Is there a dose response whereby the Higher the Number of Vaccines Previously Received (mRNA technology based COVID gene injections), the Higher Risk of Contracting COVID? Shrestha et al. proved YES!
Is there a dose response whereby the Higher the Number of Vaccines Previously Received (mRNA technology based COVID gene injections), the Higher Risk of Contracting COVID? Shrestha et al. proved YES!
SOURCE: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander's Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. ‘
Shawn Buckley is a Canadian constitutional lawyer and health freedom activist who drafted The Charter of Health Freedom. See http://www.charterofhealthfreedom.org
SHAWN BUCKLEY: Now one of the things that we've been told, you know, when we were being told to take this vaccine, is that, you know, we should really take one for the team so that, you know, you already used the example for pregnant mother, you know, take one so Grandma doesn't get sick, so the the whole idea is, is as communicated, that we're supposed to take these, these vaccines so that basically we're protecting others, so that you know, we're not catching covid and we're not transmitting covid. And I'm wondering if you can share with us whether that is truthful messaging or false messaging? What your thoughts on that are.
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: Well very good, and just as I begin, could I ask David if he can bring up slide 2 and perhaps put it in the background on the screen? What we call Slide 2.
DAVID: [Inaudible.]
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: That's the bar graph with the angled look, yeah. That would be the one. If that could be brought up onto the screen it will allow me to speak to your question.
[26:55 Slide 2 appears. The title is "The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19 (Figure 2).]
Very good. Ah, so. The topic is, are we protecting others? Are we reducing infection in ourselves? Is the vaccine working? This is from the Cleveland Clinic which is a group of 5 or 6 hospitals in Cleveland. It has 40,000 staff, 40,000 staff in this huge hospital system. And in September of 2022 for 90 straight days they followed the symptomatology of all 40,000 staff at the Cleveland Clinic.*
The black line at the bottom that starts at zero cases and wanders its way up to a fairly low number, I won't try to quote it right now, but that's the unvaccinated staff.
Unvaccinated staff at the Cleveland Clinic had very, very, very little, low numbers of covid events in themselves. Each line above it is more and more vaccinations. The red line was one shot. The green line was having had 2 shots. The purple line above that was having had 3 shots. And the pale orange line at the top, was having had 4 or 5 shots. So they had a spectrum of numbers of shots that people had taken who worked in the clinic. And in a absolutely arithmetic progressive way, you went from whatever was the rate for the unvaccinated, very modest down there at the bottom right, it was doubled and tripled at 3.5. Once you'd had 4 shots you were 3.5 times as a staff member more likely to be carrying covid, having covid, passing it on to patients, having positive PCR tests, getting sick, going to the ICU. Every factor went up by a factor of 3.5 when you were highly vaccinated.
If you were left alone, and they did have 8,000 staff who worked unvaccinated in the hospital, and don't you dare blame them that they were somehow the source of all this, forget it, they weren't. They were healthy. They'd had the least amount of time off for illness themselves. They were like most unvaccinated people, they had an innate immunity, they weren't having covid nearly as long as their colleagues, and this 3.5 to 1 ratio, made it more likely to transmit it to Granny, more likely to transmit it to the patient, more likely to transmit it within your own family, the more vaccinated you got.
This is settled science now, ladies and gentlemen. It's settled science, that the more you get vaccinated with this nonvaccine, and it is a nonvaccine, the sicker you are and will be on many diseases, but especially sicker when it comes to covid itself.
SHAWN BUCKLEY: It's just interesting that you know, you had to add, you know, and don't say that the unvaccinated, you know, were causing this. Because one thing that I've never been able to get my mind around with all the hysteria to force people to take the vaccination, is that, well, logically, if the vaccine worked, if it protected you from getting covid, then why would you care if anyone else is vaccinated? If you could be the only one in the herd and you shouldn't care if it works, right? So it's just interesting that you added that.
But basically, so when we're being told that a vaccine is effective, effective means, at least in the public mind, it would mean, well, I'm less likely to catch covid, and transmit covid if I get vaccinated. But the truth is, is it's really negative efficacy, so you're more, with each shot you're more likely to catch covid and hence more likely to spread covid, than if you hadn't had any shots.
30:32
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: That is exactly what we have learned and found. And what we learned and found was enough to turn everything off in September of 2021. In September of 2021 these data, not from the Cleveland Clinic, but from other sources, these data were beginning to show up and they absolutely knew before they started giving it to children. And they absolutely knew before they moved into mandates in 2021, September. It was absolutely known that this was the trend, the vaccine was not working as a vaccine. It was doing zero to prevent you from getting covid.
A true vaccine means forget about symptom lowering, a true vaccine means you don't get the disease. When you get a rabies vaccine, is the dog or cat expected to get rabies? No, not at all. It's supposed to be totally, 100% effective. And this is negatively effective. It makes you more likely to get the disease. It's, it's tragic. We'll move on to other things. But that's as best I can describe it.
31.33
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
* See "Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Diseases 2019 Bivalent Vaccine" by Shrestha, et al, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 10, Issue 6, June 2023
Besides the obvious conclusions one can draw from this study, I think there are two other important ones for people who are still gagging on a course of red-pills:
(1) Even if the mRNA vaccine were effective against Covid for weeks 3 through 10 (or whatever number between 4 and 26 weeks), any benefits are ephemeral or transitory.
(2) Trying to boost your way out of (1) will do more harm than good.
Therefore one is much better off focusing on therapies/prophylaxis as reviewed in https://c19early.org or focusing on improving metabolic health, thereby avoiding the comorbidities associated with bad Covid outcomes.
People who took the shots were counted as un vaccinated until two weeks after the second shot or more. This will skew the data. The actual results are much worse.
If Covid makes people sick via the spike protein, and the vax causes cells to produce the spike protein.... Well, duh!
5% of lots are poison. The more doses you get, the more likely you'll get sick or die. It's that simple.
There are far too many variable that are unaccounted for in all these studies for any to be valid. The initial health of the individual, for example. Where the vax travels after injection into an obese or athletic shoulder is another. One not addressed but should be is the known problem of metal debris left over from manufacturing inside needles that gets injected along with the vaccine, and the variability of reactivity to such metal(s) in each individual, and if the metal travels into the bloodstream or stays in the deltoid muscle .
Also, such studies never address the other toxic ingredients, the pegylated lipid Nanoparticles, reduced graphene hydroxide, and other undisclosed ingredients in the experimental vaccines that were injected into billions.
Injecting anything foreign into the bloodstream alters the state of the immune system, thus altering the severity and timing of symptoms of any infection, disease, or illness and recovery from them, and confounding any possibility of a correct diagnosis or analysis.
And never forget, the one defining symptom of Covid is a meaningless positive PCR test.
Garbage in, garbage out research like this is useless, other than to baffle people with bullshit. Vaccine scientology is a house of cards built of such studies.
The more big pharma drugs, vaccines and mRNA gene altering injections you subscribe to, the greater your chances for an early exit off the planet...and that is the basic purpose of all these toxic poisons.
" ... the bivalent-vaccinated state was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 during the BA.4/5-dominant ... phase ..." yeah, sure. Three cheers for the bivalent-vaccinated state. If the confounding variables that produced this illusion were identified and partialled out, the vaccine effectiveness would probably reduce to zero or worse, just like in the relationship between jabs and death when healthy vaccine user bias is partialled out.
Good science is theory-driven. Hypotheses are derived in advance of research and a methodology is chosen or designed to allow testing of those hypotheses. This either did not happen in the Shrestha et al research or the researchers pretended that it didn't in order to get their research published. Good science is anathema to the editors of scientific journals that publish research reports on the COVID-19 vaccines. Future research needs to be deisned to test hypotheses that are explicitly derived from theory, such as theory concerned with immune imprinting and/or class switch to IgG4. As the researchers noted post hoc:
"Immune imprinting from prior exposure to different antigens in a prior vaccine [22, 23] and class switch toward noninflammatory spike-specific immunoglobulin G4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination [24] have been suggested as possible mechanisms whereby prior vaccine may provide less protection than expected."
Relatedly:
Unveiling the Risks: Dr. Chris Shoemaker Exposes the Dangers of the COVID Vaccine | Ottawa Day Three | NCI National Citizens Inquiry CA [Canada]
Sworn testimony, May 19, 2023. Posted on rumble May 20, 2023.
https://rumble.com/v2oxmfc-dr-chris-shoemaker-discusses-the-vaccines-and-their-safety-and-efficacy-ott.html
TRANSCRIPT -
PART III: MORE ABOUT VACCINE'S NEGATIVE EFFICACY, REVIEW OF THE CLEVELAND CLINIC DATA
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
Dr. Chris Shoemaker's website is https://drshoemakercovidtruth.com
More about Dr. Shoemaker at: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/dr-chris-shoemaker/
Shawn Buckley is a Canadian constitutional lawyer and health freedom activist who drafted The Charter of Health Freedom. See http://www.charterofhealthfreedom.org
The NCI website is https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/
25:51
SHAWN BUCKLEY: Now one of the things that we've been told, you know, when we were being told to take this vaccine, is that, you know, we should really take one for the team so that, you know, you already used the example for pregnant mother, you know, take one so Grandma doesn't get sick, so the the whole idea is, is as communicated, that we're supposed to take these, these vaccines so that basically we're protecting others, so that you know, we're not catching covid and we're not transmitting covid. And I'm wondering if you can share with us whether that is truthful messaging or false messaging? What your thoughts on that are.
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: Well very good, and just as I begin, could I ask David if he can bring up slide 2 and perhaps put it in the background on the screen? What we call Slide 2.
DAVID: [Inaudible.]
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: That's the bar graph with the angled look, yeah. That would be the one. If that could be brought up onto the screen it will allow me to speak to your question.
[26:55 Slide 2 appears. The title is "The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19 (Figure 2).]
Very good. Ah, so. The topic is, are we protecting others? Are we reducing infection in ourselves? Is the vaccine working? This is from the Cleveland Clinic which is a group of 5 or 6 hospitals in Cleveland. It has 40,000 staff, 40,000 staff in this huge hospital system. And in September of 2022 for 90 straight days they followed the symptomatology of all 40,000 staff at the Cleveland Clinic.*
The black line at the bottom that starts at zero cases and wanders its way up to a fairly low number, I won't try to quote it right now, but that's the unvaccinated staff.
Unvaccinated staff at the Cleveland Clinic had very, very, very little, low numbers of covid events in themselves. Each line above it is more and more vaccinations. The red line was one shot. The green line was having had 2 shots. The purple line above that was having had 3 shots. And the pale orange line at the top, was having had 4 or 5 shots. So they had a spectrum of numbers of shots that people had taken who worked in the clinic. And in a absolutely arithmetic progressive way, you went from whatever was the rate for the unvaccinated, very modest down there at the bottom right, it was doubled and tripled at 3.5. Once you'd had 4 shots you were 3.5 times as a staff member more likely to be carrying covid, having covid, passing it on to patients, having positive PCR tests, getting sick, going to the ICU. Every factor went up by a factor of 3.5 when you were highly vaccinated.
If you were left alone, and they did have 8,000 staff who worked unvaccinated in the hospital, and don't you dare blame them that they were somehow the source of all this, forget it, they weren't. They were healthy. They'd had the least amount of time off for illness themselves. They were like most unvaccinated people, they had an innate immunity, they weren't having covid nearly as long as their colleagues, and this 3.5 to 1 ratio, made it more likely to transmit it to Granny, more likely to transmit it to the patient, more likely to transmit it within your own family, the more vaccinated you got.
This is settled science now, ladies and gentlemen. It's settled science, that the more you get vaccinated with this nonvaccine, and it is a nonvaccine, the sicker you are and will be on many diseases, but especially sicker when it comes to covid itself.
SHAWN BUCKLEY: It's just interesting that you know, you had to add, you know, and don't say that the unvaccinated, you know, were causing this. Because one thing that I've never been able to get my mind around with all the hysteria to force people to take the vaccination, is that, well, logically, if the vaccine worked, if it protected you from getting covid, then why would you care if anyone else is vaccinated? If you could be the only one in the herd and you shouldn't care if it works, right? So it's just interesting that you added that.
But basically, so when we're being told that a vaccine is effective, effective means, at least in the public mind, it would mean, well, I'm less likely to catch covid, and transmit covid if I get vaccinated. But the truth is, is it's really negative efficacy, so you're more, with each shot you're more likely to catch covid and hence more likely to spread covid, than if you hadn't had any shots.
30:32
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: That is exactly what we have learned and found. And what we learned and found was enough to turn everything off in September of 2021. In September of 2021 these data, not from the Cleveland Clinic, but from other sources, these data were beginning to show up and they absolutely knew before they started giving it to children. And they absolutely knew before they moved into mandates in 2021, September. It was absolutely known that this was the trend, the vaccine was not working as a vaccine. It was doing zero to prevent you from getting covid.
A true vaccine means forget about symptom lowering, a true vaccine means you don't get the disease. When you get a rabies vaccine, is the dog or cat expected to get rabies? No, not at all. It's supposed to be totally, 100% effective. And this is negatively effective. It makes you more likely to get the disease. It's, it's tragic. We'll move on to other things. But that's as best I can describe it.
31.33
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
* See "Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Diseases 2019 Bivalent Vaccine" by Shrestha, et al, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 10, Issue 6, June 2023
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292?login=false
Preprint:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf
This includes Figure 2 which Dr. Shoemaker discusses in his testimony.
See also Dr. Jessica Rose's commentary, June 17, 2023:
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/in-case-you-thought-getting-more
I would worry more about just taking one shot and dying.
Besides the obvious conclusions one can draw from this study, I think there are two other important ones for people who are still gagging on a course of red-pills:
(1) Even if the mRNA vaccine were effective against Covid for weeks 3 through 10 (or whatever number between 4 and 26 weeks), any benefits are ephemeral or transitory.
(2) Trying to boost your way out of (1) will do more harm than good.
Therefore one is much better off focusing on therapies/prophylaxis as reviewed in https://c19early.org or focusing on improving metabolic health, thereby avoiding the comorbidities associated with bad Covid outcomes.
People who took the shots were counted as un vaccinated until two weeks after the second shot or more. This will skew the data. The actual results are much worse.
If Covid makes people sick via the spike protein, and the vax causes cells to produce the spike protein.... Well, duh!
5% of lots are poison. The more doses you get, the more likely you'll get sick or die. It's that simple.
There are far too many variable that are unaccounted for in all these studies for any to be valid. The initial health of the individual, for example. Where the vax travels after injection into an obese or athletic shoulder is another. One not addressed but should be is the known problem of metal debris left over from manufacturing inside needles that gets injected along with the vaccine, and the variability of reactivity to such metal(s) in each individual, and if the metal travels into the bloodstream or stays in the deltoid muscle .
Also, such studies never address the other toxic ingredients, the pegylated lipid Nanoparticles, reduced graphene hydroxide, and other undisclosed ingredients in the experimental vaccines that were injected into billions.
Injecting anything foreign into the bloodstream alters the state of the immune system, thus altering the severity and timing of symptoms of any infection, disease, or illness and recovery from them, and confounding any possibility of a correct diagnosis or analysis.
And never forget, the one defining symptom of Covid is a meaningless positive PCR test.
Garbage in, garbage out research like this is useless, other than to baffle people with bullshit. Vaccine scientology is a house of cards built of such studies.
The more big pharma drugs, vaccines and mRNA gene altering injections you subscribe to, the greater your chances for an early exit off the planet...and that is the basic purpose of all these toxic poisons.
Nobody's "contracting" COVID. It's in the needle!
" ... the bivalent-vaccinated state was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 during the BA.4/5-dominant ... phase ..." yeah, sure. Three cheers for the bivalent-vaccinated state. If the confounding variables that produced this illusion were identified and partialled out, the vaccine effectiveness would probably reduce to zero or worse, just like in the relationship between jabs and death when healthy vaccine user bias is partialled out.
REMEMBER A LTTLE JAB WILL KILL YA AS I SAID TO MYSELF WORKING IN THE LAB LATE LAST NIGHT
Good science is theory-driven. Hypotheses are derived in advance of research and a methodology is chosen or designed to allow testing of those hypotheses. This either did not happen in the Shrestha et al research or the researchers pretended that it didn't in order to get their research published. Good science is anathema to the editors of scientific journals that publish research reports on the COVID-19 vaccines. Future research needs to be deisned to test hypotheses that are explicitly derived from theory, such as theory concerned with immune imprinting and/or class switch to IgG4. As the researchers noted post hoc:
"Immune imprinting from prior exposure to different antigens in a prior vaccine [22, 23] and class switch toward noninflammatory spike-specific immunoglobulin G4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination [24] have been suggested as possible mechanisms whereby prior vaccine may provide less protection than expected."