Reading Progress:

Moderna Study Shows Negative Vaccine Effectiveness within 5 Months after a Booster Shot

by Nov 7, 2022Articles, Health Freedom0 comments

Vial of Moderna's mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Photo: Governor Tom Wolf, licensed under CC BY 2.0)
A Moderna-funded study finds that three doses of its mRNA COVID‑19 vaccine result in negative effectiveness against infection with Omicron subvariants within five months.

Reading Time: ( Word Count: )

()

In my free e-book The FDA, COVID-19 Vaccines, and Scientific Fraud, published in August, I cited numerous studies showing that after rapid waning from peak levels, mRNA COVID‑19 vaccine effectiveness becomes significantly negative. On November 2, I published an article about yet another study finding negative vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant after just fourteen weeks. Since that study was published, a study funded by Moderna has found that three doses of its COVID‑19 vaccine results in negative effectiveness within five months.

Done in collaboration with the Kaiser Permanente health care network, the study was published at medRxiv, a server for preprints, or studies that have not yet been peer-reviewed. Published on October 1, it is titled “Effectiveness of mRNA‑1723 against infection and COVID‑19 hospitalization with SARS‑CoV‑2 Omicron subvariants: BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5”.

Of those subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5 are the most relevant since they, and particularly the latter, have been the predominant Omicron subvariants circulating in the US. Here are the variant proportions from the end of July to the present according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

variant proportions

As the study authors note, against these subvariants, vaccine effectiveness against infection “waned rapidly” after receipt of the primary two-dose series plus a booster shot.

After two booster shots, vaccine effectiveness peaked at a statistically non-significant 75.7 percent against BA.4 and only 36.7 percent against BA.5, “disappearing beyond 90 days for all subvariants.”

The authors note that prior studies had found that the two-dose regimen of mRNA COVID‑19 vaccines resulted in effectiveness against hospitalization with the original Omicron variant (BA.1) that was “modest and waned quickly”; and while effectiveness after a booster shot “was initially higher, it also waned.”

For their own study, the authors looked only at cases where SARS‑CoV‑2, the coronavirus that causes COVID‑19, was successfully genome sequenced, ruling out false positive results of PCR testing and enabling them to identify specific variants. Consequently, this study focuses on cases “that tended to have a higher viral load and were more likely symptomatic.” They also took care to confirm hospitalization for severe COVID‑19, “rather than hospitalization that was coincident with COVID‑19.”

Since the data show loss of significant protection against infection within several months with “still unknown” durability against hospitalization, the authors conclude that the “monovalent Wuhan strain formulated mRNA vaccine would be inadequate in controlling a potential BA.5 surge during the winter season.” Their interpretation of the data is that “Omicron-specific boosters are likely needed to maintain protection against Omicron subvariants and minimize waning effectiveness.”

Nowhere, however, do the authors acknowledge that the immunological phenomenon of original antigenic sin has been confirmed to be a problem with COVID‑19 vaccines, as I also documented in my free e-book. Whereas natural immunity is generally broad and adaptive, immunological priming by the primary two-dose series of vaccination results in the immune system becoming fixated on generating antibodies to the original Wuhan strain of the coronavirus.

Attempts to develop variant-specific COVID‑19 vaccines had been hampered by this problem, as acknowledged by Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The FDA overcame that obstacle by establishing a regulatory framework in which data from clinical trials would not be required for “emergency use authorization” of new COVID‑19 vaccines (as I also discuss in the e-book documenting how the FDA authorized the shots for infants and toddlers based on scientific fraud).

Original antigenic sin helps to explain the findings of a preprint study published at bioRxiv on October 24, which showed that the bivalent booster shot authorized by the FDA at the end of August, which includes an mRNA component designed to cause the cells to produce the spike protein shared by the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, resulted in levels of neutralizing antibodies that were not higher than those observed in people who had a booster shot of the original formulation.

This can happen because rather than inducing Omicron-specific antibodies, the booster shot still elicits antibodies that are still specific to the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain and merely happen to cross-react to some extent with the spike protein of the Omicron subvariants.

Without acknowledging the existence of numerous other studies showing negative vaccine effectiveness, much less studies demonstrating original antigenic sin, the authors of this Moderna-funded study suggested that the observed negative effectiveness of their vaccine “could be due to differential risk behaviors among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals when protection from antibodies becomes minimal.” In other words, they suggest that vaccinated people just engage in riskier behaviors than unvaccinated people, making themselves more likely to be exposed to SARS‑CoV‑2.

That explanation had a certain level of plausibility under lockdown conditions where unvaccinated people were being discriminated against and rejected from society. It has less plausibility now.

It is also plausible that vaccinated people think they have more protection than they actually do, but surely by now most people understand that the vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission. The “public health” establishment stopped trying to deceive people into believing otherwise well over a year ago.

Most people by now must also surely know that the remaining population of unvaccinated people at this point lies almost entirely within the population of people who have acquired natural immunity. And why would the behavior of people who were not afraid enough of the virus to accept vaccination and who now have superior protection reflect greater fear of being exposed to the virus than people who received vaccines that have long been openly acknowledged as ineffective against circulating variants?

The more plausible explanation is that their finding of negative vaccine effectiveness reflects the superiority of natural immunity, which must be seen as an opportunity cost of vaccination, especially in light of studies confirming the occurrence of original antigenic sin with vaccination.

The data presented in the study show that, against infection with Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5, three doses of Moderna’s mRNA COVID‑19 vaccine resulted in statistically significant negative effectiveness (VE) within five months. (Confidence intervals that are both below zero indicate statistical significance, or a high level of confidence that the result is not due to random chance.)

At greater than 150 days, VE against BA.4 was “-16.4% (-35.8%, 8.2%)”, and against BA.5 was “-17.9% (-29.6%, -4.2%)”.

Notably, against BA.4, there was no significant protection to begin with. At 14 to 30 days post-vaccination, VE was estimated at “72.6% (-54.7%, 96.6%)”. Since the confidence intervals include zero, statistical significance of this result was not achieved.

Against BA.5, significant effectiveness was seen through 90 days, but statistical significance was lost between 91 and 150 days: “20.7% (-1.6%, 38.2%)”.

Adding a second booster shot to the regimen does not appear to have improved the durability of protection. On the contrary, significant effectiveness was lost even sooner after a fourth shot than after the third.

Against BA.4 and BA.5, statistical significance of vaccine effectiveness was lost past 90 days: “6.3% (-66.3%, 70.4%)” and “5.0% (-56.9%, 61.1%)”, respectively.

“The 4-dose VE against these subvariants was short-lived,” the authors comment, “disappearing beyond 90 days after the fourth dose.”

While estimating that its vaccine remains significantly effective, initially, against hospitalization for COVID‑19 caused by either of these two subvariants, “The durability against hospitalization for BA.4/BA.5 is still unknown.” Monitoring for waning effectiveness against this outcome, the authors noted, “will be critically important as more data becomes available.”

The estimated initial vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization with BA.4 or BA.5 was “72.4% (23.9%, 90.0%)”.

There is no reason to believe that this protection will wane more slowly than the “quickly” waning protection of two doses against hospitalization with BA.1 observed in prior studies, with three doses resulting in an initially higher estimate of vaccine effectiveness but similarly waning.

While the study authors suggest that the updated formulation of their vaccine, designed to induce immune responses more specific to the Omicron subvariants, will help solve this problem, that conclusion does not follow from their findings and is highly dubious in light of what is already known about the detrimental effect these shots have on people’s immune systems relative to natural immunity.

The solution to the problem of vaccine failure is not obviously even more vaccination, but you can expect no other recommended course of action from the high priests of the vaccine religion.

Rate This Content:

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

What do you think?

I encourage you to share your thoughts! Please respect the rules.

>
Share via
Copy link