Truth Catching Up with the Lie
A recently released Cleveland Clinic study involving 48,344 of their working-age healthcare employees, is being touted as proof positive that the more vaccinated a person was, the more likely they were to become infected with Covid-19. The yet-to-be-peer-reviewed study entitled “Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) among those up-to-date and not-up-to-date on Covid-19 Vaccination”, can be found here: (news-medical.net/news/20230614/Being-not-up-to-date-on-COVID-19-vaccination-linked-to-lower-risk-of-Infection-study-suggests.aspx)
The 100 days-long study, authored by Shreshta, Burke et al, of the Department of Infectious Diseases at Cleveland Clinic, notes that, “The CDC recently defined being up-to-date” on Covid-19 vaccination as having received at least one dose of a Covid-19 bivalent vaccine. The authors note that, “The purpose of this study was to compare the risk of Covid-19 among those up-to-date and not up-to-date on Covid-19 vaccination”. In a nutshell, the Ohio-based Cleveland Clinic researchers decided to test whether the CDC guidance made any sense. Spoiler alert. It did not end well for the CDC.
In its summary, the study notes that among 48,344 working age Cleveland Clinic employees, those not “up-to-date” (according to the official CDC definition) had a lower risk of getting sick with Covid than those employees who were “up-to-date”. According to the study’s authors, “The current CDC definition provides a meaningless classification of risk of Covid-19 in the adult population”.
Don’t lose touch with uncensored news! Join our mailing list today.
The “not up-to-date” employees Hazard ratio was 0.77- that means they were 23% less likely to get infected compared to those “up-to date” employees. This difference is recognized as statistically significant and cannot be ignored. Also recall that government’s worldwide promoted the so-called as supposed to greatly protect those who got it and greatly reduce their chances of being infected and dying of it.
To reiterate, the purpose of this study was to evaluate whether individuals who were not “up to date” on the Covid-19 vaccines had a higher risk of Covid-19 than those who were “up-to-date”. The conclusion was that there was 23% less risk of catching Covid-19 for those employees not totally vaccinated (according to the CDC definition).
This study is interesting for another important reason. It seems to represent the first time “mainstream” researchers are directly and pointedly questioning the CDC’s logic and decision making process.
Some key quotes/takeaways from the researcher’s summary are worth reprinting here:
“Given the lack of efficacy of the bivalent vaccine against the XBB variants, which are the predominant circulating strains at this time, it is reasonable to question whether individuals being “up-to-date” with a vaccine of questionable effectiveness are in fact protected against C19 as compared to those who are not “up-to-date.”
“The study’s findings question the wisdom of promoting the idea that every person needs to be up-to-date on C19 vaccination, as currently defined at this time. It is often stated that the primary purpose of covid vaccination is to prevent serious covid19 and death… it should be pointed out that there is not a single study that has shown that C19 bivalent vaccine protects against severe disease of death caused by the Omicron variant. At least one prior study has failed to find a protective effect of the bivalent vaccine against SARS Cov2. People may still choose to get the vaccine, but an assumption that the vaccine protects against severe disease and death is not reason enough to unconditionally push a vaccine of questionable effectiveness in all adults.”
“This study found that not being up-to-date on C19 vaccination by the CDC definition was associated with a lower risk of C19 than being up-to-date. This study also demonstrates the folly of risk calculation based solely on receipt of a vaccine of questionable effectiveness while ignoring protection provided by prior infection”.
In these days of open censorship, it will be interesting to see whether that open admonishment aimed at the CDC, to maintain the long-held scientific truth that acquired immunity derives from prior infection, makes it through the “review” process.
If it does, could it mean the façade is beginning to truly crumble?
Explore More...