It Is Time to Face Reality About the Vaccines

A number of studies are converging on the fact that two doses of vaccination has poor vaccine effectiveness against Omicron.

Three doses does slightly better, but the effect will rapidly wane as antibody titers fall, and infection is certain as the number of exposures increase. These studies have immediate implications for vaccine and health-care policies.

First, Kaiser Southern California. Here are data for two doses of mRNA for effectiveness against Omicron.

Follow the red line. Over time, it is 0 percent.

Three doses does better, for now. But look at the confidence interval of the red line. We have no idea if it will be preserved.

Now, let’s turn to the Province of Ontario, vaccine effectiveness two dose or three dose is in the toilet; Note the y axis, and broad confidence interval post dose three. Here dose three would fail to meet the FDA standard of at least 50 percent VE, with lower bound CI >30 percent—the standard for EUA.

Now let us examine Denmark; here are the raw probabilities of secondary attack in a household.

Putting these three studies together: what is the conclusion? Two doses of vaccine does nothing or almost nothing to stop symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. Three doses barely does anything, and the effect will likely attenuate over time. Finally, as the number of exposures increase from 2 to 22 to 202, the cumulative probability of infection will approach 1.

NOTE: This is not an argument about the benefits of vaccination for the individual—vaccines likely (and evidence shows they) still have great protection against severe disease; instead this is an argument about the effects of vaccination on symptomatic diseases, and (some good portion of) transmission.

Conclusion: you cannot contain the viral spread of omicron by boosting.

The moment we see that, the policy conclusions start to fall into place.

Booster mandates make no sense for young people, working people, hospitals, anywhere. Young people will only be, at best, slightly less likely to spread for a short period of time, but the epidemic waves will eventually over take them. Boosting should happen in populations where it further reduces severe disease and death—aka older and vulnerable people.

Focus on that and let college kids off the hook.

Some argue there is still a justification to boost because you can help prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. Sadly, that argument fails in several ways.

First, you have no evidence boosting younger people will slow hospitalizations. A vaccinated younger person already has very low risk of being hospitalized. Boosting may not further lower what is already very low. We simply have no evidence. Event rates are sparse at those ages.

Second, this argument would mean the state could tell people what to eat and how much to exercise, and how much to drink.

Food, drink and obesity are drivers of hospitalizations. Instead, we have not accepted these infringements in the past. The justification for vaccine mandates is that it helps curb population spread. The latest vaccine effectiveness figures show that effect is now nearly gone, and transient at best. Ergo, the mandates are unjustified.

Firing nurses and other health care workers for being non-compliant with mandates is now defeating. We are better off having them work. Time to bring them back.

Draconian avoidance of omicron is not tenable. Omicron or a future variant will eventually find us all.

It may even be preferable to encounter omicron a few weeks or months after your last vaccine than a year or two later, as the infection may be milder. As I explain in a prior post, wearing an n95 makes no sense.

It is time to face reality.

See more here: theepochtimes.com

Header image: Getty Images

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    Ogmios

    |

    Its a nice article except it states ‘still have great protection against severe disease’. Compared to what, a population were the best medical practitioners can say is take paracetamol. Its been know since the time of sars-cov-1, when was that 2003?, that HCQ was extremely effective against severe disease. The correct test of protection for an experimental treatment would be comparing it to people using existing known treatments something the Epochtimes should themselves already know.

    • Avatar

      The True Nolan

      |

      The complete demonization of all safe, effective, alternative treatments is clear proof that the official narrative has NEVER been about promoting human health or saving human lives. If the officials were REALLY serious about saving lives they would (at a bare minimum!) be telling people to lose weight, exercise, take vitamin D and zinc. They would use all the conventional treatments used to help symptoms in common flu. Instead they tell people to “go home, do nothing and don’t come back unless you can no longer breathe.”

      Murderers… There WILL be trials.

  • Avatar

    coronistan.blogspot.com

    |

    Epochtimes will never see that there is no virus and that the tests are fraud. So what are these studies worth? Nothing!

  • Avatar

    Geoffrey

    |

    It is so sad that Kenyan govt forces her citizens to take doses and are aware of the effect

  • Avatar

    Tom

    |

    It was time to face that reality 18 months ago knowing full well they would never be properly trialed and studied. The results of rushing to inject billions is an unmitigated historical disaster.

  • Avatar

    Tom Clark

    |

    Vaccines are predicated on Germ Theory. You cannot inject health. Vaccines are toxic and cause disease, not prevent disease. “If you have antibodies against something, it is merely an indicator of current damage, not future defense.” This, btw, is related to why the supposed “protection” of the vaccines, waned. Because the body neutralizes, filters and gets rid of that toxic crap. Their measure of “protection” is ACTUALLY, a measure of damage. Anything that elicits an “immune response” is A BAD THING.

    R.B.Pearson 1921.
    A number of different experiments were made on 68 volunteers from a US naval detention training camp on Deer Island. Several groups of men were inoculated with pure cultures of Pfeiffer’s bacillus, with secretions from the upper respiratory passages, and with blood from typical cases of influenza. About 30 men had the germs sprayed or swabbed in the nose and throat. They say of the results: “in no instance was an attack of influenza produced in any one of the subjects. “10 more men were taken to the bedside of 10 new cases of influenza, spent 45 minutes with them, and each well man had 10 sick men cough in his face. They say of these cases: “none of these volunteers developed any symptoms of influenza following this experiment.” In another article the results of similar experiments in San Francisco are described. In his experiments one group of 10 men had emulsifying cultures of Pfeiffer’s bacillus with no results in seven days observations. Other groups of men (40 in all) Received emotions of secretions from the upper respiratory passages of active cases of influenza which were instilled into the nose by medicine dropper or atomizer. Of these it says: “In every case the results were negative so far as the reproduction of influenza is concerned. The men were all observed for seven days after inoculation. “Last, but not least, Dr. John B Fraser, in an article entitled “Do germs cause disease? “In the physical culture magazine for May, 1919, says that experiment carried out in Toronto in 1911, 1912 in 1913 prove that germs only appear after the onset of the disease and goes on to say “and this fact lead to the supposition that germs were simply a byproduct of disease and possibly harmless “He also describes experiments where millions of germs were fed to patients in their food, or swabbed over the tonsils and soft palate, under the tongue and in the nostrils, and still no evidence of disease was discernible. The Germs used in the experiment included the germs of diphtheria, pneumonia, typhoid fever, meningitis and tuberculosis and no evidence of the diseases have developed in nearly 5 years. He says: “during the years 1914 through 1918/150 experiments were carried out carefully and scientifically and yet absolutely no signs of disease followed”

    We do not catch diseases.
    We build them with what we have to eat, drink, think, breathe, feel and believe them into existence. The presence of germs (virus, bacteria, yeast or mold and their associated exotoxins, endotoxins and mycotoxins – acids) does not constitute the presence of a sickness or disease. Bacteria are scavengers of nature…they reduce dead tissue to its smallest element. Germs or bacteria have no influence, whatsoever, on live cells. Germs or microzymas flourish as scavengers at the site of disease. They are just living on the unprocessed metabolic waste and diseased, malnourished, nonresistant tissue in the first place. They are not the cause of the disease, any more than flies and maggots cause garbage. Flies, maggots, and rats do not cause garbage but rather feed on it.

    Virology debunks Covid19
    https://odysee.com/@BillySastard:8/Virology-debunks-corona:3

    Quotes refuting Germ Theory
    https://www.goyimtv.tv/v/3064033832/Quotes-refuting-Germ-Theory

    The ‘vaccine’ wasn’t invented for ‘Covid’…Covid was created for the vaccine.
    Vaccines are bioweapons….

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Tom,
    What about the very real and deadly “flesh eating bacteria”that destroy healthy tissue?
    Herb

Comments are closed

Share via