom it was happening to, young, healthy healthcare workers without co-morbidities not geriatric nursing home residents as expected:

“The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date[.]

Download the study and take a close look at the researcher’s chart. The Y-axis is the proportionate risk, based on the number of times people caught covid, and how often. The x-axis is the number of days from their first dose. The colored lines represent the number of doses received.

Over a 90-day period, participants with three or more doses faced a risk of catching covid up to SIX TIMES higher than the baseline. Six times higher, over just the first 90 days! But drop down to the zero doses line — the “unvaccinated” — and discover those lucky souls enjoyed the LOWEST risk of infection.

Weird. Isn’t that the opposite of what the experts have been touting!

Remarkably, every single dose of the “vaccine” proportionately INCREASED the risk of infections. That strongly suggests some kind of correlation. And it’s not how traditional vaccines work, not at all.

The Cleveland Clinic researchers mused about the unvaccinated and un-boosted, which remarkably included almost HALF of the healthcare workers in the study. The researchers figured unvaccinated and low-vaccinated people were the ones most likely to NOT wear masks, isolate, or otherwise mitigate their risks but, despite being covid “risk takers,” they were STILL catching covid less often than their boosted co-workers:

“Those who received fewer than 3 doses (>45% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risk-taking behavior.
Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses. This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. A large study found that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving three doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving two doses of vaccine.
Another study found that receipt of two or three doses of a mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose. We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.”

Alert commenters noted that, during animal trials for earlier failed coronavirus vaccines, the poor mice’s immune systems were completely destroyed. Completely destroyed immune system, well that can’t be good huh, but not to worry I’m sure they got it right eventually, how else could they call it “safe & effective?” Do you know that the definition of insanity is, that’s right, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, makes you wonder thought, who’s the insane one, the one doing the doing or the one whom the doing is being done to.

Oh, in case there are any People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals watching you’ll be relived to know that Pfizer didn’t conduct any animal trials this time, unless you count those eight mice, now deceased, instead looks like they opted for human trials.

In closing the study’s authors worked feverishly to find SOME effectiveness of the new bivalent vaccine, seems like that’s a prerequisite for getting past journal propagandists, oops sorry, editors. So good news looks like they scraped up a “modest” 30% effectiveness rate. Wow, thirty percent, why like way back in the past, like two years ago, vaccines with less than 50% effectiveness could not get FDA approval.

But why get stuck on a number after all a number is just one of those “white colonial imperialist oppressive constructs” implemented to appease “science deniers” who simply refuse to move at the “the speed of science!”

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full