A study done during the COVID pandemic, preliminary at the time, charged that people actually were more likely to get COVID if they’d had multiple vaccine doses.
But it was dissed widely by political leaders and health industry officials because it had not been peer-reviewed.
Now it has. And it is delivered the same stunning verdict: “The risk of COVID-19 … varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19.”
It was Joe Biden, among others, who tried to shame and coerce Americans into taking the experimental shots.
Now a report from PJMedia documents the path of the study.
It was the “pre-print,” the study before review, that came out last year and showed “in a nutshell, that more COVID-19 shots correlated to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19,” the report said.
“COVIDians predictably, in eternal denial as is their nature, pounced on the fact that the initial paper was a pre-print. They dismissed it for not being peer-reviewed, which is often described as the ‘gold standard’ stamp of approval by The Science™,” the report said.
“Mind you, the corporate state media expresses no such criticism of pre-print studies that say what they want them to say about the alleged efficacy of masking, the wonders of Pfizer’s mRNA injections, etc. It’s only when a study counters the narrative that they pump the brakes.”
The report noted the study now is peer-reviewed, “and none of the conclusions have changed.”
The results documented by Open Forum Infectious Diseases said, “The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses was unexpected.”
It suggested a “simplistic” explanation is that those who got more doses were more likely to be at higher risk.
But, it said, “the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination.”
It continued, “One could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses.”
The study pointed out other studies have reached the same conclusion.
“During an Omicron wave in Iceland, individuals who previously received 2 or more doses were found to have a higher odds of reinfection than those who had received fewer than 2 doses of vaccine, in an unadjusted analysis.”
Further, it added, “A large study found, in an adjusted analysis, that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving three doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving two doses of vaccine.”
And in yet another study, “in multivariable analysis, that receipt of two or three doses of a mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose.”
And, in an understatement, it said, ” We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness, it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.”
PJMedia charged, “Pfizer and Moderna, the government, and every corporate state media outlet that deliberately spread vax disinformation should be opened up to lawsuits from every person who received COVID-19 shots (which are not and never were conventional vaccines) and subsequently got sick with COVID-19.
“Consumers of sponsored-by-Pfizer media were lied to by all parties involved, and there must be consequences. The pharmaceutical companies’ ill-gotten blanket immunity from damages caused by their products needs to be retroactively revoked because they were granted on fraudulent premises.”