Tuesday, June 11, 2024
Monaco Study—Failure of Pfizer Vax to Stop COVID-19 Viral Transmission—Openly Question Current mRNA Vaccines as Tool to Manage Pandemic
For the period July 2021 to September 2022, the study team tapped into and organized 20,443 contacts via 6,320 index cases from Monaco’s COVID-19 Public Health Program. Key to the group’s study agenda was better understanding the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine by calculating secondary attack rates (SAR) in Monaco households (n=13,877), schools (n=2,508) as well as occupational settings (n=6,499). Althaus and colleagues utilized binomial regression with a complementary log-log link function to measure adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and vaccine effectiveness (aVE) for index cases to infect contacts and contacts to be infected in households.
The authors candidly express protective limitations with the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine declaring protection “…against transmission and infection was low for delta and omicron BA.1&2, regardless of the number of vaccine doses and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Furthermore, the epidemiological researchers reveal “no significant vaccine effect for omicron BA.4&5.” Perhaps this peer-reviewed study is the first to essentially declare the COVID-19 vaccines not an effective tool for protecting against SARS-CoV-2.
Among the authors of this study are a pair of Directorates of Health Affairs for the city-state who declared, “Health authorities carrying out vaccination campaigns should bear in mind that the current generation of COVID-19 vaccines may not represent an effective tool in protecting individuals from either transmitting or acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The authors suggest that messaging should have focused on the prevention of morbidity and mortality, but that effectiveness rate was not covered in this investigation.
Findings
The authors generated data points to a SAR at 55% (95% CI 54–57) and 50% (48–51) among unvaccinated and vaccinated contacts, respectively. The SAR was 32% (28–36) and 12% (10–13) in workplaces, and 7% (6–9) and 6% (3–10) in schools, among unvaccinated and vaccinated contacts respectively.
When looking at the Monaco households, “the aHR was lower in contacts than in index cases (aHR 0.68 [0.55–0.83] and 0.93 [0.74–1.1] for delta; aHR 0.73 [0.66–0.81] and 0.89 [0.80–0.99] for omicron BA.1&2, respectively).”
The bombshells continued, as Althaus and colleagues found, “Vaccination had no significant effect on either direct or indirect aVE for omicron BA.4&5.” Of course, a handful of different reasons could explain this, but the Monaco-based research finally calls out in plain language the stark reality of their findings.
The direct aVE in contacts was 32% (17, 45) and 27% (19, 34), and for index cases the indirect aVE was 7% (− 17, 26) and 11% (1, 20) for delta and omicron BA.1&2, respectively.
Further, “The greatest aVE was in contacts with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a single vaccine dose during the omicron BA.1&2 period (45% [27, 59]), while the lowest were found in contacts with either three vaccine doses (aVE − 24% [− 63, 6]) or one single dose and a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aVE − 36% [− 198, 38]) during the omicron BA.4&5 period.”
What are some of the strengths of this study?
Monaco is small enough to have a well-managed and controlled national program with a robust data set, with routine surveillance and immunization access covering individual data on index cases and contacts for SARS-CoV-2.
The authors point out that the robust data includes several levels of disaggregation (age, gender, presence of symptoms, various dates) to produce vaccine effectiveness outputs in various settings.
So, the sponsor—the Monaco Health Program afforded the authors to prospectively investigate all contacts of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, enabling the quantification of viral infection and direct and indirect vaccine effectiveness in real-world settings over a 14-month period.
Based on the data did vaccination matter much when it came to secondary attack rate in households?
No. The SAR for households was approximately 50%, representing the highest infection attack rates regardless of index cases and contacts’ vaccination statuses.
Did occupational and school settings exhibit lower rates of infection?
Yes.
What could explain this difference?
The authors suggest, “Infection pressure (duration and type for contact) as well as non-pharmaceutical interventions such as mask-wearing or social distancing.”
Do the authors raise troubling questions about how some health authorities issued statements that were not accurate?
Yes. While the authors acknowledge no one really knows how effective the COVID-19 vaccines were at preventing transmission, “some national campaigns promoted COVID-19 vaccine as a protective measure for “protecting others”, which may have created potential distrust, undermining population adherence to future immunization recommendations.”
Do the study authors suggest the messaging should have focused on the prevention of more severe disease, morbidity and mortality?
Yes. The focus of the mRNA vaccines as a tool to help prevent severe disease and mortality and the role of non-pharmacological measures on transmission may help the population to better understand, and therefore accept, public health interventions.
************************************************
Federal Court Revives Lawsuit Against Los Angeles COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit challenging the COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed by the Los Angeles school district, noting that the record doesn’t clearly show whether the vaccines prevent transmission of the illness.
The Health Freedom Defense Fund and other challengers to the mandate asserted that it violated the due process and equal protection rights of district employees, in part because the vaccines, unlike traditional vaccines, “are not effective” in preventing infection.
U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer disagreed, throwing out the case in 2022. She ruled that even if the COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent infection, mandates can be imposed under a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court ruling because the vaccines reduce symptoms and prevent severe disease and death.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 7 reversed that ruling, finding that Judge Fischer extended the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruling “beyond its public health rationale—government’s power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing the recipient from spreading disease to others—to also govern ‘forced medical treatment’ for the recipient’s benefit.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for the 2–1 majority, added, “At this stage, we must accept plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply.” That position was reached after lawyers for the defendants provided facts about the vaccines that “do not contradict plaintiffs’ allegations.”
Lawyers for the district had pointed out that a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publication describes the COVID-19 vaccines as “safe and effective” although the publication doesn’t detail effectiveness against transmission.
The majority also concluded that the case isn’t moot even after the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in 2023 rescinded the mandate. That move only came after the appeals court heard arguments in the case, and comments from district board members indicated the mandate could be reimposed in the future. In 2021, the district added an option for employees to be frequently tested for COVID-19 in lieu of a vaccine after being sued, only to remove the option after a different suit was thrown out.
“LAUSD’s pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies is enough to keep this case alive,” Judge Nelson said.
He was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins.
The ruling remanded the case back to Judge Fischer “for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.”
In a concurring opinion, Judge Collins said the allegations in the case implicate “the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment,” pointing to more recent Supreme Court rulings, including a 1997 decision in which the court stated that the “‘right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment’ was ‘entirely consistent with this nation’s history and constitutional traditions,’ in light of ’the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.'”
In a dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins said that the school district “has averred that, absent a very unlikely return to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will not reinstate the policy.”
“Neither the speculative possibility of a future pandemic nor LAUSD’s power to adopt another vaccination policy save this case,” the judge said.
Judges Nelson and Collins were appointed by President Donald Trump. Judge Hawkins is an appointee of President Bill Clinton. Judge Fischer is an appointee of President George W. Bush.
Leslie Manookian, president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, said in a statement that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “made clear that [Americans’] cherished rights to self-determination, including the sacred right of bodily autonomy in matters of health, are not negotiable.”
A spokesperson for the school district told The Epoch Times via email, “Los Angeles Unified is reviewing the Ninth Circuit ruling and assessing the district’s options.”
*************************************************
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
*********************************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment