Bivalent Booster Bomb: Latest mRNA Vax Only 30% Effective—More Doses Equals Greater Risk for COVID-19
A group of prominent Cleveland Clinic physicians and biomedical researchers have led a few major, real-world data-driven studies, the results of which have fundamentally challenged the official COVID-19 vaccine narrative. Infectious disease doctor Nabin Shrestha, MD along with infection control practitioner Patrick Buke, MPH CIC and biomedical researcher Amy Nowacki, PhD and colleagues first demonstrated in early summer 2021 in a study of 52,238 health care employees at the prestigious Cleveland integrated health system the power of natural immunity.
TrialSite was the first media to showcase the findings and no other major media or trade press such as STAT bothered to cover such results at the time. Why? The data went counter to politics given under the national public health emergency the executive branch was driving a specific agenda. Then by late 2022 in a bombshell of a study the trio and their colleagues were at it again. This time conducting a large retrospective study of 51,977 subjects, including 10,804 healthcare employees receiving the bivalent mRNA booster dose, Cleveland Clinic investigators’ data revealed that the greater the number of mRNA doses, the more the incidence of SARS-CoV-2, in what TrialSite declared was not a good look for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
TrialSite authored multiple reports on this troubling unfolding set of data that was picked up on by some conservative media by this point. The major media and trade press remained generally silent on the matter. Last month the Cleveland Clinic team uploaded to the preprint server more troubling COVID-19 vaccine data. Finding that among 51,011 Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% in preventing infection during the time when the virus strains predominant in circulation in the Cleveland area was also factored into the vaccine.
True, all of the aforementioned research remained in preprint form, meaning for whatever reason these large, well-designed observational studies were not peer reviewed. But many times, neither were many study/press releases industry released during the pandemic, which the New York Times and trade news like STAT pounced on. What’s going on? Is Cleveland Clinic’s large data set not worthy of mention?
The Latest Bombshell Data
Tracking 51,011 employees of the integrated health system, the trio of study authors and their colleagues sought to understand the level of protection the bivalent mRNA vaccine produced by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna would afford the 51,011 study subjects.
Examining the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 over the weeks after administration of the bivalent BA.4/BA.5 vaccine—the only version of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines now available in the United States—the study authors ran Cox proportional hazard regressions against vaccine protection time-dependent covariants of the data.
Shrestha and colleagues do note an overall vaccine effectiveness of 30% (95% CI, 20-39%). These are not very good results, and most certainly were not touted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or for that matter, not surprisingly, the White House press office.
They finalize that for the retrospective study subjects last exposure 6-9 months previously associates with twice the risk of COVID-19. Moreover, those subjects that were last exposed 9-12 months previously faced a 3.5 times higher risk when comparing both to the last exposure to COVID-19 within 90 days of the study.
But the bombshell, the elephant in the room cannot be ignored by the major media and trade press anymore. The authors reiterate their findings which first surfaced in 2022:
“Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.”
Limitations
Like all studies this latest Cleveland Clinic observational investigation brought with it limitations. In the preprint manuscript the study authors explain the limitations followed by possible mitigating factors. TrialSite reminds that the scientific community is not supposed to take study findings that haven’t been peer-reviewed and claim as evidence. Although this practice occurred all the time during the pandemic. The CDC would often provide limited data for example, not peer reviewed and the White House would embrace and use in their COVID-19 press conferences justifying the mass vaccination program.
Importantly the real-world investigators acknowledge that more systematic study of persons that have received multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccine must be further studied.
********************************************
Uncovering COVID-19’s Origins: How Team Biden Is Stonewalling
The Biden administration is stonewalling efforts to get to the bottom of the origins of the pandemic that has been blamed for the loss of over 1.1 million American lives.
Pursuant to the unanimously enacted COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023, the administration is required to provide Congress with detailed, declassified information on specific research activities of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, especially the institute’s coronavirus experiments on behalf of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and incidents of early illness among the institute’s researchers. But the administration hasn’t complied with the law as written and has only released a portion of the information that it has.
Anticipating such obstruction, on June 14, Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Mike Braun, R-Ind., the act’s authors, strongly reminded President Joe Biden that the law requires the administration to “declassify any and all information” relating to these issues.
“The act does not allow for redactions based on your administration’s view of ‘national security’ broadly defined, as you claimed in your signing statement,” the senators wrote to the president. “Rather, the act only provides for much narrower redactions to protect intelligence sources and methods. Your administration should comply with the law as written and not undermine clear congressional intent to provide as much transparency to the American people as possible.”
Team Biden missed the June 18 deadline and then released an underwhelming declassified report after hours on Friday, June 23—the standard “Friday-Night Dump,” a well-honed Washington ploy to evade media and congressional notice at the end of the weekly news cycle.
In their follow-up June 27 letter to Avril Haines, director of national intelligence, Hawley and Braun noted that the Biden administration’s response was a “paltry” five pages of information, plus a cover page and a glossary of terms. “Obviously,” they declared, “the U.S. government is in possession of more information than that. This half-baked effort falls woefully short of the statutory requirements and undermines congressional intent.”
The senators also told Haines that if she failed to provide the legally required information, “we would welcome your testimony before Congress on this matter so you may answer questions under oath. The American people deserve to know the truth about China’s role in the origins of COVID-19.”
Regardless of how Haines or other administration officials respond, Congress must probe deeper and secure the underlying documents and individual testimony of federal officials under oath, either publicly, if appropriate, or in executive session.
Section 3 of the act requires disclosure of information on work the Wuhan Institute of Virology performed with the People’s Liberation Army. The Biden administration’s thin report confirms that the institute had teams of researchers focused on coronaviruses: “Both teams separately used transgenic mouse models to better understand how the viruses infect humans as well as related vaccine and therapeutics research” (Page 4).
However, the report also claims that while the work between 2017 and 2019 was designed to “enhance China’s knowledge of pathogens,” including coronaviruses, the report says that none of these “could plausibly be a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 [the COVID-19 virus].”
The report also says that the intelligence community has no information that any “genetic engineering work” involved SARS-CoV-2 or a “close progenitor” of SARS-CoV-2 or any “backbone virus” that is “closely related enough to have been the source of the pandemic” (Page 4). The report does note, however, that “some of the WIV’s [Wuhan Institute of Virology’s] genetic engineering projects on coronaviruses involved techniques that could make it difficult to detect intentional changes” (Page 5).
The report also confirms a widely known problem at the Wuhan lab: “Some WIV researchers probably did not use adequate biosafety precautions at least some of the time prior to the pandemic in handling SARS-like coronaviruses, increasing the risk of accidental exposure to viruses” (Page 5).
The timing of COVID-19’s onset and earliest infection among Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers is a crucial piece of the pandemic puzzle. That is why Section 3 of the act also requires disclosure of the researchers’ names, symptoms, role at the institute, their involvement with coronavirus research, and records of hospitalization.
The Biden administration report does meet these statutory requirements. It does not contain the names of any of the researchers and only states that they experienced COVID-19-like symptoms in the “Fall of 2019.” The administration’s key declaration on this point is that “some of their symptoms were consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19” (Page 6)—an obvious issue for a deeper probe.
The report also says that American intelligence has “no indications” that any of these researchers were hospitalized with COVID-19-like symptoms. Moreover, the report notes that Dr. Shi Zhengli (known as the “Bat Woman”), the lead coronavirus researcher at Wuhan, said that her lab employees’ samples “all tested negative” for COVID-19 antibodies (Page 6).
Since Jan. 3, 2020, as The Heritage Foundation noted, Communist Chinese officials forbade the release of any COVID-19-related information without government approval. Congress, therefore, obviously has no business taking such an assertion seriously, even if it is repeated in an official American intelligence report. (The Daily Signal is the news and commentary outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
The issue of patient identification is a crucial point of inquiry. The Biden administration report fails to provide legally required identifications. But independent journalists Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Alex Gutentag have already published the names of “patients zero”: Ben Hu, Yu Ping, and Yan Zhu.
Among the journalists’ sources is an unnamed federal official who insists, with “100 Percent” certainty, that their patient identification is correct. Among others, Congress must question this unnamed government official, perhaps in executive session.
While acknowledging the plausibility of either a natural or a laboratory origin for COVID-19, the Biden administration report reconfirms the division within the American intelligence community over the issue.
Particularly troublesome is the failure of the Central Intelligence Agency to make an assessment of the lab leak theory. In contrast to the Department of Energy and the FBI, which have assessed the probability of a lab leak, the CIA still claims that it has gathered insufficient information to provide Congress with a formal assessment of the pandemic’s origins.
That stance is entirely unjustifiable, and the consequences are intolerable. Congressional investigators must compel Haines and other members of the intelligence community to testify under oath to find the true answers on the origins of COVID-19.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/12/uncovering-covid-19s-origins-how-team-biden-is-stonewalling
*************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment