Ive had it 3x so far. First time I had a fever for a day and lost taste, but not smell. I felt fatigued and would get like a weird metallic taste in my mouth off and on which i still get occasionally now. 2nd time was more traditional cold symptoms for a couple days, 3rd time I basically had a stuffy nose for a couple days and I am not convinced I had covid. My mom who recently passed about a month ago had covid about a month prior to her passing. She was on chemo, had pneumonia, and had barely eaten in like a month. She did not really have any covid symptoms, but with everything else going on not sure if that contributed to her passing or not. Her chest X-rays showed a lot of stuff in her lungs, but Drs couldnt say if it was from covid, pneumonia, or just the lung cancer that got out of control. I personally feel that she never had the pneumonia this time around and the cancer had just taken over. My mom was the only nursing home resident in the last probably 1.5 years to pass not too long after getting covid. We have not had many residents test positive for a good while and the ones that did basically got a bad cold.
Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,590
- Reaction score
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
Sorry for your loss, Jitter. I know it's tough.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,671
- Reaction score
- 6,887
- Points
- 113
Sorry for your loss Jitter.
Oh damn. First, man that's got to hurt. I feel her pain, what a shame
Second, everyone should have to watch that clip. Everyone.
Third, we all should get to watch this clip played in front of the faces of Fauci, Walensky, Birks, Biden, et al.
Ditto, sorry for your loss man.
Wonder drug. Funny how the uptake goes poof when you stop the fear porn and the mandates.
Detractors will say: Everyone's already had the shot!! Wrong. Everyone who's been willing, been coerced, been scared into taking the shot have. 75Million pure bloods still walk the streets of America.
Detractors will say: Everyone's already had the shot!! Wrong. Everyone who's been willing, been coerced, been scared into taking the shot have. 75Million pure bloods still walk the streets of America.
Dozens of COVID Cases Linked to CDC Conference
Lisa O'Mary
May 04, 2023
Editor's note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape's Coronavirus Resource Center.
More than 30 people who attended a conference organized by the CDC's "disease detectives" likely were infected with COVID-19 at the event last week, the agency said.
The CDC hosted the 4-day conference that started April 24 at a Crowne Plaza hotel just outside Atlanta, which is the hometown of the agency's headquarters. The conference was free and open to the public. The agency billed it as a showcase for "recent groundbreaking investigations and innovative analyses conducted by EIS officers – better known as CDC's disease detectives."
About 2,000 people attended "who were likely to be fully vaccinated," the Post reported, and so far, there are 35 confirmed COVID cases. It was the first time the annual conference was held in person in 4 years.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,015
- Reaction score
- 11,673
- Points
- 113
Sorry for your loss Jitter
The C19 Global Pandemic – calendar year numbers – with comparison to global births, deaths and population
Let’s start with the deaths with C19 present as misdiagnosed using RT-PCR testing:
The 2021 year of the roll-out of C19 injections suffered an almost three times higher death rate than the first year of C19 (2020).
The 2022 year of 5.4 billion largely double dosed out of 8 billion world population, suffered twice the death rate of the first year of C19 (2020).
So much for any positive impact from any C19 injections. Rather than reducing the rate of death with C19 present, deaths tripled in 2021 and doubled in 2022, even after the impact of the “dry tinder” from 2020 (and 2021 “dry tinder” in 2022).
Share of D = share of global deaths, C19 Death % pop = C19 deaths as a percentage of the world population.
Data is sourced from here, here and here (EOE of course!) – population, birth and death rate data for 2022 is estimated by the provider. C19 data is “official” and complete.
C19 deaths are generally believed to be amongst those with 2-6 co-morbidities who died at an age around 1-2 years longer than average life expectancy.
So far so good, let’s drop a few truth bombs around the changes in population, birth and death rates at the global level. Note, taking percentages of percentages is usually a fool’s errand, but I am feeling a little foolish today!
Keep in mind, these are NOT absolute changes, they are the changes in the rates for births, deaths and overall population.
Over the three calendar years of the C19 pandemic, compared to average birth and death rates from 2015-2019, there was a 12% increase in the rate of deaths and a 9% decline in the birth rate, which resulted in a compounded fall in the rate of population growth of 23%, compared to birth and death rates over the average rates over 2015-2019.
Looking at each of the 2020, 2021 and 2022 calendar years, 2020 was the “least bad” calendar year with a fall in the rate of population growth of 17.5% - birth and death rate changes each down 7.5%.
Over 2021, the combined impact of a 17% increase in the rate of deaths and a 9% fall in the rate of births, resulted in a 26.5% fall in the rate of population growth rates compared to 2015-2019 population growth rates.
Over 2022, the reduction in birth rates of 10% combined with the increase in the death rate of 12% resulted in the combined change to the rate of population growth of 25%.
For those wanting more data, here is a table on which these changes in the rates of births, deaths and population are based.
The “Error” column represents the difference between the birth and death rates compared to the “Change”. There are different sources for the data, but try as I might, I could not quite reconcile the data – either using start or mid point population numbers. The differences are below 0.05% at the overall population level, but given that the conclusions are not too significantly impacted I have let them stand.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
Sorry for your loss jitter.
remember when Tibsy was all clutching his short skirt letting his peen show while rheeing that the China Flu would be the death of all of us, yet continued to keep his restaurant open, got the Batshit Crazy Flu and spread it like a modern day Johnny Covidseed before retreating to his closet to cry?
Population of Hungary didn't change much at all.
Population of Hungary didn't change much at all.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,420
- Reaction score
- 22,149
- Points
- 113
He probably still wears a mask in his car alone.
Yep. But not at work! This is where JohnnyCovidSeed works his magic - shaking hands and hugging patrons while contagious with the WuFlu.
"Covid for all! Covid for all!"
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released memo QSO-23-13-ALL on May 1 to provide guidance on the end of the public health emergency (PHE). CMS outlined how COVID-era operations, including interim final rules and regulatory waivers, will be impacted by the end of the PHE and announced two key regulatory changes impacting nursing homes.
COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Mandate Will End
CMS has announced they will end the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for CMS-certified settings
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 5,315
- Reaction score
- 11,737
- Points
- 113
We don't trust the science. Because you have to sift through the science to find the science. It's a game.
When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010—and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers’ group report.
“It is just too hard to believe” at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. It’s as if “somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic.”
His findings underscore what was widely suspected: Journals are awash in a rising tide of scientific manuscripts from paper mills—secretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship. “Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff,” says Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist who studies fraudulent publishing practices. A 2 May announcement from the publisher Hindawi underlined the threat: It shut down four of its journals it found were “heavily compromised” by articles from paper mills.
Sabel’s tool relies on just two indicators—authors who use private, noninstitutional email addresses, and those who list an affiliation with a hospital. It isn’t a perfect solution, because of a high false-positive rate. Other developers of fake-paper detectors, who often reveal little about how their tools work, contend with similar issues.
Still, the detectors raise hopes for gaining the advantage over paper mills, which churn out bogus manuscripts containing text, data, and images partly or wholly plagiarized or fabricated, often massaged by ghost writers. Some papers are endorsed by unrigorous reviewers solicited by the authors. Such manuscripts threaten to corrupt the scientific literature, misleading readers and potentially distorting systematic reviews. The recent advent of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT has amplified the concern.
To fight back, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM), representing 120 publishers, is leading an effort called the Integrity Hub to develop new tools. STM is not revealing much about the detection methods, to avoid tipping off paper mills. “There is a bit of an arms race,” says Joris van Rossum, the Integrity Hub’s product director. He did say one reliable sign of a fake is referencing many retracted papers; another involves manuscripts and reviews emailed from internet addresses crafted to look like those of legitimate institutions.
Twenty publishers—including the largest, such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley—are helping develop the Integrity Hub tools, and 10 of the publishers are expected to use a paper mill detector the group unveiled in April. STM also expects to pilot a separate tool this year that detects manuscripts simultaneously sent to more than one journal, a practice considered unethical and a sign they may have come from paper mills. Such large-scale cooperation is meant to improve on what publishers were doing individually and to share tools across the publishing industry, van Rossum says.
“It will never be a [fully] automated process,” he says. Rather, the tools are like “a spam filter … you still want to go through your spam filter every week” to check for erroneously flagged legitimate content.
STM hasn’t yet generated figures on accuracy or false-positive rates because the project is too new. But catching as many fakes as possible typically produces more false positives. Sabel’s tool correctly flagged nearly 90% of fraudulent or retracted papers in a test sample. However, it marked up to 44% of genuine papers as fake, so results still need to be confirmed by skilled reviewers. Other paper mill detectors typically have a similar trade-off, says Adam Day, founding director of a startup called Clear Skies who consulted with STM on the Integrity Hub. But without some reliance on automated methods, “You either have to spot check randomly, or you use your own human prejudice to choose what to check. And that’s not generally very fair.”
Scrutinizing suspect papers can be time-consuming: In 2021, Springer Nature’s postpublication review of about 3000 papers suspected of coming from paper mills required up to 10 part- and full-time staffers, said Chris Graf, the company’s director of research integrity, at a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee hearing about paper mills in July 2022. (Springer Nature publishes about 400,000 papers annually.)
Newly updated guidelines for journals issued in April may help ease the workload. They may decide to reject or retract batches of papers suspected of having been produced by a paper mill, even if the evidence is circumstantial, says the nonprofit Committee on Publication Ethics, which is funded by publishers. Its previous guidelines encouraged journals to ask authors of each suspicious paper for more information, which can trigger a lengthy back and forth.
Some outsiders wonder whether journals will make good on promises to crack down. Publishers embracing gold open access—under which journals collect a fee from authors to make their papers immediately free to read when published—have a financial incentive to publish more, not fewer, papers. They have “a huge conflict of interest” regarding paper mills, says Jennifer Byrne of the University of Sydney, who has studied how paper mills have doctored cancer genetics data.
The “publish or perish” pressure that institutions put on scientists is also an obstacle. “We want to think about engaging with institutions on how to take away perhaps some of the [professional] incentives which can have these detrimental effects,” van Rossum says. Such pressures can push clinicians without research experience to turn to paper mills, Sabel adds, which is why hospital affiliations can be a red flag.
Publishers should also welcome help from outsiders to improve the technology supporting paper mill detectors, although this will require transparency about how they work, Byrne says. “When tools are developed behind closed doors, no one can criticize or investigate how they perform,” she says. A more public, broad collaboration would likely strengthen them faster than paper mills could keep up, she adds.
Day sees some hope: Flagging journals suspected of being targeted by paper mills can quickly deter additional fraudulent submissions. He points to his analysis of journals that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) put on a public list because of suspicions they contained paper mill papers. His company’s Papermill Alarm detector showed that before the CAS list came out, suspicious papers made up the majority of some journals’ content; afterward, the proportion dropped to nearly zero within months (see chart). (Papermill Alarm flags potentially fraudulent papers based on telltale patterns revealed when a paper mill repeatedly submits papers; the company does not publicly disclose what these signs are.) Journals could drive a similar crash by using automated detectors to flag suspicious manuscripts, nudging paper mills to take them elsewhere, Day says.
Some observers worry paper mill papers will merely migrate to lower impact journals with fewer resources to detect them. But if many journals act collectively, the viability of the entire paper mill industry could shrink.
It’s not necessary to catch every fake paper, Day says. “It’s about having practices which are resistant to their business model.”
Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
But new tools show promise in tackling growing symptom of academia’s “publish or perish” culture
When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010—and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers’ group report.
“It is just too hard to believe” at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. It’s as if “somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic.”
His findings underscore what was widely suspected: Journals are awash in a rising tide of scientific manuscripts from paper mills—secretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship. “Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff,” says Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist who studies fraudulent publishing practices. A 2 May announcement from the publisher Hindawi underlined the threat: It shut down four of its journals it found were “heavily compromised” by articles from paper mills.
Sabel’s tool relies on just two indicators—authors who use private, noninstitutional email addresses, and those who list an affiliation with a hospital. It isn’t a perfect solution, because of a high false-positive rate. Other developers of fake-paper detectors, who often reveal little about how their tools work, contend with similar issues.
Still, the detectors raise hopes for gaining the advantage over paper mills, which churn out bogus manuscripts containing text, data, and images partly or wholly plagiarized or fabricated, often massaged by ghost writers. Some papers are endorsed by unrigorous reviewers solicited by the authors. Such manuscripts threaten to corrupt the scientific literature, misleading readers and potentially distorting systematic reviews. The recent advent of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT has amplified the concern.
To fight back, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM), representing 120 publishers, is leading an effort called the Integrity Hub to develop new tools. STM is not revealing much about the detection methods, to avoid tipping off paper mills. “There is a bit of an arms race,” says Joris van Rossum, the Integrity Hub’s product director. He did say one reliable sign of a fake is referencing many retracted papers; another involves manuscripts and reviews emailed from internet addresses crafted to look like those of legitimate institutions.
Twenty publishers—including the largest, such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley—are helping develop the Integrity Hub tools, and 10 of the publishers are expected to use a paper mill detector the group unveiled in April. STM also expects to pilot a separate tool this year that detects manuscripts simultaneously sent to more than one journal, a practice considered unethical and a sign they may have come from paper mills. Such large-scale cooperation is meant to improve on what publishers were doing individually and to share tools across the publishing industry, van Rossum says.
“It will never be a [fully] automated process,” he says. Rather, the tools are like “a spam filter … you still want to go through your spam filter every week” to check for erroneously flagged legitimate content.
STM hasn’t yet generated figures on accuracy or false-positive rates because the project is too new. But catching as many fakes as possible typically produces more false positives. Sabel’s tool correctly flagged nearly 90% of fraudulent or retracted papers in a test sample. However, it marked up to 44% of genuine papers as fake, so results still need to be confirmed by skilled reviewers. Other paper mill detectors typically have a similar trade-off, says Adam Day, founding director of a startup called Clear Skies who consulted with STM on the Integrity Hub. But without some reliance on automated methods, “You either have to spot check randomly, or you use your own human prejudice to choose what to check. And that’s not generally very fair.”
Scrutinizing suspect papers can be time-consuming: In 2021, Springer Nature’s postpublication review of about 3000 papers suspected of coming from paper mills required up to 10 part- and full-time staffers, said Chris Graf, the company’s director of research integrity, at a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee hearing about paper mills in July 2022. (Springer Nature publishes about 400,000 papers annually.)
Newly updated guidelines for journals issued in April may help ease the workload. They may decide to reject or retract batches of papers suspected of having been produced by a paper mill, even if the evidence is circumstantial, says the nonprofit Committee on Publication Ethics, which is funded by publishers. Its previous guidelines encouraged journals to ask authors of each suspicious paper for more information, which can trigger a lengthy back and forth.
Some outsiders wonder whether journals will make good on promises to crack down. Publishers embracing gold open access—under which journals collect a fee from authors to make their papers immediately free to read when published—have a financial incentive to publish more, not fewer, papers. They have “a huge conflict of interest” regarding paper mills, says Jennifer Byrne of the University of Sydney, who has studied how paper mills have doctored cancer genetics data.
The “publish or perish” pressure that institutions put on scientists is also an obstacle. “We want to think about engaging with institutions on how to take away perhaps some of the [professional] incentives which can have these detrimental effects,” van Rossum says. Such pressures can push clinicians without research experience to turn to paper mills, Sabel adds, which is why hospital affiliations can be a red flag.
Publishers should also welcome help from outsiders to improve the technology supporting paper mill detectors, although this will require transparency about how they work, Byrne says. “When tools are developed behind closed doors, no one can criticize or investigate how they perform,” she says. A more public, broad collaboration would likely strengthen them faster than paper mills could keep up, she adds.
Day sees some hope: Flagging journals suspected of being targeted by paper mills can quickly deter additional fraudulent submissions. He points to his analysis of journals that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) put on a public list because of suspicions they contained paper mill papers. His company’s Papermill Alarm detector showed that before the CAS list came out, suspicious papers made up the majority of some journals’ content; afterward, the proportion dropped to nearly zero within months (see chart). (Papermill Alarm flags potentially fraudulent papers based on telltale patterns revealed when a paper mill repeatedly submits papers; the company does not publicly disclose what these signs are.) Journals could drive a similar crash by using automated detectors to flag suspicious manuscripts, nudging paper mills to take them elsewhere, Day says.
Some observers worry paper mill papers will merely migrate to lower impact journals with fewer resources to detect them. But if many journals act collectively, the viability of the entire paper mill industry could shrink.
It’s not necessary to catch every fake paper, Day says. “It’s about having practices which are resistant to their business model.”
Paper mill clampdown
After a 2020 report named journals suspected of containing paper mill papers, an analysis using the Papermill Alarm automated detector found that the number of such papers in one of those journals (which the analysis did not name) declined quickly and sharply. Columns show the number of papers by month.
Now the jabs may be bad for your eyes as well.
'Individuals with COVID-19 vaccination had a higher risk of all forms of retinal vascular occlusion in 2 years after vaccination,' according to the study, which was published in the British journal Nature.
Large study finds people who received COVID jab have higher risk of visual impairment
'Individuals with COVID-19 vaccination had a higher risk of all forms of retinal vascular occlusion in 2 years after vaccination,' according to the study, which was published in the British journal Nature.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,420
- Reaction score
- 22,149
- Points
- 113
That's beautiful. People have labeled him a crackpot. Much of what he says resonates.
Small Percent of Vaccine Batches Responsible for Large Number of Adverse Reactions, Analysts Claim
This is intentional, premeditated, mass murder. There’s absolutely no doubt about it because nothing else makes any sense,’ said attorney Reiner Fuellmich. ‘We’re going to get them.’
A recent analysis of public government data reveals very high percentages of adverse events reported as a result of COVID-19 experimental “vaccine” injections, including over 21,000 deaths, have occurred in a small minority of product batches released by pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Furthermore, according to analysts, the wide dispersement of these highly toxic batches (or “lots”) to numerous U.S. states, along with their apparent sequential labeling according to levels of toxicity, is evidence of intentionality in adulterating the contents of the shots and is thus likely a serious violation of federal regulations that require such products to have consistency.
In mid-November, London-based researcher Craig Paardekooper produced a short video drawing data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States, where he discovered that “1 in 200 of the [COVID-19 vaccine] batches are highly toxic,” while the vast majority of them are not, at least according to short-term outcomes.
“In fact,” he continued, “70% of the batches for the vaccine-only produce one adverse reaction report in total,” and “80% of the vaccine batches only produce one or two adverse reaction reports.”
However, Paardekooper began to find anomalies that “produced thousands of times the number of adverse reactions” standing out from the vast majority of batches, including examples of 1,394, 1,012, and eventually to as many as 4,911 adverse reactions.
Additionally, these batches consistently produced these injuries across the many states where they were distributed, affirming the cause was the vaccine contents in the batches themselves rather than local circumstances, applications or demographics.
For example, for Pfizer, only 4% of their lots accounted for all the death reports associated with those injections and for Moderna the same was true with respect to only 5% of their batches.
In addition, unlike the more benign batches that were sent to fewer regional areas, the highly toxic injections were widely disseminated across multiple states.
As Paardekooper reported with regard to the Pfizer injections, only 2.9% of their lots were distributed to more than 12 states and these were associated with 96.5% of all the product’s deaths, 95.5% of all hospitalizations and 94.7% of all adverse event reports.
In significant contrast, 97.1% of the Pfizer lots were distributed to fewer than 12 states and were associated with only 3.5% of all product death reports, 4.5% of all hospitalizations, and 5.3% of all adverse event reports.
Given that this data is public, Paardekooper made an accompanying tutorial video explaining how anyone can replicate his findings by downloading and properly organizing the relevant data from the VAERS platform. He also set up a website called HowBadIsMyBatch.com, which allows users to search the record of the adverse events of particular batches as is recorded in the VAERS data.
‘Highly unusual pattern’ indicates a ‘significant crime’ and ‘must be investigated’
Independent of these efforts, however, retired pharmaceutical industry executive Alexandra Latypova made her own query into this question and later, after connecting with Paardekooper, assembled a team of researchers with experience in clinical trials, data analysis, statistics, pharmaceutical industry regulations, manufacturing, and research and development to further analyze these figures.
......too much to link here. Charts and videos inside.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,420
- Reaction score
- 22,149
- Points
- 113
I think he's dead on about 24/7 media and government fear porn pumped into your eyes and ears.
Federal, state and local governments took full advantage of it. It was a really big money maker and an opportunity to weaken election laws and regulations. You saw a large scale attack on the First Amendment,liberty,small buisness and people forced to take an experimental drug or lose their livelihood. While pharmaceutical companies made billions.
And I watched Dr.Doom Fauci lie through his ******* teeth.
That guy has ruined the integrity of his profession.
I'll never forget it ever.
Yep, get boosted, more likely get Covid. From the Cleveland Clinic.
A study conducted on the effectiveness of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine has surprised many at the Cleveland Clinic. The organization studied its employees to determine how the new bivalent vaccines stack up against some of the more prevalent COVID strains in circulation. The results weren’t what they expected.
The study’s authors admit their surprise that the risk of COVID-19 increases with the number of vaccine doses you receive. They acknowledge that their testing population was primarily young people eligible to receive at least three doses of the shot by the time the study started. Almost half of the individuals in their study chose not to receive more than three doses of the vaccine, and as per Cleveland Clinic, that makes them risk takers; people who failed to follow CDC guidelines, failed to fall in line, and therefore were more risky with their behavior—leading to the assumption that they would be more likely to contract the virus, not less. Despite all of these “risky” behaviors—things like spending time with friends and family unmasked, going out to social events, and not getting vaccinated and boosted, this cohort was less likely to contract COVID than those in the study who were diligent in following orders.
The group that followed orders was more likely to receive all COVID-19 boosters, were more likely to mask and social distance, and were more likely to follow CDC guidelines to a “t,” thus, the assumption would be that they are less likely to be infected, not more.
And the Cleveland Clinic study isn’t the only one that came to this conclusion. In their analysis, the authors even cited three other independent studies that reached the same outcome; the more shots you get, the more likely you are to contract COVID. Commentary about one of the other cited studies reads: “During an Omicron wave in Iceland, individuals who had previously received two or more doses were found to have higher odds of reinfection than those who had received fewer than two doses of vaccine.” It also references another study that found “…in multivariable analysis, that receipt of two or three doses of an mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose.”
Far be it for the authors to tempt the fates with any definitive claims, they conclude the analysis by saying, “This study found an overall modest protective effect of the bivalent vaccine against COVID-19 while the circulating strains were represented in the vaccine and lower protection when the circulating strains were no longer represented. A significant protective effect was not found when the XBB lineages were dominant. The unexpected finding of increasing risk with increasing number of prior COVID-19 vaccine doses needs further study.”
The Highwire has been reporting on the negative efficacy of the shots for as long as we have had the data to do so.
It’s worth mentioning that the initial bivalent series and boosters for those inoculated for the early virus strains did not undergo testing for efficacy or safety in human trials. The pharmaceutical companies relied on existing data that claimed safety and efficacy to just tinker with the formula to get the approval and needles into as many arms as would have it, including the arms of children. A lawsuit by ICAN demanding the study data pharmaceutical giant Pfizer used to gain its EUA has revealed catastrophic safety issues and problems. Another successful suit to access the CDC’s “V-Safe” data exposed even more concerning issues with side effects and injury. Even knowing all of this, the FDA happily obliged in recommending the shots.
This even caused some uproar on the advisory panels determining approval for the boosters, especially when the data was available earlier than represented and not presented to the panel advising on approval. The data in Moderna’s study showed the booster shots to be ineffective against new variants.
Still, however slow the wheels of justice turn, some high-level representatives at the Cleveland Clinic seem to be carefully treading around the study results. Dr. Michael Roizen, Chief Wellness Officer at the Wellness Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, was interviewed by radio host Mike Opelka this week and had this to say about it:
“…Once you’ve gotten the third booster, the fourth booster seems to act like an allergy shot which activates the immune system suppression of the other immune responses. So it activates what’s called a fourth immune process that impedes the others. We think that by August, that won’t be true. This is me, not the official Cleveland Clinic position, but this is my individual position, would be that you should delay getting the next booster until at least five months after the last one, preferably a little longer, and that the booster that comes in August or September, and we will go through that then, when the data come out, will be a very useful booster in preventing the winter spike that’s expected. I would hold off on another booster until you discuss it with your practitioner, and don’t get it—in my mind—until August or September. And by the way, Michael, just to add one more thing, we will probably recommend a different vaccine type than has been common, meaning it may not be the mRNA vaccine that’s recommended in the Fall, but we will keep people updated.”
For as far as we have come, it still seems that those embedded in establishment medicine, no matter the data, may never learn.
CLEVELAND CLINIC: MORE BOOSTERS? MORE LIKELY TO GET COVID-19
A study conducted on the effectiveness of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine has surprised many at the Cleveland Clinic. The organization studied its employees to determine how the new bivalent vaccines stack up against some of the more prevalent COVID strains in circulation. The results weren’t what they expected.
The study’s authors admit their surprise that the risk of COVID-19 increases with the number of vaccine doses you receive. They acknowledge that their testing population was primarily young people eligible to receive at least three doses of the shot by the time the study started. Almost half of the individuals in their study chose not to receive more than three doses of the vaccine, and as per Cleveland Clinic, that makes them risk takers; people who failed to follow CDC guidelines, failed to fall in line, and therefore were more risky with their behavior—leading to the assumption that they would be more likely to contract the virus, not less. Despite all of these “risky” behaviors—things like spending time with friends and family unmasked, going out to social events, and not getting vaccinated and boosted, this cohort was less likely to contract COVID than those in the study who were diligent in following orders.
The group that followed orders was more likely to receive all COVID-19 boosters, were more likely to mask and social distance, and were more likely to follow CDC guidelines to a “t,” thus, the assumption would be that they are less likely to be infected, not more.
And the Cleveland Clinic study isn’t the only one that came to this conclusion. In their analysis, the authors even cited three other independent studies that reached the same outcome; the more shots you get, the more likely you are to contract COVID. Commentary about one of the other cited studies reads: “During an Omicron wave in Iceland, individuals who had previously received two or more doses were found to have higher odds of reinfection than those who had received fewer than two doses of vaccine.” It also references another study that found “…in multivariable analysis, that receipt of two or three doses of an mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose.”
Far be it for the authors to tempt the fates with any definitive claims, they conclude the analysis by saying, “This study found an overall modest protective effect of the bivalent vaccine against COVID-19 while the circulating strains were represented in the vaccine and lower protection when the circulating strains were no longer represented. A significant protective effect was not found when the XBB lineages were dominant. The unexpected finding of increasing risk with increasing number of prior COVID-19 vaccine doses needs further study.”
The Highwire has been reporting on the negative efficacy of the shots for as long as we have had the data to do so.
It’s worth mentioning that the initial bivalent series and boosters for those inoculated for the early virus strains did not undergo testing for efficacy or safety in human trials. The pharmaceutical companies relied on existing data that claimed safety and efficacy to just tinker with the formula to get the approval and needles into as many arms as would have it, including the arms of children. A lawsuit by ICAN demanding the study data pharmaceutical giant Pfizer used to gain its EUA has revealed catastrophic safety issues and problems. Another successful suit to access the CDC’s “V-Safe” data exposed even more concerning issues with side effects and injury. Even knowing all of this, the FDA happily obliged in recommending the shots.
This even caused some uproar on the advisory panels determining approval for the boosters, especially when the data was available earlier than represented and not presented to the panel advising on approval. The data in Moderna’s study showed the booster shots to be ineffective against new variants.
Still, however slow the wheels of justice turn, some high-level representatives at the Cleveland Clinic seem to be carefully treading around the study results. Dr. Michael Roizen, Chief Wellness Officer at the Wellness Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, was interviewed by radio host Mike Opelka this week and had this to say about it:
“…Once you’ve gotten the third booster, the fourth booster seems to act like an allergy shot which activates the immune system suppression of the other immune responses. So it activates what’s called a fourth immune process that impedes the others. We think that by August, that won’t be true. This is me, not the official Cleveland Clinic position, but this is my individual position, would be that you should delay getting the next booster until at least five months after the last one, preferably a little longer, and that the booster that comes in August or September, and we will go through that then, when the data come out, will be a very useful booster in preventing the winter spike that’s expected. I would hold off on another booster until you discuss it with your practitioner, and don’t get it—in my mind—until August or September. And by the way, Michael, just to add one more thing, we will probably recommend a different vaccine type than has been common, meaning it may not be the mRNA vaccine that’s recommended in the Fall, but we will keep people updated.”
For as far as we have come, it still seems that those embedded in establishment medicine, no matter the data, may never learn.
Similar threads
