JN.1 is the DOMINANT sub-variant of the fraud COVID virus (play along please) driven by selective Darwinian pressure (continuing to vaccinate using a non-sterilizing non-neutralizing viral immune
escape mRNA vaccine (Malone Bourla Bancel Sahin Weissman etc.) that mismatches the circulating virus; Shrestha et al. (Cleveland) show us mRNA vaccine FAILS on JN.1 & more doses = more COVID risk
Put simply, the updated mRNA COVID Vaccine against the JN.1 Variant FAILS, and the more doses you have taken and are taking, the higher risk of COVID you have. In short, more doses, more likely you WILL be infected-re-infected with COVID. There is negative effectiveness and any protective effect wanes near immediately.
This adds to the body of evidence we always knew that this mRNA technology vaccine was a failure and a disaster, harmful. Failed from day one and never ever worked. More doses, more chance you will get COVID.
‘Results
Among 47561 employees…yielding an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 23% (95% C.I., 6%-38%). Compared to 0 or 1 prior vaccine doses, risk of COVID-19 was incrementally higher with 2 prior doses (HR, .1.46; 95% C.I., 1.12-1.90; P < .005), 3 prior doses (HR, 1.95; 95% C.I., 1.51-2.52; P < .001), and more than 3 prior doses (HR, 2.51; 95% C.I., 1.91-3.31; P < .001).
Conclusions
The 2023-2024 formula COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded a low level of protection against the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2, but a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19.
Summary Among 47561 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the 2023-2024 formula COVID-19 vaccine was 23% effective against the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2, but a higher number of prior COVID-19 vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19.’
How can it be a failure when it is accomplishing its primary DOD mission?
FYI, as I posted on Twitter to Dr. McCullough et al., on April 25, ACIP (authority that provides recommendations on vaccines), formally released new guidelines on Covid 19.
Instead of recommending the 23-24 formulation against the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant for ages 6 months and older, they changed it to age 65 and older !!!
This is a major change. The vote taken of Feb. 28 was 11-1 with one abstaining.
I am unaware of any acknowledgement yet of this major change.
Since we are a Civil Surgeon, required to enforce the mandate of vaccines for everyone applying for permanent residence (via Medical Exam Form 1-693), the Civil Surgeon governing board (via the CDC) has not replied to my documented Email request for an update in requirements from 6 months to age 65.
Here is the link to the April 25 ACIP document:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7316a4.htm?s_cid=mm7316a4_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM125915&ACSTrackingLabel=This%20Week%20in%20MMWR%3A%20Vol.%2073%2C%20April%2025%2C%202024&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM125915
Furthermore, the excuse that the CDC-Civil Surgeons used to justify mandating 100% of applicants receive the 23-24 formulation in the first place, was that all the prior Covid shots from 2021 through August 2023 were no longer effective against the current Omicron variant. That was true, but what they didn't acknowledge is that the 23-24 formulation is also ineffective against the current variants.
That was mostly true in Sept 23, when the 23-24 formulation was released, and it is much more true now, 8 months later.
What is more, the CDC plan was to make the Covid vaccines like the flu shot, with a new formulation each year. However, the flu season is over, and they still can't even concede that much. They want a continuous mandate for the ineffective, Toxins.
If course as we all know, the latest SARS Cov-2 Omicron variant is much less serious to people under age 60, that the common flu. And the mRNA jab is more dangerous to one's health than it is trying to prevent.
I will let everyone know if CDC-Civil Surgeons changes its policy.