‘Negative Efficacy’ Should Have Stopped COVID Vaccine Recommendations In Their Tracks

Over the last three years, scientists have used evolutionary theory to define and explain the path of SARS-CoV-2. Realistically, the negative efficacy should have stopped COVID vaccine recommendations in their tracks.

Several health agencies throughout the world have recently approved and are aggressively promoting another COVID booster shot, which is intended to improve the vaccine’s efficacy against a COVD-19 infection.

Numerous studies, however, have concluded that boosters do not make a substantial difference in protection, particularly against reinfection. According to the most recent research, vaccine efficacy against the coronavirus can even go into the negatives after only a few months.

What Does Negative Efficacy Mean?

Numerous studies (read below) have shown that COVID vaccination efficacy decreases rapidly over time.

Even though the official narrative for COVID-19 vaccines now only focuses its efficacy in reducing ICU admission and death rates, it actually indicates the undeniable fact that vaccines do not safeguard against infection or even symptomatic infection, contradictory to their design, especially since the emergence of various Omicron variants.

Even the protection provided by two doses against hospitalization diminishes to around 40% after less than a year. It appears that efficacy rates for protection against severe symptoms are dropping into the negatives roughly five months after full vaccination.

When the effectiveness of a vaccine falls into the negatives, it signifies that vaccination actually increases the risks of hospitalization and serious diseases rather than lowering them. Whenever the efficacy is negative, it causes more harm than good.

Prior to the pandemic, any vaccination with an effectiveness of less than 50% was considered a subpar product. When a product has negative efficacy, it should be prohibited. It appears that the pandemic is not only detrimental for our health, but also for our common sense.

COVID Vaccines’ Declining Usefulness

The very first COVID-19 case was detected in Wuhan, China, around three years ago. Ever since, more than 600 million cases of the virus have been documented, equating to a little less than one in every ten persons worldwide being infected. “Living with COVID” has emerged as the norm in many nations, along with being “fully vaccinated” and obtaining those booster shots.

Everyone 6 months and older should obtain a complete vaccine, and everyone 5 years and older should receive a booster dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to the CDC, booster shots “are an important part of protecting yourself from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19.”

Emerging evidence, nevertheless, portrays a different picture..

The vaccines were created with previous strains of the coronavirus, which means that developers largely tested with the original Wuhan strain. The Delta strain was notably infamous since it was known to have a high fatality rate, although vaccinations performed admirably against it. However, as time passed and the Omicron strain was unleashed, the outcomes deteriorated.

Trying to Outrun Nature

The Omicron strain, which first appeared in South Africa, began to sweep the globe by the beginning of 2022, causing even more confusion in terms of vaccination efficacy. The most alarming discovery was how much it reduced the vaccine’s efficacy against illness. According to data, the vaccine used to be around 90% effective for weeks after inoculation.

After Omicron was introduced, infection prevention plummeted to less than 50% after roughly a month of two doses and then dropped into the deficits four months later. It does not seem to stop there.

This obviously indicates that COVID-19 inoculation programs should have been halted as soon as the Omicron strain began to prevail over the Delta variant.

A research that examined COVID-19 infections from the beginning of this year in previously infected children revealed that vaccine effectiveness was not keeping up with pre-Omicron levels. The effects of a full vaccine against a second infection begin to wane after a few months, and it appears that the earlier the vaccination was administered, the more likely it was to lose its potency during the omicron waves.

The findings of a British Medical Journal study published in September 2022 underscore the fact that vaccine potency degrades dramatically over time. It concluded that after delivering the full two doses, or even after a third dose, protection against severe symptoms reduces significantly below 50%. It also demonstrated that in the immunocompromised, two doses had an effectiveness rate against hospitalization of less than 50%. Things improve slightly after three doses, but not significantly.

Another study provided data on the efficacy of the third dose in comparison to the primary doses and discovered that the mean efficacy of three doses of the Moderna vaccine against Omicron variants is, in fact, less than 0.

It is worth noting that a common logical assumption, that the more vaccine you take, the better protected you are against the virus, is not always correct.

According to published data, the number of doses does not always correlate with the number of neutralizing antibodies.

They discovered that individuals who received the fourth dose had higher, but largely lower, antibody concentrations in their bodies than those who received the third dose.

Furthermore, the hazard ratio computed by researchers for the third and fourth vaccine dosages yields conflicting results. Sometimes it appears to be a smart idea to remain with the third dose, as the hazard ratio actually increases when taking the second booster vs the first.

One possible reason vaccine data has declined with the appearance of Omicron is because the new variant’s spike protein composition has changed significantly.

This alters the virus’s entry into the body, allowing it to better “bypass” the defense system built up by the earlier vaccinations, which were developed from the very first SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan strain. It is as though the variants have new toys to play with in addition to the old security.

Another possible mechanism for the significant decline in vaccine efficacy is that repetitive vaccination weakens people’s immunity through immune imprinting, an occurrence in which an initial exposure to a virus, for instance the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, through infection or vaccination, restricts a person’s future immune reaction against variants.

Meanwhile, a variety of underlying conditions may contribute to the disease’s progression from mild to severe, or even deadly, stages. Even if the vaccine groups in clinical trials were carefully selected to have similar comorbid medical problems as the control or unvaccinated groups, there are many additional unknown factors that would affect the outcome of disease development.

It is impossible and clearly overambitious for any pharmaceutical corporation to set such lofty goals as designing a vaccine that can defend against severe diseases from the commencement of research, especially because the resulting vaccine appears incapable of preventing infection in the first place.

If a vaccine has negative effectiveness, it indicates that people are more likely to become infected than if they had not had the shot in the first place, implying that not getting vaccinated may only decrease the risk of infection, undesirable symptoms, and serious disease. This is not just a vaccination failure or a new outbreak of sickness; it is also an excellent opportunity to put an end to COVID vaccines for good. Humans will never triumph over nature in this cat-and-mouse game.

Are Previous Infections Still Protective?

The probability of reinfection increases with time. According to studies, the odds of death, hospitalization, and some type of sequela are substantially higher in reinfected people than in those infected for the first time. It also appears to be a logical conclusion for the CDC to advise everyone to get vaccinated.

However, the statistics we have is somewhat contradictory, as the aforementioned study found little difference between the unvaccinated, half-vaccinated, and completely vaccinated. They all had almost the same values for post-infection cardiovascular, thrombotic, renal, or pulmonary sequelae, or likelihood of developing a difficult COVID-19 infection in the first place.

Data also suggest that previously infected and unvaccinated children performed better in preventing a second infection than vaccinated children of the same age. In general, vaccine-generated immunity does not appear to be as efficient as immunity induced by a preceding, natural infection.

This effectively suggests that the vaccinations are incapable of keeping up with the continually evolving variants, and that diminishing efficacy was, well, unavoidable. The only question that remains is what is driving the Omicron variants, or SARS-CoV-2 variants on a larger scale? What explains the emergence of variants at the same time all throughout the world?

Microevolution cannot account for everything.

Over the last three years, scientists have used evolutionary theory to define and explain the path of SARS-CoV-2. Delta was the lethal variety, and now Omicron is the speed demon. The virus, in principle, evolved these strains to better adapt to the objective environment, but scientists are still hunting for further answers.

For instance, how did the Alpha and Delta strains develop and quickly spread extensively, and even become dominant internationally, while much of the world’s population was under various degrees of “lockdown” or restriction of mobility, and international travel was greatly hampered?

If the only factor determining whether a variant becomes dominant or not is its fitness, i.e., transmissibility and replication efficiency, why didn’t multiple variants with better fitness emerge and all become dominant regionally, similar to how divergent strains of flowers bloom at the same time in different locations? Why does it seem that the virus has a coordinating power, allowing one strain to universally retire the previous one?

To address each of these concerns, We believe a more comprehensive assessment of the current pandemic is required. At the same time, it is critical to remember that viruses adapt to vaccines, rather than the other way around.

There have been several outbreaks in the past, such as measles and polio, but they have all passed. Many times when pandemics swept the globe, the disease was in a prime position to infect humans. However, they all vanished, and it was rarely due to a vaccine. Polio, for example, was already on the decline when the vaccine was introduced.

Similarly to today, the polio vaccine was heralded as a miracle, although it played only a minor role in outbreak prevention. The conclusions about the COVID-19 shots we have today are similarly negative, possibly because we are still in the middle of it. However, the virus is still mutating, and a vaccination is not the simple solution. Omicron demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 is intelligent enough to develop and avoid it.

The pattern is not easy, and finding a nuanced response requires additional thought, assuming that human limits allow us to establish one in the first place. It is almost as if there were some mechanisms at work behind the virus’s trajectory that microevolution could not explain, because it is most probably more complicated than that.

Read the document below:

Negative-Efficacy-Should-Have-Stopped-COVID-Vaccine-Recommendations-in-Their-Tracks