Effectiveness of 2 of 3 COVID-19 Vaccines Used in US Drops Below 50 Percent After 6 Months: Study

By Zachary Stieber, EPOCH TIMES         November 7, 2021

The effectiveness of the three COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States has declined in recent months, with protection against infection falling under 50 percent for two of them after six months, according to a new study.

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine dropped to 58 percent in September from 89.2 percent effectiveness in March, researchers found. During the same time frame, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine fell to 43.3 percent from 86.9 percent, and Johnson & Johnson’s shot declined to 13.1 percent from 86.4 percent.

Dr. Stephen Hahn, head of the Food and Drug Administration during the final portion of the Trump administration, said last year that the agency wouldn’t authorize COVID-19 vaccines that weren’t at least 50 percent effective against infection.

The researchers also found that the vaccines’ protection against death waned after six months, particularly among older people. Instead of comparing the effectiveness in March and September, though, they used the data to pinpoint the effectiveness from July to October. For those 65 or older, the effectiveness against death was 75.5 percent for Moderna’s vaccine, 70.1 percent effective for Pfizer’s vaccine, and 52.2 percent effective for Johnson & Johnson’s jab.

For younger people, the effectiveness was higher: 84.3 percent for the Pfizer vaccine, 81.5 percent for Moderna, and 73 percent for Johnson & Johnson.

While early data showed high vaccine effectiveness against both infection and death, “our results suggest vaccines are less effective in preventing infection associated with the Delta variant,” researchers wrote.

While the vaccinated over time faced a higher risk of getting infected with COVID-19 or dying, the unvaccinated were still more likely to contract the illness or die from it, they said.

Researchers with the Public Health Institute, the University of Texas School of Public Health, and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center carried out the research, which was published in the journal Science.

Researchers examined COVID-19 infections and deaths by vaccination status in 780,225 veterans between Feb. 1 and Oct. 1. They used data from the Department of Veterans Affairs and received funding from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and the University of California Office of the President.

“Our study gives researchers, policy makers, and others a strong basis for comparing the long-term effectiveness of COVID vaccines, and a lens for making informed decisions around primary vaccination, booster shots, and other multiple layers of protection, including masking mandates, social distancing, testing, and other public health interventions to reduce the chance of spread,” Dr. Barbara Cohn, the lead author, said in a statement.

The research supports recommendations for many Americans, including all Johnson & Johnson recipients, to get booster shots, she said.

Other studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness has waned over time, leading to the booster recommendations from U.S. health authorities, but this was the first to examine all three available in the United States. It also suggested a lower effectiveness against death than many other studies.

COVID-19 is the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

Limitations of the study include not knowing why or where people were tested; researchers required a person to have been tested for COVID-19 to be included in the analysis.

Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases didn’t respond to overnight requests for comment, and haven’t appeared to react publicly to the study.

The findings come after two other studies, both preprints, showed that vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased over time after initial injection.

Swedish researchers, using data from nationwide registries, found that Pfizer’s vaccine dropped in effectiveness to 30–47 percent at day 121–180 from 92 percent at day 15.

“From day 211 and onwards, no effectiveness could be detected,” they said. The Moderna shot also declined in effectiveness, but retained some protection after day 181.

Israeli researchers, meanwhile, extracting data from a nationwide database, found that Pfizer’s vaccine was less effective against both infection and severe disease over time after full vaccination.

Zachary Stieber covers U.S. news, including politics and court cases. He started at The Epoch Times as a New York City metro reporter.

November 8, 2021 | 20 Comments »

Leave a Reply

20 Comments / 20 Comments

  1. Dr. Malone has been reading bread crumbs into his podcasts for the past several months. Today he had an interview in which he, largely, focuses on stringing the breadcrumbs together. The interviewer largely listens while Malone tells the tale of the behind the scenes manipulation with the vaccines, the manipulations of CIA expert on bio-warfare, the order by a GS15 officer to expose the truth, the war game that foreshadowed the outbreak including the role played by both John-Hopkins and the press, vaccinating the military, his views on those behind the pandemic, the virus origin, the use of mRNA vaccines in the future and much more.

    here is the link:
    https://thenewamerican.com/dr-robert-malone-this-is-the-largest-experiment-performed-on-human-beings-in-the-history-of-the-world/

  2. @peloni. Many thanks for your reply to my most recent missive, Peloni. I will look forward to reading your comments and evaluation of the Elsevier Kristoff report, whenever you
    have the time to study it. Do not hurry on my account.
    If the authors, who include some twenty scientists in addition to the lead investigator, are factually based, then we are in deeper trouble than I had thought previously.

    Doctors who support the official CDC-WHO line about the vaccines responded with unprofessional vitriol and name-calling, both in medical journalists and in the popular press. They denounced the report as “lies” and “fake News” (they actually used and similar expressions, which have no legitimate place in professional journals). I won’t burden you with even more items on your reading list. But if you decide to read these hysterical reactions, all you have to do is google “Kristof report,” and you will find lots o them listed there.

    In my opinion, when professionals who normally express themselves in cautious and unemotional, technical language resort to gutter language to attack someone who disagrees with them, it is a sign of their desperation and their lack of confidence that the facts support their positions. As the old adage about lawyers says, “when the facts support your case, argue the facts. When the law supports your case, argue the law. When neither supports your case, pound the table.” Apparently, physicians are just as capable as lawyers at table-pounding when they know that the facts don’t support ther claims.

  3. @Adam
    I appologize, as I did see you shared the Kristoff study and commented on its content, but I overlooked your request for my input on the study and other articles til you just brought it to my attention. I am currently pursuing the latest immunologic findings on the virus and I should be free to reflect upon the Kristoff report later this week or by the weekend. It was to be my next endeavor in any case, but the length may or may not take a bit to devour – some researchers intentionally write in a short, terse and cryptic fashion, but Kristoff doesn’t appear to be so inclined upon reading a short portion of the report, but it is still a bit long. Based on the stated findings of the report, you are quite correct, it is far worse than I believed was true. Speaking as someone who has had a healthy sense of concern and speculation regarding the risk-benefit value of the vax, I am shocked by the summary findings in Kristoff’s research, but I have yet to carefully examine it. On first glance it is devastating. I always struggled with the fact that the initial studies showed nothing, and the followup “studies’ are so managed that it devalues any rigorous evaluation of the shots. This always concerned me, but I think we are looking at a whole new level of concern from the summary findings. I should be able to comment on it by the weekend or sooner.

  4. @ Peloni. Peloni, I am an impatient man, and so I feel a bit disappointed that a whole day has gone by and you haven’t responded to my comments that provided links to the Kristof-Elsevier study. I am aware of course that you have more important responsibilities than responding to every question that I ask. Also, that you feel an obligation to respond to the many other commenters on this site who ask you questions, and that I have no right to push to the head of the queue.

    Still, I think that the Kristof-Elsevier study is enormously important, since appears to be very thorough and detailed and is heavily documented. It contains extensive statistics, graphas and charts to support the authors’ conclusions. Also, about 20 scientists contributed to the study, not just Dr. Kristoff alone.

    The Kristoff’s teams research fully supports your conclusions about the dangerousness of the vaccine. In fact, they seem convinced that it is even more dangerous than you have reported to us. The Kristof-Elsevier team believed that the vaccines have probably caused ten times the number of deaths than has covid itself.

    There is also another article in the same issue of Elsevier’s journal Direct Science-Toxicology Reports, which reports on a clinical study, prospective I think, that shoed that ivervectin was effective both as a prophylactic and treatment for Cv19-2. It would also be great if you could read this article, too, and give us your comments. This entire “special issue,” as Elsevier calls it published in August with updates, is filled with articles providing vital information about the Covid-vaccine controversy, all of which appear to confirm your views.

    I realize that it is impossible for you to read all this at once. It may well require several weeks, maybe even months, to read this whole medical journal issue. But perhaps you could send me one or two lines to the effect that you have read my comments and intend to study the Elsevier studies when you have time.

    I don’t know anyone else with a sufficient knowledge base to evaluate these reports and respond to them in a meaningful way. Again, pardon my temerity in making this big request. Adam.

  5. @Bear

    I find this sad as it makes even those I have for years been politically of like minds no longer trustworthy without an independent inquiry on a particular subject.

    I really couldn’t agree with you more. Like too many aspects of modern society it is a consequence of captured oversight. Corruption too easily adopted, then accepted, and finally, it is forever perpetuated as part of the system.

    Such legacy news sources have matured over time to realize that they can capitalize on selling complete BS, idle speculation and hopeful wishing, if not whole cloth non-sense, as ‘news’. It provides a reliable ‘news’ stream, keeps the political mandates of corporate collectives happy and increases the sell-ability of such sources to the likes of pharmaceutical companies and political parties who each spend money like they stole it.

    This sad acknowledgement has its roots in the lack of editorial oversight at such ‘news’ agencies. As in all things, if there is no oversight, or worse if the oversight is complicit or managing such untrustworthy reporting, it becomes a positive feedback loop, ie it is self-perpetuating, but it is also self-capturing with no possibility of escape.

    These organizations have sold their legacy or reputations and the public have taken their time in recognizing the fact, and even after recognizing this fact, many still partake in patronizing such useless news sources for lack of acceptable alternatives. This became the root and spawn upon which the Russia hoax was based and perpetuated and is still being sold by some as supported.

    If there is no criminal penalty, the crime is not criminal. The reporters and anchors will bend to whatever level of dubious duplicity that the editors allow and the editors carryout the will of the corporate boards. None of this is accidental or exaggerated. It has led to the centralization of distrust of such legacy news sources and a general trust in more decentralized news sources.

    Some could call it progress, but I agree with your estimate of sad as a better descriptor, but it was quite intended, accepted and useful to the corporate masters that have allowed it to occur, employed its financial use, and will likely continue to employ it in their future business modeling.

    The loss of a significant portion of public’s prioritization has led these corporate news groups to become captured(there’s that word again) by the big dollar ad buyers whose interests dictate the ‘news’ stories, and, hence, the cycle goes round and round and…

    As you say, very sad.

  6. @Peloni what I find from both sides in the political wars going on is that people including news media are happy to report gossip as news and many times lies if they think it may further their political views.

    I find this sad as it makes even those I have for years been politically of like minds no longer trustworthy without an independent inquiry on a particular subject.

  7. @Peloni, I wished Newsom had been recalled. I can NOT stomach the ass Hole!

    I was not ridiculing you nor defending Newsom. It was an attempt at humor, as I find comedy in these political wars. Sometimes not being emotionally invested has its benefits.

    Someone I know (biz associate) claims he was saw him at a wedding of a prominent person recently (truth not sarcasm one of the Getty heirs). There are no photos of him at the wedding that I have seen, anyway.

    Actually did search found photo. https://www.sfgate.com/california-politics/article/Gavin-Newsom-Ivy-Getty-wedding-absence-missing-16605474.php

  8. @Bear
    Your ridicule, well used, aside, the Defender claims they have confirmed that he has Guillan Barre Syndrome, for what little support anyone might find from them. If this is true, recovery usually is 6months later for only ~60% or the people, and like most vaccine injured people I am sure it is just a point of delusional fantasy or a genetic predisposition unrelated to any experimental drugs he has been using, as has been claimed for all vaccine injured. Or might he simply be background noise…His Excellency Governor Noise. We will see. He will have to make an appearance sooner or later, or he won’t. We will be informed either way. It was reported that he came out at a private function, but it turned out that it was not him. His missing the Climate Summit was significant, which was reinforced by a lack of explanation, which likely gave rise to many of these speculations.

    As I say, I wish no vaccine injury on anyone, not even a governor who is as detrimental to his state as this man has been. If he is injured it will be a notable finding, but these compounds are safe and effective, right…so I am sure he is perfectly fine. Like with all things, time will tell the tale and I look forward to his ruinous return to further profit while wrecking his state while further infringing on his public’s right of personal authority.

  9. @Peloni, I can explain Newsom’s absence in public. He was embarrassed to show his face in public due to the horrific job he is doing!!!

    Or was he so stoned he could not get on the plane to Scotland. I have inside information from unnamed and unreliable sources that this is true!!!

  10. I have seen numerous reports of why Gov. Newsome of California has not been seen since shortly after he received his 3rd jab, roughly 2wks ago. Steve Kirsch, a philanthropist and researcher who has taken it upon himself to dive headlong into the Covid vaccine dispute since last May, has received information that Newsome has suffered a vaccine injury, either Bells Palsy or Gillian Barre. Kirsch claims he has a very good sources for this info, but can not reveal it. One is a friend and two are attorneys. Additonally, Alex Berenson has alluded to a vax injury as well as numerous other internet sleuths. It was shocking that Captain Climate himself recently cancelled attending the world climate summit without explanation.

    No one should suffer such a senseless harm as being injured due to a faulty vaccine product. Though it might serve us all well to have a vaccine advocate speak openly on the topic of vaccine injury, and if these reports are true, Newsome will have to do so. In spite of him being a source for forcing such needless tragedies on others including children, I hope his injury is not life-threatening. I one day hope to count him among those sentenced for their role in this terrible debacle.

  11. @Marjorie
    I am glad you found the link helpful. Dynamite is a very good description. A few hours after this interview, McCullough gave a short speech in FL(https://rumble.com/vovpjk-florida-covid-summit-dr.-peter-mccullough-vaccines-and-children.html) at the Covid Symposium in Ocala(I think), which was only slightly redundant to the interview. In his speech McCullough describes this pandemic to be a disease of medical tyranny. I greatly appreciate his description of this fact. India has cured their viral outbreak in a state the 2/3 the size of the US using Covid early treatment packs distributed to their public. It has been 5 months since this miraculous feat was accomplished and yet the great medical nations of the world, including the US, UK, Italy, Germany, Israel, and others, have each sought to ignore this practical treatment to end the viral outbreaks in their nations while thousands die daily world-wide. When will some nation or some state come to realize that the use of home treatment kits is the key to saving their public from harm as India demonstrated so clearly. Somewhere some rebellious governor or legislature will eventually pursue this avenue of action to protect their public from continued harms and risk of death by exposing the frivolous loss of life these medical tyrants have cost us – something we might describe as a Covid Sanctuary State or Country. It sickens me that India of all nations alone has treated this situation as a serious disease as India alone has ended their plague. Treatment is available to everyone everywhere. There is no magic treatment. It is a disease that involves inflammation and blood clots. We know full well how to treat these and we know full well how to help limit the damage by treating early.

  12. Another case of a difficult to explain death of an athlete “before his time.” Although Feliciano did have health probelms over the years, it is odd that he was well enough to “go jet skiing” with his family. The article mentiones that he had some injuries related to his pitching career, such as dislocated discs and rotator muscle, and back pain. But there is no mention of his suffering from a life-threatening illness at the time when he suddenly “died in his sleep.”after spending the day doing vigorous exercise.

    Another athlete vaccination victim?

    Former Mets relief pitcher Pedro Feliciano dies at 45
    Mon, November 8, 2021, 2:28 PM
    PORT ST. LUCIE, FL – FEBRUARY 21: Pedro Feliciano #55 of the New York Mets poses for a photograph during spring training media photo day at Tradition Field on February 21, 2013 in Port St. Lucie, Florida. (Photo by Chris Trotman/Getty Images)
    Former Mets pitcher Pedro Feliciano died on Sunday at age 45. (Photo by Chris Trotman/Getty Images)
    Former New York Mets relief pitcher and lefty specialist Pedro Feliciano has died, according to ESPN’s Eduardo Perez.

    The Mets released a statement about Feliciano’s passing.

    “The Mets are so saddened to hear of the loss to their family today. Pedro Feliciano will be remembered as a beloved member of the Mets organization for his impact as a great teammate as well as his reputation as one of the most competitive, durable and reliable relievers during his time in Queens. Our thoughts and prayers are with the entire Feliciano family. Rest in peace, Pedro.”

    Feliciano was just 45, and according to Perez, died in his sleep after jet skiing with his family on Sunday.

    Feliciano’s journey to MLB success

    Feliciano, who only pitched for the Mets in the majors, had a long and winding route to becoming a late 2000s bullpen mainstay. The Rio Pedras, Puerto Rico native was picked by the Los Angeles Dodgers in the 31st round of the 1995 draft, and he spent the next six years playing in the minors and dealing with injuries. He became a free agent after six years, having not made it to the majors. He signed with the Mets for a stint in 2002 and again in 2003.

    He didn’t find success with the Mets just yet. He pitched in a few handfuls of major league games, but wasn’t the lefty specialist he’d eventually be. The Mets sold his contract to Japan’s Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, which is where he spent the 2005 season. But when Feliciano re-signed with the Mets in early 2006, he found his groove.

    From 2006-2010, Feliciano was a machine for the Mets. He led all MLB pitchers in appearances in 2008, 2009, and 2010, appearing in more than half of the Mets’ games. Over five years, Feliciano pitched 299 2/3 innings over 408 games and had a 3.09 ERA.

    Feliciano signed a two-year contract with the New York Yankees in 2011, but he never ended up pitching a single inning in pinstripes. He had severe shoulder and rotator cuff issues, almost certainly from being overused, and had surgery that wiped out his 2011 season and most of 2012. He was healthy enough to pitch for the Yankees’ minor league teams in the early fall, but didn’t make it to the majors before his contract expired.

    He went back to the Mets in 2013 for what would end up being his final season in the majors. He pitched in 25 games, and despite signing a few minor league deals over the next two years, never made it back to the show. Over his nine-year career, Feliciano had a 3.33 ERA, appearing in 484 games and pitching 383 2/3 innings.

  13. I just want to say thank you to the commenters here, and especially to peloni1986. I have just listened to Peter McCullough at the link he provided. Dynamite. I have learned so much about this fake pandemic (not fake Covid but numbers of Covid deaths have been vastly inflated here in the U.S.) and the hazards of the Covid inoculations from this site and the people who comment here that I am very grateful.

  14. @Adam
    Sorry I should have made it clear. It is linked in the article above that Ted posted. Here is the link:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
    It is authored by Prf.Nordstrom of the Umea University. I am not familiar with the authors or the institution, for what it’s worth. It was one of several studies that were published in the past few weeks that have displayed the rapid waning of the vaccine efficacy. They each pushed the need of the 3rd shot as the obvious solution, since treatment can not be mentioned in order to get published and further funding.

    The study was a very large retrospective study, complete with all the limitations of a retrospective study of course, but it was well matched which helps offset this concern. Given this, they actually displayed very poor results from the vaccine. After about 4months(120 days) the efficacy is down to about ~50%, which means you can’t wait til 6months for boosters, you’d have to boost at 3months or deal with significant breakthroughs. Of course, the authors don’t highlight this fact, but rather simply state

    “Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from
    92% … at day 15-30 to 47% … at day 121-180.”

    The statistical support for these findings were very high p<0.001 which means less than 1 in 1000 chance these results were base on chance, which is pretty good. That being stated it needs to be proven in a prospective study, which they will never do.

    The study had a bit of something for everyone, the booster champions show there is a need for some action, while those concerned with the jabs note the limited usefulness of the shots.

  15. Peloni, you mention a “Swedish study” but don’t provide any information about it. Who wrote it, where was it published? Where can we find it on the web?

  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/toxicology-reports/special-issue/10BP4R248MG. This is the link to the entire issue of ScienceDirect-Toxicology Reports, published by Elsevier. Elservier calls it a Special Issue. In addition to Dr. Kristoff’s report that I have cited above, “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” it contains at least nine other articles concerned with the Covid19, the vaccines being used for it, and the dangerousness of these vaccines. All are based on thorough scientific studies.

    I hope that Peloni will read the Kristoff report and the 8-9 other reports in this issue of ScienceDirect and give us his evaluation of these articles, and any comments and observations he may have about them.

  17. Peloni mentions the Kristof report, which was published in the medical journal published by the Elsevier drug company. You could find it at https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S221475002100161X?token=53CDB72C779BB2B017BD78EB69279F8B42F4DE548BB97CB509FD6B0ACC329D6733AF59818ECCD19C118A9F55B1535053&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20211108210649. Israpundit’s length requirement means that I can’t post the whole article as a comment. But I have posted the introduction here. By please use the link to read the whole article. It is extremely well researched and thoroughly documented. Fully supports Peloni’s and Dr. McCullough’s conclusions.

    Elsevier logo

    Toxicology Reports
    Volume 8, 2021, Pages 1665-1684
    Toxicology Reports
    Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?

    Author links open overlay panelRonald N.KostoffaDanielaCalinabDarjaKanduccMichael B.BriggsdPanayiotisVlachoyiannopouloseAndrey A.SvistunovfAristidisTsatsakisg
    Show more
    Outline

    Referred to by
    Ronald N. Kostoff, Daniela Calina, Darja Kanduc, Michael B. Briggs, Panayiotis Vlachoyiannopoulos, Andrey A. Svistunov, Aristidis Tsatsakis
    Erratum to “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” [Toxicol. Rep. 8C (2021) 1665–1684 / 1193]
    Toxicology Reports, Available online 7 October 2021, Pages
    Download PDF
    Highlights

    Bulk of COVID-19 per capita deaths occur in elderly with high comorbidities.


    Per capita COVID-19 deaths are negligible in children.


    Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term.


    Clinical trials did not address long-term effects most relevant to children.


    High post-inoculation deaths reported in VAERS (very short-term).

    Abstract

    Israpundit’s length limitation mean I can publish the whole long article as a comment. But below is a selection from the abstract and introduction.

    This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children. Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.

    A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.

    Graphical abstract

    Download : Download high-res image (152KB)Download : Download full-size image

    Previous articleNext article
    Keywords
    COVID-19SARS-CoV-2InoculationmRNA vaccinesViral vector vaccinesAdverse eventsVaccine safety
    1. Introduction
    Currently, we are in the fifteenth month of the WHO-declared global COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions of different severity are still in effect throughout the world [1]. The global COVID-19 mass inoculation is in its eighth month. As of this writing in mid-June 2021, over 800,000,000 people globally have received at least one dose of the inoculation and roughly half that number have been fully inoculated [2]. In the USA, about 170,000,000 people have received at least one dose and roughly 80 % of that number have been fully inoculated [2].

    Also, in the USA, nearly 600,000 deaths have been officially attributed to COVID-19. Almost 5,000 deaths following inoculation have been reported to VAERS by late May 2021; specifically, “Over 285 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 24, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,863 reports of death (0.0017 %) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.” [3] (the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive surveillance system managed jointly by the CDC and FDA [3]. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report about 1% of actual vaccine/inoculation adverse events [4]. See Appendix 1 for a first-principles confirmation of that result). By mid-June, deaths following COVID-19 inoculations had reached the ˜6000 levels.

    A vaccine is legally defined as any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of one or more diseases [5]. For example, a January 2000 patent application that defined vaccines as “compositions or mixtures that when introduced into the circulatory system of an animal will evoke a protective response to a pathogen.” was rejected by the U.S. Patent Office because “The immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely some immune response but must be protective. As noted in the previous Office Action, the art recognizes the term “vaccine” to be a compound which prevents infection” [6]. In the remainder of this article, we use the term ‘inoculated’ rather than vaccinated, because the injected material in the present COVID-19 inoculations prevents neither viral infection nor transmission. Since its main function in practice appears to be symptom suppression, it is operationally a “treatment”.

    In the USA, inoculations were administered on a priority basis. Initially, first responders and frontline health workers, as well as the frailest elderly, had the highest priority. Then the campaign became more inclusive of lower age groups. Currently, approval has been granted for inoculation administration to the 12–17 years demographic, and the target for this demographic is to achieve the largest number of inoculations possible by the start of school in the Fall. The schedule for inoculation administration to the 5–11 years demographic has been accelerated to start somewhere in the second half of 2021, and there is the possibility that infants as young as six months may begin to get inoculated before the end of 2021 [7].

    The remainder of this article will focus on the USA situation, and address mainly the pros and cons of inoculating children under eighteen. The article is structured as follows:

    Section 1 (the present section) introduces the problem.

    Section 2 (Background):
    1)
    provides the background for the declared COVID-19 “pandemic” that led to the present inoculations;

    2)
    describes the clinical trials that provided the justification for obtaining Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA to administer the inoculations to the larger population;

    3)
    shows why the clinical trials did not predict either the seriousness of adverse events that have occurred so far (as reported in VAERS) or the potential extent of the underlying pre-symptomatic damage that has occurred as a result of the inoculations.

    Section 3 (Mass Inoculation) summarizes the adverse events that have occurred already (through reporting in VAERS) from the mass inoculation and will present biological evidence to support the potential occurrence of many more adverse effects from these inoculations in the mid-and long-term.

    Section 4 (Discussion) addresses these effects further

    Section 5 (Summary and Conclusions) presents the conclusions of this study.

    There are four appendices to this paper.

    Appendix A provides some idea of the level of under-reporting of post-inoculation adverse events to VAERS and presents estimations of the actual number of post-inoculation deaths based on extrapolating the VAERS results to real-world experiences.

    Appendix B provides a detailed analysis of the major clinical trials that were used to justify EUA for the inoculants presently being administered in the USA.

    Appendix C summarizes potential adverse effects shown to have resulted from past vaccines, all of which could potentially occur as a result of the present inoculations.

    Appendix D presents a novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 inoculations that have been administered in the USA.

    2. Background
    2.1. Pandemic history
    In December 2019, a viral outbreak was reported in Wuhan, China, and the responsible coronavirus was termed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [8,9]. The associated disease was called Coronavirus Disease 2019, or COVID-2019. The virus spread worldwide, and a global pandemic was declared by the WHO in March 2020 [10,11]. Restrictive measures of differing severity were implemented by countries globally, and included social distancing, quarantining, face masks, frequent hand sanitation, etc. [12,13]. In the USA, these measures were taken as well, differing from state-to-state [14]. At the same time, vaccine development was initiated to control COVID-19 [15]. In the USA, non-vaccine treatments were not encouraged at the Federal level, but different treatment regimens were pursued by some healthcare practitioners on an individual level [11,16,17].

    By the end of May 2021, the official CDC death count attributed to COVID-19 was approaching 600,000, as stated previously. This number has been disputed for many reasons. First, before COVID-19 testing began, or in the absence of testing, after it was available, the diagnosis of COVID-19 (in the USA) could be made by the presumption of the healthcare practitioner that COVID-19 existed [4,18]. Second, after testing began, the main diagnostic used was the RT-PCR test. This test was done at very high amplification cycles, ranging up to 45 [[19], [20], [21]]. In this range, very high numbers of false positives are possible [22].

    Third, most deaths attributed to COVID-19 were elderly with high comorbidities [1,22]. As we showed in a previous study [22], attribution of death to one of many possible comorbidities or especially toxic exposures in combinations [23] is highly arbitrary and can be viewed as a political decision more than a medical decision. For over 5 % of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death [24]. These deaths with comorbidities could equally have been ascribed to any of the comorbidities [22]. Thus, the actual number of COVID-19-based deaths in the USA may have been on the order of 35,000 or less, characteristic of a mild flu season.

    Even the 35,000 deaths may be an overestimate. Comorbidities were based on the clinical definition of specific diseases, using threshold biomarker levels and relevant symptoms for the disease(s) of interest [25,26]. But many people have what are known as pre-clinical conditions. The biomarkers have not reached the threshold level for official disease diagnosis, but their abnormality reflects some degree of underlying dysfunction. The immune system response (including pre-clinical conditions) to the COVID-19 viral trigger should not be expected to be the same as the response of a healthy immune system [27]. If pre-clinical conditions had been taken into account and coupled with the false positives as well, the CDC estimate of 94 % misdiagnosis would be substantially higher.

    2.2. Clinical trials
    2.2.1. Clinical trials to gain FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) approval
    The unprecedented accelerated development of COVID-19 vaccines in the USA, dubbed Operation Warp Speed, resulted in a handful of substances available for clinical trials by mid-2020 [28]. These clinical trials were conducted to predict the safety and efficacy of the potential vaccines (which have turned out to be treatments/inoculations as stated previously), and thereby gain approval for inoculating the public at large [29]. An overview of the Pfizer clinical trials is presented in this section, and a more detailed description of the main clinical trials is shown in Appendix B.

    Two types of inoculants have gained FDA EUA in the US: mRNA-based inoculants and viral vector-based inoculants, with the mRNA inoculants having the widest distribution so far. Comirnaty is the brand name of the mRNA-based inoculant developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is the brand name of the mRNA-based inoculant developed by Moderna [30]. Both inoculants contain the genetic information needed for the production of the viral protein S (spike), which stimulates the development of a protective immune response against COVID-19 [31]. Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine is the brand name of the viral vector-based inoculant developed by Johnson and Johnson. Janssen COVID-19 vaccine uses an adenovirus to transport a gene from the coronavirus into human cells, which then produce the coronavirus spike protein. This spike protein primes the immune system to fight off potential coronavirus infection [32].

    The results of these trials that allowed granting of EUA by the FDA can be found in the inserts to the inoculation materials. For example, the Pfizer inoculation trial results are contained in the fact sheet for healthcare providers administering vaccine (vaccination providers) [33].

    There were two clinical trials conducted to gain FDA EUA for Pfizer: a smaller Phase 1/2 study, and a larger Phase 1/2/3 study. The age demographics for the larger clinical study are as follows (from the Pfizer insert): “Of the total number of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine recipients in Study 2 (N = 20,033), 21.4 % (n = 4,294) were 65 years of age and older and 4.3 % (n = 860) were 75 years of age and older.” Additionally: “In an analysis of Study 2, based on data up to the cutoff date of March 13, 2021, 2,260 adolescents (1,131 Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine; 1,129 placebo) were 12 through 15 years of age. Of these, 1,308 (660 Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and 648 placebo) adolescents have been followed for at least 2 months after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The safety evaluation in Study 2 is ongoing.”

    The relevant demographics are presented in Table 7 on p.31 of the Pfizer insert. The age component of those demographics is shown below in Table 1.

    Table 1. Demographics (population for the primary efficacy endpoint). The number of participants who received vaccine and placebo, stratified by age.

    AGE GROUP Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (N = 18,242) n (%) Placebo (N = 18,379)
    n (%)
    ?12 through 15 yearsb 46 (0.3 %) 42 (0.2 %)
    ?16 through 17 years 66 (0.4 %) 68 (0.4 %)
    ?16 through 64 years 14,216 (77.9 %) 14,299 (77.8 %)
    ?65 through 74 years 3176 (17.4 %) 3226 (17.6 %)
    ?75 years 804 (4.4 %) 812 (4.4 %)
    Symbols: b: “100 participants 12 through 15 years of age with limited follow-up in the randomized population received at least one dose (49 in the vaccine group and 51 in the placebo group). Some of these participants were included in the efficacy evaluation depending on the population analyzed. They contributed to exposure information but with no confirmed COVID-19 cases, and did not affect efficacy conclusions.”, N: number of test subjects, n: number of controls.

    There are very minor differences between most of the data in the above table and the preceding narrative shown, and they are probably due to different time horizons. The major difference is the number of adolescents used and appears to result from a much later reporting time.

    Fig. 1 uses the official large CDC numbers (coupled with USA census data estimates from CDC Wonder) to show the COVID-19 deaths per capita as a function of age, circa early June 2021. Unfortunately, the most critical range, 85+, has the least resolution. It is obvious that most of the deaths occurred in the 55 to 100+ range, and the remaining individuals in the other ranges (especially under 35) have negligible risk of dying from the disease.

  18. Did big pharma exaggerated or simply lied about the quality of their products?
    Creating “concepts” such as “effectiveness” to hide the absence of long term evidences?
    Still we do not have long term negative effects!
    The propaganda goes unabated.
    Crimes against humanity have been committed. The MSM are complicit!
    And the world still supports the winter Olympics in China!!!!

  19. Important interview from Dr. McCullough.
    https://freeworldnews.tv/watch?id=6185b407e19ed5372ded8319
    Here are some highlights

    -Breaking news: Monocytes(type of immune cell) remain infected for 15 months
    -Spike goes everywhere
    -Vaccines will lead to chronic disease
    -No one under 30 should be receiving the shot
    -Vaccines code for the original wild-spike that form a mosaic of cells producing spike in uncontrolled conditions and uncontrolled duration of exposure
    -The higher levels of antibodies indicate that the spike exposure is greater than natural illness
    -Spike protein is likely to persist for more than a year in the body
    -With an injection then a second, for immuno-suppressed getting another shot a monnth later and a booster in 6months after that will result in a permanent installation of an inflammatory damaging protein in human body
    -The point of gain of function was to produce the lock in key ability to infect the human body
    -Each injection is loaded with spike protein which persists within cells and in spaces between cells and then the body has job of clearing out spike protein
    -We know the spike is fatal in the human body for the right person at right time and the right dose
    -Either they knew or should have known that spike exposure would occur in unknown quantity and duration of exposure … that should be known as biologically reckless
    -Lipid nanoparticles goes to brain, adrenals, ovaries, testes and heart
    -Expressed on cell surfaces where it breaks off and circulates for 2wks
    -Levels are not measurable after 2nd shot likely because of antibodies increase and clear them out
    -This means the spike left circulating in body for 2wks just like the disease
    -With early trx it cuts the circulation down to ~4 days while vaccine has circulating spike for 2 full wks
    -Spike causes post injection damage just like it causes damage post infection
    -Viral disease can have some heart illness but it is basically negligible or doesn’t exist as compared to the type of myocarditis that is seen with the vaccines
    -Myocarditis is explosive
    -Spike is in the cells surrounding the heart cells(pericytes) body attacks its own heart muscle cells and causes significant damage
    -Normal blood marker of cardiac disease increase between 16-33X post-injection
    -CDC claimed heart conditions were mild and rare, which could not be farther from the truth
    -Myocarditis is not mild as it requires hospitalization – it is a serious adverse event and it is not rare with over 10K cases
    -No serious cases of Covid in children, we don’t vaccinate against a drippy nose
    -Many forms of myocarditis but this appears to be directly active in the heart
    -Child is more likely to suffer vaccine injury than from disease
    -Kostoff report show all age groups more likely to die after vaccine than after Covid for all age groups
    -All vaccines are in research and none of them are sufficiently safe enough to be fully approved – we are trampling on our bioethics
    -Govt officials are not current with the contemporary data, as IVM has a 70% reduction in mortality as it works early as well as in the hospital phase
    *Impairs entry of virus to the nucleus
    *It has an anti spike property to it
    *It interferes in inflammatory enzymes
    -Molnipulvar, basically an anti-cancer drug, works against a single mechanism of action and is a slow target of action, the same as Remdesivir, similar to Favipiravir, which is not very impressive
    -There was clearly open suppression of early treatment since the very beginning of the outbreak

    This covers about the first half of the hour long interview.

  20. The evaluation of the Swedish study, which I have yet to share, was more striking than reported here. Among the findings of Swedish research was this tidbit of insight:

    The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.

    This concept of effectiveness against severe illness has to be explained better, as apples and bananas are being compared, but even advantaging the vaccine group in all the ways we have discussed in recent months, the very people who need the vaccine’s protection, the old and the ill, are those who are betrayed without it. So who is left to gain this “effectiveness against severe illness” protection? Those who never needed the protection – the young and the healthy do not need to be protected to survive without serious illness. And of course, this is all without the use of early treatment. And this entire article ignores the reality of safety alarms which are screaming BEWARE – MYOCARDITIS, CARDIOVASCULAR INJURY, NEUROLOGICAL INJURY & IMMUNOLOGICAL INJURY.