Worried about Omicron? Guess what? After 90 days, the vaccine they gave you is going to make you MORE likely to get infected from Omicron, not less. The longer you stay on the vaccine treadmill, the harder to get off in the future and the easier you’ll make it for the virus.
In short, we’ve been lied to about the vaccine. It is protecting you less and less over time. While you may get a benefit for earlier variants, the benefit for other variants (and likely other diseases) is going to be negative. In short, you are getting a short term benefit against Delta, but at the expense of a degradation of your overall immunity to everything else.
These vaccines may help you win the war against a variant that may soon be rare, but the price you pay is that you make your immunity to everything else worse. It’s a dumb tradeoff (especially since early treatments work so well). But the people making the laws won’t believe any of the science referenced in this article, so it will continue.
Alix Mayer alerted me to this game changing tweet about a study in Denmark which instantly went viral.
I want to tell you what this really means and how it is being attacked.
Summary: Refuse to comply with mandates. Now.
This paper means we will need to inject people every 30 days if we want to “protect” them. Based on the harm that 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 vaccines helps the virus to infect you (by suppressing your immune system, probably permanently each time we are injected according to Dr. Ryan Cole). 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 adage, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
Sadly, most people cannot afford to lose their jobs, so they will get vaccinated and medical professionals will not speak out since doing so will cause them to lose their license.
The faster, safer, lower cost way to end the pandemic
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.
The entire pandemic will end as soon as the CDC stops ignoring the existing early treatment protocols which have been available since March 2020 (Fareed and Tyson protocol was first available back then). Masking, vaccines, mandates, lockdowns, and social distancing were never needed. We could have (and still can) end the hospitalization and death with just one thing: early treatment. Just like Japan has done. But the CDC refused to listen.
What the paper said in detail
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 key material is in the full PDF:
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 vaccinated 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
In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.
All I can say is “wow.” The people who wrote this paper are clearly drinking the Kool-Aid on their interpretation of what their study means.
They also wrote this (which is purely speculative with no data behind it as noted in the italics were my addition):
The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.
This paper should be a wake up call: the vaccines do not work. Stop repeating the insanity.
If doctors started prescribing the Fareed and Tyson protocol, we’d have virtually no deaths, and few hospitalizations. 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 20211 Retweet126 LikesSwingTrader @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 20211 Retweet81 Likes
The paper isn’t a fluke. There is lots of other evidence in support of the negative VE (and not supporting their speculative explanation for it).
Here’s the data from Canada which shows that we have it backwards. We should be mandating “no vaccines” in order to keep your job and fire all the vaccinated people because these people are the most risky.
In Ontario in the last few days, cases per capita among the vaccinated have skyrocketed above cases per capita among the unvaccinated. Clearly, mandates are nonsensical at this point, because the entire case for restricting unvaccinated people is their presumed higher per capita infection rate.
Here’s the UK data showing the same thing taken from a report published by the Office for National Statistics. We need to flip around the mandates ASAP.
Read more from Steve Kirsch here.