New study shows vaccines must be given monthly to be effective against Omicron
The vaccines are making it more likely you'll be infected with Omicron 90 days after you are fully vaccinated. To keep vaccine effectiveness high against omicron, vaccination every 30 days is needed.
| Steve Kirsch
|
If you are worried about Omicron, guess what? The vaccine they gave you is going to make you MORE likely to get infected, not less. If you stay on the vaccine treadmill, it will be even harder to get off in the future. In short, we’ve been lied to about the vaccine.
Everyone needs to stop listening to the CDC now and start listening to people who have been saying to ditch the vaccines and aggressively promote early treatment with repurposed drugs.
Alix Mayer alerted me to this game changing tweet which instantly went viral as you can see from the number of retweets:
Ezra Levant ? @ezralevantHoly moly. This study shows that after three months the vaccine effectiveness of Pfizer & Moderna against Omicron is actually negative. Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxxed people. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
December 23rd 2021
I want to tell you what this really means and how it is being attacked.
Summary: Refuse to comply with mandates
This paper means we will need to inject people every 30 days if we want to “protect” them. Based on what the vaccines do to our immune system, it’s likely that the needed interval will shorten with each booster.If people don’t get boosted as required, they will be MORE vulnerable to Delta and Omicron than if they weren’t vaccinated. That’s what NEGATIVE vaccine efficacy means. It doesn’t mean the protection wears off (like we were told). It means the OPPOSITE of what you were told: it means the vaccine helps the virus to infect you (by suppressing your immune system). It means we were lied to.
In short, the vaccine is like a heroin addiction: once you’ve had a taste of it, you are hooked: you have to continue it for life if you want protection. If you stop it, you’re a sitting duck for the virus.
What’s worse is our government is mandating this now. In light of this paper, they will change the vaccine mandates to force you to get vaccinated every month or you will be fired from your job. Their next move could well be to make it illegal not to be vaccinated. This seems like where things are headed based on what is happening in other countries where they are quickly stripping away your rights to do anything without a vaccination.
And we have no clue what monthly (and later weekly) vaccination will do to your body. This has never been tested.
My advice is simple. If you have been vaccinated, you need to stop now. Do not get the booster. My friend Dr. Robert Malone is fond of repeating the old addage, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
Sadly, most people cannot afford to lose their jobs, so they will get vaccinated.
The details
First, the link in the tweet is to the outdated version of the paper. The current version can be found here.Start at the comments, both from social media and also from medrxiv readers.
Check out the social media portion of the comments
Here are some comments (on old and new version of the paper):
- So assume the results you like (high VE for recent vaccination) are causal, but hand wave confounders at results you don't like (negative VE for distant vaccination)? Science?
- This is a superb paper, especially the careful approach to CNV calling and the Bayesian methods used throughout.
- Looking at the graphs, I see both vaccines lose all effectiveness at 90 days, but worse, actually drop into strong negative effectiveness after that time.
This would mean that these vaccines *increase* one's chances of infection after the initial 90 days "honeymoon" period.
Am I getting this right?
If so, why are governments pushing third doses as Omicron is becoming dominant?
The graphs above tell the story. Negative VE means the vaccine is helping the virus, not you.
So at 60 days, the protection is close to zero, so if you want to maintain protection, getting vaccined every 30 days is required.
This isn’t a vaccine at all. This is basically stimulating your immune system so it is already “geared up” to fight the virus. That’s not what a vaccine is supposed to do.
Furthermore, the negative VE after 90 days means you are hooked for life and I would guess (based on the mechanism of action), that we will need shorter and shorter dosing intervals for every booster you get (since it kills off your immune system every time).
So it could very well be monthly boosters after the 2nd dose, weekly boosters after the 3rd dose, and perhaps daily boosters after the 4th dose to maintain your “immunity.”
You can’t stop after that because if you stop, you’re in worse shape than if you never started.
The stunning conclusion of the paper
All I can say is “wow.” This should be a wake up call: the vaccines do not work. Stop repeating the insanity. Early treatments like the Fareed and Tyson protocol are 10X better than any new therapy, they don’t “hook you,” and they don’t cause disability or death.
If doctors started prescribing the Fareed and Tyson protocol, we’d have virtually no deaths, and few hospitalization. But they can’t do that since medical board will take away the licenses of any physicians who prescribe ivermectin, etc. This is happening now.
We are in this mess because the NIH, CDC, FDA are corrupt and incompetent and they will not hold themselves accountable in an open debate. This has been going on for 20 years in the vaccine space… it’s nothing new. The book “Evidence of harm” documents all of this. Kirby was deliberately neutral in his presentation (being non-judgmental like reporters are supposed to be), but any neutral thinking person will side against the authorities.
Why the paper went viral
So, the reason this paper went viral is because- It is well done,
- It was done by PhDs in infectious disease and epidemiology,
- The results show what is really happening, and
- Nobody has been able to attack the paper with a credible argument, even on Twitter.
- It confirms what my team of experts has been saying about negative VE
Here are some of the ridiculous attempts to discredit the paper:
RobertNorton @robertnorton_
@ezralevant The article says that it's not peer reviewed and is not published in any scientific journals. So without verification there are all kinds of claims out there about all kinds of things. We go by those principles that have passed peer review to separate fact and fiction.
December 23rd 2021
1 Retweet126 Likes
SwingTrader @SwingTrader1114
@ezralevant It is impossible to have a negative VE. You cannot have a negative VE. The absolute lowest VE is zero, which infers no protection whatsoever. Your statement is completely false, including the data table that isn’t even in the study you cited.
December 23rd 2021
1 Retweet81 Likes
The paper isn’t a fluke. There is lots of other evidence in support of it:
Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMD
It looks like the U.K. data may support the vaccine-enhanced infection issue both FDA and I have raised.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/22...ive-for-omicron-than-unvaccinated-data-shows/
Triple-Vaccinated More Than FOUR Times As Likely to Test Positive For Omicron Than Unvaccinated, Data Shows – The Daily ScepticAccording to new ONS data, the triple-vaccinated are 4.5 times more likely to test positive for Omicron than the unvaccinated. The double-vaccinated, meanwhile, are 2.3 times more likely to have Omicron.dailysceptic.org
December 22nd 2021
1,257 Retweets2,039 Likes
I have more, but substack limits the size of an article. Links include
RobertNorton @robertnorton_@ezralevant The article says that it's not peer reviewed and is not published in any scientific journals. So without verification there are all kinds of claims out there about all kinds of things. We go by those principles that have passed peer review to separate fact and fiction.
December 23rd 2021
1 Retweet126 Likes
SwingTrader @SwingTrader1114@ezralevant It is impossible to have a negative VE. You cannot have a negative VE. The absolute lowest VE is zero, which infers no protection whatsoever. Your statement is completely false, including the data table that isn’t even in the study you cited.
December 23rd 2021
1 Retweet81 Likes
The paper isn’t a fluke. There is lots of other evidence in support of it:
Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMDIt looks like the U.K. data may support the vaccine-enhanced infection issue both FDA and I have raised.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/22...ive-for-omicron-than-unvaccinated-data-shows/
Triple-Vaccinated More Than FOUR Times As Likely to Test Positive For Omicron Than Unvaccinated, Data Shows – The Daily ScepticAccording to new ONS data, the triple-vaccinated are 4.5 times more likely to test positive for Omicron than the unvaccinated. The double-vaccinated, meanwhile, are 2.3 times more likely to have Omicron.dailysceptic.org
December 22nd 2021
1,257 Retweets2,039 Likes
I have more, but substack limits the size of an article. Links include
- Vaccine efficacy declines in the UK
- Booster protection fades within 10 weeks against Omicron: UK study
- Booster shots protect against symptomatic Omicron infection for about 10 weeks, study finds — which could mean more doses for some in 2022
Igor’s Newsletter
Denmark: Vaccine a DANGER to the vaxxed
This is a short post — but the two studies cited have incredible implications. Turns out, as was pointed out many times here, that negative effectiveness of vaccines and rapidly waning (and soon going negative) effectiveness of boosters against Omicron, received another and very important scientific confirmation…
Read more
a day ago · 105 likes · 96 comments · Igor Chudov
ok, let's see how the CDC did against their 12/16 prediction of 15,600 new covid deaths by Christmas
747 12/24
1297 12/23
1792 12/22
2073 12/21
711 12/20
636 12/19
1048 12/18
1660 12/17
so 9964 against the 15,600 prediction and if you toss in the 136 on Christmas day we'll give you 10k, still a solid 5000 death overreach. keep thinking these people know what they're talking about. maybe we should be looking at cardiac arrest deaths for this same 9-day period?
