James Lyons-Weiler, Ph. D., recently presented an interesting question to his Substack readers about the Jynneos monkeypox shot .
Based on some rough quotes, Lyons-Weiler calculated that the risk of monkeypox after vaccination , depending on a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), is about 50 moments greater than in the unvaccinated population of similar at-risk people.
So he asked his readers, “ What (respectfully) do you think is being conducted? ”
Lyons-Weiler is (respectfully) pointing away the obvious: If a therapy results in more disease in those who are treated, couldn’t the therapy end up being causing the disease?
Medpage Today also protected the results of the JAMA research in this article: “ Breakthrough Monkeypox Cases Seen Weeks After Second Jynneos Dose , ” with the subhead, “ However , most post-vaccination cases in at-risk group occurred within 14 days associated with first dose. ”
When so many instances occur — and they occur immediately after the therapy — should these really be called “ breakthrough” infections?
The term “ breakthrough infection” is a euphemism for “ vaccine failure. ”
The word “ breakthrough” connotes an excusable lapse in protection, an inevitable one-off when a wily and ubiquitous virus manages in order to penetrate a formidable wall structure of vaccine-mediated protection.
But is it a real “ wall of protection” if the incidence of illness is greater in those who stand behind the wall in comparison to those who face the attack head on?
In the case of the JAMA study, vaccination wasn’t a “ wall structure of protection” — it was actually a magnet regarding disease.
We have been speaking of vaccine efficacy. If the incidence of disease is definitely greater in the vaccinated, vaccine efficacy is negative — meaning, there is a benefit in avoiding the vaccine.
Results of the Jynneos monkeypox vaccine trial are difficult to swallow for those who accept that every vaccines are “ secure and effective” as axiom.
The public offers slowly come to accept the protection of vaccines may “ wane, ” — but when vaccine effectiveness creeps into negative territory, the vaccines can no longer be considered secure, either.
For the reason that sense, “ negative shot effectiveness” is also a euphemism. Why don’t we call it what it really is — harm?
COVID vaccine ‘ breakthrough’ infections
With regard to COVID-19 shot effectiveness against infection, observational data from the U. K. shows an increasing level of harm from inoculation .
Since March 2022, the risk of obtaining COVID-19 was 2 . 5 to 5 times higher in people over age 18 (see Table 14 below).
Unfortunately, U. K. health officials unceremoniously announced these statistics would certainly no longer be reported, stating:
“ From one April 2022, the UK Authorities will no longer provide free universal COVID-19 testing for the general public in England, as set out in the plan for living with COVID-19.
“ Such adjustments in testing policies affect the ability to robustly monitor COVID-19 cases by vaccination standing, therefore , from the week 14 report onwards this section from the report will no longer be released. ”
It is unclear how the elimination of free COVID-19 testing will affect the U. K. ‘s capability to robustly monitor COVID-19 instances by vaccination status.
If anything, it can decrease the amount of indiscriminate testing of asymptomatic individuals — a practice that will (and has) exaggerated the occurrence of the disease in everyone tested. One could argue that this change in policy can actually increase the ability to robustly monitor COVID-19 cases.
Nevertheless, here are the final numbers reported by the Oughout. K.:
The first two columns compare rates of infection between fully vaccinated and boosted individuals with the particular unvaccinated. In every age group more than 18, the COVID-19 infections rate is significantly higher.
The authors of this report caution the reader to not jump to any a conclusion. They explain:
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are usually unadjusted crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data plus there are likely to be systematic differences between these 2 populace groups. For example:
- testing behaviour is likely to be different between people with different vaccination status, resulting in variations in the chances of being identified as a case
- many of those who had been at the head of the line for vaccination are those from higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their particular family circumstances or due to underlying health issues
- people who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may act differently, particularly with regard to interpersonal interactions and therefore may have different levels of exposure to COVID-19
- people who have never already been vaccinated are more likely to have captured COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the particular cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus which might have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks
The first three points are valid concerns when examining 2 groups of unmatched populations in any observational study. These aspects may skew vaccine performance in either direction.
Without any randomized, placebo-controlled, matched cohorts we are still left only with large observational data sets like this one that to draw conclusions. Precisely why wouldn’t they continue to review these numbers if that’s almost all we can do?
The fourth point is perplexing. The authors suggest that the unvaccinated have “ some natural immunity” because they “ are more likely to have caught COVID-19” prior to this period of comparison.
Though the authors minimize the protective benefit of natural immunity in their wording, their own argument necessitates that organic immunity is superior to vaccination. How else can they make use of their argument to explain the significantly lower incidence of disease in the unvaccinated?
At the very least, this is a delicate nod to the superiority associated with natural immunity. However , the particular authors’ assumption that the unvaccinated were more likely to have caught COVID-19 in “ the weeks or months” prior to the period covered in the record flies in the face of their own information.
Were the unvaccinated more likely to have captured COVID-19 prior to this reporting period? No .
Here’s what the previous report demonstrated:
Once again, in every age group over age 18, the case rate in the unvaccinated is definitely less than the rate in the fully vaccinated and boosted. When the unvaccinated are succumbing to COVID-19 less frequently in February, how can they much better protected in March?
According to the authors’ hypothesis, a higher infection rate among the vaccinated in February must have led to a lower infection rate in March. Not only do this not happen, the between vaccinated and unvaccinated infection rates were actually larger than they were before.
Not only are the vaccinated obtaining a smaller sized level of future protection from infection when compared to unvaccinated, they are becoming more susceptible as time passes.
Trend of growing harm
In fact , if we look further back in its history we can see that the protective benefit of being unvaccinated is growing 30 days over month. To put this less euphemistically, as time goes on it is becoming clearer that the vaccinated in the U. K. are now being harmed.
To better illustrate the growing harm, below are the relative contamination rates plotted in every age group over the last six months this data was reported (October 2021-March 2022).
The infection rate in the unvaccinated is in green, and the disease rate in the boosted/vaxxed is in blue.
The ratio of the infection rates is plotted separately in black. The ratio greater than 1 means the infection rate in the boosted/vaxxed is bigger than in the unvaxxed.
Notice that the problem rate in the vaxxed/boosted is not only greater than in the unvaccinated in most age group, but it is boosting with the passage of time. This means that with respect to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the particular vaccinated/boosted population is doing gradually worse.
Age greater than 80:
In every age category, the COVID-19 infection rate within the boosted is proportionately bigger and larger with subsequent months. By March 2022, boosted individuals between the age groups of 30 to seventy nine have approximately a 4x greater chance of getting COVID-19 than their unvaccinated equivalent.
COVID-19 an infection should protect against subsequent infections. However , what we see within the U. K. is that despite having higher infection prices, the vaccinated continue to become infected at even increased rates in subsequent months.
Let’s be clear. The incidence from the disease the vaccine was created to protect against is several times higher– and growing– within those who got the shot. Is the virus “ busting through”? Or is it being encouraged to enter?
Finally, they offer this mystifying caveat in footnote 1 of Table fourteen:
“ Evaluating case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine usefulness against COVID-19 infection. ”
Really? Exactly how exactly should vaccine performance be estimated? Is there a better way?
Let’s make reference to page 4 of the same report , where they explain just how it should be done correctly:
“ Vaccine performance is estimated by evaluating rates of disease in vaccinated individuals to rates in unvaccinated individuals. ”
Simply no harm in the U. H.?
Regardless of the disturbing trends in the U. K., Centers for Condition Control and Prevention (CDC) data continue to demonstrate a benefit regarding infection rates in the vaccinated.
The most recent data from the U. S. (August 2022) indicates that unvaccinated individuals have a 2 . 4 times greater risk of getting COVID-19 than those who are jabbed.
However , CDC data from March 2022 (the period covered within the last U. K. report), show that unvaccinated people under the age of 50 had a cheaper incidence of disease than those who were fully vaccinated plus boosted.
Whenever will the CDC upgrade its datasets? Will the CDC continue to report shot effectiveness against infection if this goes negative? Or does it follow the U. K. ‘s lead and leave us in order to wonder?
Exactly what (respectfully) do you think is going on?
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and don’t necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Protection.